Are we able to make an aircraft like F-16?

[denel]

Ok. Whoever is in 2nd place behind US it wont be by much that is for sure.

All those on the list can produce radars that are good enough to get the job done.



And China cannot also produce very good radars as well?

Anyway no way to prove who is best so no point carrying on with this.

No, I am not saying that at all. The issue with Chinese engineers is they dont think out of the box; they are good in taking a technology as a starting point to begin with. Take for example manpack radios, they copy verbatim and dont put any effort in evolving it further; what we worked on manpacks in the 80s's the chinese are just now on that level. Forget even talking of what was achieved in the 90's.

Basic radars are straightforward, then evolving to doppler is another jump and then phased array radars etc.... Chinese have borrowed heavily from Russia and Elbit next.

In summary a decade or two behind.

 

[ziaulislam]

There is reason why the chinease have built their air power on flankers and J10 both of which cost twice the cost of the thunders.

It does not offer the same effective air power as J11,0r J10.

Pakistan cannot operate or buy large nos. Of hi end expensive fighters be it block 52 J11or J10.

Thunder is correct choice
Thunder is realistic option

But it's no f16 period

lol
there is reason why Swedish deterred mother Russia with gripen, Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen for 4 decades

Pakistan is not as big as china, you do need a geography lesson

our greatest width is ~700 km, thunder was not meant to strike deep in india but even than it can hit all major cities on our side from delhi to mumbai and more with stand off weapons. it can easily do its AA missions, SEAD missions, CAS missions, has a range of 1400+km, payload of 8000+lb, can be equipped with ATLEAST 6 AAM(pictures available on the internet) and guide 2 Active BVR on 2 different targets , can track and follow more than 8 and share data amongst all of its fighters with AWECS, will be equipped with HMD and AESA soon. a true multirole 4.5 gen AC. has excellent capability of recc with AESLAN pods and Italians jammer pods


we need a light AC with good capability in large numbers just like gripen, thunder is perfect, j-10 would have been too big and expensive. for the deep strikes we have 5 sq of f-16s~80 or so(may be another single sq if they do come at good bargain otherwise thunder is good)
ultimately goal will be 18-20 sq = 320-340 fighters with good maintenance, high pilot ratio vs 42 indian sq(if india can achieve that), a parity of 1:3/1:4 is more than enough for us

 

[UKBengali]

No, I am not saying that at all. The issue with Chinese engineers is they dont think out of the box; they are good in taking a technology as a starting point to begin with. Take for example manpack radios, they copy verbatim and dont put any effort in evolving it further; what we worked on manpacks in the 80s's the chinese are just now on that level. Forget even talking of what was achieved in the 90's.

Basic radars are straightforward, then evolving to doppler is another jump and then phased array radars etc.... Chinese have borrowed heavily from Russia and Elbit next.

In summary a decade or two behind.

Are you a white guy or an Indian by any chance?

That is a completely ridiculous post saying that Chinese engineers do not think out of the box and can only copy an existing proven design.

China has borrowed from Russia(we know that for sure) but their radar technology has gone up leaps and bounds since then. They did not have a working Russian AESA radar when the Type 052C destroyer came into service in 2005 and so that is something that they had to come up with by themselves.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

Are you a white guy or an Indian by any chance?

That is a completely ridiculous post saying that Chinese engineers do not think out of the box and can only copy an existing proven design.

China has borrowed from Russia(we know that for sure) but their radar technology has gone up leaps and bounds since then. They did not have a working Russian AESA radar when the Type 052C destroyer came into service in 2005 and so that is something that they had to come up with by themselves.

Russians and Americans have quite a few close encounters with each other and we know how it ends. Basically, Chinese weapons have nothing which proves that they are anyway effective. Think about it, these weapons are not used for decades and only put to some real use in a crisis situation. Which gives incentives to those who build weapons to omit tail cases or edge scenarios. If a weapon will not be used for most of the time when a weapons manufacturer has shipped it, why to make it perfect? Better load it with buzzwords and eye popping stats. Will I like to depend upon a proven design by a country known for its military industrial complex or will I opt from the new boy in the block.

Let China fight couple of wars with her own weapons and prove to the world that they indeed work. In industry we call it eat-your-own-dog-food. Let China first eat her own dog food only then they can be trusted.

Fourth fifth sixth generation planes are meaningless if they fail to perform -- a common problem with wannabies and new kids on the block.

Want to know the most effective weapon? It is AK47. Old, mass produced, with a very high reliability, requires no skills, no servicing and the most battle tested weapon. F-16s are AK-47 --rather M-16-- of fighters.

