Search results

62 block II likely due to delay in block III by more than a year, and more numbers were needed plus it kept the factory working.

I wonder why they removed/changed the position of ECM in the vertical stabilizer; or maybe this is an old/early iteration of the initial JF17 prototype that did not have ECM on the vertical stabilizer.

Chinese reluctance may be due to pressure from the US during trade talks - asking to limit proliferation of technology.

PAF used JF17s both in A-A and A-G roles in the Feb 2019 engagement. Two JF17s dropped bombs with REKs along with Mirages in the A-G role. Four other JF17s were escorts in A-A role (in addition to several F16s). Whoever got the chance to shoot their air to air weapons (F16s in this case) were...

No I don't think so…. Something do to with clearance from the ground I think.

Interesting… presumably there is a wing structure at the top left which is different from that of JF17 bk1 & 2. Is this a screenshot / video grab? Tail end looks similar to JF17… cant see the intake(s)

4 BVRs and 2 WVRs ? 4 BVRs and 2 WVRs ?

Probably correct, however Pakistan would have some knowledge in material sciences gained from the Army's missile program.

Some parts in the rear are in primer - possibly replaced…

Your U turns may only convince you in the end unfortunately. Abhinandan was looking for targets on his radar when his aircraft was hit. Hopefully we all agree that the targets from Abhinandans perspective were towards Pakistans side, hence his Bisons nose was pointing ☝ towards Pakistan . Unless...

Abhinandan was looking for targets on his radar when his aircraft was hit. He wouldn't be pointing his engine exhaust at PAF fighters to target them now would he ?

Yes the only thing holding PAF back in Feb were prevailing rules of engagement. Do you have some info you can share about possible future engagements..

Excellent post One can set the narrative by lobbying but more so by ones actions. I think PAFs response was very balanced and what was needed. The position Pakistan is in internationally as a nation is precarious at best (allegations of nuclear proliferation, allegations of terrorism...

Skeptical of any new F16s even if the Afghan deal is reached… as signing a piece of paper and implementation are two different things (and Pak is easily blamed) but time will tell. Not sure about J10s but Paf has evaluated it and they may prefer F16s avionics in addition to other factors. They...

More F16s are most likely tied to peace or a deal in Afghanistan… . and seems the US does not have a clear idea how they want to go by it as the Pentagon and Bolton are dragging their feet and skeptical according to recent news. It is a real possibility that PAF may not get the 16s and may...

There may be some reason why dual racks are not being used for SD10s if they have been tested. All JF17s sighted on training missions and those on Feb 26/27th carried two SD10s Yes. This is where I think there was an oversight from the design stage. Personal opinion. And for those thinking this...

Hi With backup hydraulics for FBW, the heavier SD 10s can possibly go on wingtips ? Is that what your post means or did I inferred incorrectly? Thanks

Is it me or the 2 aircrafts in primer appear shorter than the one on the right? Canopy length appears the same. So block III? Although too early to see block III per previous reports…..

Hi. Can you please explain this a bit more if possible? Thanks.

True it is a great aircraft for PAF… but allow me to put this forward. Whatever we will see in block III (maybe except the AESA) including likely increased BVR carrying capability could have been done from the getgo. The question is why wasn't it done? … and why is PAF not jumping to join J31?