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.
New Recruit
IAF can only afford to operate one type of heavy role stealth fighter and that is PAK-FA or F-35... its not the financial factor but lack of well capable pilots, not capable of absorbing multiple high tech technologies, and also restriction from both parties as they will not prefer their rival plane parked side by side... americans would love to take a peek or more than that.... and so will the russians... and dont tell me that indians are more trust worthy...
New Recruit
I'm already aware of what BVR is and its implications in modern aircombat. I assumed you would be on the same frequency of thought here, but I guess I'm obligated to state the obvious here. BVR is what matters in this day and age, but dogfighting is still part of the curriculum. I didn't think we would need to state the obvious, but I guess we all have to, right? regardless, TVC will not help much when it comes dogfighting, thanks to HMD and modern WVR missiles.
that's not a reply.
thanks for spending that time, however, arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to take you anywhere. thrust-vectoring technology was tested on almost all platforms in service; F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV. the tests were of course successful, given the parameters, but the technology, as I have repeatedly been saying here, was not mature enough to incorporate in the aircraft. thanks to the F/A-22's increased computing power, flight control systems including fly-by-wire, and matured nozzle control computers, they decided to introduce the technology into the aircraft.
the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.
as for 'credibility', whether a pilot says the test was successful or not, does not change the fact that the technology had to mature a bit more, to be introduced to newer aircraft. showing me the magazine has not changed anything at all.
New Recruit
The debate topic was "Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF? ".
Lets stick with the topic.
Pakistan have current & future planes for PAF Quality and Quantity.
JF-17 Current 18 Total of 250 expected
Chengdu J-10B Current 0 36 ordered, to be delivered in 2009 expected
F-7 current 192
A-5 Current 41
F-16 Current 44 24 will be recieved in 2009 / 2010
Mirage III Current 121
Mirage 5 Current 60
Total Current 476
In 2010 (till March) PAF will recieve Total 30 JF-17, 24 F-16 & 36 J-10B
In 2010 Total 90 + 476 = 566
So I feel both quantity & quality will be up to the mark in 2010 & I suggest that topic should be closed as we are not discussing accc to topic subject.
yes ur right . lets stick to the topic .
i dont think paf will be able to counter iaf numerically . so you should get latest 4.5 gen jets .
i think you need at least 200 f-16 and j-10 . as gripen has no chance of winning the mmrca . as the decison is made i think you guys should do something to get it . truly 4.5 gen fighter with latest avionics and smaller price tag . say about 50 will really boost your airforce .
but i dont see a 5th gen aircraft around you right now .
yes ur right . lets stick to the topic .
i dont think paf will be able to counter iaf numerically . so you should get latest 4.5 gen jets .
i think you need at least 200 f-16 and j-10 . as gripen has no chance of winning the mmrca . as the decison is made i think you guys should do something to get it . truly 4.5 gen fighter with latest avionics and smaller price tag . say about 50 will really boost your airforce .
but i dont see a 5th gen aircraft around you right now .
New Recruit
@ troll
4th generation MRCA
- 70-80 F-16 MLU M3 / block 52+
- 150 JF-17 Block1/2
4.5 generation MRCA
- 36-100 FC-20
- 100 JF-17 block 3
- another type could be added by 2019
5th generation fighter
- Chinese Stealth fighter.
as you are a senior member , how you predict that you will get chinese stealth fighter ??? any link ???
and how you can even say that jf-17 block 3 will be 4+ gen aircraft ??? any link ??? first let the block 2 come then say something about block 3 .....
its look like words in air .....
and everything is not troll ..... show some mature kind of nature .
Sure it is, just add a nuke and Presto! A cruise missile becomes a highly effective air to air missile before your eyes.
AIR-2 Genie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just in case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm. Sorry, couldn't resist.
New Recruit
no doubt they will offer you but chinese 5th gen fighter is a bit far away in future than FGFA and youre gonna need some serious money for getting them .you give me a good reasion why china will not give us stealth fighters? in the past and in the present they have offered us just about anything they have.. ....
this has been answered so many times with links and i will not waist my time over explaining same thing over again.
go through JF-17 threads and IDEAS-2008 PDF which will give you a hint that more advance variant will be coming up...
you asked what makes JF-17 block 3 4++??
- AESA radar
- Composite body with stealth features such as the DSI and absorbing materials.
- advance avionics
- new Air frame
etc etc....
The debate topic was "Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF? ".
Lets stick with the topic.
Pakistan have current & future planes for PAF Quality and Quantity.
JF-17 Current 18 Total of 250 expected
Chengdu J-10B Current 0 36 ordered, to be delivered in 2009 expected
F-7 current 192
A-5 Current 41
F-16 Current 44 24 will be recieved in 2009 / 2010
Mirage III Current 121
Mirage 5 Current 60
Total Current 476
In 2010 (till March) PAF will recieve Total 30 JF-17, 24 F-16 & 36 J-10B
In 2010 Total 90 + 476 = 566
So I feel both quantity & quality will be up to the mark in 2010 & I suggest that topic should be closed as we are not discussing accc to topic subject.
New Recruit
I'm already aware of what BVR is and its implications in modern aircombat. I assumed you would be on the same frequency of thought here, but I guess I'm obligated to state the obvious here. BVR is what matters in this day and age, but dogfighting is still part of the curriculum. I didn't think we would need to state the obvious, but I guess we all have to, right? regardless, TVC will not help much when it comes dogfighting, thanks to HMD and modern WVR missiles.
that's not a reply.
thanks for spending that time, however, arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to take you anywhere. thrust-vectoring technology was tested on almost all platforms in service; F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV. the tests were of course successful, given the parameters, but the technology, as I have repeatedly been saying here, was not mature enough to incorporate in the aircraft. thanks to the F/A-22's increased computing power, flight control systems including fly-by-wire, and matured nozzle control computers, they decided to introduce the technology into the aircraft.
the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.
as for 'credibility', whether a pilot says the test was successful or not, does not change the fact that the technology had to mature a bit more, to be introduced to newer aircraft. showing me the magazine has not changed anything at all.
The three links you posted contain EXACTLY THE SAME REPORT. The headline says "brahmos... air-to-air missile" but then the report says ASTRA AIR TO AIR MISSILE. Who the hell do you think you're trying to teach? A kindergarten? Go teach a circus you clown.For brahmos i've posted above links as proof. sorry for the stupid second post I was meant to post DERA study but wrong link.
Firstly, that TWR probably includes two wing-tip air-to-air missiles. Secondly, JF-17's TWR will only go up as more powerful engines are integrated (WS-13) and weight is reduced through use of composite materials. Thirdly, we have inside information from a PAF veteran combat pilot that the actual TWR is "much higher" than that. Go tell InAF and your fellow trolls what you think, nobody else here cares.Anyway jf-17 will achieve its TWR of 95 only with half tank fuel and without any payload. So i think its not a matter at all..