Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[Farooqi1]

This post of yours indicates of a person's personal preferences, because he wants twin engined aircrafts and considers every thing single engined to be junk...

Lets look at his options..
every thing like
- rafale (we were screwed by the french in JFT avionics deal)
- typhoon (can we afford it)
- F-18,F-15 (wouldn't they have the same "kill switches" genius man)
- Russian fighters (nothing short of taking a huge risk cuz of Indo-Russian friendship )

Then the guy says JF-17 is an overweight underpowered badly designed aircraft...

-which is precisely why it beat the holy hell out of the aircraft in WVR which was at the time our best (F-16 A/B)
-A late pilot of JF-17 (dont remember his name) is also on quote of saying T/W ratio is over 1
-Then u had the kilmov poster claiming near 98 KN of thrust for the so called under powered engine

-So are the SU-30's that badass of an aircraft....hmm lets see here is a basic contradiction in all this

-The guy says that our threat is more from USA/NATO so let me ask this

"Can 30/35 SU-30's or even SU-35's can do something against a fleet of thousands of aircrafts from NATo/US that can match it capability wise and technology wise??"

then he goes about saying J-10B is junk well the same junk (infact inferior junk J-10A) was whooping SU-27/ J-11's arse in exercises which the poster himself recommended that we should get....

So basically the entire conclusion is

New twin engined aircrafts for the poster u quoted are like a wet dream and he will step over every line , even reasoning to write in favor of them neglecting every constraint like cost and sanction prone and all....

Your reply just proves one thing. Realty is settling in. Read some more please (of course I am saying this respectfully) You are going to pitch JFT against Rafales? and MKI? If this is the plan then waqi Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz.

 

[MastanKhan]

This post of yours indicates of a person's personal preferences, because he wants twin engined aircrafts and considers every thing single engined to be junk...

Lets look at his options..
every thing like
- rafale (we were screwed by the french in JFT avionics deal)
- typhoon (can we afford it)
- F-18,F-15 (wouldn't they have the same "kill switches" genius man)
- Russian fighters (nothing short of taking a huge risk cuz of Indo-Russian friendship )

Then the guy says JF-17 is an overweight underpowered badly designed aircraft...

-which is precisely why it beat the holy hell out of the aircraft in WVR which was at the time our best (F-16 A/B)
-A late pilot of JF-17 (dont remember his name) is also on quote of saying T/W ratio is over 1
-Then u had the kilmov poster claiming near 98 KN of thrust for the so called under powered engine

-So are the SU-30's that badass of an aircraft....hmm lets see here is a basic contradiction in all this

-The guy says that our threat is more from USA/NATO so let me ask this

"Can 30/35 SU-30's or even SU-35's can do something against a fleet of thousands of aircrafts from NATo/US that can match it capability wise and technology wise??"

then he goes about saying J-10B is junk well the same junk (infact inferior junk J-10A) was whooping SU-27/ J-11's arse in exercises which the poster himself recommended that we should get....

So basically the entire conclusion is

New twin engined aircrafts for the poster u quoted are like a wet dream and he will step over every line , even reasoning to write in favor of them neglecting every constraint like cost and sanction prone and all....

Hi,

Sir---there are some errors in your post---it was not france that did it in to pakistan---it has been pakistan that has deceived france time and again over major defence weapons and civilian aircraft purchases.

In the rest of your post---you are just talking about one or two pakistani pilots statements for what a jf17 can do---plus how the J10 has been thrashing the su27's J11's arse in excercises---etc etc etc.

F16 has been the work horse for the world air forces----the jf 17 of the 21st century just performed close to or better than the 1960's technology F16-----but then not engine wise----. Is this something really to brag about----. I mean to say---you are not cooking rice in a big pot---where you have to test just a single grain to see if it is done----then by default all the older F16's are done.

Plus the enemy doesnot have F16's either---so what are we competeing against.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Hi,

Sir---there are some errors in your post---it was not france that did it in to pakistan---it has been pakistan that has deceived france time and again over major defence weapons and civilian aircraft purchases.

In the rest of your post---you are just talking about one or two pakistani pilots statements for what a jf17 can do---plus how the J10 has been thrashing the su27's J11's arse in excercises---etc etc etc.

F16 has been the work horse for the world air forces----the jf 17 of the 21st century just performed close to or better than the 1960's technology F16-----but then not engine wise----. Is this something really to brag about----. I mean to say---you are not cooking rice in a big pot---where you have to test just a single grain to see if it is done----then by default all the older F16's are done.

