RookhNot sure how accurate this is, but seems like the PAF are after more F-16s? Not sure if it’s to excercise the options for the remaining 18 Block-52s or whether it’s for surplus earlier models. Not sure how they are going to afford them either way considering the recent floods and the current state of the country, and I doubt the US would give additional aid for these, over and above the current support.
Scroll through to the update dated 01 March.
RookhHang some Patriot missiles or AIM-120Ds onto an E-3 AWACS or wedgetail – and you’d have all the avionics and endurance you’ll ever need in a ‘fighter’. Save on resources too (one aircraft type doing the job of two).;)
I’ve often wondered why AWAC aircraft haven’t been armed before with long range AAMs. If MPAs can be armed with AShMs, I can’t see why AWAC can’t be armed. Seems rather a waste to have that long range radar, yet not be able to engage targets at long range.
RookhHas the PLAAF even decided to induct the JF-17? I doubt they would be interested in it. And even if they are, most likely for ground strike/CAS to replace the Q5 in large numbers, so no real need to create a ‘Silent’ version of it. There may be more advanced versions for the export market, but I doubt any significant changes could be made to the current airframe, such as internal weapon bays. It’s already pretty much at its peak in terms of airframe development, otherwise it’s probably more practical to design/develop a completely new fighter.
lol internal weapons bay? changes in the air frame?
then in the end its not the JF-17 anymore but a new airplane.
Which is what I said a few posts ago! Oh do try to keep up ol’ chap 🙂
RookhI was referring to ‘Silent’ modifications to the JF17 when I was referring to airframe development, such as internal weapon bays. There may be CFTs and other tweaks being developed, but nothing as drastic as changing the wing design, a la F16XL (which never went to production anyway).
Besides, for a cheap lightweight fighter, it rather defeats the purpose of then spending additional $$$ on further development, which only adds to its acquisition costs. What’s the point of that when the PLAAF have Su-27 variants, J-10B, JH-7 and now J-20 in the works? I doubt the PLAAF would select the JF-17 for strike role considering the above types already in service/being developed further?
Perhaps a strike varient for the export market for those airforces that can’t afford to operate large twin enginned heavy types?
RookhI bet FC-1/JF-17 has alot of internal proposed variant.
the weiriest one I have seen/heard is a strike version with a cranked arrow a wing F-16XL style. partially stealthrized. relax, nothing made pass pd stage yet.There is this one guy on those Chinese bbs supposily has some internal connection and constantly confirming denying rumors and such, and half of the time you should throw out half of the stuff he said. the trick is knowing which half.
anyways, he said in one liner: “Silent Fierce Dragon” might fly eariler than “Silent Flanker”. I was going to file it under BS category. but knowing what I know, who knows.:rolleyes:
Has the PLAAF even decided to induct the JF-17? I doubt they would be interested in it. And even if they are, most likely for ground strike/CAS to replace the Q5 in large numbers, so no real need to create a ‘Silent’ version of it. There may be more advanced versions for the export market, but I doubt any significant changes could be made to the current airframe, such as internal weapon bays. It’s already pretty much at its peak in terms of airframe development, otherwise it’s probably more practical to design/develop a completely new fighter.
RookhAssuming that is the location for the IRST that the production versions will have I did wonder had anyone worked out how big the blind spot under the nose is for the IRST? I’m guessing it can’t see ground targets very well with it in that position either.
I remember asking this question a while back, how does a fighter with an IRST located on top of the nose section track air targets which are flying below it, without having to change pitch attitude and lose altitude? Conversly, how does a fighter with an IRST located underneath it’s nose track air targets above its line of sight, without having to nose pitch up? I think the F-14 had an IRST underneath its nose? Wouldn’t it be more useful to have 2 small IRSTs, each located above and below its nose, to allow almost 180 degree field of view, without the fighter having to drasticaly alter its flight attitude?
Rookhanyways.
Any one heard the rumor of “Silent Fierce Dragon” or “Silent Thunder” FC-1/JF-17?
What’s that supposed to be then? A more ‘stealthier’ JF17, if that’s possible?
RookhOn another note, is it safe to hang around in front of an armed fighter like they do in the pics? I don’t know, but I’d probably choose not to be anywhere near the front/rear of those rocket pods (and maybe guns).
All weapon systems, including the gun, are disabled when the undercarriage is deployed on a fighter. This avoids any accidental use of weapons when the aircraft is on the ground. In most cases where defections have occured, and the defecting fighter has been intercepted, it is usually requested to deploy its undercarriage to disable its weapons systems.
