Thankx latenlazy, i downloaded the file. will play around with it.

Flankers would certainly be a better purchase for Argentina, would make more sense vis-a-vis the Falklands. However, just looking at the state of the air force and the likely purchasing power they are to be allowed, it just seems a bit of a stretch to imagine 40 flankers.

However I think Hammer’s solution is pretty much the most effective way of creating pressure on the Falklands for the UK. Argentina has to ask if that’s what it wants or, as the other poster noted, if it wants to just have something like its present “fighting hawks” to act as minimum deterrence.

As a general rule, when you are looking at another, you should try and get out of your skin and think from the other’s perspective. While Tomcats are older planes, they are not as old as MiG-21s or Mirage IIIs that other airforces still fly. Just because you cannot imagine Iran being able to maintain these planes does not mean they cannot.

As for MiG-29s, just because you have not seen the serial numbers does not mean that Iran may not have acquired more MiG-29s. Nor the fact that BVR missiles are somehow magic weapons that Iran cannot make – Iran has been producing Hawk missiles for quite some time and have improved upon the missile and is also using a variant with the Tomcats as MRAAM.

When we talk about batteries, we must understand that battery technology available today is leaps and bounds ahead of what was available in the 1970s and is not exclusively a western prerogative – they are in fact largely manufactured in China and other emerging countries. Being buried deep inside or not – this isn’t a mining project, it is not nuclear science to dismantle a missile and put it back together again. However, I believe that Pheonix missiles are either in very limited service or not in service and their role has been replaced by the AAM variant of the Hawks.

Attached picture of a Palestinian child shot in the mouth after she tried to run away when her village was attacked. She was then promptly arrested. There are 10s of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons and Gaza and other enclaves are essentially open air prisons.

In all probability and from my past experience, the mods here don’t have the morality to let this post or this picture stand.
*** Mod comment: Indeed, the picture has been removed, as well as your religious comments. This is an aviation forum, not the place to discuss beliefs, or to share religious opinions. And, the fact that I removed it has nothing to do with morality, but with established posting rules here, as well as decency. This forum is viewed by readers of all ages. Please remember this. PM me for any question. – Frank.***

The JF-17 can pull 8.5 Gs according to some sources and according to Pakdef sources they can pull 9 Gs. Furthermore, in war, military settings come into play, which tend to be far less limiting than peacetime operations.

As long as the numbers are standard across the planes, newtons or not, they will make comparative sense. If we take too many other factors it will become hard to analyze given the lack of data.

Again, its just YOUR guesswork and without any data to back it up either. What proof do you have that the JF-17’s ITR is higher than 30 deg/sec?? None and you still make these claims !

I am not making any claims, as was clearly stated, I was expressing my opinion. Why do Indians have to come and try to create trouble in everything remotely related to Pakistan? Do get a life, and if you want feel free to start your own LCA thread.

So how many RD-93s has China/Pakistan bought in total? 100 initial batch, 100 second batch?
Would also be nice to get confirmation on thrust levels of 2nd batch, and if they indeed RD-93MK.

Sorry TR1, I don’t know. The RDs Pakistan has have been touted at 98kN and this there is direct evidence for. Wonder how much the RD-93MKs would give.

My guess is we are still on the first 100 batch. I think it will be a contest for the next 50 Block II JF-17 between the following engines:

1. RD-93MK
2. WS-13
3. An unknown “new gen” Chinese engines (WS-12? WS??)

.*******

There are no hard numbers so its hard to make a concrete comment on the respective flight performance parameters of the two fighters. My guess is:

JF-17 has a slightly better instantaneous turn rate at lower altitudes and worse sustained turn rate. at higher altitude it reverses because of the wing area (JFT has smaller wing area than the JAS-39).

I really think the JFT gets the best features of the F-16, the F/A-18, JSF blending the designs perfectly, to the perfect sweet spot.

The JAS-39 on the other hand is in the mold of the Rafale/Mirage/EF.

I think with HOBS missiles I’d prefer to get the first shot rather than get into a turning fight. So altitude and speed will determine which is the better plane for the job. At the end of the day of course, it will come down to force multipliers and pilot skill, and of course random normal distributions.

no, you have it wrong, initially it was 1.6 M and now it is 1.8.
—

Those weapon integration figures are a bit off, we don’t have any information in Ra’ad integration yet. Also, no PL-9C has ever been seen with the JF-17s, nor even semi-official leaks related to it (IMHO).

I just don’t know why it is okay to crow on and on about the Eurofighter and Rafale (for an indiscriminate amount of threads) not to mention many other d$(# measuring contests but the one thread to be ridiculed is this one.
—-

I am actually going to report any further offtopic, useless posts on this thread, mind you its not fair and not gentlemanly.

I asked the chap to look up the F-16 dsi test pilots comments and he answers with a wiki. Yes, that’s the kind of people we need to comment about technical matters – not.

In summary, the DSI was noted to give benefits across the flight profile, and generally felt like the (block 30) f-16 was powered with the more powerful GE engine.

The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine. Considering the overall goal of the flight test program was to demonstrate the viability of this advanced inlet technology, the results were excellent.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=58