The funniest thing about wars and crisis is that often the most reliable triumphs over a new flashy technology and buzz word heavy weapon. Patton tank anyone?

 

[bafxet]

F16 ok, but think big and aim for something like SU35.

 

[denel]

Are you a white guy or an Indian by any chance?

That is a completely ridiculous post saying that Chinese engineers do not think out of the box and can only copy an existing proven design.

China has borrowed from Russia(we know that for sure) but their radar technology has gone up leaps and bounds since then. They did not have a working Russian AESA radar when the Type 052C destroyer came into service in 2005 and so that is something that they had to come up with by themselves.

Friend.... no, i am not indian or white--- i am south african. what does have that to do with the discussion.

one of the work we used to do use to take apart 3rd party manpacks or other comms units from various geographical locations - british, Isreali, russian/Soviet, czech, korean, chinese are just some we used to work with.

If you are not into this field of expertise, i will just no say any further. Chinese never start from scratch, it is part of the doctrine and there is a entire dept supporting hook or by crook capturing of documents. It is not to say they are copy cats... they need a base to start with. As you note for AESA, they probably had all the blue prints and supporting documents... just takes a while to put things together.

cheers.

 

[UKBengali]

Friend.... no, i am not indian or white--- i am south african. what does have that to do with the discussion.

one of the work we used to do use to take apart 3rd party manpacks or other comms units from various geographical locations - british, Isreali, russian/Soviet, czech, korean, chinese are just some we used to work with.

If you are not into this field of expertise, i will just no say any further. Chinese never start from scratch, it is part of the doctrine and there is a entire dept supporting hook or by crook capturing of documents. It is not to say they are copy cats... they need a base to start with. As you note for AESA, they probably had all the blue prints and supporting documents... just takes a while to put things together.

cheers.

Of course, if you are behind, the Chinese would not start from scratch. You do not reinvent something that has already been done as otherwise you will never catch up.

I do not need to be in the field to have an opinion on this matter - all that is needed is a level of knowledge to form
a credible opinion on the matter.

For you to say that Chinese radar technology is 1-2 decades behind that of the West just blew your credibility out through the window. Do you have any top secret knowledge of the AESA radars that are going into the latest Chinese ships, SAMs and planes? No you do not just like everyone else here. All we can do is form opinions based on things like China initially winning the 2013 Turkish SAM competion against the best from US/EU and Russia. They did not get the contract in the end but if their radar technology was 1-2 decades behind the rest, Turkey would never have selected them in the first place.

Just because you had experience with Chinese Macpacks(networking radios) does not mean that the same applies to
other areas like radar etc. What may happen in one little area does not mean that the same will happen in other what may be considered more important areas.

 

[rcrmj]

Yeah right! Euro fighter consortium, BAE, Dassault, Elta do not exists in your alternative dimension. All media hype, right?


Biggest problem with Chinese wares is that they are unproven. No one knows if they work or not. Most of the western weapons system are battle proven.

tell me smarti, which GaN AESA is battle proven？ and the PLAAF, PLA and PLAN is nut enough to induct hundreds of "useless none-battle proven" radars just to show off?

and kid, read my posts again, I didnt say Dassualf Rafale, EF-2000 and JAS is nobudy, just saying in terms of avionics and array radar feilds there are only two heavy weight player, that is China and U.S,

Against Russian crafts mostly -- which are the basis for a number of Chinese fighters as well.

and which 'Russian crafts' is dealt by a GaN based AESA radar?

No, I am not saying that at all. The issue with Chinese engineers is they dont think out of the box; they are good in taking a technology as a starting point to begin with. Take for example manpack radios, they copy verbatim and dont put any effort in evolving it further; what we worked on manpacks in the 80s's the chinese are just now on that level. Forget even talking of what was achieved in the 90's.

Basic radars are straightforward, then evolving to doppler is another jump and then phased array radars etc.... Chinese have borrowed heavily from Russia and Elbit next.

In summary a decade or two behind.

lol, hope you have a clue of what you are talking about,

Of course, if you are behind, the Chinese would not start from scratch. You do not reinvent something that has already been done as otherwise you will never catch up.

I do not need to be in the field to have an opinion on this matter - all that is needed is a level of knowledge to form
a credible opinion on the matter.

For you to say that Chinese radar technology is 1-2 decades behind that of the West just blew your credibility out through the window. Do you have any top secret knowledge of the AESA radars that are going into the latest Chinese ships, SAMs and planes? No you do not just like everyone else here. All we can do is form opinions based on things like China initially winning the 2013 Turkish SAM competion against the best from US/EU and Russia. They did not get the contract in the end but if their radar technology was 1-2 decades behind the rest, Turkey would never have selected them in the first place.

