Im sorry why did you need to qoute me to make that post? I was simply saying what was possible in terms of equipment available for flankers. :rolleyes:

I didn’t. too used to quoting I guess and yours was the last one.

tphuang wrote:

If you would have bothered to read the news starting this topic you would have found out that those new F-16s are going to replace the F-5s.

How rational would be, in your opinion, to replace 128 F-CK-1s with 66 F-16s and leave in service 60 old F-5s which are (literally) falling out of the sky???

f-16.net isn’t the official spokes people for ROCAF. the original statement isn’t a statement on which one F-16s are going to replace, but rather agreeing that the number of platforms will become 3 now, so it makes sense from a logistical point of view.

Illustrious was returning from exercise, and had reached Gibraltar when the crisis broke, and turned around. It is not carrying any Harriers, merely helicopters (Chinooks), and providing command facilities. As for the suggestion that Illustrious has somehow been deployed to face down an Israeli air threat, that stretches credibility well beyond breaking point – firstly, there is no air threat from Israel, and secondly, if there was, a dozen Harrier GR-7s would not be able to face down a few hundred top-notch Israeli fighters!

As for Israeli targetting, it is the very nature of the Hizbollah terrorists that they hide in civilian areas, and conceal their weapons in homes, not nice clearly defined military barracks. Israel has no choice but to hit them where they are – if Lebanon is not willing to fight them, and they continue their indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians, then Israel is entirely within their rights to engage them in residential areas. Israel does try to minimise collateral damage, but when at war (a war started by Hizbollah, operating freely from Lebanon), civilians will, unfortunately, be killed.

right, so they attack without any kind of intelligence and do not kill Hezbollah, but end up only killing women and children. perfect.

See this is the thing, Lebanon is not a terrorist organization. They are dragged into this war, because Hezbollah and Israel got problems with each other. And in the end, Lebanese civilians are the people that must suffer.

Probably they meant false alarms from friendly missiles/shells being fired at beirut that may be misintrepted as enemy missiles.

They weren’t completely turned off, they just weren’t fully activated. At least this is what the Janes report said. If you have Janes subscription
http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml
It says Barak wasn’t fully activated. For some reason, the CIWS, ECM suite and other systems couldn’t handle it either.

also, another issue was that it was shot from a really short distance, so the ship may not have had time to react.

😀 😀 LOL you are really cracking me up. More composite, better manuverability..when was this tested? In the cook books chinese are famous for cooking up. chinese crap haas a better cockpit than F-16 or any western plane :diablo: . The radar/EW etc don’t come into picture cause even pakistan would never go for chinese avionics if they can afford anything else.

yes, like the Lavi project, J-10 also makes extensive use of composite material
better maneuverability – lower wing loading, has 3D tvc engine, canards, better T/W ratio, showed to have better maneuverability than flankers in PLA testing, is that good enough for you?
Have you seen the latest JF-17 cockpit? that’s more digitized than block 50 cockpit and J-10’s cockpit is better than that of JF-17.
Pakistanis selected Chinese avionics over the competition for JF-17. And they were planning to use Grifo S7 in the beginning, so they obviously could afford it. But as it turned out, Grifo S7 couldn’t pass their standard, but the Chinese radar was able to.

To Scooter, we don’t know the exact numbers for J-10’s current radar or even for APG-68v9 (other than that it has 30% increase in range). I’d expect the tracking and engagement numbers to be pretty similar. (For example, we know that a SD-10 brochure said that it is supported by a radar that allows 4 concurrent engagements with SD-10. So, we know that concurrent BVR engagement number for J-10 is at least that.) As for range, I think J-10 has a larger nose (over 70 cm) than F-16, so it should be able to hold a larger antenna.

What are J-10’s supossed advantages. It is a cheaper, inferior chinese plane..period.

presumptions, lol
J-10 advantages
better maneuverability
better cockpit
more usage of composite material, completely hidden engine blades
a more complex triple-axis quadriplex digital FBW – no J-10 crash so far
IRST

as for radar: this part is really not known right now, so kind of hard to judge
EW suite, same as radar
weapon: this is probably the real clear advantage of F-16 over J-10.

c-802 is sub launched version and never been exported. iran builds c-701 and c801a under licence. it was more likely a c-701 judged by the damage extent.

YJ-82 is sub launched version. YJ-82 is not the same as C-802. In fact, C-802A was marketted at the same time that YJ-62 came out. You can google it up, this was posted on aviation weekly and JDW. I guess it could be C-701, but at the moment, IDF reports that the missile is C-802.