Plus the enemy doesnot have F16's either---so what are we competeing against.

-We deceived France..hmm could u elaborate more?

-and I dont remember it being 60's tech cuz it came out in the mid 70's

-Thirdly sir the manufacturer of JF-17 did not have the experience of lock heed or Sukhoi or Dassault or Migkoyan for that matter

-Bringing a cost effective fighter that could fill in numbers while having better avionics (only second to blk-52) and maneuverability on par with F-16 A/B is indeed a huge achievement regardless of what you believe..


-Fourthly take a look at what JF-17 is replacing,its nearly over a generation better than what its replacing, and pilots are quite happy of it...

Just an example

This was posted by Crobato, a very senior Chinese member renowned for his expert opinions and analysis. His analysis of an article published by Chinese magazine are as follows:

Some of the highlights on the test pilot article.

"The maneuverability has a profound effect on me. This is one extremely nimble plane". He says when you pull the stick on the J-7, you can only pull it gradually so you can hold the proper angle of attack. The radius of turn is wide and the maneuverability is not good. On the FC-1, if you pull the stick, you can pull all the way in and get a very big instantaneous turn rate. Due to a quad Fly-by-wire, turn rate of this fighter is just remarkable. (something we witnessed in squadron induction ceremony)
Then the Chinese pilot asked PAF pilot how JF-17's maneuverability compares with F-16? PAF pilot said jf-17 maneuvers better. Then, PAF pilot asked Chinese pilot (who flew F-16 in UK before) the same question, he said they are probably similar. Then, he also said that this maneuverability is just for when it is horizontal and that F-16 is still slightly better for vertical (climb rate) due to superior T/W ratio. Then he talked about the cockpit with the 1 HUD and 3 MFDs. He said that it's like the ones on Gripen and F-18. The MFD gives pilots a really easy interface to work with. each one has 20 buttons to select different information. This allows the pilot to keep his head on flying the aircraft. Then he talked about how China's cockpit and MFD is much further ahead than the Russian ones and the Russians were surprised.

He says or agrees that the FC-1 has superior horizontal maneuverability over the F-16A (maneuvering in the horizontal plane). However due to inferior thrust to weight ratio, the F-16 still has the advantage on the vertical plane.
Avionics are very advanced and pilot workload is easier than any Chinese or even Russian plane at the moment. When compared to the Su-27, the FC-1's horizontal maneuverability easily holds its own, but the vertical maneuverability is inferior than the Flanker. Again thrust to weight ratio is the reason. The FC-1 cannot compare to the Su-27's ultra maneuverability aspects. He explains something here, which is interesting for people to learn. On a mechanically controlled plane like the J-7, you cannot pull the stick all the way through. At transonic speeds, on a delta winged aircraft, the delta can only use a small angle of attack. Once you pull past that limit, you will lose speed, and with it, lift, and the nose of the aircraft goes down. On a fly by wire plane such as the jf-17, you cannot have this problem because the FBW computer processes the inputs and carefully controls the angle of attack.

Originally posted by Nabil-05

Your reply just proves one thing. Realty is settling in. Read some more please (of course I am saying this respectfully) You are going to pitch JFT against Rafales? and MKI? If this is the plan then waqi Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz.

J-10's,F-16 Block 50/52's + MLU's + upgraded JF-17's
support these with force multipliers (C4I,SAAB 2K,ZDK-03,SAM cover) and you have a hell of a defensive force...

under COST constraints ... our friend from the east doesn't have the same problem ... when we get over the problem of cost .. maybe then we'll think big ... but for now ... lets just whine over what we couldve done and what our AF would have looked like instead of discussing what should we do NOW ... right..

 

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

Sir,

Even though the flag is of pakistan----this is a world forum---. The webmaster and admins have visioned that young and older pakistanis need to get the proper exposure of the world and have an oppurtunity in listening to looking at the view points of other nationalities---the most important of them---the indians---and the americans---.

You people will find no other place like this that gives you an oppurtunity to interact with those of opposing view points---they are an asset over here---let us respect their presence. Humanity is a people business---if it is in you---you can reach out and touch someone---if not---please find other venues for your venom---.

It truly is a priveledge to see the indian members come to this forum as well as americans, afg's, iranian, middle eatern, south asians, israelis, from africa, russia, south america, australia etc---they have taken precious times out of their lives to teach us something about them----whatever it is---this board takes the good with the bad----. The bottomline is that there is more good that comes to this place---as they say the proof is in the pudding---the number of hte members tells it all.

