Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]
- Thread starter Mukesh Patel
- Start date
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
I know this has happened and still does one of my friend's father in KSA was on 3 year contract from PAF has was flying something i think he was an advisor he was an Experienced F-16 plot one of the 70's experienced war veterans who shot down two migs with a primitive Chinese AC.
SABRE said:
I know this has happened and still does one of my friend's father in KSA was on 3 year contract from PAF has was flying something i think he was an advisor he was an Experienced F-16 plot one of the 70's experienced war veterans who shot down two migs with a primitive Chinese AC.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
I come to know abt this through my uncle. His friend used to fly Tornadoes for KSA & was later transfered to F-15s. Know he flies missions to Yemmen border & some times over Khaibar.
According to him, PAF pilots r not actualy on training but r performing the job of Fighter Pilots for KSA. There r very few KSA-AF pilots who can fly fighter jets pretty good but amongs them only few r able to fly & fight. The reason has been the language. All controls r in english n very few of them speek & understand English in KSA-AF. Even many of the people assigned to control tower r Pakistanis.
Even during Arab-Israel 6day war many Arab countries called upon PAF pilots. We knw their performance in that war.
Anyways PAF pilots there find F-15s better than F-16s when it comes to Air to Air battle (Duh! no doubt about that). But still PAF doest go for them.
Induction of both F-15s & F-16s can give PAF quite an edge.
adsH said:
I come to know abt this through my uncle. His friend used to fly Tornadoes for KSA & was later transfered to F-15s. Know he flies missions to Yemmen border & some times over Khaibar.
According to him, PAF pilots r not actualy on training but r performing the job of Fighter Pilots for KSA. There r very few KSA-AF pilots who can fly fighter jets pretty good but amongs them only few r able to fly & fight. The reason has been the language. All controls r in english n very few of them speek & understand English in KSA-AF. Even many of the people assigned to control tower r Pakistanis.
Even during Arab-Israel 6day war many Arab countries called upon PAF pilots. We knw their performance in that war.
Anyways PAF pilots there find F-15s better than F-16s when it comes to Air to Air battle (Duh! no doubt about that). But still PAF doest go for them.
Induction of both F-15s & F-16s can give PAF quite an edge.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Guys,
When the first batch of pakistani pilots came to Hill AFB in utah in 82 or 83 within weeks they were the talk of the town in the local newspapers, because of their very fast learning abilities and high class flying skills. The reason for that was that they were fluent in english and learnt things fasters than all the other nationalities who were at that base getting trained--off course except for the americans.
Guys,
When the first batch of pakistani pilots came to Hill AFB in utah in 82 or 83 within weeks they were the talk of the town in the local newspapers, because of their very fast learning abilities and high class flying skills. The reason for that was that they were fluent in english and learnt things fasters than all the other nationalities who were at that base getting trained--off course except for the americans.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
We have dicussed to much of this topic & all the time we have only talked on Fighter Aircrafts for PAF & have ignored the bombers. Q5(A5) r going to retire in few yrs hence new bombers to to be opted as well. So which is the best available bomber to PAF.
Personaly I think PAF should go into another venture with China for making a Bomber or convert twin seat JF-17 (which r being made for Training) into bombers, with some modifications if it is possible.
We have dicussed to much of this topic & all the time we have only talked on Fighter Aircrafts for PAF & have ignored the bombers. Q5(A5) r going to retire in few yrs hence new bombers to to be opted as well. So which is the best available bomber to PAF.
Personaly I think PAF should go into another venture with China for making a Bomber or convert twin seat JF-17 (which r being made for Training) into bombers, with some modifications if it is possible.
johnlee359
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Mod Edit:
Simple Reason: Stupid Post! Kid if this post would have been made subject to dissection, you'd have ended up lookin like an ass.Consider this a favour, and next time, take the time to phrase you'r querry or suggestion in a more prudent manner.:coffee
Umair
Mod Edit:
Simple Reason: Stupid Post! Kid if this post would have been made subject to dissection, you'd have ended up lookin like an ass.Consider this a favour, and next time, take the time to phrase you'r querry or suggestion in a more prudent manner.:coffee
Umair
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Max speed achieved is MACH-3. & dessult research says that its not good for fighter Aircrafts to have speed of more than MACH-2.2 with todays technology. So wait for the future. JF-17 can never fly at MACH-4 or 2.2.
Max speed achieved is MACH-3. & dessult research says that its not good for fighter Aircrafts to have speed of more than MACH-2.2 with todays technology. So wait for the future. JF-17 can never fly at MACH-4 or 2.2.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Pakistan should make F-22 then...
johnlee359 said:i think pakistan should make a airplane smaller then the fc-1 because its too big and its just too slow to accellerate, it should make a small aircraft capable of delivering maybe 4 to 5 missile but have a range about 3500 km to 4000 km so we could attack deep in to indian territory with by passing mach 4 almost and the SAMs coulden't even see the airplane because its very low to the ground and with very fast manuverability than anyother airplane in the would it would be like a missile that no one can catch.
and also it would have good radar capability of tracking 3-4 airplanes with up to 150-km to 160 km range and could go deep in to enemy territory and launch pre-empitive strives that the enemy coulden't know who's attacking them. and launch cruise, nuclear or anti-structure bombs, or radiation bombs, they would be seen only when they pass go and when a airplane is too low to the ground enemy radar could never track it down because there are thousands of cars and trucks that the radar could get confused which is the plane.
Pakistan should make F-22 then...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Johnlee, any aircraft design is a compromise in a lot of different ways. If you want a small fighter, it will be relatively slow, possess little range and carry a relatively small payload. If you want a big fighter it will possess a greater range and payload it MAY possess more speed, but will generally have a greater radar signature, be more maintenance intensive and cost far more to build and support.
There are only a couple of aircraft ever built that are capable of supersonic flight at low level. These include (but are not limited to F-111, Tornado and B-1B aircraft). All of these are massive aircraft. To go fast you need a big engine. The bigger the engine the more fuel it'll consume. To get a supersonic aircraft with a 4000k + range you're going to have to build something between an F-111 and a B-1B. Both are big aircraft by any stretch of the imagination.
The plus side is such an aircraft will be capable of carrying far more than 4-5 missiles. The downside is that such an aircraft is basically beyond anyone at present other than the USA. Both cost wise and engineering wise...
Mach 4 is simply ridiculous at present for a manned fighter/strike aircraft. I won't even bother explaining why...
Johnlee, any aircraft design is a compromise in a lot of different ways. If you want a small fighter, it will be relatively slow, possess little range and carry a relatively small payload. If you want a big fighter it will possess a greater range and payload it MAY possess more speed, but will generally have a greater radar signature, be more maintenance intensive and cost far more to build and support.
There are only a couple of aircraft ever built that are capable of supersonic flight at low level. These include (but are not limited to F-111, Tornado and B-1B aircraft). All of these are massive aircraft. To go fast you need a big engine. The bigger the engine the more fuel it'll consume. To get a supersonic aircraft with a 4000k + range you're going to have to build something between an F-111 and a B-1B. Both are big aircraft by any stretch of the imagination.
The plus side is such an aircraft will be capable of carrying far more than 4-5 missiles. The downside is that such an aircraft is basically beyond anyone at present other than the USA. Both cost wise and engineering wise...
Mach 4 is simply ridiculous at present for a manned fighter/strike aircraft. I won't even bother explaining why...
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Hi,
Any plane flying at that speed would not be used as a strike aircraft but rather more suitable for a spying mission. Flying at such high speeds, a pilot cannot even turn his neck around, they would have to dress up in specially designed suits. Now a poor country like pakistan, which cannot even produce / manufacture a crankshaft or an overhead cam shaft for a gasoline engine, is zeons away from producing a jet engine which can fly at mach one.
Now if the exponential for producing a mach 1 performance engine for a fighter was 1 then the the exponential to produce a 4000 kmph engine maybe a 1000 or 10000 times higher.
It is just that the science of high speed performance takes you to a different threshold level. It is just the physics and function of design that puts you at a different pleateau.
Hi,
Any plane flying at that speed would not be used as a strike aircraft but rather more suitable for a spying mission. Flying at such high speeds, a pilot cannot even turn his neck around, they would have to dress up in specially designed suits. Now a poor country like pakistan, which cannot even produce / manufacture a crankshaft or an overhead cam shaft for a gasoline engine, is zeons away from producing a jet engine which can fly at mach one.
Now if the exponential for producing a mach 1 performance engine for a fighter was 1 then the the exponential to produce a 4000 kmph engine maybe a 1000 or 10000 times higher.
It is just that the science of high speed performance takes you to a different threshold level. It is just the physics and function of design that puts you at a different pleateau.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
The shuttle is doing almost Mach 30 when it begins re-entry. An aircraft that is not accelerating and is in level flight is pulling 1G no matter how fast it's going. G-forces are a function of load factor- a 60 degree bank angle is a 2G turn, no matter what the speed (assuming a level turn-no loss of altitude). As bank angles go up, so does the load factor. 9G's is an 82.8 degree bank angle. Level turns are not the only way to affect load factors, they can also be increased in vertical manouvers, like symmetrical pull-ups and split-s manouvers, or decreased or made negative by dives, outside loops, etc. It's the change in inertia that creates G-forces, not the speed you are traveling.
You could be in an aircraft in a 1G inverted dive, and you wouldn't even spill your coffee. You wouldn't even know you were upside-down unless you looked out the window.
Nah. SR-71 pilots wore spacesuits in case they needed to eject at altitude. G suits are required for fighter pilots because the maneuvers they make place them under high G-loads. The idea that speed alone affects a person inside an aircraft is not true. A passenger has the same inertia as the aircraft.VICTORA1 said:
The shuttle is doing almost Mach 30 when it begins re-entry. An aircraft that is not accelerating and is in level flight is pulling 1G no matter how fast it's going. G-forces are a function of load factor- a 60 degree bank angle is a 2G turn, no matter what the speed (assuming a level turn-no loss of altitude). As bank angles go up, so does the load factor. 9G's is an 82.8 degree bank angle. Level turns are not the only way to affect load factors, they can also be increased in vertical manouvers, like symmetrical pull-ups and split-s manouvers, or decreased or made negative by dives, outside loops, etc. It's the change in inertia that creates G-forces, not the speed you are traveling.
You could be in an aircraft in a 1G inverted dive, and you wouldn't even spill your coffee. You wouldn't even know you were upside-down unless you looked out the window.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Whats this got to do with the thread
mod edit:highsea:Just correcting a misperception PAF, no need to get excited. I felt it was better to give an explanation, rather than simply saying "no that's not true".
please get back to topic:coffee
Whats this got to do with the thread
mod edit:highsea:Just correcting a misperception PAF, no need to get excited. I felt it was better to give an explanation, rather than simply saying "no that's not true".
please get back to topic:coffee
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Hi,
I should restate it------coffee maynot spill out of the cup, but the gizzard may have a different way of acting up in an up and down motion of a fighter travelling at 3000 kph +. The blood may stay in the circulatory system but may not be where it is needed the most. SR 71 was not known for its manouverability----it is just for straight flying high speed, high flying----I drive by it every day to work----I can see its tail and the humongous right side engine. Anybody want to see the pictures, let me know and I will try to go to the museum and get them for you one of these days.
I think that we were talking about a 4000 kph fighter for PAF. If a sabre F 86 had a different flying suit than an F 16----then so would a 4000 kph flying pakistani fighter would just in comparison to let us say an F 16. Possibly, the helmet would also be strapped to the seat as well. A fighter plane would not be pulling simple straight G's like the space shuttle-----they will be in every whichever direction-----a good chance that head may simply rip of the torso at high rate of turn unless properly anchored----a common case in high speed accidents are shoes ripping off the feet. As a matter of fact the space suit is one of the reasons for that for an SR 71 pilot not simply jumping out of a plane at higher altitude. I maybe corrected, but if I am not forgetting, the helemt is also tehered to the seat back so that the head may not fly off in a different direction during a violent turn. At ' warp ' speed, the laws of physics are a tad bit different.:argue
Hi,
I should restate it------coffee maynot spill out of the cup, but the gizzard may have a different way of acting up in an up and down motion of a fighter travelling at 3000 kph +. The blood may stay in the circulatory system but may not be where it is needed the most. SR 71 was not known for its manouverability----it is just for straight flying high speed, high flying----I drive by it every day to work----I can see its tail and the humongous right side engine. Anybody want to see the pictures, let me know and I will try to go to the museum and get them for you one of these days.