Rookh…is like saying that $unri$e Radio back in the 90s was the best asian radio station in the UK (it was the only 1 which wasnt pirate or local). or saying that $unri$e Tv was number 1 in the 90s (it was one of the only ones available in areas))….
Aahh, Sunrise, that brings back memories. Southall just wouldn’t be the same without it, innit man…oohhh chukde patteh 😉
RookhFrom the looks of the picture in the article, the Mirage didn’t have any weapons.
I have been hearing some unconfirmed reports of fighter jets bombing civilians in Libya. My first thought that these Mirages that landed in Malta were disobeying orders to fire on civilians.
But if they don’t have weapons, then this must not be the case.
They could have easily dumped their stores into the Med before landing at Malta, if this is true.
RookhLoke, I don’t remember the exact details but PAF did pay for a second lot of F-16’s back in 80’s which were held up due to pressler amendment (were sold to turkey IIRC), and pakistan was given palm oil in stead for the money they had already paid! :p
this time around US provided the F-16s free of cost, assuming pak had already paid for it (although they had sent the equivalent in palm oil long back) as well as the upg comes from state department assistance to pakistan as ‘payment’ for the help in WOT.
the details should be up on US state dept site, you can check them there. US bankrolls about a third of pakistan’s 6 bn defence budget annually.
this is over and above the monetary loans and aids they provide which they never ask repayment for. (so effectively it’s a gift, not a loan)
Quite a few things wrong there. Only 28 of the Peace Gate III/IV were embargoed due to Pressler Ammendment, which eventually ended up being split equally between the USN aggressor squadron and the USAF material and testing squadron, not sold to Turkey. Most of the costs of the Peace Gate III/IV aircraft were returned to Pakistan, only about USD140 mn was compensated for by wheat and soya bean exports, which were subsequently traded by Pakistan using commodity futures for a tidy profit, so they actually made some returns.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article30.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article24.html
I think 14 of the embargoed airframes serving with the USAF materials command have been returned to PAF, the 14 with the USN aggressor squadron were deemed to have too much structural fatigue to be worth upgrading. The recent 18 Block 52 airframes were paid for by Pakistan through FMS. I think the MLU upgrade for the earlier airframes is being partially funded by military assistance package for WOT.
RookhFinally a Pakistanis are testing again 😎
An interesting video from a news clip, shows vertical launch of missile, with folded fins and control surfaces, rocket booster seperation and cruise phase flight with what looks like a Mirage III in chase;
RookhIran has successfully test fired a supersonic anti-destroyer ballistic missile, called the Persian Gulf, which is capable of targeting different warships.
That’s an interesting name for a missile 🙂 I wonder where it will be used…
Quite an impressive acheivment for the Iranian’s though, is the missile based on a previous short range SSM which has been modified for ant-ship use? I can’t see any resemblance of the missile to any previous SSM. So is Iran only the second country, after China, to have developed an anti-ship ballistic missile? An en masse attack with a few of these on a carrier battle group could be quite difficult to defend against.
RookhFinally a Pakistanis are testing again 😎
Interesting development. The previous versions of the Babur have been housed in a box like canister, with the TEL apparently only allowing launch at a slant angle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Babar_Cruise_Missle_at_Ideas_2008.JPG
This development appears to provide vertical launch capability, which could pave the way for a naval version of the missile, especially a sub-launched version, which may provide a second strike option.
http://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-press_release&id=1666#pr_link1666
RookhSeems like there was a PAF contribution to CRUZEX V last year.
http://www.12af.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123230503
11/10/2010 – NATAL AIR BASE, Brazil — More than 150 Airmen and seven aircraft are representing the United States for the first time in Brazil’s air exercise CRUZEX V. Members of the 161st Air Refueling Wing from Phoenix Arizona are flying a KC-135 and the 140th Wing, hailing from Buckley Air Force Base, Colo., is flying six F-16s in the exercise, along with air planners from Air Forces Southern, located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.
CRUZEX V, or Cruzeiro Do Sul (Southern Cross), is a multinational combined exercise involving the Air Forces of Brazil, Chile, France, the United States and Uruguay, with observers from Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Pakistan, Peru, the United Kingdom and Venezuela. The exercise has more than 85 aircraft and almost 3,000 Airmen participating
Sign In