This board is at its zenith due to the diversity of the membership---.

permitting indians & amricans on this forum has in any way yielded you guys your above stated benefits/objectives for the pakistani members ... ???

 

[sancho]

I'm just saying don't underrate the Fc-20 when its designed to take on the Indian MRCA.

FC20/J10 was never designed to take on Indian MRCA, since it is desingned and developed for China's low end and their requirement in first place. If it all PAFs version will have some minor avionics or weapon changes similar to JF 17, but otherwise there won't be any changes. Actually, the ammount of J10B that can be changed, might be even lower, since PAF is only a normal buyer of this fighter, not a partner like at JF 17.
Also, the main problem to compare J10B with other fighters (for example those that were offered in MMRCA) is, that this version is still under development and much of the final configuration and specification is unknown yet. It is true that we shouldn't underestimate it, but also that we shouldn't overestimate it, since it is not a complete new development, but "only" an upgrade of the J10A. J10A is inferior compared to EF Tranche 2, Rafale F3, but might hold it's own in certain areas compared to Gripen C/D, the question is how much more advanced will the new version be and will it be more comparable to the latest European versions.

rafales canards are at a different place as compared to eurofighters.position of the canards in lavi was also different.. j10's canards are somewhere in the middle ...

Actually only EF has a different location of the carnads, while all other comparable fighters uses the close coupled canard design. Be it Rafale, J10, Gripen or Flanker versions, they all have the canards behind the cockpit and pretty much above the air intakes.

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/j10.jpg

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/pixalzone/Rafale/images/RafaleFairford10-10.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...jpg/800px-SU-30MKI-g4sp_-_edit_2(clipped).jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/JAS_Gripen.jpg

 

[Manticore]

i had read the design differences based on distance between intakes and cone .. aswell as the hight difference relative to the wing... 2 years back on a different forum.. will post it here.. it was a nice read

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ts-designs-index-2nd-post-28.html#post1590554
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ts-designs-index-2nd-post-26.html#post1562188


CANARDS

Modern high-speed aircraft, especially military, are very often equipped with single or compound delta wings. When such aircraft operate at high angles-of-attack, the major portion of the lift is sustained by streamwise vortices generated at the leading edges of the wing. This vortex-dominated flow field can breakdown, leading not only to loss of lift but also to adverse interactions with other airframe components such as the fin or horizontal tail

The performance of a canard design depends strongly on the amount of lift that the canard must carry. This is set by stability and trim requirements.
An analysis of the effects of canard shape, position, and deflection on the aerodynamic characteristics of two general research models having leading edge sweep angles of 25 and 50 degrees is presented. The analysis summarizes findings of three experimental transonic wind-tunnel programs and one supersonic wind-tunnel program conducted at this Center between 1970 and 1974. The analysis is based on four canard geometries varying in planform from a 60-degree delta to a 25-degree swept wing, high aspect ratio canard. The canards were tested at several positions and deflected from -10 to +10 degrees. In addition, configurations consisting of a horizontal tail and a canard with horizontal tails are analyzed. Results of the analysis indicate that the canard is effective in increasing lift and decreasing drag at Mach numbers from subsonic to high transonic speeds by delaying wing separation. The effectiveness of the canard is, however, decreased with increasing Mach number. At supersonic speeds the canard has little or no favorable effects on lift or drag. It is further shown that the horizontal tail is a superior trimming device than the close- coupled canard at low-to-moderate angles of attack and that a configuration consisting of canard, wing, and horizontal tail is superior in performance, to either canard or horizontal tail at high angles of attack.

The Canards in the Lavi have also dihedral but also they are far too close to the wings in fact over them-- The Eurofighter`s are not as close to the wings as those on the Lavi, the position has to do with drag/lift ratio, the best combination is high aspect canards low aspect wings check the Eurofighter has also strakes -- chinese J-10 also the canards are not too far from the wing, however are not so close as those in the Lavi and Rafale, both the Eurofighter and J-10 have the least drag canard delta wing configuration specially good for a fast aircraft -- the Viggen has low aspect wings and canards, these low aspect canards and wing are best configured for high lift



long-coupled canard and close-coupled canards= The two approaches to canard fighter design are more different than the names imply.
In a close-coupled design, the developers were trying to optimize the aerodynamic interaction between the wing and canard, with the objective of improving aircraft lift-to-drag and high angle-of-attack performance. For the Lavi , this means that these airplanes can fly further on less fuel than their conventional counterparts.
In a long-coupled design like the Eurofighter Typhoon or X-31, the developers were trying to minimize the canard-wing interactions, and simplify their aerodynamic design process. They still gain the benefits of improved aerodynamic control at high angles of attack, but they do not see an appreciable improvement in the airplane's lift to drag ratio.
You can tell the difference between the two approaches to canard fighter design, based on how close the canard is positioned to the airplane's wing (measured in mean chord lengths), and also by whether the canard is positioned above or below the wing. On the Lavi, J-10, Kfir, Gripen and Rafale, the canard is positioned just ahead of, and above the wing, to maximize the aerodynamic interaction between the two. On the Typhoon and X-31, the tips of the canard are canted downwards, to ensure that the canard tip vortices are swept below the wing.

 

[Farooqi1]

-We deceived France..hmm could u elaborate more?

-and I dont remember it being 60's tech cuz it came out in the mid 70's

-Thirdly sir the manufacturer of JF-17 did not have the experience of lock heed or Sukhoi or Dassault or Migkoyan for that matter

-Bringing a cost effective fighter that could fill in numbers while having better avionics (only second to blk-52) and maneuverability on par with F-16 A/B is indeed a huge achievement regardless of what you believe..


-Fourthly take a look at what JF-17 is replacing,its nearly over a generation better than what its replacing, and pilots are quite happy of it...

Just an example





J-10's,F-16 Block 50/52's + MLU's + upgraded JF-17's
support these with force multipliers (C4I,SAAB 2K,ZDK-03,SAM cover) and you have a hell of a defensive force...

under COST constraints ... our friend from the east doesn't have the same problem ... when we get over the problem of cost .. maybe then we'll think big ... but for now ... lets just whine over what we couldve done and what our AF would have looked like instead of discussing what should we do NOW ... right..

Cost constraints. You hit it right in the middle. Bulls eye. This is in my opinion where the greatest problem lies. When we had cost constraints, we should have gone for the best possible option. We should not have invested in experimental projects. Projects like JFT should have been taken when we would have covered the basic requirements from a defensive point of view. Look at our neighbors. They covered almost every weakness and then they are working on their own product. No doubt JFT is a great achievement but it is far from defending us against Rafale and MKI.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Cost constraints. You hit it right in the middle. Bulls eye. This is in my opinion where the greatest problem lies. When we had cost constraints, we should have gone for the best possible option. We should not have invested in experimental projects. Projects like JFT should have been taken when we would have covered the basic requirements from a defensive point of view. Look at our neighbors. They covered almost every weakness and then they are working on their own product. No doubt JFT is a great achievement but it is far from defending us against Rafale and MKI.

-Similarly you hit the bulls eye too.. JFT was never meant to take on the higher end fighters...It was a basic cost effective jet that PAC could produce in numbers with medium tier technological level... Although it outperformed the benchmark set for it but thats a different story altogether...

-Coming to the point that one should cover the base first before being experimental ... I agree however what if you have no choice???

The JFT project begun in the mid 90's when we were under sanctions the only options we had were

- Gripen ( not viable cuz of USA parts used in the jet while we were under sanctions)
-Mig-29 / SU-27 (obviously untrusted due to Indo-Russian relations)
-Mirage 2000 ( the only viable option but just as sanction prone and the fact that IAF already had it so not a great option to go for even though we were very close in making a deal for it)

SO NOW THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL YOU DO TO MINIMIZE THE SANCTION THREAT??
THE ONLY REAL ANSWERS TO THAT IS

-An all weather friend
-Or cash

The only all weather friend we have left is China
and cash...that we dont have

plain and simple however people like to go and say that we could've done that or that and our airforce would've looked like that or that

but the same people are the ones saying
" PAF didn't learn from the lost decade" which is frankly laughable....

 

[explorer9]

we all must maintain the quality of discussion though i am a new member of the forum yet i have been reading the PDF from years one thing i realized that we have very young and immature people in the forum who became senior members "off course" on the basis of no. of posts.

 

[Farooqi1]

-Similarly you hit the bulls eye too.. JFT was never meant to take on the higher end fighters...It was a basic cost effective jet that PAC could produce in numbers with medium tier technological level... Although it outperformed the benchmark set for it but thats a different story altogether...

