What's new

If an F16 Can Take Out an F35 WVR---Then a JF 17 Can as Well

And here is a little quote of this article on JF 17
Great not only have you made this thread which was meant as a joke disintegrate into voodoo sciences but have spread the virus out of the forum into the world at large. This is why we do not troll :P
 
The Joint force thunder was ominous sounding, much like the sound of a thin sheet of metal being shaken backstage during the storm scene in a play.
 
Great not only have you made this thread which was meant as a joke disintegrate into voodoo sciences but have spread the virus out of the forum into the world at large. This is why we do not troll :P

Thank you Pappy,

I will not do it again----till the next time. I have learnt my lesson---.:cry::cry::cry:
 
The Joint force thunder was ominous sounding, much like the sound of a thin sheet of metal being shaken backstage during the storm scene in a play.

Hi,

But then you may not know if it is an illusion or is it reality.
 
Hi,

Before we get into the aircraft numbers and types---we need to look into the geography of Pakistan in relation to India..

Pakistan does not have to match the numbers. It needs an air force numbering 450--550 aircraft---ie---4th gen capability and above at the minimum.

Paf has decided to strengthen from bottom up and that is why we do not see a visible air dominance type of aircraft---and on the other side we also see a confusion---indecision---uncertainty---lack of focus and a choice of many a fighter aircraft waiting in line for their turn.

But whatever happens---Pakistan needs a medium sized bomber strike aircraft---there are no ifs and buts about it----.

New JH7B's or used refurbished SU 27's or a new SU 35---a decision needs to be made to fill up that hole in the frontal attack.

So---by 2020 IAF will be a very potent air force----. And as with PAF we don't know what they are getting in the future---we cannot make the judgement call.

But if it is what we see what it is----then Paf is in big trouble.
Looks like you lack confidence in the PAF. Have confidence as they know what they are doing. Remember wars are fought with tactics and Heart not entirely equipment
 
Looks like you lack confidence in the PAF. Have confidence as they know what they are doing. Remember wars are fought with tactics and Heart not entirely equipment


Sir,

As we have not interacted before---so allow me to welcome you to the board---even though you have been here for awhile.

Living in the USA for 32 years now---has changed my perception about things a lot----. There is a very interesting anecdote that the americans have----and if you had not been taught that when you were serving in the paf---then here it is----

" The Enemy Gets To Vote As Well ".

You having been taught wrong at the academy that wars are fought with tactics and Heart ( that bby the way is the slogan of the weak military to pump up their soldiers ).

Actually---wars are fought with weapons---those weapons that match the enemy's weapon's and then some more---.

Ghengis Khan did not win his wars because he had heart and better tactics alone---he also had better weaponery and transportation to make him successful.

Each of his soldier carried two quivers filled with 40 arrows each---a total of 80 arrows---then each of his soldiers had at least one spare horse when going to battle.

The romans had 'triarii' to break thru the enemy defences---.

Pappy---just because some of us have not worn a uniform over here---does not mean that we are idiots.

The mindset of the paf of not acquiring any heavy aircraft is tantamount to treason knowing very well what lies on the other side.
 
Bhaiiii. JF-17 can take down anything flying in the air. Be it an f-22 itself. lol. Point being lets not get over now. Its like saying Tejas is a 5th generation fighter capable of taking out satellites… And martians immigrants living on Venus.

We are acquiring FC-31 soon inshallah, lets hope it is comparable to the f-35. Be realistic guys.
 
It was not just a comment. Plus the current 4.5th gen fighters(even more likely with ground or AWAC based assistance) are capable of bringing the F-35 in to a condition where it will have to go in to a dog fight.
"But not JF-17" the reason start from a very weak radar(I am talking about the expected AESA one, dnt even talk about KLJ7), no suitable ground based or AWAC detection support, plus it's aerodynamical and thrust insufficiency comparing to F-16.
F-35 Loses Dogfight to Fighter Jet From the 1980s | The Diplomat
US latest F-35 stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by F-16 from 1970s | Daily Mail Online
F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet - Telegraph
Opinion.jpg
 
Sir,

As we have not interacted before---so allow me to welcome you to the board---even though you have been here for awhile.

Living in the USA for 32 years now---has changed my perception about things a lot----. There is a very interesting anecdote that the americans have----and if you had not been taught that when you were serving in the paf---then here it is----

" The Enemy Gets To Vote As Well ".

