[himanshugoswami]

Well, the IAF has made it very clear to MoD that the only bird that they will like to see as MMRCA is the Rafale. 36 already procured, budget permitting we will see another tranche of 36 being ordered next year.

Also, the IAF was adamant that they do not want the Su 57 (PAKFA) in its current config and despite India having paid USD290 Million at the design stage, we pulled out of that project.

So things are changing on the ground, albeit slowly. We have over 400 legacy Russian fighters that we will be using well into the 2040s- we cant just junk them overnight. So we will hear about crashes, more so as the airframes age. Its the bitter truth, unfortunately.

The only way out is development of local industry with products built to suit, but we have seen what a step motherly attitude IAF had for the tejas, till Rajnath Singh read out the riot act to IAF brass. Now all of a sudden, the same IAF is singing praises for the Tejas (rightly so) and the Mk1A is coming along well.

we love our men and women in uniform, but they too are human and the odd one is not beyond succumbing to the lure of lucre.

[DrPriyankT]

The RD-33 is also the engine powering the Pakistani JF-17(Soon to be their mainstay) . Is there any word out there in aviation circles regarding its reliability in their service?

And another query I have is for the engineers. Is the modular structure of the Snecma M88 powering the Rafale, the reason behind its relatively simple maintenance.

One point I would also like to add is that the US Navy also bungled up the F-14 A Tomcat with the PW-TF30 engines.
The PW engine was prone to compressor stalls and erratic throttle behavior above 30,000 feet. This led to the development of the B/D variants with GE F-110 engines which vastly improved performance. Infact the issues with the PW engine led to the loss of lives of a few highly trained naval aviators and overall 28% of the A variant crashes were due to the PW engine.

[himanshugoswami]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

The RD-33 is also the engine powering the Pakistani JF-17(Soon to be their mainstay) . Is there any word out there in aviation circles regarding its reliability in their service?

And another query I have is for the engineers. Is the modular structure of the Snecma M88 powering the Rafale, the reason behind its relatively simple maintenance.

One point I would also like to add is that the US Navy also bungled up the F-14 A Tomcat with the PW-TF30 engines.
The PW engine was prone to compressor stalls and erratic throttle behavior above 30,000 feet. This led to the development of the B/D variants with GE F-110 engines which vastly improved performance. Infact the issues with the PW engine led to the loss of lives of a few highly trained naval aviators and overall 28% of the A variant crashes were due to the PW engine.

the JF 17 uses the RD-93- which is a derivative of the RD 33.

There are no open source stats on actual flying hours logged by Paki pilots, so one cant really comment on its reliability. But it is safe to assume that since its used in a single engine bird, and is an upgraded version of the RD33, it will be better with greater tolerances.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

the JF 17 uses the RD-93- which is a derivative of the RD 33.

There are no open source stats on actual flying hours logged by Paki pilots, so one cant really comment on its reliability. But it is safe to assume that since its used in a single engine bird, and is an upgraded version of the RD33, it will be better with greater tolerances.

Then shouldn't the Indian Air Force take the best practises of maintenance of these engines given the fact that we have good relations with the Russians and we are the second largest users of Mig 29's after the Russians themselves?

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Our picture doesn't look good if our losses are ball park in the same zone as the Lightning. I'll add here that sadly our losses are dominated by the MiG-29, MiG-21, MiG-27 & Su-30. The two western designs - Jaguar and Mirage have had a relatively much better record even after adjusting for their lower numbers. If you see a lot of these crashes are engine related. the MiG engines are old and the Su-30 engines are not as reliable as we'd want them to be.

It is true that the Russian engines aren't as reliable, but the crash records aren't that far off. The IAF's losses so far are 18 MiG-29s + 1 Navy loss (initial IAF order was 70, current strength shows 65, so the IAF added at least 13 frames since, not sure if any frames retired intact). The Mirage stands at 12 losses on an initial order of 40, plus at least 10 added since , current strength listed as 41. I'm given to understand that the M53-P2 was designed to be simple (single spool instead of twin spool) for reliability, but it has had its share of engine fires. The Jaguar suffered a much higher loss rate, IAF has lost 56 Jaguars so far, but their numbers in total are also higher at ~200 units, and their low altitude mission profile makes them more at risk of controlled flight into ground mishaps.

List of IAF MiG-29 crashes. Do note the first two in the list - the pilot being the same in both instances.
Here's a Mirage 2000 crash summary. Interesting that one crash was due to main undercarriage falling off at take off.