I think that we were talking about a 4000 kph fighter for PAF. If a sabre F 86 had a different flying suit than an F 16----then so would a 4000 kph flying pakistani fighter would just in comparison to let us say an F 16. Possibly, the helmet would also be strapped to the seat as well. A fighter plane would not be pulling simple straight G's like the space shuttle-----they will be in every whichever direction-----a good chance that head may simply rip of the torso at high rate of turn unless properly anchored----a common case in high speed accidents are shoes ripping off the feet. As a matter of fact the space suit is one of the reasons for that for an SR 71 pilot not simply jumping out of a plane at higher altitude. I maybe corrected, but if I am not forgetting, the helemt is also tehered to the seat back so that the head may not fly off in a different direction during a violent turn. At ' warp ' speed, the laws of physics are a tad bit different.:argue
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Just rubbish. PAF should just buy the darn Mirage2000-9 which flies at MACH-2. They have trained alot on Mir2k9 in UAE, infact they were the one to guide the coustomization for the Mirage2000-5 to Mirage2000-9 (Mirage2000 Mark-2).
PAF should buy 4 to 5 Mirage 2000D-K2 versions with 10 Mirage2000-5(Block C 1 seater) Regular & 5 Mirage2000-9 (Block B 2 seater). This will atleast boast the bombing sqdn. Mirage2000D will be used for Nuclear penetration at high speed & low altitude while Mirage2000-5 will carry out multirole purpose specialy the ground attack & Mirage 2000-9 will look after the skies while Mirage2000D & Mirage2000-5 carry out their Missions.
(Over all Mirages 20...Mirage2000D=5, Mirage2000-5=10 & Mirage2000-9=5)
PAF did evaluate these aircrafts & were satisfied but later moved back.
I have just herd that PAF has asked USA for F-16s that can carry out nuclear penetration & its the decision on that demand which is taking so long.
But I still prefer Mir2000D for Nuclear penetration.
Hence PAF should opt for Mirage2000/5/9&D. With F-16s Block 50 C/D. EU has just excepted Musharaf as the president of Pakistan & JAck Straw is on a visit to Pakistan for 3 days. This is good sign. Support Germans on the permanent SC seat, Support British stands on all issues & bargain for 40+ EF-2000s.
Just rubbish. PAF should just buy the darn Mirage2000-9 which flies at MACH-2. They have trained alot on Mir2k9 in UAE, infact they were the one to guide the coustomization for the Mirage2000-5 to Mirage2000-9 (Mirage2000 Mark-2).
PAF should buy 4 to 5 Mirage 2000D-K2 versions with 10 Mirage2000-5(Block C 1 seater) Regular & 5 Mirage2000-9 (Block B 2 seater). This will atleast boast the bombing sqdn. Mirage2000D will be used for Nuclear penetration at high speed & low altitude while Mirage2000-5 will carry out multirole purpose specialy the ground attack & Mirage 2000-9 will look after the skies while Mirage2000D & Mirage2000-5 carry out their Missions.
(Over all Mirages 20...Mirage2000D=5, Mirage2000-5=10 & Mirage2000-9=5)
PAF did evaluate these aircrafts & were satisfied but later moved back.
I have just herd that PAF has asked USA for F-16s that can carry out nuclear penetration & its the decision on that demand which is taking so long.
But I still prefer Mir2000D for Nuclear penetration.
Hence PAF should opt for Mirage2000/5/9&D. With F-16s Block 50 C/D. EU has just excepted Musharaf as the president of Pakistan & JAck Straw is on a visit to Pakistan for 3 days. This is good sign. Support Germans on the permanent SC seat, Support British stands on all issues & bargain for 40+ EF-2000s.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Hence;
1. OPEN OPTION (RAFALE,Gripen,Ef-2000 etc)..........(Quantity Open Option)
2. Mirage2000-5/9/D........(about 30 to 40)
3. F-16s ........ (150+)
4. J-10 (Bomber tuning & naval/sea support..replace Q5/A5)...(about 40)
5. JF-17......(200+)
6. F-7PG......(present 160 & other that have been ordered..no more..upgrade them further)
8. Mirage 3 & 5 upgrade with Multiple targeting systems (PAF did ask France for it).....(present quantity..upgrade only)
Why dnt we just put the same radar & multiple target tech on JF-17 as well also make another small AC similar to Mirage 3 & 5 but with latest avionics with France ("JF-18")?