-Coming to the point that one should cover the base first before being experimental ... I agree however what if you have no choice???

The JFT project begun in the mid 90's when we were under sanctions the only options we had were

- Gripen ( not viable cuz of USA parts used in the jet while we were under sanctions)
-Mig-29 / SU-27 (obviously untrusted due to Indo-Russian relations)
-Mirage 2000 ( the only viable option but just as sanction prone and the fact that IAF already had it so not a great option to go for even though we were very close in making a deal for it)

SO NOW THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL YOU DO TO MINIMIZE THE SANCTION THREAT??
THE ONLY REAL ANSWERS TO THAT IS

-An all weather friend
-Or cash

The only all weather friend we have left is China
and cash...that we dont have

plain and simple however people like to go and say that we could've done that or that and our airforce would've looked like that or that

but the same people are the ones saying
" PAF didn't learn from the lost decade" which is frankly laughable....

I agree that JFT was never meant to take on high end fighters. Then the questions come to the mind what is its purpose? How are we going to tackle high end fighters? Obviously God forbid in the time of war our opponent would not consider a matching game. We will be thrown at with the best possible equipment from the other side. I am not arguing with you on the JFT. My concern is we don't have the right equipment and technology. As far as J10B concerns as per the Chinese
it will be at the most as good as F-16 D block 60.

As far as we could have or should have done this or that that is not my point either. I am suggesting that now is the time to do something which we could have done.

Yes China is the only all weather friend left. Doesn't it say some thing about our failed policies? And that is why I am suggesting a good deep relationship with Russia. This is how this whole debate got started by me if you go back and read all the threads.

 

[abdulbarijan]

I agree that JFT was never meant to take on high end fighters.Then the questions come to the mind what is its purpose? How are we going to tackle high end fighters? Obviously God forbid in the time of war our opponent would not consider a matching game. We will be thrown at with the best possible equipment from the other side. I am not arguing with you on the JFT. My concern is we don't have the right equipment and technology. As far as J10B concerns as per the Chinese
it will be at the most as good as F-16 D block 60.

-Answered again and again it was a medium tier aircraft to assist the likes of the higher end aircrafts like Block 52 or J-10B Where the capabilities of JF-17 lack eg less weapon carrying capability, lesser radar range comparing to the MKI or other higher ends...
the force multipliers come in to play (SAAB 2000,SAMS,C4I,ZDK-03) and even it out..

-Secondly it is not good to judge something before its revealed...Take JFT for example a lightweight jet which was branded by some as a paper jet, then people were simply calling it a replacement and all that
When it was revealed of how good it performed against the best of PAF (at the time) every one was stunned...
Gradually you had info pouring in of how good the EW suite was and all that...

Similarly we are not known of the exact details of how good the J-10B is.. PAF is no fool ... they know they will have to face the threat of Rafale in the future and they will make their moves in the J-10 accordingly
Just to point out something J-10B was first considered simply as a test bed for J-20....

As far as we could have or should have done this or that that is not my point either. I am suggesting that now is the time to do something which we could have done.

Yes China is the only all weather friend left. Doesn't it say some thing about our failed policies? And that is why I am suggesting a good deep relationship with Russia. This is how this whole debate got started by me if you go back and read all the threads.

That I agree with you 159%...Building relations with countries like Russia,france and all is a great thing but you have to have something appealing from your side..in case of Russia we do have something like that in shape of warm waters...

But the end result is this our politicians are just too incompetent for everything else except for making money for themselves...and we as a nation are incompetent on only one thing...getting rid of these arse ***** ...

 

[Farooqi1]

-Answered again and again it was a medium tier aircraft to assist the likes of the higher end aircrafts like Block 52 or J-10B Where the capabilities of JF-17 lack eg less weapon carrying capability, lesser radar range comparing to the MKI or other higher ends.... here is where the force multipliers come in to play (SAAB 2000,SAMS,C4I,ZDK-03)

-Secondly it is not good to judge something before its revealed...Take JFT for example a lightweight jet which was branded by some as a paper jet, then people were simply calling it a replacement and all that
When it was revealed of how good it performed against the best of PAF (at the time) every one was stunned...
Gradually you had info pouring in of how good the EW suite was and all that...

Similarly we are not known of the exact details of how good the J-10B is.. PAF is no fool ... they know they will have to face the threat of Rafale in the future and they will make their moves in the J-10 accordingly
Just to point out something J-10B was first considered simply as a test bed for J-20....








