What's new

New fighter for PAF Doctrine?

kursed

FULL MEMBER
Mar 21, 2007
806
8
1,921
Hi,

Some very good news is very close to fruition---or may have already seen results. @Khafee would be exonerated of making supposed false claims.

Those who claimed " pakistan has no money " ----would never apologize and show their shame on this forum whenthe 'results' are announced.
Khafee's claims of J-15, J-16, F-16V et al, will not come out true.
 

Crimson Blue

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Nov 7, 2019
98
0
152
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I hope you are not running a high fever or smoking something. Which AMRAAMs made it to Pakistan in 1997.
Not in 1997 but in 2009-10. Barely a decade ago.

When I said that AIM-120C5 arrived in Pakistan in 1997, it was a typo. Sorry.

I meant to say ' 1999's AIM-120C5 ' which refer to the time period (1997-99) when development of AIM-120-C5 ended and development of AIM-120C7 started. AIM-120C5 is more than 20 years old tech.
 
Last edited:

Raider 21

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 18, 2016
2,647
6
4,442
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Probably a revisit at a later date but according to Retired Air Marshall Shahid Latif he was part of the team that went to Sweden to evaluate the Gripen but their purpose was infact to see its capabilities that needs to be added to the JF-17.
No sir, both pilots I know never made it to Sweden for that. The original plan was to fly and evaluate the aircraft. Shahid Latif was not part of the original group selected for it, maybe it was for a later time and a different purpose as you mentioned.

Back in the 90s they had a number of aircraft evaluated. I know of one who evaluated the MiG-29 and Su-27. Su-27 was selected, but the pro-Indian lobby in the Russian government intervened.
 

Ahmet Pasha

BANNED
May 23, 2017
7,998
-5
7,874
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Doubt it, Pak didn't show up when called upon ( twice, ) once for Kuwait Invasion ( showed up but didn't want to be part of attack, ) and then "Yemen calling."
Bongey, you did not even understand my post hahaha. I was talking about F16 sales.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,025
59
18,104
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,928
356
69,088
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD
I think we need to break down roles & requirements to get what the JF-17 can and cannot do - and also keep in mind that while PAF is buying/ building JF-17’s they have also been in frontline service for over ten years.

Which means they have been the assets replacing old F-7’s and providing those services along with providing CAS. Were those not the primary requirements for the fighter?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

We probably can request interested members to really compile the requirements first, then develop the “solution” to it. It seems the entire discussion here tends to get flawed by looking at equipment first before looking at what use cases are there.
 
Last edited:

Yasser76

FULL MEMBER
Mar 28, 2017
1,617
1
2,435
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD

Yeah, spot on. What often gets lost in debates about JF-17 is that it was never meant to be in the class of F-16, J-10 or Rafale.

It was a light fighter replacement, a modern version of fighters such as the MIG-21 or F-5. Low cost, easy to maintain, available in numbers. In this sense it is a great success. JF-17s can successfully intercept heavily laden IAF aircraft entering Pakistan and can easily take on aircraft that form the bulk of the IAF or will form the bulk of the IAF (MIG-21, Jaguar, LCA etc.)

IAF new medium and heavy types can be handled by F-16s, which as you point out we need more of and more modern versions of. The F-16V will be needed here, failing this J-10CE.

As I mentioned on this thread or another one, what may decide matters is that whatever happens on the F-16 front we may go for J-10 is it comes with engines, weapons and radar that will be used in AMZ.

Finally there is the matter of geostrategic influence, essentially once F-16s are retired the US knows that what little sway it holds within the Pakistan Military will come to an end (IMET is useful but ultimately not required) a F-16V buy stops that happening for at least another 30 years
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
20,518
169
37,768
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD
Bilal Bhai.... I had couple of posts before to pen down my opinion from general to what they say, near planning type. I agree with you if not 100% but at-least 90% and then what @SQ8 allama sahib said in regard to requirement, capability of A/C and the options we have to fulfill that area.

I say that, given our size & economy, one cannot acquire single platform for every role. So, while we discuss the possible next platform along with PAF style resolution for upcoming threat; I will be looking for that side as well.

For the Viper area, this is what I said a while ago. In-fact, it didn't cover anything in regard to capability of Viper but I was trying to say something as how the current bargain or an offer may turn out to be.


Secondly, how JF-17 Block-III may be taking the role as destined to be. Furthermore, it is said that the Air Craft has delivered more than expected. Well, now we can try to have an insight about the capability of Block-III along with the short coming in regard to Thunder.


The argument will still remain valid for the class of Thunder as compare to F-16s in PAF fleet.

The Light Weight argument
  • It cannot be ignored. But, why do I see that being compensated in some other manners? Well, I may have an argument that where it has to be flight of 1 F-16 given its load capability; I can throw 2 Thunders with more than the former's weight class with 2 flight ship formation and hanging almost double the payload. But, wouldn't that cost me more? Well, I have a home grown fighter with local maintenance & producing more & more in numbers so I can maintain easily.