Hence;
1. OPEN OPTION (RAFALE,Gripen,Ef-2000 etc)..........(Quantity Open Option)
2. Mirage2000-5/9/D........(about 30 to 40)
3. F-16s ........ (150+)
4. J-10 (Bomber tuning & naval/sea support..replace Q5/A5)...(about 40)
5. JF-17......(200+)
6. F-7PG......(present 160 & other that have been ordered..no more..upgrade them further)
8. Mirage 3 & 5 upgrade with Multiple targeting systems (PAF did ask France for it).....(present quantity..upgrade only)
Why dnt we just put the same radar & multiple target tech on JF-17 as well also make another small AC similar to Mirage 3 & 5 but with latest avionics with France ("JF-18")?
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
PAF has not released any new worth while info about the JF-17, it’s suppose to be an AC that will remain in the shroud of secrecy, but by the looks of it, I’d think the Pakistanis would utilize a blend of Chinese/French and Pakistani Avionics. The Chinese are not bad them selves they’re building J-10 which by my count is a 4th gen fighter. The mirages are going through a regular Upgrade this time it seams they will go through a thorough one, and they may all be upgraded to the same specs. The JF-17 should or might be a lot more capable AC since its newer in design and the Avionics are not completely French and they utilize Customized, Modularized vendor neutral Avionics. I love the part where the Avionics Hardware is all the same on every AC i.e. they all use Power PC Chips and the standard Buses, but they all have clever Software, which makes them more potent then the other.
SABRE said:
PAF has not released any new worth while info about the JF-17, it’s suppose to be an AC that will remain in the shroud of secrecy, but by the looks of it, I’d think the Pakistanis would utilize a blend of Chinese/French and Pakistani Avionics. The Chinese are not bad them selves they’re building J-10 which by my count is a 4th gen fighter. The mirages are going through a regular Upgrade this time it seams they will go through a thorough one, and they may all be upgraded to the same specs. The JF-17 should or might be a lot more capable AC since its newer in design and the Avionics are not completely French and they utilize Customized, Modularized vendor neutral Avionics. I love the part where the Avionics Hardware is all the same on every AC i.e. they all use Power PC Chips and the standard Buses, but they all have clever Software, which makes them more potent then the other.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
sabre the list u have made above is not so realistic in my point of view. pakistan would never get the rafale or euro-fighter and even hopes of getting the gripen have died out. let me assure u that the PAF would struggle to get up 70 f-16 strenght let alone 150+.
sabre the list u have made above is not so realistic in my point of view. pakistan would never get the rafale or euro-fighter and even hopes of getting the gripen have died out. let me assure u that the PAF would struggle to get up 70 f-16 strenght let alone 150+.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
In my view we should keep in mind that PAF is going to buy either Erieye or Hawkeye ( app. 1,5-1,7 billion dollars ), hopefully the deal will be closed this year or next year. Once that is done, then there is the JF-17, and the initial order is for 150 planes (so 150 * 20 mill (my guess) = 3 billion ) , more to follow, this is also going to be expensive. At the same time PAF is also upgrading the mirages and the F-7's.
Given all these expenses and i know some of the members have pointed out that the senate will provide extra funds and that PAF has been saving up for a decade or so, i still dont think that PAF can go out there and buy decent ( 60+ ) number of Rafales or Eurofighters. I admit they are excellent planes and worth their price tag, and are more then a match for anything IAF has at the moment. But expensive loans to get these planes wont do PAF or Pakistan any good.
Therefore in my opinion PAF should primarily focus on J-10 as the 4 gen fighter. It is looking quite capable at the moment considering its price tag, and if one considers the rate at which the chinese are going, then in few years ( 2-3+) time i think it will be able to give the SU-30 a good challenge. And another thing that might benefit the J-10 program is if the EU lifts the arms ban on China. That way the chinese could possible get the bits they cant produce themselves at the moment from the EU, thus making the J-10 even more capable.
About the F-16s, i'm like many others pakistanis sick of hearing about them, but if we can get them at a cheap price then why not? as long we are getting the J-10 or another decent 4 gen fighter.
Here is my "wish" list (over the next 5 years or so):
1) J-10 : 100
2) JF-17: 250
3) F-16: the currrent number plus whatever we can get (32 + 25?? )
4) Mirages: what we got at the moment, max upgrades
5) F-7: what we got, max upgrades
6) 6-7 ERIEYE!!!! if not then some Hawkeyes
7) Air-Air refueling?? can someone shed some light on what options PAF has with regards to this?
In my view we should keep in mind that PAF is going to buy either Erieye or Hawkeye ( app. 1,5-1,7 billion dollars ), hopefully the deal will be closed this year or next year. Once that is done, then there is the JF-17, and the initial order is for 150 planes (so 150 * 20 mill (my guess) = 3 billion ) , more to follow, this is also going to be expensive. At the same time PAF is also upgrading the mirages and the F-7's.
Given all these expenses and i know some of the members have pointed out that the senate will provide extra funds and that PAF has been saving up for a decade or so, i still dont think that PAF can go out there and buy decent ( 60+ ) number of Rafales or Eurofighters. I admit they are excellent planes and worth their price tag, and are more then a match for anything IAF has at the moment. But expensive loans to get these planes wont do PAF or Pakistan any good.
Therefore in my opinion PAF should primarily focus on J-10 as the 4 gen fighter. It is looking quite capable at the moment considering its price tag, and if one considers the rate at which the chinese are going, then in few years ( 2-3+) time i think it will be able to give the SU-30 a good challenge. And another thing that might benefit the J-10 program is if the EU lifts the arms ban on China. That way the chinese could possible get the bits they cant produce themselves at the moment from the EU, thus making the J-10 even more capable.
About the F-16s, i'm like many others pakistanis sick of hearing about them, but if we can get them at a cheap price then why not? as long we are getting the J-10 or another decent 4 gen fighter.
Here is my "wish" list (over the next 5 years or so):
1) J-10 : 100
2) JF-17: 250
3) F-16: the currrent number plus whatever we can get (32 + 25?? )
4) Mirages: what we got at the moment, max upgrades
5) F-7: what we got, max upgrades
6) 6-7 ERIEYE!!!! if not then some Hawkeyes
7) Air-Air refueling?? can someone shed some light on what options PAF has with regards to this?
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
I have been talking with some PAF boys..they say that ACM likes J-10 but like F-16 & 18 most. Anyways they say that the word around PAF is that When two seater J-10 comes out PAF will induct J-10. Many two seaters may be tuned to Bombers & may replace Q5/A5. Single seaters may be considered but some officials believe that JF-17 will equalize with J-10 once they start putting in western (French+Italian+some chinese) aviaonics, so there is no point buying them.
China has already indicated that J-10 two seater may be made available in bomber version with Nuke penetration capability. No such word is out on single seaters.
I have also herd from a pilot who has flew UAE Mirage2000-9 in France (If u dont knw Mirage 2000-9 is coustomized version of Mirage2000-5 made specificly for UAE but the entire coustomized design was designed by PAF for UAE) that Mir2k9 r pretty good even better than the best of UAE F-16s which he usualy flies. He said that they r good enough to put forward even to F-15D & may be E as well.
I have been talking with some PAF boys..they say that ACM likes J-10 but like F-16 & 18 most. Anyways they say that the word around PAF is that When two seater J-10 comes out PAF will induct J-10. Many two seaters may be tuned to Bombers & may replace Q5/A5. Single seaters may be considered but some officials believe that JF-17 will equalize with J-10 once they start putting in western (French+Italian+some chinese) aviaonics, so there is no point buying them.
China has already indicated that J-10 two seater may be made available in bomber version with Nuke penetration capability. No such word is out on single seaters.
I have also herd from a pilot who has flew UAE Mirage2000-9 in France (If u dont knw Mirage 2000-9 is coustomized version of Mirage2000-5 made specificly for UAE but the entire coustomized design was designed by PAF for UAE) that Mir2k9 r pretty good even better than the best of UAE F-16s which he usualy flies. He said that they r good enough to put forward even to F-15D & may be E as well.