JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

Why the change? You specifically said they were "grounded".

I did not want to change what the source said, obviously. I did not add or subtract anything. Your question was more about what I thought of it, hence the "change".
 
I did not want to change what the source said, obviously. I did not add or subtract anything. Your question was more about what I thought of it, hence the "change".
Because the three that they have are grounded may provide a hint as to why.

(As are all the ones sold to Burma: grounded.)
Do you think a news article that calls the JF17 "Blunder" doesn't reflect some sort of inherent bias towards the aircraft maybe? And if that's the case, wouldn't you question the veracity of the claims mentioned in the article? Try using that gap between your ears maybe?
 
Do you think a news article that calls the JF17 "Blunder" doesn't reflect some sort of inherent bias towards the aircraft maybe? And if that's the case, wouldn't you question the veracity of the claims mentioned in the article? Try using that gap between your ears maybe?

Does the gap between your ears tell you that there might be enough reason for the Nigerian to hesitate to buy more JF-17s?
 
Does the gap between your ears tell you that there might be enough reason for the Nigerian to hesitate to buy more JF-17s?
Because they don't need anymore? They've shifted to focus on COIN? They can't afford anymore? There could be a whole number of reasons. Buy of course you know, because you're privy to such details that the rest of us aren't.
 
Because they don't need anymore? They've shifted to focus on COIN? They can't afford anymore? There could be a whole number of reasons.

Yes, and if you use the gap between your ears a bit more, read above and you may see that I said the issues could be an explanation for their reluctance to buy more. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, if you really tax the gap between your ears, you may be able to explain why they are considering alternatives, if the possibilities you have put forth are just as likely or not, but that might be too hard for you.
 
Azerbaijani army, which is far more serious than Nigerian army, is buying JF-17 (albeit the latest variant unlike Blk 2). I don’t think Azerbaijani army would have went ahead if there were such doubts.

May be they will be able to make it work better for them than the Nigerians. Or the Burmese. Of course. Every airforce decides for itself how to best meet its needs.
 
Yes, and if you use the gap between your ears a bit more, read above and you may see that I said the issues could be an explanation for their reluctance to buy more. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, if you really tax the gap between your ears, you may be able to explain why they are considering alternatives, if the possibilities you have put forth are just as likely or not, but that might be too hard for you.
And what alternatives are they considering? COIN aircraft.
 
Damn, quality of forum is going down with unnecessary long conversations on unverified sources and random posts.

JF17 for PAF is fine so I dont care how jf17 perform good in Nigeria or Myanmar first of all. By virtue of wisdom PAF is proper credible airforce while Nigeria and Myanmar are peanuts. Question should be that, "Are jf17 properly maintained in Nigeria or Myanmar or is it another story like vt4 abused by Thai's ?".
 
Sigh.

Please feel free to ignore:

That source is already debunked completely as one run purely by NRI interests.

Go ahead and pull both ownership and mission statements

The site explicitly says it “advocates changes in arms transfer policy to Western decision-makers” and promotes transferring defensive weapons to Asia, Latin America, and Africa to create a “rules-based world order.

So not only is its assertion BS - it even claims it’s purpose is to spread BS for a specific reason.
 

That source is already debunked completely as one run purely by NRI interests.

Go ahead and pull both ownership and mission statements

The site explicitly says it “advocates changes in arms transfer policy to Western decision-makers” and promotes transferring defensive weapons to Asia, Latin America, and Africa to create a “rules-based world order.

So not only is its assertion BS - it even claims it’s purpose is to spread BS for a specific reason.

1. Are you saying that it is debunked because of its affiliation/intent, or are you saying it is debunked because the substance of what it is reporting has been shown to be incorrect?

2. Do either of the above also apply to the Burmese source linked above?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Latest Posts

    Back
    Top