You having been taught wrong at the academy that wars are fought with tactics and Heart ( that bby the way is the slogan of the weak military to pump up their soldiers ).

Actually---wars are fought with weapons---those weapons that match the enemy's weapon's and then some more---.

Ghengis Khan did not win his wars because he had heart and better tactics alone---he also had better weaponery and transportation to make him successful.

Each of his soldier carried two quivers filled with 40 arrows each---a total of 80 arrows---then each of his soldiers had at least one spare horse when going to battle.

The romans had 'triarii' to break thru the enemy defences---.

Pappy---just because some of us have not worn a uniform over here---does not mean that we are idiots.

The mindset of the paf of not acquiring any heavy aircraft is tantamount to treason knowing very well what lies on the other side.

Sir,

I agree with your statement that the PAF needs a heavy aircraft, no arguing that thesis. Contrary to your other statements, having heart and tactics is a critical part of warfare, as equipment do not win wars by themselves. However, i am not saying the PAF should stop acquiring new weapons to match surrounding neighbors. There are many examples in history that favor tactics and morale compared to technology.

The Germans during WW2 produced some the most impress weapons ever seen, such as the Tiger Tank, ME 262, and Sturmgewehr rifle, but they were crashed by the Soviets who lacked adequate equipment. Most Soviet Soldiers were sent to battle without rifles and were told to pick one up from the dead The Soviet T34 who was a sitting target for Panzers/Tigers. The Luftwaffe and the Soviet air force aren't even comparable. What propelled the Soviets to victory was the heart to fight and defend the motherland. On the other hand, the Germans with impressive equipment saw no motivation to fight other than surviving for food and retreating back to Germany

The Americans during the Vietnam War outclassed the Vietnamese in ever field expect morale and tactics. American support for the war so low that a draft had to implemented. Even with the draft many dodged the daft and headed towards Canada, due to a lack of will to fight. On the other side, Vietnamese civilians, aka Vietcong, fought a nuclear power successful with nothing more than sticks and stones. One the guerrilla tactics used by the Vietcong was Punji Stick, a hole camouflaged with leaves that contained sharp bamboo stick placed vertical into the hole. A primitive but effective tactic.the Vietcong would also use this method to force the wounded soldier to be transported by helicopter to a medical hospital for treatment, which was viewed as being more damaging to the enemy's cause than death. The Vietnamese air force was no match for the USAF on paper. The USAF had the numbers and quality edge, but the Vietnamese used tactics. Knowing the early F4 didn't carry cannons, mig17 and mig15 forced the heavier phantoms into a dogfight which favored the Vietnamese. Another example, the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The Vietnamese realized that and would send mig21s to intercept that fighter bombers with great success. While the Vietnamese may not have defended their air space properly, it was a deep shock to American planers that relied on modern technology to win wars rather then tactics. Eventually, tactics and heart led to a Vietnamese victory.

It has been a honor talking a veteran member of this prestige forum, hope our interaction countiues in the future. Btw I have not served in the PAF, in fact I am still a minor.
 
Last edited:
Sir,

I agree with your statement that the PAF needs a heavy aircraft, no arguing that thesis. Contrary to your other statements, having heart and tactics is a critical part of warfare, as equipment do not win wars by themselves. However, i am not saying the PAF should stop acquiring new weapons to match surrounding neighbors. There are many examples in history that favor tactics and morale compared to technology.

The Germans during WW2 produced some the most impress weapons ever seen, such as the Tiger Tank, ME 262, and Sturmgewehr rifle, but they were crashed by the Soviets who lacked adequate equipment. Most Soviet Soldiers were sent to battle without rifles and were told to pick one up from the dead The Soviet T34 who was a sitting target for Panzers/Tigers. The Luftwaffe and the Soviet air force aren't even comparable. What propelled the Soviets to victory was the heart to fight and defend the motherland. On the other hand, the Germans with impressive equipment saw no motivation to fight other than surviving for food and retreating back to Germany

The Americans during the Vietnam War outclassed the Vietnamese in ever field expect morale and tactics. American support for the war so low that a draft had to implemented. Even with the draft many dodged the daft and headed towards Canada, due to a lack of will to fight. On the other side, Vietnamese civilians, aka Vietcong, fought a nuclear power successful with nothing more than sticks and stones. One the guerrilla tactics used by the Vietcong was Punji Stick, a hole camouflaged with leaves that contained sharp bamboo stick placed vertical into the hole. A primitive but effective tactic.the Vietcong would also use this method to force the wounded soldier to be transported by helicopter to a medical hospital for treatment, which was viewed as being more damaging to the enemy's cause than death. The Vietnamese air force was no match for the USAF on paper. The USAF had the numbers and quality edge, but the Vietnamese used tactics. Knowing the early F4 didn't carry cannons, mig17 and mig15 forced the heavier phantoms into a dogfight which favored the Vietnamese. Another example, the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The Vietnamese realized that and would send mig21s to intercept that fighter bombers with great success. While the Vietnamese may not have defended their air space properly, it was a deep shock to American planers that relied on modern technology to win wars rather then tactics. Eventually, tactics and heart led to a Vietnamese victory.

