What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

125790105_2809823479254991_7881488137329611466_o.jpg
 
Keep discussion intact to the subject. For other topics, find the relevant thread and move your arguments.

Regards,
 
And i read lots of books, why you think PAF is stupid or something to not accept those offer to PAF these were delicate and complex defense as well as political games, are you better than PAF professionals sitting in air HQ??? and PDF has some member who are professionals they know better than you and us why they not purchase those jets which were offer to PAF
Listen friend.

Why do you keep putting these people on a pedestle. They are users of a system. System which an external independent body R&Ds and puts together. If you now add them to be the developers etc, then you are in serious problem.
JH is not coming to PAF, fighter bombers is an obsolete, idea, only price is cheap, nothing as comparable to modern strike jets like F-15E/Su-34/J-16
then by your statement, you need to retire entire M3/5s - they are completely obsolete and museam pieces.
Hi,

And I have been saying that if Paf had by-passed the F16 and gone for the M2K---indian air force had nowhere to run---.

There was no way that the US would have sold india the F16 at that time and Paf would have been the superior air force in the arena---.

But then the Paf had to diversify in a timely manner---as every knowledgeable person except for the Paf generals knew that Pakistan would get sanctioned---.

The Paf generals kept lying to themselves to the country and to the pakistani public about the sanctions.

Theese generals poured money into the F16 purchase even after the sanctions strarted and kept on paying and made fool of the pakistanis by making them hate the americans for no reason---.
Simple use public opinion when it suits them and play them for a fool. the ultimate fools are the generals who never allow a national strategy to take shape e.g. ITAR free etc etc. list is endless;
 
Hi,

And I have been saying that if Paf had by-passed the F16 and gone for the M2K---indian air force had nowhere to run---.

There was no way that the US would have sold india the F16 at that time and Paf would have been the superior air force in the arena---.

But then the Paf had to diversify in a timely manner---as every knowledgeable person except for the Paf generals knew that Pakistan would get sanctioned---.

The Paf generals kept lying to themselves to the country and to the pakistani public about the sanctions.

Theese generals poured money into the F16 purchase even after the sanctions strarted and kept on paying and made fool of the pakistanis by making them hate the americans for no reason---.
You may be right, however PAF would have been more dependent on western weapon systems. Moreover, M2K would not be free, whereas early F-16s were part of USAID.

F-16 induction brought number of revolutionary changes in PAF operations, strategies and training.

Furthermore F-16 also brought US Pressler amendment and subsequent spare and F-16 sale embargo.

This embargo gave a push to PAF commanders to seriously consider working on indigenous project - manufacturing of own fighter jet. JF-17 is the result of this motivation, and of course with Chinese help.
 
then by your statement, you need to retire entire M3/5s - they are completely obsolete and museam pieces.
Yes sir you're right tell me Sir why we need if JF-17 taking a role of Mirages, (anti ship) JFT can anything that JH will do in PAF, so why we need JH, PAF need deep strike fighter like Su-34/J-16 rather than one mission specific, and Please ask @MastanKhan why he is calling multirole jets like F-16/ F-15/Su-27 versions FIGHTER BOMBERS, FIGHTER BOMBERS ARE NOT MULTIROLE JETS AS @MastanKhan SAID, FIGHTER BOMBERS MAIN MISSION IS/WERE STRIKE AND GROUND ATTACK, PREVIOUS GENERATIONS FIGHTER BOMBERS LIKE SU-24/F-111/JH-7 ONLY CARRIED SRAAM TO DEFEND THEMSELF
 
Yes sir you're right tell me Sir why we need if JF-17 taking a role of Mirages, (anti ship) JFT can anything that JH will do in PAF, so why we need JH, PAF need deep strike fighter like Su-34/J-16 rather than one mission specific, and Please ask @MastanKhan why he is calling multirole jets like F-16/ F-15/Su-27 versions FIGHTER BOMBERS, FIGHTER BOMBERS ARE NOT MULTIROLE JETS AS @MastanKhan SAID, FIGHTER BOMBERS MAIN MISSION IS/WERE STRIKE AND GROUND ATTACK, PREVIOUS GENERATIONS FIGHTER BOMBERS LIKE SU-24/F-111/JH-7 ONLY CARRIED SRAAM TO DEFEND THEMSELF


Calm down brother, there is no need to shout your words in CAPITALS even more since what MK is telling since years in mantra-like fashion, is not always reasonable nor affordable.
 
Yes sir you're right tell me Sir why we need if JF-17 taking a role of Mirages, (anti ship) JFT can anything that JH will do in PAF, so why we need JH, PAF need deep strike fighter like Su-34/J-16 rather than one mission specific, and Please ask @MastanKhan why he is calling multirole jets like F-16/ F-15/Su-27 versions FIGHTER BOMBERS, FIGHTER BOMBERS ARE NOT MULTIROLE JETS AS @MastanKhan SAID, FIGHTER BOMBERS MAIN MISSION IS/WERE STRIKE AND GROUND ATTACK, PREVIOUS GENERATIONS FIGHTER BOMBERS LIKE SU-24/F-111/JH-7 ONLY CARRIED SRAAM TO DEFEND THEMSELF
Everything cannot be done by one aircraft; JF17 was supposed to be a utility; you cannot have one do all. JF17 is a light ac. MK and I had promoted jh7 for long time for deep strike as best available.
Anyway. this forum is to engage thoughts not emotions.
 
Everything cannot be done by one aircraft; JF17 was supposed to be a utility; you cannot have one do all. JF17 is a light ac. MK and I had promoted jh7 for long time for deep strike as best available.
Anyway. this forum is to engage thoughts not emotions.
Only have the best option on the ground of cost wise, nothing modern in it
 
I'm not sure why some people are still stuck in the past on this "long range strike" mentality in the sub-continent theatre, this isn't the 1960s or 70s. The proliferation of land based cruise missiles and intermediate range ballistic missiles, along with long range stand off weapons, on both sides means that neither side needs to conduct costly long range strike missions. Despite the complete incompetence in planning and execution demonstrated by the indians last year, and the PAF's more successful operation "Swift retort", both sides used long range stand off weapons without needing to resort to deep penetration of the other side's airspace to make a point. The reason is because any actual employment of significant assets in long range deep strike mission will come with a hefty attrition rate given the air defence capabilities on both sides, and some would argue that india has an edge in this regard if you factor in its greater SAM and S-400 assets. In addition, most of the major targets on either side are only within a few hundred km of the border, you don't need a dedicated long range strike platform. Most of the advanced tactical airforces rely on only one or two types of multirole aircraft, rather than aircraft for dedicated specialised mission profiles, due to the significant improvement in capability of aircraft and weapons.
 
Only have the best option on the ground of cost wise, nothing modern in it
It does the job vs the M3 which have been refurbished no less than 5times; it is a miracle they have not broken apart like straws. Either ways, jh7 serves a very useful purpose.

The theatre of war is changing rapidly as has been shown by recent NKG areana with use of drones that can evade most of these high ticket AA systems. But that was still close proximity; further out units like JH7 could be used as drone carriers too
 
Back
Top Bottom