Aamir Hussain
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
A DSI equipped test F-16
PAF F-16 | Discussions
- Thread starter Trailer23
- Start date
A DSI equipped test F-16
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
Oscar
Moderator
If only there was a truly organized and well thought out effort to release information and engage the public like the USAF and other branches do - even the IDF has upped its game. But alas, it’s very non-meritorious in how that entire PR game is managed.
That being said - the USAF PR offices all around do have their faux pax and they are funny.
Oscar
Moderator
An entire article on this in the LM magazine - lost to the internet archives but it debunked a lot of claims for DSI - both positive and negative
Raider 21
Moderator
JSF Diverterless Supersonic Inlet | Code One Magazine
Article on diverterless inlet testing for F-35 program.
www.codeonemagazine.com
GriffinsRule
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Take that with a bucket of salt. Only Germany and Turkey were offered the aircraft after the first gulf war but neither sales materialized.
PAF wasn't impressed by the A-10 but A-5 must've been mana from the heavens
Take that with a bucket of salt. Only Germany and Turkey were offered the aircraft after the first gulf war but neither sales materialized.
PAF wasn't impressed by the A-10 but A-5 must've been mana from the heavens
PAF Second to none mag outlines the A10 deal, though, i call bs on the not impressed also lol
Oscar
Moderator
Ive seen a official Fairchild presented model of the A-10 along with a company brochure in 2001 (and it was already old news then) in the office of an original PAF F-16 cadre along with a model of the A-7.Take that with a bucket of salt. Only Germany and Turkey were offered the aircraft after the first gulf war but neither sales materialized.
PAF wasn't impressed by the A-10 but A-5 must've been mana from the heavens
Here is a kicker - they were both in PAF colors - the A-10 in a white and grey scheme and the A-7 was in the green grey scheme.
I was there for paying my respects as this officer had just been lost with ACM Mushaf in the Kohat Fokker.
Oscar
Moderator
It wasn’t about impressed - it did not really meet the PAF ASR for what it needed for its edge - and the CAS focused A-5 was bought after the Mirages were to be focused on strike and the F-6 was at best a rocketry and gunnery platform z
Aamir Hussain
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
At that time counter insurgency ops were not on the radar so A-10 was considered to be a luxury for an air force focusing upon multirole aircraft.
Quwa
Research Partner
The F-16 and A-7 would've been a very good combo for multi-role and strike. However, the PAF could only afford one, so it went with the multi-role platform (and rightfully so). The attack req went to the A-5. But if they had the money (or aid), they would've sought the A-7 or, potentially, the Tornado.
Raider 21
Moderator
And they also did another brilliant move. They removed critical instruments in the A-5 cockpit so they could buy two more aircraft.
It was the ultimate widowmaker of its time in PAF's service.
As far as regarding the A-10, agreed it didn't meet anything at all for what the F-16 was providing at the time.
Oscar
Moderator
There were reasons for that - chief being the use of the FT-6 with a better thrust to weight ratio to train A-5 pilots which behaved little like that aircraft.
Not as if the F-6 was any way an easy aircraft with its quirky throttle and obsolete boosted controls - but many were lost trying FT-6 type maneuvers on a much heavier and different handling aircraft.
Theirs is not to question why
GriffinsRule
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Outside of the F-16, none of the aircraft from that era were truly multirole in PAF (Mirages in IAF case).
A-10, A-7 or A/Q-5 for that matter would have performed the same role in PAF, that is anti armor and ground attack.
A-7 didn't make sense for PAF and rightly so, a aircraft on its way out. Real bang for $ was the F-16 and testimont to its design and longevity. Great fo us that the Saudis footed the bill for those. ( Uncle Sam paid for the Mir-2000s for India to maintain "balance".
A-10 would have been a great addition too for making Swiss cheese out of Indian armor but we went with A-5 since it was cheaper and based on F-6, which PAF had hundreds of along with a rebuild factory.
A-10, A-7 or A/Q-5 for that matter would have performed the same role in PAF, that is anti armor and ground attack.
A-7 didn't make sense for PAF and rightly so, a aircraft on its way out. Real bang for $ was the F-16 and testimont to its design and longevity. Great fo us that the Saudis footed the bill for those. ( Uncle Sam paid for the Mir-2000s for India to maintain "balance".
A-10 would have been a great addition too for making Swiss cheese out of Indian armor but we went with A-5 since it was cheaper and based on F-6, which PAF had hundreds of along with a rebuild factory.
GriffinsRule
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
It was folly on part of the PAF to treat them as the same and many pilots paid for that.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
-
-
-
TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions (11 Viewers)- Latest: MMM-E
-
Latest Posts
-
-
-
UK Racism against Muslims and Brown people: Why are blacks in the UK given a free pass by white english racists? (9 Viewers)- Latest: PAKISTANFOREVER
-
-