Search results

Q-5 isn't the latest version of A-5. Q-5 is the Chinese version, A-5 is the export version. Multi-role means JF-17 can be a bomber or a fighter, that's why it is replacing A-5. PAF doesn't need Mirage 2000-5 to replace old Mirage, JF-17 is designed to do the job. Read some articles about the A-5...

The baseline JF-17 will be made officially operational within the next few months if there are no more delays (as will the PAF's first AWACS) and talking about its upgrades is no more premature than talking about upgrades to any other new aircraft. Unlike India who were told by Russia to wait...

WTF? How do you expect anybody to take you seriously if you keep telling us the exact price of the latest Chinese equipment while admitting nobody knows anything about their specifications? :lol: Then you compare the cost of a Chinese aeroplane to the cost of a French aeroplane.

PAF doesn't need greater range due to twin engines, they have precision guided stand-off weapons and cruise missiles. They don't need greater payload because JF-17 and J-10 already carry enough weapons, electronic warfare suites (same as jammers), decoys and fuel. If two pilots are better than...

How about two JF-17 upgraded with French radar, EW suite and MICA? http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf

But PN are already inducting China's Harbin Z-9 and refurbished P-3C Orions. Then again, PAF already operate four CN-235 and NH90 is much bigger than Z-9.

These German aircraft would be UAVs, right?

Why not? What does that upgraded flanker have that cannot be matched by the JF and its missiles?

I don't think that's true. From what I've read, the Chinese went to a lot of trouble to develop the WZ-10. Are the PLA buying any other dedicated attack chopper?

FC-20 will share NOTHING with JF-17 except MAYBE a few circuit boards and antennae. Take one single look at J-10 and JF-17, what can they possibly have in common except some minor avionics? Who says J-XX will be ready in a few years?

:rolleyes: Any sources for all that BS?

A-5 is supposed to be a capable ground attack aircraft but exactly how well armoured is it?

and the AEWC escort fighters. Greater range to the naval strike platforms too? JF-17 will certainly be used for this role, won't it need to be tanked to stay with the P-3 AEW/MPA and Atlantique MPAs?

Looks exactly the same as the Wikipedia article on JF-17 I was reading the other day, the guy just copied the "Specifications" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17

I don't think PA should switch to 5.56 NATO. Rather they should develop or co-develop a bullpup configuration rifle like the SA80 that fires a larger round - not necessarily the G3's 7.62 round, but something with more range and penetrating power than the 5.56 NATO round.

Wouldn't the main advantage of Tiger for the PA (apart from its being new and therefore spending less time in maintenance, more time flying combat missions) be its ability to deploy the Hellfire anti-tank missile? I've read the Hellfire can rip through the very latest and strongest tank armour...

Thanks for posting these pics bro, where did you find them? Drop-tanks with refuelling probes inside them. I read about the Israelis using them somewhere but never saw pictures until now.

That was pretty good. They said the test pilot who landed the dodgy F-22 on its belly has experience test-flying other "black" aircraft that are still classified. What could these be? It seems to me that nothing went right for the X-32.

According to the PN she's a Destroyer!? http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/destroyer.htm

Why do people keep saying this? F-16C/D block 52 is just as high-tech as Gripen but that didn't stop PAF inducting a squadron. Same with the F-16AM/BM (F-16A/B with MLU) and the Erieye system.