Regarding India's troubles with the Mirage:

The Mirage 2000 would encounter other issues; during the first decade of service, the fleet suffered from operational and maintenance issues. The Indian government's Comptroller and Auditor General reported in 1995 that there was a delay in the construction of overhaul facilities and a shortage of spare parts, and that as a result the fleet could not meet its required flying hours.

Taiwan has had a hard time with the Mirage 2000, and theirs are far newer frames, bought in 1997-98.

Quite a few crashes have been post overhaul by HAL. This article mentions a lot of additional acceptance sorties being flown before actual acceptance.


The RoCAF's Mirages have suffered from low operational readiness and high maintenance costs; the harsh environment and high operational tempo had caused higher-than-expected wear and tear.
After the presence of cracks in the blades of the aircraft's engines were detected in 2009, Dassault worked with Taiwanese authorities to successfully rectify the issue and provided compensation for the engine damage. By the following year, normal training hours of 15 per month had resumed and the fleet's operational readiness had been restored, after having reportedly dropped to 6 hours per month because of the engine troubles.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Well said. Thank you for the data. Russian, or more correctly Soviet, thinking was driven by the design philosophy of vast numbers, of which many won't survive, and each machine has a specific short burn mission at which it must excel. And then the machine would get rotated back to their vast vast maintenance infrastructure. They didn't think in terms of the need for each machine to be capable of sustained operations by itself.

Is that philosophy stated by the Russians themselves or inferred from western literature written over Russian doctrine? My understanding is that the Russians don't think of aircraft or crew as disposable - rather, they design for worst case - forward operating bases with minimal infrastructure and crew support. The Sweded do boast a lot about their aircraft being operable from highways but all the videos I've seen show them being pulled out of small scattered hangars. The Russians don't seem to assume that hangars are a certainty , so ground crew may have to perform tasks in the open, in the cold - now performing maintenance tasks on complex machines like fighter jets and helicopters with freezing hands (or thick gloves to protect from the cold) isn't an easy thing , so I am given to understand that the Russians rely on allotting spare engines to replace afflicted ones , which crew out in the FOB only uninstall, load on a truck and ship to a more hospitable facility to inspect and repair.

This kind of war-time train of though probably doesn't fit well with peace time maintenance routines desired, especially for a service that's grown up on western equipment that runs on a different doctrine. For all the claims of long life and durability, western jets have often been grounded for frame issues - F-15s multiple times, Hornets too for engine fires and frame cracks. The F-16 is a lot better designed, but at the extreme, the US Navy had to retire their F-16N fleet in 10 years, because their frames didn't last. I say extreme because USN F-16s were used soley for ACM training or DACT as we call in the IAF, so they flew a lot harder for whatever hours they logged, spending a lot more of it turning and burning. Also see in this very thread, I'd posted a French report of the Rafale's poor availability rate.

I'm inclined to believe the differences between western and Russian equipment durability aren't as wide as purported.

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

Interesting trivia- India was all set to by the Saab Viggen in response to Pak acquisition of the F16. Till then the Soviets were keeping the Mig 29 away from India but all of a sudden the Mig 29 was on the table. The rest is political. Once the soviets fielded the Fulcrum, there was little the IAF could do.

Even the Mirage 2000 was bought by India under the pretext of a strategic delivery platform for the supposedly under development strategic weapons (I say supposedly because India went overtly nuclear only post Smiling Buddha). Since the Soviets did not have anything in their arsenal at that time for strategic weapons delivery, they could not derail the M2K acquisition (thank heavens!)

During the MMRCA, the IAF was pretty clear that it will not be the Mig 35, way before they were sure it will be the Rafale. Interestingly if the F16 block 70 came with guarantees of no sanctions or strings, the IAF will jump at it. They actually like the platform quite a bit, having used and trained against the Singapore AF F16 B52s quite extensively. But, its all political at the end of the day and the govt of the day finally decides what platform to procure. the role of the IAF is limited to issuance of the ASQR and evaluating T1 against it. Rest is upto the babus.

Any sources for these claims (Russians denying the MiG-29 to India and IAF showing interest in the F-16) ? This is news to me. What I know is:
The Soviets didn't at all try to keep the IAF away from the MiG-29. In fact, as early as 1985, IAF officers were already in Russia evaluating the MiG-29 before the MiG-29 was formally unveiled to the west (6 RuAF MiG-29s flew and landed at Kuopio-Rissala, Finland , in July 1986 as a friendly visit, the first time the west got a closer look at the Fulcrum). India was the first export customer of the MiG-29, receiving the first units in 1986 itself, entering service in 1987, even before the Warsaw Pact forces got their Fulcrums!

The Mirage 2000 of course preceded the MiG-29, which we didn't buy due in larger numbers then, to the high cost of the Mirage. The initial lot had only air-air capability with the RDI radar. The strike capability was added in the late 80s-early 90s. Nuclear strike capability came even later. BTW, Fulcrums did have nuclear weapon delivery capability early on, in Russian service at least, although never used.

[himanshugoswami]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Any sources for these claims (Russians denying the MiG-29 to India and IAF showing interest in the F-16) ? This is news to me. What I know is:
The Soviets didn't at all try to keep the IAF away from the MiG-29. In fact, as early as 1985, IAF officers were already in Russia evaluating the MiG-29 before the MiG-29 was formally unveiled to the west (6 RuAF MiG-29s flew and landed at Kuopio-Rissala, Finland , in July 1986 as a friendly visit, the first time the west got a closer look at the Fulcrum). India was the first export customer of the MiG-29, receiving the first units in 1986 itself, entering service in 1987, even before the Warsaw Pact forces got their Fulcrums!

The Mirage 2000 of course preceded the MiG-29, which we didn't buy due in larger numbers then, to the high cost of the Mirage. The initial lot had only air-air capability with the RDI radar. The strike capability was added in the late 80s-early 90s. Nuclear strike capability came even later. BTW, Fulcrums did have nuclear weapon delivery capability early on, in Russian service at least, although never used.

Unfortunately no source I can quote, since what I have written is based on direct personal knowledge! And this is in open domain, so its not classified anyways.

[AlphaKilo]

Every technically complex machinery has always had its fair share of issues and failures. That could be to an extent afforded by the Nations with big pockets but not a Country like India. Especially, for those nations who designed and built such complex machines in the first place, it is a good experience while developing future products but for countries like ours where there is nascent R&D or development industry is sparsely available, what value addition does buying an unreliable product give us? I know we are not left with much choices in defence purchases.

We should not become guinea pigs for the manufacturers! If something like that is indeed planned, then we should get our freedom to modify/reengineer that machinery to our needs and conditions. This way we can achieve access to the most advanced technology and also improve our local R&D base for future developments. The same way the chinese bought the Maglev from the Germans and developed their own system out of it.

From what I have heard about the Russian mentality (from my interactions with Officers and Soldiers of the former GDR) and currently with the Russian space agencies, they have numbers to field. Russians involve their military in every complex operation within and outside the country and in all walks of life. With the amount of active and reserve soldiers they have, they try to keep everyone engaged. They have two people to tighten a screw with the idea that one tightens and the second guy/lady checks the tightness once the first one finishes. This says nothing about their engineering prowess but just shows the fact that they do like to field quantity more than quality.

I do agree that Russians have one of the best engineering minds in the world while they have to work under enormous scrutiny and miniscule budget they do make the most of it with their extensive knowledge and hardwork.

[FrozeninTime]

An interesting article that appeared in Condê Nast traveller website about IAF's Top Gun

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnt...e-top-gun/amp/

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Ricci

The IAF's losses so far are 18 MiG-29s + 1 Navy loss .... The Mirage stands at 12 losses on an initial order of 40...IAF has lost 56 Jaguars

Thank you for the data. Always good to discuss with data. I didn't know BR site had this data. Haven't visited it in recent years.

Is that philosophy stated by the Russians themselves or inferred from western literature written over Russian doctrine?

My understanding is derived from my time working on aircraft of Soviet and American origin and what I heard from my father 30 to 45 years ago when he was still in service with the Armed Forces. I have PMed you.

I may not have properly communicated what I am trying to say. The Soviet philosophy was that quantity of superbly operating, pack a punch aircraft {and tanks & ships} had a quality all of its own. The equipment was designed for big punch, great acceleration, great structural strength, ease of maintenance in the field. To achieve these they were willing to compromise on MTBO. In aircraft this affected engines most. Their approach was - we have massive maintenance infrastructure, the engines can keep rotating through so the MTBO does not matter that much. I've written this earlier --what the Western press ignores is that between the MBTO their equipment required much lesser high touch maintenance than an equivalent Western design.

My understanding is that the Russians don't think of aircraft or crew as disposable

I didn't say that. :-)

This kind of war-time train of though probably doesn't fit well with peace time maintenance routines desired, especially for a service that's grown up on western equipment that runs on a different doctrine.

Yes. Correct.

For all the claims of long life and durability, western jets have often been grounded for frame issues - F-15s multiple times, Hornets too for engine fires and frame cracks. The F-16 is a lot better designed, but at the extreme, the US Navy had to retire their F-16N fleet in 10 years, because their frames didn't last. I say extreme because USN F-16s were used soley for ACM training or DACT as we call in the IAF, so they flew a lot harder for whatever hours they logged, spending a lot more of it turning and burning. Also see in this very thread, I'd posted a French report of the Rafale's poor availability rate.

I don't have data so I cannot say. Grounding can be for a thousand reasons which may have nothing to do with the design.

I'm inclined to believe the differences between western and Russian equipment durability aren't as wide as purported.

At the end of the day we are all armchair warriors.:-)

Where aircraft go there are, as you know there are four parts - airframe, avionics, weapons and engines. From whatever little I have seen engines is the one area the Russians lag behind in. Weapons - the Russians are often very good. Way better than the Western press give them credit. The Western press also give too much credit to some exotic Western weapons that are not as reliable as claimed. Avionics - six folks will have seven views. Very hard to judge. Airframe - you can metaphorically ask an elephant to climb onto a Russian airframe and it will be fine. To be fair airframe science is very well developed now. They are all well designed - West & East.

I am not pro-Russian or pro-West and I am old enough to be nostalgic for the days of Indo-Soviet friendship. What I do know from my own long experience is that the Russian today is a nightmare to deal with at the ground level. They don't follow either letter or spirit of the contract when it comes to sharing the drawings, the procedures needed for proper maintenance, software codes, spares on time and so much more. The IAF complains but does not always get the support from the Ministry of External Affairs to force the Russians to toe the line. We should not mix up the reality today with the spirit of 1985. Just my two paisa as an armchair warrior.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

When India started procuring Soviet aircraft, we didn't have many options. Interesting trivia- India was all set to by the Saab Viggen in response to Pak acquisition of the F16.

The only time the Viggen was considered by the IAF was during its DPSA( Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft) requirement of the mid-70s to replace its fleet of Hunters & Canberras. The Viggen faced off primarily against the Jaguar and Mirage F1, but also against the Soviet offer of Su-20 & MiG-23BN. In 1978. the Jaguar was eventually selected as it satisfied most of the DPSA requirement(advanced low level strike platform that had a sophisticated nav/attack system, long range at low level, supersonic performance, favorable licence production conditions etc).

The Viggen never really had a chance because of its Volvo RM8 engine(which was licence-built variant of the American Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine).

When the Soviets saw that a western aircraft was selected by the IAF, they immediately offered to supply MiG-23BN in good numbers immediately and offered license production of the MiG-27M for the IAF's TASA( Tactical Air Support Aircraft) requirement to replace the fleet of Su-7s, HF-24s and Ajeets. In 1979, the govt signed a deal for the direct supply of MiG-23BNs & MiG-23UM trainers and license manufacture of MiG-27M in India.

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

Till then the Soviets were keeping the Mig 29 away from India but all of a sudden the Mig 29 was on the table. The rest is political. Once the soviets fielded the Fulcrum, there was little the IAF could do.

Even the Mirage 2000 was bought by India under the pretext of a strategic delivery platform for the supposedly under development strategic weapons (I say supposedly because India went overtly nuclear only post Smiling Buddha). Since the Soviets did not have anything in their arsenal at that time for strategic weapons delivery, they could not derail the M2K acquisition (thank heavens!)

So the IAF was forced to go with Soviet equipment for most parts. As re maintenance, you can only maintain a machine so far, but a bad design remains a bad design. Throw in bureaucratic sloth and corruption in procurement of spares, and you have the perfect cocktail for disaster that we have witnessed.

The selection of Mirage 2000 and the MiG-29 were more of a reaction than an pro-active aircraft requirement. In the late 70s/early 80s, the IAF was in the midst of fulfillment of its DPSA, TASA and METAC(Medium Transport Aircraft) requirement that was accorded more priority by the govt.

An extraneous event that that point of time endowed justification for the procurement of an advanced fighter such as the Mirage 2000. The US govt cleared the sale of F-16A/Bs to the PAF in the early 80s. The PAF was to operationalize its F-16A/B fleet by 1982-83. The Indian govt's reaction was instantaneous - apart from condemning it to be an escalation of the arms race in the sub continent, procurement of an advanced fighter to counter the PAF's F-16 was accorded the highest priority. As a knee-jerk reaction, the Indian govt immediately ordered MiG-23MFs from the Soviet Union to raise two ew squadrons on the type. Despite being the first fighter aircraft to provide BVR capability for the IAF, it was clear that it was no match for the F-16.

When the Mirage F1 was being evaluated in the late 70s for the IAF's DPSA requirement, it became known to the Indian govt that the next-gen Mirage 2000 was under development. In 1980, The Mirage 2000 was still in the development stage and the Indian govt showed serious interest to procure it to counter the F-16. In 1982, the govt placed an order for 36 Mirage 2000Hs and 4 Mirage 2000THs for the IAF to re-equip one MiG-21M squadron (No. 7 "Battle Axes") and one MiG-21FL squadron (No. 1 "Tigers"). The first Mirage 2000s reached India in 1985.

Just like the Jaguar procurement, the Soviets saw the Mirage acquisition by the IAF, as a dilution of the hold that they had on the Indian military market. THe Soviets invited Indian govt to send its pilots to evaluate the secretive MiG-29 in 1984. Highly impressed by the MiG-29's performance, the IAF test pilots passed on a favourable report to the govt. In 1986, a deal was signed for 42 single seat MiG-29Bs and 8 MiG-29UB trainers to re-equip two IAF MiG-21FL squadrons ( No. 28 "First Supersonics" & No. 47 "Black Archers") . In 1987, the first MiG-29 squadron was operationalised (No. 28 Sqdn).

And, yes the Soviet offer of the MiG-29 threw a spanner into plans of procuring and license manufacture of the Mirage 2000 in India.

[R2D2]

A very nice article about an IAF officer who became a Top Gun

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for the data. Always good to discuss with data. I didn't know BR site had this data. Haven't visited it in recent years.

I also didn't know the site had the loss numbers. The link for losses shows almost a dozen losses each year (for all services combined) for the past three decades or four, give or take a few. I wonder if any other comparable country loses so many every year regularly.

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

My understanding is derived from my time working on aircraft of Soviet and American origin and what I heard from my father 30 to 45 years ago when he was still in service with the Armed Forces. I have PMed you.

I may not have properly communicated what I am trying to say. The Soviet philosophy was that quantity of superbly operating, pack a punch aircraft {and tanks & ships} had a quality all of its own. The equipment was designed for big punch, great acceleration, great structural strength, ease of maintenance in the field. To achieve these they were willing to compromise on MTBO. In aircraft this affected engines most. Their approach was - we have massive maintenance infrastructure, the engines can keep rotating through so the MTBO does not matter that much.

Thank you Narayan sir, I understand some things you may not like to speak out on a public forum. I guess this is one area we're more like the Russians than the west, who are all for transparency and openness (until you become a whistle blower, then their 3 letter abbreviated agencies come after you and make you disappear).

It is said that quantity is a quality too, and western press and military publications stressed on this Soviet line of military strategy a lot. This was true until the 1980s when numbers started to get more even. Most of my 80s data comes from Jane's series, you would know those well. I remember reading about production rates, and at one point the F-16 was being produced at twice the rates as the MiG-29, something like 25 F-16s being delivered monthly, vs some 10-15 MiGs. Along with other technological advancements, it seemed to me that the Russians were reducing their GCI centered combat doctrine and becoming more western-like, in allowing pilots more autonomy, and that required a sea change in design philosophy to present the pilot with relevant data, or situational awareness. Hence the addition of IRST, laser ranging, slow switch towards HOTAS and better visibility out of the cockpit like the teen series, and with that increase in complexity , came lower production rates and thus squadron numbers drawing closer to the west. The collapse of the USSR put the brakes on this change, so FBW and glass cockpits took much longer. With falling numerical advantage, I reckon the Russians definitely aimed for better serviceability and reliability.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I've written this earlier --what the Western press ignores is that between the MBTO their equipment required much lesser high touch maintenance than an equivalent Western design.

I have a rough idea of what you mean, but if you can , please elaborate with some more detail. Back when I was a kid, I'd heard that the Mirage 2000 was a fragile plane, it needed to be stored in air conditioned hangars else the complex electronics would be damaged, whereas Russian jets were parked out in the sun all the time with no such hassle. Not sure how true that is. Also, more maintenance vs more expensive to maintain, are different measures and need to be balanced.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I didn't say that. :-)

Oh I know you didn't , I was addressing this (unspoken of but implied) doctrine that pilots and junior ranking servicemen are cheap and plentiful, which for a country of 145 million (less than half the US) and vastly more land area, would/should mean the opposite. My late uncle told me that Russian doctrine was callous towards the fighting men, their fighters didn't even have ejection seats. I found out years later, that the for many years the best ejection seat in the world was Russian ( the K36D ) and saw how it saved several pilots in the spectacular crashes in the late 1980s and early 90s air shows.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I don't have data so I cannot say. Grounding can be for a thousand reasons which may have nothing to do with the design.

The F-15 has been grounded multiple times over the years due to airframe corrosion/cracking/fatigue issues. At least 1 F-15 broke up during flight, initiating one of the aforesaid groundings. F-22s have fragile RAM coatings that need to be painstakingly applied often, to keep the RCS intact, inducing lot of man-hours of labour, making availability rates lower than hoped for.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

At the end of the day we are all armchair warriors.:-)

Absolutely we are, I wish I could get real information and find out just how (in)accurate published data is.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Where aircraft go there are, as you know there are four parts - airframe, avionics, weapons and engines. From whatever little I have seen engines is the one area the Russians lag behind in. Weapons - the Russians are often very good.

That is also largely what I have gathered, but without hard data from users who have used both in same conditions it is hard to be too sure. Malaysia ordering MiG-29s after having used F/A-18s might imply dissatisfaction with the American jets, but is it reliability, or cost, or the logisitics of maintaining a small fleet of diverse jets, or some other monetary carrot? I wish I had inside data on that.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

What I do know from my own long experience is that the Russian today is a nightmare to deal with at the ground level. They don't follow either letter or spirit of the contract when it comes to sharing the drawings, the procedures needed for proper maintenance, software codes, spares on time and so much more.

Yes, that's a sad culmination of a long relationship, with a silver lining. As India's economy strengthens, we can get better more modern equipment for the forces. I hope to see the Rafale strength more than double, hopefully reach 150-180 eventually.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

The only time the Viggen was considered by the IAF was during its DPSA( Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft) requirement of the mid-70s to replace its fleet of Hunters & Canberras. The Viggen faced off primarily against the Jaguar and Mirage F1, but also against the Soviet offer of Su-20 & MiG-23BN.

True, the Viggen wasn't an air-air fighter primarily. But was the IAF shortsighted in not foreseeing the need for capable air defence fighters? We already had MiG-21s being produced under license, I doubt the Russians would say no to other jets.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

When the Soviets saw that a western aircraft was selected by the IAF, they immediately offered to supply MiG-23BN in good numbers immediately and offered license production of the MiG-27M for the IAF's TASA( Tactical Air Support Aircraft) requirement to replace the fleet of Su-7s, HF-24s and Ajeets. In 1979, the govt signed a deal for the direct supply of MiG-23BNs & MiG-23UM trainers and license manufacture of MiG-27M in India.

That aspect is news to me.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

The selection of Mirage 2000 and the MiG-29 were more of a reaction than an pro-active aircraft requirement.The US govt cleared the sale of F-16A/Bs to the PAF in the early 80s. The PAF was to operationalize its F-16A/B fleet by 1982-83. The Indian govt's reaction was instantaneous - apart from condemning it to be an escalation of the arms race in the sub continent, procurement of an advanced fighter to counter the PAF's F-16 was accorded the highest priority. As a knee-jerk reaction, the Indian govt immediately ordered MiG-23MFs from the Soviet Union

The F-16A didn't have BVR capability. The MiG-23MF should have sufficed, in BVR, not WVR. Interestingly, the Russians didn't think that highly of the F-16, they regarded its true capabilities less than advertised, whereas they felt that McDonnell-Douglas honestly claimed the F-15 capabilities (except top speed). They advised MiG-23 pilots not to get into WVR fights with F-15s, instead they should use the rapid acceleration and low altitude speed to make dash and slash runs.


Quoting from this thread here :

The reason for this embarrassment was the discrepancy between the real capabilities of the F-16A and its advertising parameters that fell into all the aviation directories in the world. So, it was reported that the normal take-off weight of the F-16A (with two AIM-9 “Sidewinder”, without fuel tanks ) is a little more than 10 tons. With the declared afterburner thrust of the Pratt-Whitney F100-PW-200 engine at 11340 kgf this provided a thrust ratio of more than 1, 1 with a specific wing load of 370 kg / m2 (the corresponding parameters of the MiG-23MF were 0.8 and 440 kg / m2). In fact, the normal take-off weight of the F-16A delivered to Israel exceeded 11,000 kg, and the maximum thrust of the turbofan engine was only 10,800 kgf. At the same time, the Israelis immediately began to improve their fighters, which led to the inevitable increase in weight. As a result, the take-off thrust-weight ratio of the F-16A was slightly more than 0.9, and the specific wing load was 430 kg / m2, that is, the American aircraft almost “dropped” to the level of the MiG-23MF and almost equaled the lighter MiG-23ML.

Long one but do read through. Lot of information/misinformation from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Just like the Jaguar procurement, the Soviets saw the Mirage acquisition by the IAF, as a dilution of the hold that they had on the Indian military market. THe Soviets invited Indian govt to send its pilots to evaluate the secretive MiG-29 in 1984. Highly impressed by the MiG-29's performance, the IAF test pilots passed on a favourable report to the govt. In 1986, a deal was signed for 42 single seat MiG-29Bs and 8 MiG-29UB trainers to re-equip two IAF MiG-21FL squadrons ( No. 28 "First Supersonics" & No. 47 "Black Archers") . In 1987, the first MiG-29 squadron was operationalised (No. 28 Sqdn).

And, yes the Soviet offer of the MiG-29 threw a spanner into plans of procuring and license manufacture of the Mirage 2000 in India.

I wonder how it would be if the IAF had bought only Mirage 2000s and no MiG-29s. I think this anecdotal story from ex-IAF Fulcrum pilot has been shared before, when in mid 80s, the IAF flew off the newly acquired MiG-29 against the Mirage 2000, and the MiG won handily. The author goes on to say the claims about poor reliability are "myths". Aside, I find my own thread on the MiG-29 here on Team-BHP copy-pasted verbatim on the MiG-29 and MiG-35 thread !

@Foxbat - are your on that forum too? I see someone there with the forum handle as "Foxbat" and display pic of the same jet.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Ricci

True, the Viggen wasn't an air-air fighter primarily. But was the IAF shortsighted in not foreseeing the need for capable air defence fighters? We already had MiG-21s being produced under license, I doubt the Russians would say no to other jets.

No, it wasn't shortsighted. But the F-16 acquisition at that point of time was a game changer for the PAF as far as interceptors are concerned just like the F-104 acquisition was in the early 60s.

Till then,the IAF had an edge or parity in terms of interceptors with the PAF. In the late 70s/early 80s, before the PAF acquired the F-16, the PAF had Mirage IIIEPs and F-6A/Cs as its primary interceptors. The IAF's fleet of MiG-21 variants(FL/M/MF & bis) were considered good enough to take on that threat. Eventhough the marginally BVR and Semi-Active Radar Homing Matra R530 missile of the PAF's Mirage IIIEP gave it a slight edge. Similarly in the 60s, the F-104A/B acquisition changed the game in the sub-continent. The IAF had nothing to match the PAF's F-104 till the the first MiG-21F/PFs arrived in India.In both cases, it was a reactionary move to counter the PAF's new acquisitions.

Originally Posted by Ricci

The F-16A didn't have BVR capability.

No, it didn't. But it wasn't known at that time. In fact, the late 70s, AIM-7s were carried and fired by F-16 prototypes. It was pretty much secretive then.
From F-16.net:

The F-16 was never intended to carry the AIM-7 as it was designed to be a short range day-time interceptor without any BVR capabilities. Although the possibility of equipping the aircraft with the missile were already tested successfully in 1977 it took until the introduction of the F-16C block 25 and the F-16 ADF before the Viper got a BVR capability.

YF-16 #72-1568 is carrying AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles for weapons testing with the latter also installed on the main landing gear doors.


Even Pushpindar Singh & Ravi Rikhye's book - "Fiza'ya : Psyche pf the PAF"( printed in 1991) seems to suggest that the PAF did acquire a batch of AIM-7s for its F-16A/B fleet in the late 80s. It became clear only much later that the PAF's legacy F-16 fleet was not BVR capable and the PAF did not have AIM-7s in their inventory. PAF's Legacy F-16A/Bs did acquire the capability to fire AIM-120s after being upgraded to Block 15 ADF standards in the mid-2000s. I also do remember reading that in terms of BVR capability on the F-16C/D Blk 52s supplied to Iraq, they were only capable of carrying the AIM-7s only and they lacked the capability to fire AIM-20s. Iraq was only supplied with a small batch of AIM-7M Sparrow missiles along with AIM-9Ms.

Originally Posted by Ricci

The MiG-23MF should have sufficed, in BVR, not WVR. Interestingly, the Russians didn't think that highly of the F-16, they regarded its true capabilities less than advertised, whereas they felt that McDonnell-Douglas honestly claimed the F-15 capabilities (except top speed). They advised MiG-23 pilots not to get into WVR fights with F-15s, instead they should use the rapid acceleration and low altitude speed to make dash and slash runs.

The MiG-23MF/R-23R combination proved to be a big disappointment not only with the IAF but with Arab Air Forces as well who flew them in combat against Iran & Israel. The MiG-23 and R-23's capabilities were overhyped by the Soviets.

When Iran under the Shah had acquired the F-14 primarily to counter Soviet MiG-25 overflights over Iran and about which the Iraqis felt threatened, the Russians marketed the MiG-23 as a single engined fighter equivalent to and as capable as the F-14. During the Iran-Iraq War, the initial batch of MiG-23MSs(which only had the capability to fire K-13 IRMs) proved to be a huge disappointment that they were relegated to secondary air defence and ground attack duties in the war( Iraqi MiG-23MS pilots did manage to shoot down atleast one Iranian F-5 and a few F-4s later in the war).

In fact, the Iraqi Air Force went on to order 90+ MiG-21MF after this disappointment with the MiG-23MS. The world's first AIM-54 kill was on a Iraqi MiG-23MS by an IRIAF Tomcat crew in September 1980. The acquisition of BVR capable MiG-23MFs and MiG-23MLs by the Iraqis corrected the shortcomings of the MiG-23 to some extent but it was still no match for the Iranian F-14s.

I believe the only theater where the MiG-23 performed better than western rivals was in the Angolan/South African theater. Cuban flown Angolan MiG-23MLs often managed to get better of South African Mirage F1s and MIrage IIICZs. Although no Mirages were shot down, atleast two Mirage F1s were severely damaged by missiles fired by Angolan MiG-23s.

Originally Posted by Ricci

I wonder how it would be if the IAF had bought only Mirage 2000s and no MiG-29s.

We would have a much larger Mirage 2000 fleet with majority of them being manufactured at HAL .

There is no doubt that in the WVR regime, the MiG-29 will easily beat western fighters like the F-16 and Mirage 2000. But then western fighters clearly hold an advantage in terms of user friendliness and technology as was evident in the first Gulf War and Balkans War where Iraqi and Yugoslavian Fulcrum pilots, as brave as they were, could not even get close to marauding US and NATO interceptors.

[AlphaKilo]

I am not sure about the sensitive electronics to our climate but we have quite a lot of Indian Airforce fighter pilots amongst us and a couple who had/are still flying the Mirage. May be they could confirm or deny these as much as the public disclosure will permit.

From the point of view of WVR fighting, in a two circle or single circle fight, Mirage with its delta wings will beat the hell out of any fighter because the turn rates are quite good if not amongst the best and the stall angle and speed is very very low. This means in a circle fight, the mirage can get its nose on the target sooner than the target can. Put it in a rate fight, the mirage will lag because of the large aerodynamic surface generating equally high drag (higher lift, higher drag bla bla bla). So, Mirage in the right hands will hold its ground against any western or eastern fighter.

On the other hand, the Fulcrum was amongst the first unstable design from the russians which was this agility compared to the ones from Sukhoi design of the same era. It had a very power engine and shortest take off distances for quick intercept possibilities. The climb rate of the fulcrum was quite unmatched at its time. This made it a very versatile and highly dog fight capable fighter. The russian doctrine of super manouvreability against kinetic energy kind of started with this design.

Personally, I am a big fan boy of the first gen Fulcrums with its beautiful curves and edges. The current design with the hump on its back looks ugly! Looks like it got spondylities. Heck, even the Naval MiG 29 looks beautiful when compared to the UPG Fulcrums!

source: https://i.redd.it/31pe61emfxt41.jpg and https://bsmedia.business-standard.co...99218-6624.jpg