JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[SQ8]

July 2011 is outdated? So what is acceptable to you? Fanboy links?

You quoted fanboy links... JF-17.com is an official website? LOL.
And latest official link you quoted is from PAC.. which hasn't updated anything apart from the progress section.
I should believe some IAF cheesy fanboy instead of the TT's here and PAF sources?

Whats even more funny... is that people are posting pictures from the latest airshows and defence expo's SHOWING the JF-17's ability to carry 4 MRAAMs.. and you are still parroting about your links.

 

[cyphercide]

You quoted fanboy links... JF-17.com is an official website? LOL.
And latest official link you quoted is from PAC.. which hasn't updated anything apart from the progress section.
I should believe some IAF cheesy fanboy instead of the TT's here and PAF sources?

Bas kar yaar,bachhe ko maarogay kya....

 

[MiG-21]

This Picture was released when first PT-01 flew in 2003. This picture came to surface in 2004 - 5 as i remembered.
Even U can see Non-DSI style old Intake.

Then In 2006 PT-04 flew which is very much current version in PAF service.

Then JF-17 was on Static display at IDEAS 2008 at Karachi, Pakistan and this configuration was at the stall.
Although the bird is the same as PT-01 but never mind it gives a clear idea that it is JF-17. PAC don't work well at animation / CGIs.

That picture was never released during PT-01. I follow JF-17 developments even before this forum existed and the admin was the member of the other PDF forum. And you just said it yourself, PAC don't work well with CGIs. So they just added the old prototype with the updated configs.

You quoted fanboy links... JF-17.com is an official website? LOL.

Are you blind or trolling? First see who quoted it.

And latest official link you quoted is from PAC.. which hasn't updated anything apart from the progress section.
I should believe some IAF cheesy fanboy instead of the TT's here and PAF sources?

Whats even more funny... is that people are posting pictures from the latest airshows and defence expo's SHOWING the JF-17's ability to carry 4 MRAAMs.. and you are still parroting about your links.

How do you know that isn't the future capability being proposed to customers. Afterall JF-17 has been showing it can be mated to SD-10s right from 2004.

 

[SQ8]

That picture was never released during PT-01. I follow JF-17 developments even before this forum existed and the admin was the member of the other PDF forum. And you just said it yourself, PAC don't work well with CGIs. So they just added the old prototype with the updated configs.


Are you blind or trolling? First see who quoted it.


How do you know that isn't the future capability being proposed to customers. Afterall JF-17 has been showing it can be mated to SD-10s right from 2004.

Because I worked with those people who use it Dufus... and those who have flown it.. and will fly it.

 

[alimobin memon]

You quoted fanboy links... JF-17.com is an official website? LOL.
And latest official link you quoted is from PAC.. which hasn't updated anything apart from the progress section.
I should believe some IAF cheesy fanboy instead of the TT's here and PAF sources?

Whats even more funny... is that people are posting pictures from the latest airshows and defence expo's SHOWING the JF-17's ability to carry 4 MRAAMs.. and you are still parroting about your links.

don't rely on PAC Site , and there is no country who creates official site for a fighter jet. it's fan made.
and yes i am sure most of here are just numb and they cant listen anything except the bullshit of internet information.
please read the active and semi there advantages and there is not fighter jet that fires four semi active BVR at same time . and if jf17 fires active semi only two at a time than i am sorry that is shameful. just to clarify almost all modern fighters fire atleast 4 even old gen radars back in 1990's

 

[SQ8]

don't rely on PAC Site , and there is no country who creates official site for a fighter jet. it's fan made.
and yes i am sure most of here are just numb and they cant listen anything except the bullshit of internet information.

That is true for all companies coming up with such latest (sensitive) products.
Little details on the site.. more details on the brochure.. all details after purchase.

 

[MiG-21]

Finally saw who made that jf-17.com post?

I have to believe from the word of mouth? The 2008 pic clearly shows JF-17's intended development with all that assorted array of weapons. Back in 2008 it's highly unlikely for JF-17 to have been integrated with all of em, which even the most honest of PAF fans would agree to. Now we have an updated PAC website showing the current config. It fits like a glove.
In any case, where is that config pics from latest airshows, you have been saying? Every user seems to be posting the old pic from 2008 over and over again in an attempt to debunk me. First post your latest external loadout config pic, then we'll see.

That is true for all companies coming up with such latest (sensitive) products.

IAF's site mention's the speed of Su-30MKI to be Mach 2.3. While Sukhoi mentions it as 1.9. Eventhough both are official site, and IAF's site is more recent, a manufacturers site carries more weight-age. Indian fan boys obviously couldn't believe their eyes when Wiki editors turned their request down when they attempted to change em.

 

[Manticore]

whats all the commotion?
http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...hunder-over-jas-39-gripen-25.html#post2938181

 

[Dazzler]

That picture was never released during PT-01. I follow JF-17 developments even before this forum existed and the admin was the member of the other PDF forum. And you just said it yourself, PAC don't work well with CGIs. So they just added the old prototype with the updated configs.


Are you blind or trolling? First see who quoted it.


How do you know that isn't the future capability being proposed to customers. Afterall JF-17 has been showing it can be mated to SD-10s right from 2004.

You better stop trolling around mate or you will be dealt accordingly, i have requested to take further action against members like you who come to troll and raising the same age old questions over and over.

Post reported!

 

[MiG-21]

whats all the commotion?
Arguments of choosing JF-17 Thunder over JAS-39 Gripen

Thanks.
So Mr.Oscar, are you going to argue this Dubai 2011 PPP is outdated as well?

Although some figures & some weapons shown above is arguable, that is another argument.

 

[SQ8]

Thanks.
So Mr.Oscar, are you going to argue this Dubai 2011 PPP is outdated as well?

Although some figures & some weapons shown above is arguable, that is another argument.

Yes..

Since then, the Inner hardpoints have been wired for the SD-10 and the ARM missile.
Why dont you wait for the Dubai 2012 show.

And when you find those figures arguable.. why do you even present it for proof.
either believe it.. or dont .

 

[v9s]

Since then, the Inner hardpoints have been wired for the SD-10 and the ARM missile.
Why dont you wait for the Dubai 2012 show.

What date in 2012 is that? Couldn't find it on the net; all it shows is Nov 2013.

So no official pics from your end? I rest my case!

I didn't present that link. I was just going to see how you were going to wiggle your way out of that. But I'm confronted by the same usual mantra.

And I already gave my opinion in one of my earlier reply regarding the future of those wetpoints in the next block of JF-17.

Mate, no one gives a flying **** about your case. LPC.

 

[SQ8]

So no official pics from your end? I rest my case!

I didn't present that link. I was just going to see how you were going to wiggle your way out of that. But I'm confronted by the same usual mantra.

And I already gave my opinion in one of my earlier reply regarding the future of those wetpoints in the next block of JF-17.

You gives a rats arse about your case... First hand knowledge is ten times better than some punks "case".

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

That picture was never released during PT-01. I follow JF-17 developments even before this forum existed and the admin was the member of the other PDF forum. And you just said it yourself, PAC don't work well with CGIs. So they just added the old prototype with the updated configs.

Huh .... This Picture was shown on TV - NEWS when in 2004 JFT PT-1 flew for at least 60 Mins, or i am wrong at remembering the exact duration of flight, Making a unique Record, then they give a little Introduction about the capabilities of the aircraft. So your own claim proves you wrong that you were not following it.

 

[Dazzler]

8 minutes...