That I agree with you 159%...Building relations with countries like Russia,france and all is a great thing but you have to have something appealing from your side..in case of Russia we do have something like that in shape of warm waters...

But the end result is this our politics are just too incompetent for everything else except for making money for themselves...and we as a nation are incompetent on only one thing...getting rid of these arse ***** ...

You got that right about idiots we are facing as our leaders. It does say something about us nation as a whole. But this is not the right place to discuss politics. I hope your analysis are correct about JFT and our defensive policy. When I compare what we have and what others have it gets very scary.

By the way I have seen some of your videos on Youtube. Nice work but not enough time to read the narratives on the screen

 

[sancho]

i had read the design differences based on distance between intakes and cone .. aswell as the hight difference relative to the wing... 2 years back on a different forum.. will post it here.. it was a nice read...

long-coupled canard and close-coupled canards= The two approaches to canard fighter design are more different than the names imply.
In a close-coupled design, the developers were trying to optimize the aerodynamic interaction between the wing and canard, with the objective of improving aircraft lift-to-drag and high angle-of-attack performance. ...

They do have some minor differences, but the basic position is always the same, to achieve the mentioned aerodynamic improvements. If slightly in front, behind or directly above the air intakes doesn't make them as different as the EF long coupled canard design.

 

[MastanKhan]

I agree that JFT was never meant to take on high end fighters. Then the questions come to the mind what is its purpose? How are we going to tackle high end fighters? Obviously God forbid in the time of war our opponent would not consider a matching game. We will be thrown at with the best possible equipment from the other side. I am not arguing with you on the JFT. My concern is we don't have the right equipment and technology. As far as J10B concerns as per the Chinese
it will be at the most as good as F-16 D block 60.

As far as we could have or should have done this or that that is not my point either. I am suggesting that now is the time to do something which we could have done.

Yes China is the only all weather friend left. Doesn't it say some thing about our failed policies? And that is why I am suggesting a good deep relationship with Russia. This is how this whole debate got started by me if you go back and read all the threads.

Sir,


Your first para----a shocking statement by the original writer and then on your part as well----your enemy has high end aircraft----you have no high end aircraft----do you believe that you have a choice----.

Did you ever think that just because pakistan team was not ready to take it---they would refuse to face Dennis Lillee---Michael Holding---Jeff Thompson---Courtney Walsh or others with a thunder bolt----.

These are war birds----it is an inherent part of their design to take on the best what the enemy has to put forward---. Now if they cannot take the best of the enemy---because it was not a part of their design---they should not be there in the first place----.

If this is the mindset of the PAF---then they need to be lined up and hanged---. And if this is the mindset of the young pakistani brains---then you know very well why this country has become the proverbial arm-pit of the world.

 

[MastanKhan]

-We deceived France..hmm could u elaborate more?

-and I dont remember it being 60's tech cuz it came out in the mid 70's

-Thirdly sir the manufacturer of JF-17 did not have the experience of lock heed or Sukhoi or Dassault or Migkoyan for that matter

-Bringing a cost effective fighter that could fill in numbers while having better avionics (only second to blk-52) and maneuverability on par with F-16 A/B is indeed a huge achievement regardless of what you believe..


-Fourthly take a look at what JF-17 is replacing,its nearly over a generation better than what its replacing, and pilots are quite happy of it...

Just an example





J-10's,F-16 Block 50/52's + MLU's + upgraded JF-17's
support these with force multipliers (C4I,SAAB 2K,ZDK-03,SAM cover) and you have a hell of a defensive force...

under COST constraints ... our friend from the east doesn't have the same problem ... when we get over the problem of cost .. maybe then we'll think big ... but for now ... lets just whine over what we couldve done and what our AF would have looked like instead of discussing what should we do NOW ... right..

Hi,

Oh my children---you are so innocent and ill informed---your lack of knowledge and understanding---it is a tragedy---no world class libraries no foeriegn material to read----.

When the F16 was manufactured in the 70---the basic technology that was implemented in it was of the late 60's----.

The electrnoics technology in these aircraft or current day aircraft is 3 to 5 years behind what is available in the market---any clue why---it is because the aparatus has to be millitary grade----navigation system has to be millitary grade---electronic sensors have to be millitary grade----. It takes time and years to develop millitary grade items.

So---you don't know about pakistan deceiving france---what an I say---I am just tired of repeating it to every new comer.