Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]

Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?


  • Total voters
    95

redsoulja

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

armage OBL has nothing to do with which aircratf the PAF should go for...
and they will only get a $25 million, america is not that desperate for OBL, now get back to the topic, and please discuss things that are actually possible, not things that will never happen, ask highseas when America should give teh Paks teh F-22 or JSF
 

highsea

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Gentlemen, the topic is "Which Aircraft Should PAF Opt For?"

OBL is a different thread, okay? No further discussion of OBL on this thread.

Armage, I don't think PAF wants to wait 12-15 years or more, so strike JSF off your list.
 

ashoaib

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

If US give JSF than i will be like dream comes true but guys be rational. Armage its impossible dont go in fanticies the country which is not consider F-16 to sell which is far inferior than how they can sell JSF?
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

P.A.F said:
So they are MiG-29 fulcrums??? and 8 of them? and when did you see them???
Yup and I saw them about 3 years ago.BTW what did you meant to imply here?
And they are not frontline fighters, they form an agressor squadron and their existence is not spoken about very frequently.Only people in the PAF and those who got to see them oneway or another know of their existence.
 

P.A.F

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

i was just asking 3 simple questions. not impling nothing ;). so if we have 8 and they are an aggressor squd souldn't we get about 30 or so more?
 

rajupaki

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

I dont understand why US is not giving Pakistan F-16 ? What good is our MNNA status if it is of no use? Why US always give us Lollypops and on the other side allow its Every technology to India through Israel? We are doing a lot for them even more than any other country in the world, we were among the ones who make US the only Super Power, but in return we got santions slaped on our face. US should have to realize our needs cause we deserve it.
 

corsair7772

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

P.A.F said:
i was just asking 3 simple questions. not impling nothing ;). so if we have 8 and they are an aggressor squd souldn't we get about 30 or so more?
u dont need so many for an agressor squadron. PAkistan has abt half a dozen mig-21s and su-20s from the afghan conflict and thts enough for agressor training. If your gonna have 30 you might as well make it an operational squadron. ;)
 

ashoaib

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Mig-29 is an interceptor and for short range purposes while SU-27 is for long range missions. Its better to have F-16 block 50 than mig-29 but who gonna sell us f-16s?
 

armage

New Member
My major question is why is the Us selling more weapons to India than Pakistan (looks to me they want to start some kind of arms build up) and why won't Pakistan buy weapons from Russia?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
armage said:
My major question is why is the Us selling more weapons to India than Pakistan (looks to me they want to start some kind of arms build up) and why won't Pakistan buy weapons from Russia?
Actually, if you add it all up, Pakistan has far more US weapons than India. What you are forgetting is that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, India was perceived by many to be a Russian proxy, so the only weapons India had were Soviet. Since the collapse of the UUSR, India actually buys more weapons from France and Israel than the US.

India (quite rightly so) is no longer running second fiddle to the Russians, and no longer is seen as a hostile nation by those with Cold War memories.

The game has changed.
 

ashoaib

New Member
armage said:
My major question is why is the Us selling more weapons to India than Pakistan (looks to me they want to start some kind of arms build up) and why won't Pakistan buy weapons from Russia?
US is offering more weapons to India coz they want India to be strong against China thats why India is their strattigic partner. On the other hand Russia dont want to sell weapons to PAkistan coz they dont want to make India angry which is still their largest customer. Pakistan tried to get weapons few months ago but Russia refused.
 

ashoaib

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

rajupaki said:
I dont understand why US is not giving Pakistan F-16 ? What good is our MNNA status if it is of no use? Why US always give us Lollypops and on the other side allow its Every technology to India through Israel? We are doing a lot for them even more than any other country in the world, we were among the ones who make US the only Super Power, but in return we got santions slaped on our face. US should have to realize our needs cause we deserve it.
Yeh MNNA status have no use its a big lolly pop nothing more. US has adopted a policy of word praisal which they do on number of occasions but wont give solid favours. They have given very small support to Pakistan considering our role. We have put our national security on a risk for them but wont get much reward. Our Leaders specially Pervaiz Mushraf become happy when they pet him. Why he dont ask US why they are not selling F-16s to us we have done alot for them.
 

