Pakistan showing interest in J-16?

Deino said:

Just plain and simple, the chance to get J-16 is ZERO !!!

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Deino said:

Just plain and simple, the chance to get J-16 is Zero!!!

Deino

Click to expand...

Why is that?

wanglaokan said:

Why is that?

Click to expand...

The J-16 is de facto an illegal copy - to stay polite: indigenous development - of the Su-30MKK modified with Chinese engines & avionics.
As such, the Chinese side will never risk the Sino-Russian cooperation by breaking the no-export clause in the original contract.

pakistanipower said:

The J-16 is de facto an illegal copy - to stay polite: indigenous development - of the Su-30MKK modified with Chinese engines & avionics.
As such, the Chinese side will never risk the Sino-Russian cooperation by breaking the no-export clause in the original contract.

Click to expand...

That's the reason we can just set Pakistan aside if they ask for it? There is always a method to figure it out. If there is a war break out tomorrow and PAF need heavy platform ASAP, so you think China will turn it down because of Russia like it or not? If Russia doesn't agree, they are anti-Pakistan.

Or they can sell Su30SM or Su35 to PAF, it's a fair game.

wanglaokan said:

That's the reason we can just set Pakistan aside if they ask for it? There is always a method to figure it out. If there is a war break out tomorrow and PAF need heavy platform ASAP, so you think China will turn it down because of Russia like it or not? If Russia doesn't agree, they are anti-Pakistan.

Or they can sell Su30SM or Su35 to PAF, it's a fair game.

Click to expand...

The only possibility is if Pakistan pays for these Jets under the guise of something else like subs etc and China "loans" these Jets to Pakistan air Force for the protection of Chinese assets

Kabotar said:

The only possibility is if Pakistan pays for these Jets under the guise of something else like subs etc and China "loans" these Jets to Pakistan air Force for the protection of Chinese assets

Click to expand...

We can lease J16 to PAF.

The tenancy could be 30 years.

Starlord said:

bro can you point out the Difference between J-11D and J-16 ?

Click to expand...

Simply saying, J-11D ( one pilot ) prefer to air fighting, J-16 ( two crews ) prefer to hunting ships and ground targets.

Fawadqasim1 said:

it's not just about maturity and coming of age of bvr which is a fact. if we are talking vis a vis india our wvr capabilities are lacking in this area too we don't have off boresight missile, hmds, etc on almost all of our current inventory that combined with lack of attrition is dangerous hence most of these goodies are on block iii

mastan khan sir is not a dumb person a rather seasoned, wise, mature and well read personality representing a different school of thought in air war than yours he is our senior and hase every right to scold us (juniors) so mind your language please.

Click to expand...

Well read seasoned and mature person....have you read his post..He is stupid and this is the 2nd he has picked on me. Let it be known of this idiot and I don't even believe he is pakistani picks on me or defames pakistan its military or its politicians no matter how bad they are then I will take him down. Maybe you should tell him to grow up. This is the internet for all you know he is an Indian or a Jew.


And Please don't tell Mr to mind my language.WHY DIDNT YOU TELL HIM TO MIND HIS LANGUAGE. I EVEN SHOWED YOU PEOPLE POST 148 where he started this. No you are so far up his a55 you can't see light ..WHY don't you mind your own business. Grow up and stop master Khan worship. His profile picture and age speaks volumes. Better still DONT ADDRESS ME.

wanglaokan said:

We can lease J16 to PAF.

The tenancy could be 30 years.

Click to expand...

Wang bro thats quit possible

Fawadqasim1 said:

Wang bro thats quit possible

Click to expand...

China is very strong now, no one can dictate China what to do and what not to do.

Lease is to give Russia an out, hope they can understand it.

snow lake said:

So now that I proved you didn't read what I wrote you come back with
No cannons have been used in any air to air combat for over 30 years.

Click to expand...

So tell me genius WhY does the f35 have a cannon. WHY does every fighter aircraft flying have a cannon? Surely using your genius they would take out the cannons save weight and use maybe carry extra missiles. And don't say the cannon.is just for strafing because it's not

I humbly await the reply of the genius and the fools that rated your post. I bet you won't come up with a decent reply


Well maybe seniors should mind their language also. He is 59 and rude so when you jump.in try to be fair if not I really don't care much for you attitude. He not only abused me first but he abused my country all its politicians and its military post #148. No one take crap. If you dish it out you.must be able to take it[/QUOTE]


Hi,

I will overcome your objections---.

Who would in their SANE minds compare the failure of missiles of the 1960's to the current day capabilities of modern missiles---.

It could only be a Pakistani kid trying to look important---because that is what he has heard from his elders---.

F22 and F35 are close to 30 years old designs---. And at that time---the vietnam war veterans had control over the decisions regarding the design---.

The original F22 design was recommended without a cannon---which was later overruled.

Create a scenario where a JF17 or a Paf F16 would use its cannons against the Iaf's Su30' M2K's or MIG's---understanding---that the first 2 volleys it would have to avoid would be the BVR's---then a WVR---then need merge and then need to get within 100-150 yards behind the SU or M2K to get a lock and push the trigger.

The external tanks were already jettisoned when the first enemy BVR launch was detected and evasive maneuvers were started---.

So---from where would you get the fuel to make that engagement.

Why would a superior enemy force lose its position of strength by merging and engaging in a gun fight---.

MastanKhan said:

So tell me genius WhY does the f35 have a cannon. WHY does every fighter aircraft flying have a cannon? Surely using your genius they would take out the cannons save weight and use maybe carry extra missiles. And don't say the cannon.is just for strafing because it's not

I humbly await the reply of the genius and the fools that rated your post. I bet you won't come up with a decent reply


Well maybe seniors should mind their language also. He is 59 and rude so when you jump.in try to be fair if not I really don't care much for you attitude. He not only abused me first but he abused my country all its politicians and its military post #148. No one take crap. If you dish it out you.must be able to take it

Click to expand...

Hi,

I will overcome your objections---.

Who would in their SANE minds compare the failure of missiles of the 1960's to the current day capabilities of modern missiles---.

It could only be a Pakistani kid trying to look important---because that is what he has heard from his elders---.

F22 and F35 are close to 30 years old designs---. And at that time---the vietnam war veterans had control over the decisions regarding the design---.

The original F22 design was recommended without a cannon---which was later overruled.

Create a scenario where a JF17 or a Paf F16 would use its cannons against the Iaf's Su30' M2K's or MIG's---understanding---that the first 2 volleys it would have to avoid would be the BVR's---then a WVR---then need merge and then need to get within 100-150 yards behind the SU or M2K to get a lock and push the trigger.

The external tanks were already jettisoned when the first enemy BVR launch was detected and evasive maneuvers were started---.

So---from where would you get the fuel to make that engagement.

Why would a superior enemy force lose its position of strength by merging and engaging in a gun fight---.[/QUOTE]

You still have not answered why the cannon is still in the aircraft.

snow lake said:

Hi,

I will overcome your objections---.

Who would in their SANE minds compare the failure of missiles of the 1960's to the current day capabilities of modern missiles---.

It could only be a Pakistani kid trying to look important---because that is what he has heard from his elders---.

F22 and F35 are close to 30 years old designs---. And at that time---the vietnam war veterans had control over the decisions regarding the design---.

The original F22 design was recommended without a cannon---which was later overruled.

Create a scenario where a JF17 or a Paf F16 would use its cannons against the Iaf's Su30' M2K's or MIG's---understanding---that the first 2 volleys it would have to avoid would be the BVR's---then a WVR---then need merge and then need to get within 100-150 yards behind the SU or M2K to get a lock and push the trigger.

The external tanks were already jettisoned when the first enemy BVR launch was detected and evasive maneuvers were started---.

So---from where would you get the fuel to make that engagement.

Why would a superior enemy force lose its position of strength by merging and engaging in a gun fight---.

Click to expand...

You still have not answered why the cannon is still in the aircraft.[/QUOTE]


Hi,

The issue over here is your statement of giving the example of failure of the 1960's air to air missiles of the usaf---and then bringing up cannon engagement---.

I am asking---how are you going to do that after all your fuel is gone---.

As I stated---the F22 is a 30 + years old design---when the U S congress and senate were dominated by vietnam era vets---and even though the original design was without recommending a cannon---it was overruled---. It was a political decision---.

Now you tell me---first surviving and avoiding all the bvr's and wvr's launched at it---from where the JF17 would get its fuel to engage in a gunfight---.

Somalia is also interested in J-16s...

It looks we are doing window shopping.Interested in many things but buying nothing for long time.