It has been a honor talking a veteran member of this prestige forum, hope our interaction countiues in the future. Btw I have not served in the PAF, in fact I am still a minor.
Sir we are dealing in modern times.
And in past we ha dominated IAF always. Why? Better plains, better pilots. We can never surpass them in numbers. But now we lack both quantity and quality, got better pilots, but in modern wars fight depends more on quality of machine rather than quality of man........
Just to consider, IAF got 200 of Su30
Sir,

I agree with your statement that the PAF needs a heavy aircraft, no arguing that thesis. Contrary to your other statements, having heart and tactics is a critical part of warfare, as equipment do not win wars by themselves. However, i am not saying the PAF should stop acquiring new weapons to match surrounding neighbors. There are many examples in history that favor tactics and morale compared to technology.

The Germans during WW2 produced some the most impress weapons ever seen, such as the Tiger Tank, ME 262, and Sturmgewehr rifle, but they were crashed by the Soviets who lacked adequate equipment. Most Soviet Soldiers were sent to battle without rifles and were told to pick one up from the dead The Soviet T34 who was a sitting target for Panzers/Tigers. The Luftwaffe and the Soviet air force aren't even comparable. What propelled the Soviets to victory was the heart to fight and defend the motherland. On the other hand, the Germans with impressive equipment saw no motivation to fight other than surviving for food and retreating back to Germany

The Americans during the Vietnam War outclassed the Vietnamese in ever field expect morale and tactics. American support for the war so low that a draft had to implemented. Even with the draft many dodged the daft and headed towards Canada, due to a lack of will to fight. On the other side, Vietnamese civilians, aka Vietcong, fought a nuclear power successful with nothing more than sticks and stones. One the guerrilla tactics used by the Vietcong was Punji Stick, a hole camouflaged with leaves that contained sharp bamboo stick placed vertical into the hole. A primitive but effective tactic.the Vietcong would also use this method to force the wounded soldier to be transported by helicopter to a medical hospital for treatment, which was viewed as being more damaging to the enemy's cause than death. The Vietnamese air force was no match for the USAF on paper. The USAF had the numbers and quality edge, but the Vietnamese used tactics. Knowing the early F4 didn't carry cannons, mig17 and mig15 forced the heavier phantoms into a dogfight which favored the Vietnamese. Another example, the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The Vietnamese realized that and would send mig21s to intercept that fighter bombers with great success. While the Vietnamese may not have defended their air space properly, it was a deep shock to American planers that relied on modern technology to win wars rather then tactics. Eventually, tactics and heart led to a Vietnamese victory.

It has been a honor talking a veteran member of this prestige forum, hope our interaction countiues in the future. Btw I have not served in the PAF, in fact I am still a minor.
Sir we are living in modern times now.
Now it's less a man, more a machine to win a battle.
In past PAF have dominated IAF every time due to quality of its fighter planes as well as pilots. We can never surpass IAF in quantity, but yes in Quality.
But now we lags behind in both......
IAF has 200 MKI which is heavy AIR craft with awesome capabilities. We got nothing to counter them in our arsenal.
Similarly they are indicting Rafales which have enough range to fly from India, cross Pakistan, say hello to Afghanistan, and return back.....
PAF is integrating single engine light air crafts which will not provide us strategic depths.
They can bomb our capital. We can't thanks to the type of air crafts we got......
There is desperate need for heavy air craft. Could be Eagle, could be flanker, could be Typhoons in large numbers. And plz let money game go....... we must have money. If we cannot spend money in peace times. Then in war times, we will have to spend 10 times more......
 
^^^^
well to say the PAF has always dominated the IAF is quite opposite from the truth. 1965 was key learning point for IAF. All wars combined, the IAF performed better.
 
