Shaheen Scramble

[Raider 21]

And its not according to my wish what appears in OP and those may i remind you are F-16s.

Hilarious. Ending it there.

Dear Sir,

I understand you have good knowledge on said subject, but there are some people whom you should give the benefit of doubt. Windjammer being at the top of the list.

Thank You

Well I like to be serious to about it.

Cheers !!!

 

[Signalian]

Not experimented with F-16s in PAF.

for which technical reason?

 

[Falcon26]

This forum missed @Windjammer thanks for sharing such gems.

 

[airomerix]

for which technical reason?

It's a safety hazard. Thunderbirds take off like that not standard birds.

PAF is very risk averse when it comes to F-16s.

 

[Yasser76]

It's a safety hazard. Thunderbirds take off like that not standard birds.

PAF is very risk averse when it comes to F-16s.

No, it's not. F-16s are flown to their limits. Pilots in them are also pushed to their limits. This is the best way to get the maximum out of the bird. It is really annoying when people make claims they cannot back up.

One of our best pilots just died doing very risky moves over the federal capital, last year many F-16s were thrown at India's top fighters over Kashmir.

F-16s are flown abroad to take part in very intense DACM with foreign air forces.

This is not "risk averse" behaviour.

 

[AMRAAM]

@Windjammer

Looks like PAF was doing it with F-16s a long ago.

The images are taken from video footage of classic PAF song "Hawai fauj k auqab".

 

[Windjammer]

Sadly Einstein has reincarnated as Fawad Chaudry and Houston, we have a problem.
I have clearly stated that the four ship formation take-off has been practised or experimented.
Even the Australian Aviation Photographer, Peter Steinman once posted a picture captured from the rear cockpit showing a four ship F-16 formation baring down Sargodha runway.

 

[truthseeker2010]

It's a safety hazard. Thunderbirds take off like that not standard birds.

PAF is very risk averse when it comes to F-16s.

Sir, need to ask you few things in private if possible.

 

[airomerix]

No, it's not. F-16s are flown to their limits. Pilots in them are also pushed to their limits. This is the best way to get the maximum out of the bird. It is really annoying when people make claims they cannot back up.

One of our best pilots just died doing very risky moves over the federal capital, last year many F-16s were thrown at India's top fighters over Kashmir.

F-16s are flown abroad to take part in very intense DACM with foreign air forces.

This is not "risk averse" behaviour.

You have a knack of refuting me on almost everything. I dont blame you. You perhaps need that kind of attention.

Throwing jets on IAF or Islamabad crash have nothing to do with maximizing risk in this context. F-16 has been doing solo aerobatics for years and it's a no brainer that PAF will send its best into a fight.

The reason you are annoyed is because you cannot think beyond objective statements, and you have absolutely no idea what's life like for an airforce pilot. Probably because you have never spoken to one nor you know anyone.

Hence, id say this again, we do not use F-16s to their full flight envelope for many reasons. They are limited in numbers, they are expensive, we have limited MRO facilities for them, and they are here to stay for the next 15 to 20 years.

 

[airomerix]

Sir, need to ask you few things in private if possible.

fire away.

 

[Yasser76]

You have a knack of refuting me on almost everything. I dont blame you. You perhaps need that kind of attention.

Throwing jets on IAF or Islamabad crash have nothing to do with maximizing risk in this context. F-16 has been doing solo aerobatics for years and it's a no brainer that PAF will send its best into a fight.

The reason you are annoyed is because you cannot think beyond objective statements, and you have absolutely no idea what's life like for an airforce pilot. Probably because you have never spoken to one nor you know anyone.

Hence, id say this again, we do not use F-16s to their full flight envelope for many reasons. They are limited in numbers, they are expensive, we have limited MRO facilities for them, and they are here to stay for the next 15 to 20 years.

You need to remove the chip on your shoulder. It had been stated by different ACMs themselves that PAF oushes it's planes and pilots to the limits. One of the core reasons PAF regards itself as superior to many is the standard of it's training, not just flying training, but actual combat training. As I have said and as one can see, PAF on A REGULAR basis sends it's F-16s and pilots abroad fr vigarous training and has always put them in harms way, either against Soviet Union or India. The very essence of the PAF is that it pushes man and machine to their limits. The moment it starts even thinking about underutilising man or machine is the moment it's edge is lots. Anyone who has been exposed to the PAF in any way, shape or form knows this.

You made a sweeping statement, I asked you for evidence to back it up and you still cannot. Lets leave the matter there

 

[Raider 21]

@Windjammer

Looks like PAF was doing it with F-16s a long ago.

The images are taken from video footage of classic PAF song "Hawai fauj k auqab".

View attachment 656607 View attachment 656608

My dad is the slot man in this. Having asked him, they never practiced 4 ship takeoff in F-16s. Only ones at the time were Sherdils with T-37s.

 

[truthseeker2010]

fire away.

how?

 

[AMRAAM]

My dad is the slot man in this. Having asked him, they never practiced 4 ship takeoff in F-16s. Only ones at the time were Sherdils with T-37s.

Thank you for confirming @Knuckles. Please help me to understand how 4 ship abreast is more riskier than the one I shared above (where your father is the slot man). Apparently, having a 4th plane rolling behind the first plane is more riskier.

 

[Armchair]

Very unique and beautiful sound effect when passing by the camera ... !

Makes a thunder rumble and then a star wars like noise. incredible.