PAF F-16 | Discussions

Perhaps it might be better to modify the F-16 and stick to the larger fleet of rogue and probe refuelers, which could be used across the fleet, as well as a cargo plane, such as the Y-20. Then a squadron of F-16, with a SLEP, and the support of tankers, could really be the best platform to support the PN, with its highest max loadout amongst PAF aircraft.

View attachment 203399
If I am not mistaken the Israelis own the IP for that.
 
If I am not mistaken the Israelis own the IP for that.
You seem to be correct, Darn.


Well there is also this option, refuel from a drop tank:

The manufacturer, Cobham is British innit ;) https://www.sargentfletcher.com/


Pakistan is already a customer of Cobham for a silent phone tracking equipment, as described in products in that Wikipedia article.
 
Last edited:
For e.g. the ADU-891 purchase which is confirmed from US sources is not only useful if you intend to purchase AIm-9X or Aim-120C-8s/D-3s. It does provide an upgrade to the C-5,
are we sure?

I was under the similar impression, but i did some more digging and unfortunately am out of hopium lol.

I dug through some US docs and found the adu891/cmbre is merely a replacement for the MBTS/CFMRE, at the time of the PAF order, the US was still exporting the latter, whereas the former was only just beginning to be deployed widely. It had only achieved IOC a few years prior. I suspect this is not an indication of a new missile order/induction, but rather replacing old/unserviceable kit.

1784838061133.png

Though, the Congressional Notification was pretty thin on detail and lacking, i would be surprised if the PAF was getting legacy CMBRE systems, over the plus, HOWEVER, perhaps the Plus is designed around P3I Amraams onwards, leaving the CMBRE for the C5's and older. I believe even the C6 received somewhat updated targeting systems, whereas the C5 was more a 'avionics bay back' upgrade, lengthening the motor and re working the flight control, without modifying the avionics stack, meaning the 120C5 retained the B's avionics, which may explain the potential older systems we're getting'?
 
are we sure?

I was under the similar impression, but i did some more digging and unfortunately am out of hopium lol.

I dug through some US docs and found the adu891/cmbre is merely a replacement for the MBTS/CFMRE, at the time of the PAF order, the US was still exporting the latter, whereas the former was only just beginning to be deployed widely. It had only achieved IOC a few years prior. I suspect this is not an indication of a new missile order/induction, but rather replacing old/unserviceable kit.

View attachment 207806

Though, the Congressional Notification was pretty thin on detail and lacking, i would be surprised if the PAF was getting legacy CMBRE systems, over the plus, HOWEVER, perhaps the Plus is designed around P3I Amraams onwards, leaving the CMBRE for the C5's and older. I believe even the C6 received somewhat updated targeting systems, whereas the C5 was more a 'avionics bay back' upgrade, lengthening the motor and re working the flight control, without modifying the avionics stack, meaning the 120C5 retained the B's avionics, which may explain the potential older systems we're getting'?
I believe that it is a legacy replacement as
well but the C-5 isn’t the B.
There are several ECCM, more Tx and upgraded dsp changes along with other improvements that do make it more lethal otherwise.

Now, regarding what it does bring is one box vs 2-3 for testing so it helps logistically so it speeds up tasks.

I think we’re all clear there is no C-8 or 9X coming because you have had little want or discussion on overall upgrades(and that is a chapter that needs closing unless you normalize with Israel).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top