P.A.F

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

According to my source the bush administration is very near to allowing the deal of 18 F-16C/D armed with AMRAAMs and JDAMs (can any one tell me what JDAMs are?).
 

lalith prasad

Banned Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

yesterdays news usa offered india c-130j hercules(initial offer to replace the entire an32 fleet of which iaf operates nearly 120 then offered 6-8 aircrafts)according to the indian airchief the offer is being considered .though most likely to be ignored usa is also offering to customise it for india and also set up full maintenance facilities in india.
by the way is c-130j any good :?:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

P.A.F said:
yes they are good. now can someone tell me what JDAMs are?
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
GBU-29, GBU-30, GBU-31, GBU-32
The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GBU-31 is a tailkit under development to meet both USAF and Navy needs, with the Air Force as the lead service. The program will produce a weapon with high accuracy, all-weather, autonomous, conventional bombing capability. JDAM will upgrade the existing inventory of general purpose and penetrator unitary bombs, and a product improvement may add a terminal seeker to improve accuracy. JDAM can be launched from approximately 15 miles from the target and each is independently targeted.

JDAM is not intended to replace any existing weapon system; rather, it is to provide accurate delivery of general purpose bombs in adverse weather conditions. The JDAM will upgrade the existing inventory of Mk-83 1,000- and Mk-84 2,000-pound general purpose unitary bombs and the 2,000-pound hard target penetrator bomb by integrating a guidance kit consisting of an inertial navigation system/global positioning system guidance kit. The 1,000-pound variant of JDAM is designated the GBU-31, and the 2,000-pound version of the JDAM is designated the GBU-32. JDAM variants for the Mk-80 250-pound and Mk-81 500-pound bombs are designated GBU-29 and GBU-30, respectively. Hard Target penetrators being changed into low-cost JDAMs included the 2,000 pound BLU-109 and 1,000 pound BLU-110.

Mission plans are loaded to the host aircraft prior to take off and include release envelope, target coordinates and weapon terminal parameters. The weapon automatically begins its initialization process during captive carry when power is applied by the aircraft. The weapon performs bit, and aligns its INS with the host aircraft’s system. Targeting data is automatically down loaded to the weapon from the host aircraft. When the host aircraft reaches the release point within the Launch Acceptable Region (LAR), the weapon is released. Weapon maneuverability and range are enhanced by fixed aerodynamic surfaces (mid-body strakes) attached to the bomb body.
Once released, the bomb's INS/GPS will take over and guide the bomb to its target regardless of weather. Guidance is accomplished via the tight coupling of an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) with a 3-axis Inertial Navigation System (INS). The Guidance Control Unit (GCU) provides accurate guidance in both GPS-aided INS modes of operation (13 meter (m) Circular Error Probable (CEP)) and INS-only modes of operation (30 m CEP). INS only is defined as GPS quality hand-off from the aircraft with GPS unavailable to the weapon (e.g. GPS jammed). In the event JDAM is unable to receive GPS signals after launch for any reason, jamming or otherwise, the INS will provide rate and acceleration measurements which the weapon software will develop into a navigation solution. The Guidance Control Unit provides accurate guidance in both GPS-aided INS modes of operation and INS-only modes of operation. This inherent JDAM capability will counter the threat from near-term technological advances in GPS jamming.

The weapon system allows launch from very low to very high altitude and can be launched in a dive, toss, loft or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM also allows multiple target engagements on a single pass delivery. JDAM provides the user with a variety of targeting schemes, such as preplanned and inflight captive carriage retargeting.

JDAM is being developed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing [McDonald Douglas]. In October 1995, the Air Force awarded a contract for EMD and for the first 4,635 JDAM kits at an average unit cost of $18,000, less than half the original $40,000 estimate. As a result of JDAM's pilot program status, low-rate initial production was accelerated nine months, to the latter half of FY 1997. On April 30, 1997, the Air Force announced the decision to initiate low-rate initial production (LRIP) of JDAM, with the first production lot of 937 JDAM kits. The JDAM Integrated Product Team achieved a phenomenal 53 guided JDAM weapon releases in the six months prior to the LRIP decision. JDAM demonstrated high reliability and outstanding accuracy. Twenty-two of the weapon releases were accomplished during an early Air Force operational assessment. Over a four-week period operational crews put JDAM through an operationally representative evaluation, including targets shrouded by clouds and obscured by snow. All 22 weapons successfully performed up to their operational requirements including overall accuracy of 10.3 meters, significantly better than the 13 meter requirement. Early operational capability JDAMs have been delivered to Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., and low-rate, initial production JDAM deliveries begin on 02 May 1998. McDonnell Douglas Corporation of Berkeley, MO, was awarded on 02 April 1999, a $50,521,788 face value increase to a firm-fixed-price contract to provide for low rate initial production of 2,527 Joint Direct Attack Munition kits. The work is expected to be completed by January 2001.


On 28 April 2000 McDonnell Douglas Corp., Berkeley, Mo., was awarded a $5,648,796 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract to provide for incorporation of Pin-Lock Tail Actuator System technology into the production effort for 8,163 Joint Direct Attack Munition kits. The Pin-Lock Tail Actuator System provides a more durable and accurate method of maneuvering the tail fins of the JDAM than the existing Friction Brake technology. Expected contract completion date was 31 March 2001.
The JDAM program is nearing the end of its development phase. More than 250 flight tests involved five Air Force and Navy aircraft. JDAM will be carried on virtually all Air Force fighters and bombers, including the B-1, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-22, F-117, and F/A-18.

JDAM was certified as operational capable on the B-2 in July 1997. Limited Initial Operational Capability was achieved on the B-52 in December 1998.

The B-1B Lancer conventional mission upgrade program is configuring the B-1B to carry out its role as the primary Air Force long-range heavy bomber for conventional warfare. The 11 Feb 1998 drop from a B-1B was the 122nd guided JDAM launch. The depot at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center will install the modification kits in the initial block of bombers by January 1999, giving Air Combat Command seven JDAM-capable B-1B bombers 18 months ahead of the initial program schedule.

Potential Upgrades
The JDAM product improvement program may add a terminal seeker for precision guidance and other system improvements to existing JDAMs to provide the Air Force with 3-meter precision and improved anti-jamming capability. The Air Force is evaluating several alternatives and estimates that the seeker could be available for operations by 2004. The seeker kit could be used by both the 2,000-pound blast fragmentation and penetrator JDAMs.


The Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP), a candidate to be integrated with a GBU-31 guidance kit, is a 2000 lb. class penetrator warhead intended as an upgrade/replacement for the BLU-109 warhead in applications requiring increased penetration. The AUP is designed to provide increased penetration capability over the BLU-109 warhead while maintaining the same overall weight, mass properties, dimensions, and physical interfaces associated with the BLU-109 warhead. This concept integrates the AUP warhead with the GBU-31, the JDAM tail kit for 2,000 lb class warheads. This concept uses the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze which allows control of the detonation point by layer counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air.

The boosted penetrator concept is based on achieving maximum penetration without sacrificing operational flexibility. Total system weight will be less than 2,250 pounds so that it can be carried by all AF tactical aircraft and bombers as well as the Navy’s F/A-18. The goal is to achieve greater penetration than the GBU-28 with a near term, affordable design. A dense metal warhead will be used with a wraparound rocket motor to allow internal carriage in the F-117. Advanced explosives will be used to compensate for the reduced charge weight. This concept integrates the boosted penetrator warhead with a JDAM guidance kit with an adverse weather Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).

The Ballasted Penetrator in GBU-32 concept is a 1000 pound dense or ballasted penetrator integrated with a GBU-32 guidance kit using compressed carriage for internal carriage in advanced fighters (F-22, JSF) or carriage in cruise missiles (JASSM, CALCM, ACM, ATACMS, Tomahawk.) The warhead would either be designed with a dense metal case or contain dense metal ballast for maximum penetration. The warhead will be filled with an advanced insensitive explosive to compensate for the reduced charge weight. The warhead will be integrated with the GBU-32, the JDAM tail kit for 1,000 lb class warheads.


The Boosted Unitary Penetrator concept is based on achieving maximum penetration in a weapon that will fit internally in the F-22. Total system weight will be less than 1300 pounds. A dense metal warhead will be used with a wraparound rocket motor. Use of next generation compressed seekers and aero-control designs along with reaction jet control will allow the size to shrink sufficiently to fit inside F-22 and JSF. Advanced explosives will be used to compensate for the reduced charge weight. This concept integrates the boosted penetrator warhead with a JDAM guidance kit with an adverse weather Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).
The JDAM/BLU-113 concept improves the GBU-28 by enhancing the nose design of the BLU-113 warhead for improved penetration. The warhead nose reshape will improve BLU-113 penetration by more than 25%. The penetration could potentially be further improved by replacing the traditional HE fill with a dense explosive. The design involves integrating the improved BLU-113 warhead with a JDAM tail kit.


The Compressed Carriage GBU-32, J1K, enhanced fill concept is a JAST-1000 warhead with enhanced fill integrated with a GBU-32 guidance kit using compressed carriage for internal carriage in advanced fighters (F-22, JSF) or carriage in cruise missiles (JASSM, CALCM, ACM, ATACMS, Tomahawk.) The warhead is a combined penetrator and blast/fray warhead. The warhead shape is optimized for penetration and the enhanced fill and internal liner provide blast and controlled fragmentation capability. The warhead is shrouded to match the MK-83 mass properties and interfaces. The warhead will be integrated with the GBU-32, the JDAM tail kit for 1,000 lb class warheads. Use of aero-control designs along with reaction jet control will allow the size to shrink sufficiently to fit inside F-22 and JSF. This concept uses the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF).

The Direct Attack Munitions Affordable Seeker (DAMASK) Fleet Advanced Demonstration (FAD) accuracy enhancement kit is a seeker of the lowest possible cost that will improve JDAM accuracy to three-meter circular error probability (CEP). The three-year FAD began in FY 98 and continued through FY 00. DAMASK includes a very low-cost sensor mounted to the front of a JDAM and an off-the-shelf signal processor mounted in the existing JDAM tail kit. It uses an uncooled imaging-infrared focal plane array (UIIFPA) sensor and low-cost optics, both developed for the consumer automobile market. An off-the-shelf, commercially available signal processor is the final component of the accuracy upgrade kit, estimated to cost less than $12.7 thousand per seeker in quantity. During the final stages of weapon flight, DAMASK's unique guidance system will image the target area, locate a mission-planned aimpoint and update the JDAM target location. The mission-planning image can come from satellite, uninhabited air vehicles or reconnaissance aircraft. A template is then automatically produced from the mission-planning image and loaded on board the aircraft with the baseline JDAM mission plan. Organic targeting is possible because the target area can be imaged with onboard synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensors, and the pilot can then select the desired impact point using a heads-down display.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...//myjeeves.ask.com/action/snip&Complete=1
 

P.A.F

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

thanx for that :D:
anyway if pakistan can get 18 f-16 C/D with AMRAAM and JDAM capibility then that is excellent.
 

iceman_f15

New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?



reply to kilo_4que

I shall say admit the fact that Pakistan does posses more quality and eagerness to fight than the indians.
I mean, India doesnt have an equivalent number of senior fighter pilots to fly the likes of the more advance fighters. Likewise, what is the point in them having the fighters. It is a psychological fight as well as physical.


I think u live very far from real world my friend...the Su-30 MKI my friend is the best 4+ th generation aircraf which even USAF does not have as of now... the only fighter which is better than Su-30 MKI is F-22 which will take another 3-4 years for deployment... even USAF acknowledge it. As for psychological fight Su-30 MKI can detect a traget at around 250 Kms and hit it with BVR missile at around 120 Kms...which means your planes would not know what hit them and they will be history as your F-16s which are almost of vintage type detection range is rougly upto max 80 Kms. The newest F-16 Block 40/60 also cannot match the Su-30 MKI...go ask ure so called AANDAATHA and they will share this view... war is not won by dreams my friend but technology...Can't u take lessons from Iraq. The Iraqis soldiers were brave and psychological and physcially stronger than Americans but were masscared by adpt use of Technology...so come out of your dream....even ure Air Marshal shared they view point that a Su-30 MKI can at a time enagage 8 traget airfract with ease..do u under what that means...INDIA will have 140 of them..by 2008....GOOD LUCK for PAF them who will depend on psychological fight.

admin: you need to be slightly more careful in the way that you word your responses
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

iceman_f15, you've apparently misunderstood how DACT works - and as you are a newcomer, I am going to post some of the reasons why those Cope India results are misunderstood by enthusiasts of one plane over the other. It would also pay for you to do a search on DACT and then read an article that was posted re how it is designed and structured.

Further - you will also probably be aware that the instructors and pilots of all these exercises have said very very little - it has been boosted by the media, and like all national media, they have a tendenct to misunderstand things, blow them out of proportion - and do a disservice to the professionals in the planes.


USAF explains 'Cope India' Results
Aviation Week & Space Technology ^ | 7-10-04

Posted on 10/07/2004 6:46:59 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki


3rd Wing Explains 'Cope India' Exercise Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50 David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian air force tactics

Indian 'Scare'

The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community.

The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.

These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF's airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.

Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs.

Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade.

Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.

"The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," Snowden says. "India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.

"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out."

Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.

Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.

The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.

"When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see."

By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.

"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.

"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."

USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.
This is not to detract from what was obviously some very fine flying - but the ROE's for these events are decided by both sides to extract a probable learning outcome. It's not a video game.

If the USAF had fought normal ROE's, then the outcome would be very different. They were obviously asked to emulate a particular OPFOR - hence the reasons as to why performance options on engagement and missile parameters were changed.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Just a little addendum, you'll also note that when the Indian Press came out with glowing reports of beating Singaporean F-16's, that both the SIngapore AF and Indian AF came back with responses which basically and politely embarrassed the newsreports.

It's not a game, these things are scripted to reflect combat scenarios that each side can be "pressed" against.

You reall need to exercise caution when quoting newspaper or "schlock media" as they 99% of the time wouldn't know the difference between a Jumbo Jet and a hang glider. ;)
 
Top