Sir we are dealing in modern times.
And in past we ha dominated IAF always. Why? Better plains, better pilots. We can never surpass them in numbers. But now we lack both quantity and quality, got better pilots, but in modern wars fight depends more on quality of machine rather than quality of man........
Just to consider, IAF got 200 of Su30

Sir we are living in modern times now.
Now it's less a man, more a machine to win a battle.
In past PAF have dominated IAF every time due to quality of its fighter planes as well as pilots. We can never surpass IAF in quantity, but yes in Quality.
But now we lags behind in both......
IAF has 200 MKI which is heavy AIR craft with awesome capabilities. We got nothing to counter them in our arsenal.
Similarly they are indicting Rafales which have enough range to fly from India, cross Pakistan, say hello to Afghanistan, and return back.....
PAF is integrating single engine light air crafts which will not provide us strategic depths.
They can bomb our capital. We can't thanks to the type of air crafts we got......
There is desperate need for heavy air craft. Could be Eagle, could be flanker, could be Typhoons in large numbers. And plz let money game go....... we must have money. If we cannot spend money in peace times. Then in war times, we will have to spend 10 times more......
Sir,

After reading through your response, you have painted a very grim and misleading picture about the current state of the PAF. I will not try to argue the fact that Pakistan needs to invest in a heavy fighter platform, whether Chinese or Western origin, but some of your statements are pure speculations which causes a domino effect of panic in this forum.

Throughout the 1965 and 1971 war, the PAF on paper was always slated to loose against the IAF due the aircraft's possessed on each side. At the start of the 65 war, IAF contained 466 aircraft, 10 mig21 (K-13 capable), 80 Gnats, 96 Hunters, 80 Mystere, 48 Toofani, 80 Vampires,and 72 Canberra. The PAF at the time could only muster 203 aircraft. 12 f104(sidewinder capable), 116 f86 Sabres (25% Sidewinder capable), 32 Canberras, and the rest were training aircraft. During the 65 war, PAF lacked a true fighter bomber for ground attack, which the Indians made up for in the Toofani and Mystere in ample numbers. However, PAF pilots successful used the f86 as a ground attack aircraft along with the Canberras as a result of their skills. The Saber was no match for the Hunters and Gnats in air to air combat. The Hunter had many advantages over the Sabre, which include higher service ceiling, better armaments, and longer range. The only advantage the PAF had was the f104, which was not designed for air to air combat either, but rather shooting down enemy bombers, but we had limited numbers. Despite being a tiger on paper, the training and tactics used in inferior aircraft propelled the PAF to a shocking victory against the better armed but poorly trained IAF. Same story goes for the 71 war. It doesn't matter if we are in a modern age or not, man will always decided the faith of war. Being strong on paper is mere speculation, but having history to support you is another thing

I find it appalling to read and agree with even a sentence in your second statement. Owing a massive flight of fighter aircraft is no child's plays. Only in a fictional world are all your aircraft and equipment serviceable for combat. While the Su30 is a potent aircraft,but also a very fragile aircraft as well. According to India defence minister admits Su-30 serviceability issues - IHS Jane's 360 The IAF operates 200 Su-30MKIs, but of these only 110 or 55% were operationally. In a time of war Indian can not afford to send all there jets against Pakistan because India has to worry about its border with China and Bangladesh. On the other hand, Pakistan can afford to send all its aircraft towards India. Having a massive aircraft like the Mig29 or Su30 come with the consequence of a High RCS, as a result lack of surprise are lost as soon as take off. The debate whether the massive su30 radar will find a enemy target first or the high RCS gives away the su30 first is a thesis only provable in a war time situation. Your statement about not being able to bomb New Delhi can not be more false. For example in a strategic strike mission against New Delhi, PAF would most likely use Mirages and f16s. The distance from Karachi to New Delhi is 679.95 miles in a straight line. Both the mirage and f16 have combat ranges that exceed that distance. For a Strike, cruise missiles are also a option. Until the Rafael aircraft is operational, it is not a threat at the current stage but a counter-strategic should be available in the future.

The IAF always had a edge in quantity and quality against the PAF, but superior training and tactics showed who dominated the sky of the subcontinent. It will always be a mans war to fight not a machines. In the Vietnam War, the USAF removed cannons from fighter jets because they believed modern air-air missiles had replaced them, but the Americans learned the hard way from experience that skills are required in modern warfare. Relying entirely on modern equipment is a sure sign of lack of skills. Only a fool will repeat the mistakes of others, a wise person learns from history and improves himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom