What's new

Pakistani & Chinese air forces kick off, Shaheen III (2014) exercise.

HBifgwv_zps4235517f.jpg~original

Few things to note, it was the first time that J-10 was deployed outside China for exercise, the JF-17 and J-10 seem to carry same design and capacity of drop tanks and both air forces fielded the ''PG'' version of the F-7.
 
. .
Brother ... A little correction !
This image is from Shaheen-1 exercise. JF-17, neither participated in Shaheen - I nor in II .... JF-17 was flying with Flanker just for the sake of ending ceremony formation flypast.

Exercise Shaheen-I 2011
By Najam Khan | May 6, 2013 | JF-17 Thunder, Mirage-III/V, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Exercise Shaheen-I (meaning “Falcon” in English) was the first version of this joint Pak-China air force exercise held in March 2011 at Rafiqui Air Base, Shorkot Pakistan.

PLAAF contingent comprising SU-27UBK Multirole fighters from 8th flight Academy (also known as “Agressors” ) participated in the exercise. The Exercise covered various air-to-air and air-to-ground combat scenarios. PAF’s Mirage-VEF, F-7PG and JF-17 also participated in Dis-similar Air Combat Training (DACT) missions with PLAAF Sukhois.

@DANGER-ZONE, I am not sure dear as several sources indicated to the participation of JF-17 in the first series of Shaheen, even a Chinese site went on to say that the JF-17 faired quite well when pitted against the J-11.

Which site? The Chinese never evaluated the JF-17 in mock combat situations, at least not publicly.

Windjammer
Shabbir did, however, highlight that the exercise marks the debut of both the JF-17 in the Shaheen series, and the first time the J-10 has participated in an overseas exercise.

Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions. | Page 80
 
Last edited:
. .
@DANGER-ZONE, dear i don't know what you trying to prove but the JFT programme deputy director wouldn't have disclosed this to International media without confirmation. Remember Khalid Mehmood was once himself an F-16 pilot who shot down some Afghan AF aircrafts.

View attachment 32406
 
. .
What you have repeatedly failed to mention, my friend, is that the performance of American radars/ECCM/ECM equipment and most importantly the performance of American AAM technology is far beyond anything the Russians could ever produce. So much so that to date, none of the Russian BVR's has ever scored a hit and the performance of their WVR missiles is also quite debatable. Their equipment is simply no match for American equipment.

can you prove that all ?
 
.
can you prove that all ?

I don't have to really, just look up all the launches of Russian BVR's in actual combat, 0% engagements let alone a hit or down, and then compare that with American BVR launches, 100% engagement.

No wonder the Russian doctrine is to launch a salvo of BVR's (atleast 2 active/passive combo at the same time). And what to speak of Russian ECM/ECCM suites, their fighters could not jam their own equipment (SAM sites) in use by the Georgians.

Similarly, the performance of Russian WVRs has been mediocre at best. While the performance of AIM series is exceptional.
 
.

Looking at the pic, JF-17's nose area seems similar to that of J-10. One repeated issue that i believe is that JF-17 has too few hardpoints to make a good use of it's external load carrying capability. If the Multiple ejector racks are possible for 4 BVR missiles, then it's fine. Otherwise Blk 3 should have these promptly increased to 9/10, just like the F-16s evolved.
 
.
Looking at the pic, JF-17's nose area seems similar to that of J-10. One repeated issue that i believe is that JF-17 has too few hardpoints to make a good use of it's external load carrying capability. If the Multiple ejector racks are possible for 4 BVR missiles, then it's fine. Otherwise Blk 3 should have these promptly increased to 9/10, just like the F-16s evolved.
Donattello yaar, The JF17 stands on this side of the runway, the J10 on the other side... We have no idea what the zoom factor is. So comparing these planes is a bit unfair. If you look at the first few pics published here you see that there is a reason that JF17 is light and J10 is medium weight...

Must ask wing commander Ronald next time how it was...


HBifgwv_zps4235517f.jpg~original

It is not a big task finding him in the picture here...
 
.
I don't have to really, just look up all the launches of Russian BVR's in actual combat, 0% engagements let alone a hit or down, and then compare that with American BVR launches, 100% engagement.

No wonder the Russian doctrine is to launch a salvo of BVR's (atleast 2 active/passive combo at the same time). And what to speak of Russian ECM/ECCM suites, their fighters could not jam their own equipment (SAM sites) in use by the Georgians.

Similarly, the performance of Russian WVRs has been mediocre at best. While the performance of AIM series is exceptional.

buddy were you sleeping?

“In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer. However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version, “Aegis” spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm. Everything went normally, American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target. And suddenly all the screens went blank. “Aegis” was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn and simulated missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did so 12 times.

“Apparently, all efforts to revive the “Aegis” and provide target information for the defence failed. Russia’s reaction to military pressure from the United States was profoundly calm, feels the Russian political scientist Pavel Zolotarev:

“The demonstration was original enough. A bomber without any weapons, but having onboard equipment for jamming enemy radar, worked against a destroyer equipped with “Aegis”, the most modern system of air and missile defence. But this system of mobile location, in this case the ship, has a significant drawback. That is, the target tracking capabilities. They work well when there is a number of these ships which can coordinate with each other somehow. In this case there was just one destroyer. And, apparently, the algorithm of the radar in the “Aegis” system on the destroyer did not load under the influence of jamming by the Su-24. It was therefore not only a nervous reaction to the fact of flying around by the Russin bomber which was common practice during the Cold War. The reaction of the Americans was due to the fact that most modern system, especially its informative or radar part, did not work adequately. Therefore, there was such a nervous reaction to the whole episode.
 
. .
What you have repeatedly failed to mention, my friend, is that the performance of American radars/ECCM/ECM equipment and most importantly the performance of American AAM technology is far beyond anything the Russians could ever produce. So much so that to date, none of the Russian BVR's has ever scored a hit and the performance of their WVR missiles is also quite debatable. Their equipment is simply no match for American equipment.

While acknowledging the edge the US has over its opponents, what you have stated is simply not true.

There are a number of cases where US planes have been struck by Russian made BVR missiles (e.g. during the Golf war), even in cases where the advantage is skewed very strongly to one side, i.e. AWACS support vs no AWACS, best trained air force vs poorly trained air force, ECM support vs no ECM support.

I will not criticise your point but I would suggest avoiding making sweeping statements like these.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom