MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/General.jpg)
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Wrong, F-16 is proven platform. Even F-16 block 60 can beat JF-7 block 2 and 3.
Hi,
You sure---?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong, F-16 is proven platform. Even F-16 block 60 can beat JF-7 block 2 and 3.
Hi,
I agree with you whole heartedly---. You know that the the JF17 design was under extreme duress---the twin seater was a later addition due to customer demand---. Otherwise the Paf was happy with a single seater---.
The engine played a very large part in the design of the aircraft---.
If as suggested the original design was 25% larger than the current design and due to the lack of the 'right' power plant available---it got compressed---and possibly that is where the bulkiness is coming from---.
In due time people will learn how good this design is---with the side intakes and bumps----it is so different than what shows on the market in general---but most of those aircraft except for the stealth models---were not build persay for a low low RCS--.
All the conventional Twin tails were right in your face kind of designs---no care about the RCS---. The single engine were more sleek and slender---. With the availability of modern alloys that were lighter thinner and stronger and power plants that were slimmer and lighter but more powerful---the west was able and capable of producing more aesthetically pleasing aircraft---.
Now it was all well and good if the USAF had not turned around and refurbished an old B52 to a modern strike platform---. Now who could call the b52 an ugly aircraft---almost everyone---but if you look into its capabilities---it would out do many strike aircraft growler type aircrafts and air superiority fighter---why---because of the 21st century technology installed in it with 21st century weapons---.
The modern fighter aircraft has just become a conduit of delivery of a 21st century weapon helped thru 21st century electronic gadgets---and its shape is subservient to the mindset of the designing team.
Now for issues with quality of the end product---that is a different item---that is about quality control---.
Hi,
Damn---I wish I could think like you young people and use metaphors like---"grit & Grind"---" "a true gunfighter of the old west "---.
Indeed---" just good weapons & tactics---"---remember these words of your ---. Paf has added a new paragraph to fighter aircraft building---. Looks will only take you so far---it is what is inside of you that will make you carry the day---.
Remember that gold saying---" Drive is for show Putting is for dough "---.
Hi,
Indeed china has many an aesa radars---and many have glitches that you may not know of and I don't want to elaborate---. Plus they are larger and no issues with cooling space and power supply---.
JF17 otoh---needs a smaller radar with cooling ability and using lesser power---and functioning 100%---100% of the time---. Not an easy task---.
Let me add a saying we used at Atlas....'Fitment to Purpose'.
But what matters is that air cooled Superman AESA Radar not damn nose?Do you think the nose of JF-17 is as big as that of J-10C?
friend, size matters - you just dont put a large size into a smaller aircraft; there are several considerations - power utilisation, RF footprint etc not to mention protection of the cockpit and other RF sensitive modules.But what matters is that air cooled Superman AESA Radar not damn nose?
My very dear YoungPak,
You always delight me!
Even when you take the opposite line... you do!
Actually what matters is money.friend, size matters - you just dont put a large size into a smaller aircraft; there are several considerations - power utilisation, RF footprint etc not to mention protection of the cockpit and other RF sensitive modules.
@Stealth,
You were going on about design, have you bothered to see what Boieng offered for JSF competition, One ugly hideous looking frog shaped X-32. But all design and pregnancy terms aside it was a competitor. Boieng did not win the order but it does not mean that you cannot make a fat Plane. JF-17 is way better looking than that.
@Stealth,The workmanship will improve but please if you cannot compare a medium weigh and light weight aircraft then there is no way you can compare a 25million $ plane with a 75million $ plane. It is like you are comparing the fit and finish of a corolla to a mercedes or BMW those differences will remain.
If the aircraft is soo competent, why not PAF put them on a lead role @ 27 feb hollywood scenario? the aircraft not even in the scene.... though Delta + F16s did the job... lol you don't want to take a risk with the machine you're not sure about ..
== replacement only and always fill the gape of replacement spot ==
you can't put them on a lead role... we will see... the time is not far away when we gonna H2H with IAF again...
That’s not the same hud and secondly as per @Tipu7 , Single Wide MFD plans were abandoned...View attachment 596616
Cockpit lay out shud look like this. ... Caz this is the one that goes with 3 d holographic HUD
Single split LCD display
That’s not the same hud and secondly as per @Tipu7 , Single Wide MFD plans were abandoned...
about your this post, I guess only Pakistani engineer knows design / weight,... if that's the case then the V stab of F18 F16 and every aircraft having two diff versions (single and dual) would be different.. I have never seen any aircraft in the world like this shit masterpiece which has two different types of vertical stabilizers for countering weight LOL whata BS logic!