Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
I mentioned, not shared. JF-17 is PAF's not PN's.
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.
I mentioned, not shared. JF-17 is PAF's not PN's.
Naval Air wing needs something better than 12 Mirage V, dedicated, not shared.
Nothing is stopping the PN to procure JF-17 for the naval role ...I mentioned, not shared. JF-17 is PAF's not PN's.
Nothing is stopping the PN to procure JF-17 for the naval role ...
@Bilal Khan 777 is it significant that the exercise took place around the time of first operational patrol of Indian SSBN?
Slight correction there. The maritime strike capability is for Pakistan in general, whether its in the hands or PAF or PN.The Maritime strike capability of PAF is for PN.
well let's start by friggin' REMOVING PPP PMLN ANP MQM JUIF ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!We need more muscle , more commitment and more money for a more powerfl navy:-
Thats a really absurd comment. The names of the services includes the name Pakistan in them, so essentially everything is for Pakistan in general! When Bilal mentioned that PAF maritime assets are for PN, it implies that PN will have the decision making authority and PAF will be a service provider to PN.Slight correction there. The maritime strike capability is for Pakistan in general, whether its in the hands or PAF or PN.
Thats a really absurd comment. The names of the services includes the name Pakistan in them, so essentially everything is for Pakistan in general! When Bilal mentioned that PAF maritime assets are for PN, it implies that PN will have the decision making authority and PAF will be a service provider to PN.
The argument basically was PAF is basically deficient in providing cover to the PN using JF-17 (or any other aircraft), and hence they need to purchase something for themselves.
I am against buying a new platform when JF-17 more than meets the requirements for PN and thus opined that there are any "supposed" deficiencies in the setup as it currently exists, PN is more than welcome to operate its own squadron of the Thunder in the maritime role (again not a new platform).
Hence my statement is in the context that it doesnt matter who operates the aircraft since the end goal is the same, as long as it is JF-17. Does that clear it up?