  • But then comes the argument of Thunder's height to carry much more advanced/CM type SOWs. Well, Thunder in current height couldn't carry any of these payload except that we may find out that AWC came up with a huge surprising development as a solution for Thunder's SOW arsenal, addressing the shortcoming what we had in F-16s due to restriction and lack of US clearance.

  • If somehow AWC doesn't have the solution, I see J-10C into picture with all its capability merely for this role alone.
The Tech reliability argument

  • We have been discussing that what Thunder deploys is the almost same capability which J-10C and even a bit being demonstrated/inducted by J-20 as well. So in this area, except for onboard IRST or probably the HOBS, I don't find much of difference. Yeah, the weapons available for Thunder are almost to what is being carried by J-10C except for the light weight argument/ground clearance and at-least the PL-15 debate due to its size for Thunder. However, if we look at Viper domain then its pretty much gives a feeling that given our decades of familiarity and experience with platform, not just the weight class but tech wise, indeed it has a psych affect. However, in general, we argue that Thunder still provides the AESA which Viper has, IRST addressed, DRFM address with different solution but again, we are stuck at weight class here. However, if we consider the first argument of weight class, here the J-10C will may come ahead in couple of areas. It will open the doors to many more tech in Chinese Arsenal and also, as we discussed in other thread, the commonality of fleet may help to maintain not just Thunder + J-10C tech wise but also will pave a way in regard to possibility for NGF in form of FC-31. The W10S engine and all the weaponry.
The diversification argument
  • I feel it like a whole new ball game and still pretty much affective against the enemy. Keeping a uniform fleet will make us more vulnerable as compare to mix of top of the line fleet. I would like to maintain the argument that Viper should be the primary goal, if we can have our hands on it. Otherwise, there will be the alternate in form of J-10C given the similarity of Thunder along the J-10C for many of tech and the same can help in regard to maintain easily as well. The only factor may come out in regard to Engine. As soon as I argue the diversification, we shouldn't forget our decades of investment in form of energy, economy, experience for US Tech and here, the diversification will help a lot to keep the surprise element for adversary.
The requirement argument
  • Given the size & weight limitation, we find that Thunder is not close to Viper or J-10C but, is that prove whether Thunder Block-III cannot be a true 4.5++ gen fighter? What is the list of 4.5++ gen fighter requirement. Thunder Block-III going to fly with AESA (claimed to be the most advance), it will have the long range BVVR (PL-15 as argued), an extra chin hard point for POD (IRST or Targeting POD based upon mission profile but solves the issue), HOBS and HMDS most probably, most advance EW suit (AESA on board and not to forget), DRFM type capability, interoperability but when it comes to load carrying capacity and SOWs, we are again at the point of ground clearance primarily. Everyone! I ask for pardon for not insisting upon more weight carrying in single sortie since I have my own opinion for different mission profile and that doesn't limit the AC in performance to others in fleet.

  • Now comes the strike element. Well, Delta has its own advantage and here, in this area I see that if the doctrine/planning or SOW deployment hasn't changed given the book of tactics then Delta will remain the center of attention till new style of fighting. When I say Delta, the only replacement comes to mind is J-10C being Delta Canard lower wing loading but again, it has its limitations as well. Either the strike rules are going to be altered/changed to something new in arena. If we look at Western/US Air Forces, they ain't flying Delta. So, can we safely assume that this particular area of strike element may be served by the NGF given its own capabilities and not to fly low.

  • Then comes the Air Superiority in requirement. If we go by the AESA/BVVR argument then how long Thunder will have to fly given its fuel capacity? That is the area which may come to our mind but I don't see the India being too far as the most of fight will take place over the or near border area. However, Thunder is our own so we can produce more and so can fly more with AESA/BVVR etc. However, it again points out that Thunder alone cannot or shouldn't be pitched in every sector. The enemy isn't flying obsolete ACs rather, is busy with sharpening their teeth to the top.
I have my rant as above. Just wanted to share few points to further the argument as you have suggested and @SQ8 advanced it with more of an advise.

To all the others: I am not an expert please.
 

KaiserX

BANNED
Apr 6, 2019
1,014
0
1,662
Country
United States
Location
United States
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD
I agree with everything mentioned above except that Jf17 still provides PAF with capabilities that even the mlu F-16s dont provide. Dont forget at the end of the day we have a wide range of weapons such as anti ship missiles, H2/H4 glide bombs, and other stand off weapons. As the raad is perfected im sure PAF will be able to equip the thunder fleet with a true 350km range standoff missile. For now I ageee that the mirages are there as bomb/missile trucks and will continue.

