What's new

Air Force Question Thread

thanks sir its the point they can detect subs and distroy them also but saab200 is multyrole AWCS from sea to air we seen in viedeo there is 8 modes to set the hight of saab2000

The point is to set a dedicated PN AWACS, so they can do their own thing.
 
Till a few years back or perhaps even now, I see all aircrafts (except F-16) in all photos with AIM-9P or Matra Magic-2.

Tornado-IDS, Jaguar of RAF and A-10 all are good ground-attack aircrafts and I think they all use at least AIM-9L , which is all aspect or ASRAAM. These aircrafts are not required to carry BVRs. Escorts are provided for that purpose. Rich countries even provide Jamming aircraft to them.

I dont know why we are still relying on AIM-9P. If that has been upgraded to AIM-9P-4, then may be its acceptable but I don't know if its really -9P-4.

I think PAF was trying to fit AIM-9L on F-7s but I don't know what happened then..........has this objective been achieved?
 
All the F-16s with blue tipped sidewinders are AIM-9L. There is no dearth of images on the web showing PAF F-16s with AIM-9L. The F-7PG at least is mated to AIM-9L with its Grifo radar. There is a very detailed article about this in the AFM from back in 2003. Alan Warnes was helped by Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail is writing that out. What makes the F-7PG a potent dog fighter is the AIM-9L and the maneuverability combination.

You are right about Mirages and the F-7s with Matra and AIM-9Ps though. Older aircraft, PAF probably did not want to go through the integration challenges of mating the 9L and now the 9Ms to them.
 
There is a very detailed article about this in the AFM from back in 2003. Alan Warnes was helped by Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail is writing that out. What makes the F-7PG a potent dog fighter is the AIM-9L and the maneuverability combination..

this article i can provide if allowed by mods?
 
quick draw mcgraw! great article! what would happen if the F-7PG was fitted with a western powerplant? food for thought.

Wouldnt it still remain a short ranged point defnce fighter? Would that have any advantage, given that in its present configuration it is still a pretty potent fighter ( obviously considering the restriction)for this role.
My 2 Ps worth
Araz
 
Wouldnt it still remain a short ranged point defnce fighter? Would that have any advantage, given that in its present configuration it is still a pretty potent fighter ( obviously considering the restriction)for this role.
My 2 Ps worth
Araz

i assume it would become a more reliable aircraft and hence not be replaced by the JF-17 any time soon.
 
I was looking at the pictures of F-7PG and found that its windshield is single piece as compared to the 3-piece windshield of the F-7P.

We see that 3-piece windshield in the A-5, F-6, F-86, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, Jaguar, Tornado, Mirage F-1 etc but that disappeared in all new fighters like F/A-18, F-15, F-16 etc.........

In Mirage-3 and Mirage-5, the forward canopy windshield was too 3-piece but later the Mirage-2000 changed to single piece windshield.....

so why was it necessary before to have a 3-piece windshield?


what was exactly the purpose of this structure of the windshield (the forward canopy)....perhaps for housing the gunsights etc



Today I found an answer to my former question about the need for 3-piece windshield in early design fighters like F-86, Mirage-3/5, F-4 etc.........

The middle piece of these windshields was in fact "Bullet-Proof". That middle-piece was in front of pilot's face and gunsight, thus saving the pilot from the bullet fired from head-on.

These details were told by the host of Program "SHOWDOWN-AIR COMBAT" of the Discovery's Military Channel.

Showdown: Air Combat: Military Channel
some videos are given at
Military : Video : Military Channel (see F-86 Overview)
 
i assume it would become a more reliable aircraft and hence not be replaced by the JF-17 any time soon.

Fatman
I will bow to your superior knowledge, but as far as i have read, F7 engine has a shorter life between overhauls but there have been no safety issues. So yes there might be some advantage in saving maintenance costs but to put a further investment in a 50s era fighter does not seem warranted. Secondly, the problem of it being short legged is due to its fuel carrying capacity, not a hungry engine and therefore may not encessarily be sorted by changing the engine. Engine choice again is an important issue, as RD93 costs 2.5 million$ a shot.
Am I barking up a rtotally wrong tree?. Feel free to educate.
WaSalam
Araz
 
I have a question here!
does our air force have the capability to intercept and shoot down a B-52 bomber flying at 55000ft???
 
Today I found an answer to my former question about the need for 3-piece windshield in early design fighters like F-86, Mirage-3/5, F-4 etc.........

The middle piece of these windshields was in fact "Bullet-Proof". That middle-piece was in front of pilot's face and gunsight, thus saving the pilot from the bullet fired from head-on.

These details were told by the host of Program "SHOWDOWN-AIR COMBAT" of the Discovery's Military Channel.

Showdown: Air Combat: Military Channel
some videos are given at
Military : Video : Military Channel (see F-86 Overview)



Bullet-Proof or not it does'nt make a different the glass it not capable of suporting 3 to 4 tons may be more, just take an example a duck flying at 5 miles per hour having a weight of 5 lb when it hits a plane at 300Kn its impact 3 tons on the plane.

A simple question can you tell me when you fire a shot from a gun or a pistol when you squeez the triger there is a big bang and the bullet comes out , why the loud bang?
 
Back
Top Bottom