Just because you had experience with Chinese Macpacks(networking radios) does not mean that the same applies to
other areas like radar etc. What may happen in one little area does not mean that the same will happen in other what may be considered more important areas.

any serious tech or military fan wouldnt speak like that funny guy``clearly he has no clue of what he is talking about``````5 supsonic cruising missiles at mach 3, been kncked into sea by HHQ-9A simultaneously in 2013 wasnt achieved by some kind of technologies that were 1-2 decades behind the Europe```their knowledge based on our defense technology is as much as we know about the aliens```fact

Friend.... no, i am not indian or white--- i am south african. what does have that to do with the discussion.

one of the work we used to do use to take apart 3rd party manpacks or other comms units from various geographical locations - british, Isreali, russian/Soviet, czech, korean, chinese are just some we used to work with.

If you are not into this field of expertise, i will just no say any further. Chinese never start from scratch, it is part of the doctrine and there is a entire dept supporting hook or by crook capturing of documents. It is not to say they are copy cats... they need a base to start with. As you note for AESA, they probably had all the blue prints and supporting documents... just takes a while to put things together.

cheers.

how do you define start from scratch? very invention or innovation is based on previous technology or knowledge, nothing is created out of blue kid

Name one product in production containing GaN AESA then.
Should not be hard.

055, KJ-3000, J-20 (based on 2009's 3rd gen AESA model) many more to come````and I dont think GaN is everything

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

tell me smarti, which GaN AESA is battle proven？ and the PLAAF, PLA and PLAN is nut enough to induct hundreds of "useless none-battle proven" radars just to show off?

and kid, read my posts again, I didnt say Dassualf Rafale, EF-2000 and JAS is nobudy, just saying in terms of avionics and array radar feilds there are only two heavy weight player, that is China and U.S,

Please look at the your post and my response. GaN ASEA was not even the issue here, your point was that only US and China are the 'heavy players' in avionics and array radar fields. Whatever 'heavy player' means!

It is well understood that GaN ASEA is merely one technology and though it is bleeding edge; it is nowhere near deployment in number. My counter to your 'heavy weight' claim is simple, there are a number of European, Israeli, Russian established weapons firms who have provided battle tested sensors and avionics and it is a major sophistry to disregard them. You make a fantastic claim that only US and China are 'heavy players'. Now, first define heavy so that everyone knows what you mean. And provide a reasoning why you think only US and china are 'heavy players'.

As far as weapons go, none of these Chinese sensors present or past have seen enough field deployment outside of China for the world to have any faith on Chinese technology. US and Russia and European firms --being partners in NATO -- have seen enough of action and have repeatedly proven or suffered enough failures so most of the decision makers know what they are getting when they look at the claims of these vendors. China? None what so ever. Further it also does not help that Chinese happen to be too closed source about their technology. As I said, first eat your own dog food and then peddle it to everyone.

Keep the personal attack to minimum, rest assured I can do that much better than your third class Chinese education can, 'kid'.

 

[rcrmj]

Please look at the your post and my response. GaN ASEA was not even the issue here, your point was that only US and China are the 'heavy players' in avionics and array radar fields. Whatever 'heavy player' means!

It is well understood that GaN ASEA is merely one technology and though it is bleeding edge; it is nowhere near deployment in number. My counter to your 'heavy weight' claim is simple, there are a number of European, Israeli, Russian established weapons firms who have provided battle tested sensors and avionics and it is a major sophistry to disregard them. You make a fantastic claim that only US and China are 'heavy players'. Now, first define heavy so that everyone knows what you mean. And provide a reasoning why you think only US and china are 'heavy players'.

As far as weapons go, none of these Chinese sensors present or past have seen enough field deployment outside of China for the world to have any faith on Chinese technology. US and Russia and European firms --being partners in NATO -- have seen enough of action and have repeatedly proven or suffered enough failures so most of the decision makers know what they are getting when they look at the claims of these vendors. China? None what so ever. Further it also does not help that Chinese happen to be too closed source about their technology. As I said, first eat your own dog food and then peddle it to everyone.

Keep the personal attack to minimum, rest assured I can do that much better than your third class Chinese education can, 'kid'.

kid, there are lots of people have faith in Chinese high tech weapons, your confined knowledge of our defense industry doesnt justify your opinion to counter whatever I say, because none of your believe matters in reality regarding China's defense development.

the whole pointless arguement came from the point where I said F-16 have edges over JF-17 in many aspects, but in terms of avionics and radar sector the latest JF-17 is no lagger to F-16````however your sheer ignorance made you funny and muzzy``` if you want proves I have loads proper papers and links, but they all in Chinese, well I assume your third grade Indian education cant read those```anyway feel free to ask

 

[cyborga8a]

Asian countries except for japan are still way behind in manufacturing a war proven aircraft.
The comparison of jf17 and f16 is plain stupid, f16 is a war proven machine and has a lots of credentials backing it!

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

kid, there are lots of people have faith in Chinese high tech weapons, your confined knowledge of our defense industry doesnt justify your opinion to counter whatever I say, because none of your believe matters in reality regarding China's defense development.

the whole pointless arguement came from the point where I said F-16 have edges over JF-17 in many aspects, but in terms of avionics and radar sector the latest JF-17 is no lagger to F-16````however your sheer ignorance made you funny and muzzy``` if you want proves I have loads proper papers and links, but they all in Chinese, well I assume your third grade Indian education cant read those```anyway feel free to ask

Tell me, how many combats have your Chinese fighters seen? What was the kill record?

BTW, you have yet not substantiated your claim that only US and China are 'heavy player' -- or told us what does that term mean.

As far as papers in Chinese go, well, if you only get your research reviewed by Chinese, it defeats the purpose of peer-review. Why do you think all the other researchers and analysts publish their work in English? For peer-review! you moron! See, this is why no one trusts Chinese technology. You simply refuse to get it peer reviewed. It is not world responsibility to verify your claim but your responsibility to convince the world about your fantastic claims. And sorry to say Chinese is a pathetic language choice for global community. It is spoken only in China.

In the end you are a blow-hard Chinese moron drunk on the usual Chinese kool-aid. Dare to provide some substantial evidence on your claim about China and US being only 'heavy weight' player in avionics and radar technology?

 

[ashok321]

More than 4 thousand F-16s sold worldwide.

 

[Beast]

I think besides, thrust and speed, the only area where JF17 is significantly behind viper is overall EW package (vs blk 52) ... thunder and for that matter China is also much more behind in comparison to US in EW suite and engine tech ...

China is not any behind EW compare to US. In fact, in avionics and radar. China has surpass US in certain areas. In engine , yes there are still some gaps. But we are on par with Europe and Russia.

Yeah right! Euro fighter consortium, BAE, Dassault, Elta do not exists in your alternative dimension. All media hype, right?


Biggest problem with Chinese wares is that they are unproven. No one knows if they work or not. Most of the western weapons system are battle proven.

What battle prove has western radar AESA do besides taking out a few taliban and rugged ISIS militants?

 

[rcrmj]

Tell me, how many combats have your Chinese fighters seen? What was the kill record?

BTW, you have yet not substantiated your claim that only US and China are 'heavy player' -- or told us what does that term mean.

As far as papers in Chinese go, well, if you only get your research reviewed by Chinese, it defeats the purpose of peer-review. Why do you think all the other researchers and analysts publish their work in English? For peer-review! you moron! See, this is why no one trusts Chinese technology. You simply refuse to get it peer reviewed. It is not world responsibility to verify your claim but your responsibility to convince the world about your fantastic claims. And sorry to say Chinese is a pathetic language choice for global community. It is spoken only in China.

In the end you are a blow-hard Chinese moron drunk on the usual Chinese kool-aid. Dare to provide some substantial evidence on your claim about China and US being only 'heavy weight' player in avionics and radar technology?

are we talking about avionics and radar technologies or not? dont drag the topic to other areas, which by the way I dont think you have the knowledge or basic common sense of it.

you know it very well what 'heavy player' analogy means, you are just too wuzzy fuzzy to accept the reality.````just in case you really dont have the wits, I will use another analogy for that``there are only two "heavy players" in turbofan sector, that is U.S and the U.K````hope you will get this one

and what makes you think that research or high tech project papers have to be in English for peer review, is that a law in English speaking India or what? there are loads of top papers were done with local language, and that doesnt undermine their credibility of the project or paper itself at all. You know we are not English speaking country, and your stupidity suggests that to master English first before doing any serious science and high tech R&D in countries like China and Japan?```well it might the case in India, and other European countries, but not for us``especially to the strictly embargoed area like defense techs. we dig our own ground and build our own house```you have zero clue of what we have been through kid``

and last not the least````only if your third grade Hindu education system has taught you how to read Chinese, I will paste papers on your request, ``ok now shoot me some serious questions

btw you dont need to worry about the fate of Chinese language to become a choice of global community language or not, as others are not as pathetic, ignorant and assertive like a funny kid like you