I see the J-10CE as being more of a replacement of the mirage 5 with a lot more multi role capabilities. More than likely the mirage squadrons will be the first to receive the J-10CE. Also more than likely is that we may be limited to 60-80 J-10CEs max while the mirage 5 will still continue as delivery vehicles.

Lastly there is no possibility that PAF will acquired f-16 block 70s in any way. The US would never offer that. At best if we get lucky then 8-12 F-16 block 50-52 without aesa would be offered. In any case I expect PAF to explore options with Turkey for an F-16 upgrade with aesa. As Turky is currently in the same predicament with 200+ f-16s and no F-35s on the way.
 

kursed

FULL MEMBER
Mar 21, 2007
806
8
1,921
I support the JF-17 whole heartedly, and it pains me to say this, but its inherent design limits have caught up.

Do we all recall those discussions we had 3-4 years ago about how the JF-17's wing-loading, stability, and lack of range and payload didn't fare well with contemporaries?

Well, the PAF going for J-10CEs might speak louder than anything we've said to this point.

The JF-17 is a great replacement for the A-5s, F-7Ps, F-7PGs, and the non-ROSE Mirage III/5s. It got us fleetwide BVR as well as SOW, PGB and AShW capabilities at a low cost.

However, if we hold training and execution equal, is the PAF convinced about using the JF-17 against the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and Mirage 2000H? Well, if it's ordering J-10CE, then the answer is a resounding "no."

This does NOT mean the JF-17 is a failure. Rather, the JF-17 will soon accomplish its primary job of replacing our old fighters and sustaining our fleet numbers. In fact, it's also more than enough for handling the IAF's numerous legacy fighters (which are still a credible threat, BTW).

But if you're mounting offensive ops like OCAs, then the JF-17 probably don't cut it against the IAF. If you cannot deliver an offensive threat, you're not deterring anyone.

Finally, I think the PAF always knew of this reality. But the original plan was to build-up the F-16 numbers so that the F-16s form our offensive edge. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass, so now the PAF is giving that role to the J-10CE.

Unless we miraculously get a custom SLEP, the F-16A/Bs are going to be on their way out from 2030. I don't think we'll have an operational NGFA at that point (heck, we'll be lucky to get 2-3 prototypes by then).

So, what do you guys think will replace them? Answer: J-10CE OR the F-16 Block-72. The PAF may be moving to set-up the infrastructure for the J-10CE so that it could leverage both platforms (it can sustain the Block-72 by virtue of the commonality with the Block-52).

BTW, it'd be a lot easier for the White House / Pentagon to sell "Pakistan needs new F-16s to replace its old F-16s" to Congress.

@Deino @PakShaheen79 @TheTallGuy @TheEagle @Yasser76 @KaiserX @kursed @SQ8 @JamD
The biggest issue here is the lack of money. If we did end up buying anything from China, it’d be on a credit line extended to us. The biggest impediment towards opting for another F-16 product or upgrade is the lack of funds.

As for JF, it was never supposed to act liked tip of the spear. OTOH, it allows us fleet-wide access to BVR, jamming pods, precision guided munitions, long range air to surface munition et al. It is a workhorse.
 

Trailer23

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 2, 2012
3,345
102
10,083
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
f16s wont come soon given change in a ministration...
Q. When you say that they won't or can't come soon - I take it you're referring to B72's. If so, that means 4+ Years. Joe Biden is (literally) in his Final Frontier. I'd be amazed if he lives out his 4 Years. Who is to say the next President doesn't screw us over before the first jet is delivered. Used upgraded B52's ain't so bad. Atleast we can get 'em within a year.
Only thing available thats equal to Rafale is the Typhoon.
Those Typhoons are a financial deathtrap in the long run.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
14,443
10
13,553
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Q. When you say that they won't or can't come soon - I take it you're referring to B72's. If so, that means 4+ Years. Joe Biden is (literally) in his Final Frontier. I'd be amazed if he lives out his 4 Years. Who is to say the next President doesn't screw us over before the first jet is delivered. Used upgraded B52's ain't so bad. Atleast we can get 'em within a year.

Those Typhoons are a financial deathtrap in the long run.
As i said trump proved that stick alone can work
The argument that we need to give f16 for pakistan to get their help is now disproven.
Keeping india happy means that f16 wont come
 

GriffinsRule

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 18, 2015
2,402
4
3,417
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Those Typhoons are a financial deathtrap in the long run.
They are expensive indeed. I was speaking in terms of capability though. They also have a better future outlook than the Rafale with more countries flying them and Germany's recent order of 38 (planned buy of 90+) in addition to what they already have.
Either way, a squadron or two worth of aircraft should not break our backs, so to speak. But I'd we rather concentrate on an fifth gen aircraft given our paucity of funds and multiple ongoing programs.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom