CHINESE AFICIONADO, XIN LINGYU, SAYS “EVEN THE BASELINE JF-17 THUNDER BLOCK 1 IS MORE MANOEUVREABLE THAN THE GRIPEN C/D”

JF17 THUNDER

JAS-39D GRIPEN (DEFENCE INDUSTRY DAILY PHOTO)

The Youtube videos posted earlier on your blog is quite understandable because the T/W ratio in Beegeagle’s post is totally wrong!

The empty weight of JF-17 Block I is 6411, while JAS-39 C/D is 6800 kg; the thrust for RD-93 is 8700 kgf (according to the news about FC-31 which use the same engines as JF-17)while JAS-39 C/D used RM-12, is 8214 kgf.

If the two take the same payload of 3,000 kg, then the T/W ratio for JF-17 Block I is 0.92, while JAS-39 C/D is 0.84, so there is a huge gap as JF-17 will win in a dogfight for sure.

About beegeagle

BEEG EAGLE -perspectives of an opinionated Nigerian male with a keen interest in Geopolitics, Defence and Strategic Studies
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to CHINESE AFICIONADO, XIN LINGYU, SAYS “EVEN THE BASELINE JF-17 THUNDER BLOCK 1 IS MORE MANOEUVREABLE THAN THE GRIPEN C/D”

  1. beegeagle says:

    JF17 THUNDER (FC 1) FIGHTER PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS (by IHS JANE’S)

  2. beegeagle says:

    JF17 THUNDER, third generation? Really? What has this guy been drinking? This “West-is-Best, East-is-Less” mindset is deeply ingrained in the wrong places. Una go later surprise🙂

    http://www.janes.com/article/56924/pakistan-pushes-for-jf-17-sale-to-sri-lanka

    • eyimola says:

      It is not a 3rd Gen Plane. Not quite 4th Gen, but close enough. Some describe it as a modernized upgraded Mig-21, which is not a bad thing at all Not sure why its being compared to the Grippen, but low cost and ease of maintenance is a quality of its own, and nobody can touch this plane for that. Having said that, this is still a risky purchase. The Chinese are not flying this in any significant quantities, and the Pakistanis are still buying F-16s.

      • rka says:

        The RAF Typhoon hasn’t got an AESA radar at the moment as still in development and I wouldn’t necessarily call it a 3 GEN jet granted that it has other advanced features with incremental upgrades continuing.

      • rka says:

        Sorry, wrong p!ace.

      • rka says:

        The Chinese don’t fly it because they have the J10 and don’t need it not that there is anything wrong with it.

        Pakistan are still buying the F16s along with the JF-17 because of diversification and need to keep up squadron numbers to counter India as not enough can be produced yearly at the moment to equip the units. The F16 at the moment also has additional capabilities on the weapons and avionics front that will probably come with JF-17 batch III.

      • Tbite says:

        For a country like China it is also a different ball game entirely, the range of the jet doesn’t suit their needs, but for our purposes it wouldn’t be inefficient.

    • Henry says:

      Oga eyimola, I really can’t get your bearing. How is the JF-17 not a 4 GEN fighter? The JF-17 uses a digital fly-by-wire system.

      • Are James says:

        SU 33, Mig 29 and the latest upgrade of Mirage 2000 are also not 4th generation for the same reasons – no scanned array radar, manual sensor fusion with slightly higher pilot workload but I would take any of them over some 100% 4th generation aircraft.. They are all very capable.

      • Henry says:

        @Arejames, the difference between a 3GEN fighter and a 4 GEN fighter is in it’s use of digital flight control systems.

        The JF-17 uses a digital FBW, greatly reducing pilot input in flight, digital avionic buses, all data provided on 3 MFDs for the pilot.

        Dramatic enhancements of these aforementioned capabilities would push the aircraft to a 4.5 designation or 4++.

        JF-17 is meant to replace all 3generation or 3.5gen aircrafts including older MIG-29s.

        the only drawback for the JF-17 is the fact that it isn’t of western origin, and doesn’t have all the big media behind it. Over 30,000 sorties since inception in 2010 and only one crash incident tells us all we need to know about the JF-17.

        I’m sure you already knew all this, which makes this reply to you somewhat irrelevant, hence i really do not understand

      • Kola Adekola says:

        Oga Are James, several Su-30 variants have advanced scanned array radars (AESA) eg (Su-30MKM, Su-30MKI). Older SU-30 and Su-27 versions have also have a scanned array radar an older version of scanned array radar (PESA) as do Su-27’s and Mig-29’s.

      • eyimola says:

        Some parts of the boundaries between different classes of aircraft is very fluid. Digital fly by wire cannot be used as an arbitrary metric, The cancelled Canadian Arrow (Probably the best aircraft to be designed throughout the cold war) had fly by wire, as far back as 1958.

    • Are James says:

      *SU 30*

      • gbash10 says:

        @Oga Kola, there is no SU-30 or SU-35 that is presently carrying an AESA radar. It is only the MiG-35 that is carrying the first and only Russian AESA radar for now, but it is still not operational.

        The radar carried by the SU-30MKI/MKA is the NIIP NO11BARS PESA radar while the SU-35 is carrying the most powerful fighter jet PESA radar, the Snow Leopard.

      • gbash10 says:

        @ all, the correct meaning of AESA is – Active Electronically Steered Array while PESA means – Passive Electronically Steered Array.
        The Chinese seems to have an edge over the Russians in fighter jet AESA radar technology,the Chinese J-16 is carrying an AESA radar claimed to have a Transmit/Receive module count of over 1000.

    • Bharat says:

      The features/characteristics of generation system followed by western nations and China are different.
      The features what west calls 5th gen is what China calls 4th gen. So, accordingly J-20/J-31 are 4th gen according to Chinese classification and 5th gen according to western.
      Similarly for JF-17.

      The generation system is not standardized/uniform as we see in mobile phones.

  3. Henry says:

    The JF-17 thunder is a good light multi-role aircraft, I would be more than pleased if we eventually get them.

  4. rka says:

    I have a feeling a major order has gone in and the budget proposal is just to pay for the first 3 in 2016 and will continue on that track as they are built considering there isn’t the capacity at the moment to fulfill large orders for Pakistan, Nigeria and other buyers on a yearly basis at the moment.

    Will suit our budget for now.

  5. Kay says:

    Hopefully true this time. So much said in the past with little on ground.
    Also can the Chinese guru clear up about the range of the JF17 once and for all?

  6. Henry says:

    Eyimola, the Chinese do not fly the JF-17 because they have the J-10. The J-10 is in the same class as the JF-17, however it is a better product.

    The Pakistanis are reaching for better F-16s as newer variants( F-16V & F-16 block 52) offer capabilities which allow them counter IAF “air-superiority” dominance.

    The JF-17 would form the back-bone of PAF, in the same manner as the Tejas LCA is supposed to. While fighters such as the SU-30MKI,F-16, Rafale fill up other capability requirements.

    • eyimola says:

      The PLAAF might eventually out this aircraft in its inventory Probably in a future revision\upgrade. The point you made about the Pakistanis buying more F-16s actually highlights my point. They are in effect receiving upgraded F-16A/Bs (same model they recieved in the 80s), which is a far cry from the F-16CJ/DJ ordered by the USAAF. Evgen then, the Pakistanis, clearly consider the F-16 as the superior aircraft. Im very happy with the JF-17, but it needs to be seen as a short term measure to fill a capability gap, rather than the answer to our air policing needs.

  7. ifiok umoeka says:

    Oga Chinese Aficionado, its well established that in after burner, the RD 93 has a higher rating than the F404 …just, while the reverse is the case in dry trust..just. However, those figures (8700) isn’t for the RD 93 but for the RD33mk wasp. The RD 93 is rated as 8300kgf @ wet trust. Klimov the manufacturer gives the wet trust as 8300kgf with the 8600 figure being max emergency trust and its not sustained wet trust. That’s very old news long cleared

  8. ifiok umoeka says:

    But T/W ratio alone doesn’t give the full picture! What effect does the area of the control surfaces have on maneuverability and what is the difference btw the wing area of both aircraft?
    2ndly, what is the difference in maneuverability of a closed couple canard delta aircraft and one with LERX of similar dimensions?
    3rdly, what is the difference btw similar aircraft with one having all spectrum digital fly-by-wire sys and the other having a digital fly-by-wire sys in one axis
    4thly. Does AoA impact maneuverability and what are the AoA of both aircraft

  9. ifiok umoeka says:

    For the spec of the Jf17, here’s what the official figure say:
    http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17

    For the engine spec, here’s what the manufacturers say:
    http://www.tmkb-soyuz.ru/85
    http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/

    2.2046ib=1kg
    And the 3400ib on the pac site is a mistake, should be 3400kg

    These should help clear the erroreous
    Inputs. With the above, re calculate and let’s see what u come up with

  10. ifiok umoeka says:

    For the spec of the Jf17, here’s what the official figure say:
    http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17

    For the engine spec, here’s what the manufacturers say:
    http://www.tmkb-soyuz.ru/85
    http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/

    2.2046ib=1kg
    And the 3400ib on the pac site is a mistake, should be 3400kg

    These should help clear the erroreous
    Inputs. With the above, re calculate and let’s see what u come up with

    In case this come out more than once, its system frustration related issues

  11. ifiok umoeka says:

    I’ve made some post that just refuses to appear.

  12. ifiok umoeka says:

    Let me just say that more correct figures can be gleaned from the manufacturers’ site. Pac.org/pk.jf-17, http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/. This could help too! http://www.tmkb-soyuz.ru/85
    Pound to kilogram 2.2046ib=1kg.
    Re calculate and let’s see what u come up with

  13. Sokoto says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_jet_fighter Go to the list ” Fourth-generation jet fighters compared ” JF 17 is a 4 GEN fighter

    • Augustine says:

      Dan Sokoto, no mind dem o. Someone here even says he was informed that JF-17 is just another MiG-21 upgrade, and he is posting that here….funny how Africans love to be deceived by dan bature, whatever oyinbo says is law for some Africans. Pity, pity, pity, one day, Albino will rule them because of their ignorance that is hard to cure.

      • Sokoto says:

        lmao Augustine you are so right ! the all think west is better they are forgetting that is in fact east who ows the west ( China ) kay day bar su

      • eyimola says:

        You should probably check your facts before posting. This is from the product description page

        “By 1989, because of economic sanctions by the US, Pakistan had abandoned Project Sabre II, a design study involving US aircraft manufacturer Grumman and China, and had decided to redesign and upgrade the Chengdu F-7. In the same year, China and Grumman started a new design study to develop the Super 7, another redesigned Chengdu F-7 Grumman left the project when sanctions were placed on China following the political fallout from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. After Grumman left the Chengdu Super 7 project, the Fighter China project was launched in 1991. In 1995, Pakistan and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for joint design and development of a new fighter, and over the next few years worked out the project details.”

      • eyimola says:

        Not everything is a contest between East and West. Your statement is ignorant and unintelligent. You are comparing a fighter that has never seen any sort of service to one that has had extensive engagement, and assuming people are biased?

  14. Augustine says:

    Gripen :
    2 Carnards, to aid maneuverability

    JF-17 :
    2 LERX, 2 movable horizontal stabilators, 2 ventral stabilizer fins, to aid maneuverability

    Both jets have other specifications with competing plus and minus here and there, but in dogfight maneuverability, JF-17 is better.

    11 Gripen crashes/acccidents….1 JF-17 crash/accident.

    Hungarian air force’s 8 year old Gripen landing gear was broken into pieces during simple landing, airframe rated by SAAB to last half a century.

    Let Gripen SAAB go build a better airframe and stop marketing fraud of “Gripen airframe will last 50 years, so price is double of JF-17 that will last 25 years.”

    Don’t pay $ 60 million for $ 30 million value…but the choice is yours

  15. Ifiok umoeka says:

    Oga Augustine, I know that u read what u posted. Airframe and landing gear are not one and the same thing. Have u heard of or seen any gripen airframe crack? I know u know but lemme just say it, combat aircrafts are prone to airframe fatigue. It comes with all the high g maneuver. That’s why operators are interested in it(life span) in the 1st place.
    Except ur physics is better than the world’s then it remains that composites are better than aluminum. That’s why jf17 block iii is reported to come with a considerable quantity of composites!
    It’s as if u the folks @ took something ( or one) dear to u and u’re out on a campaign to spite the. Many people read this site and their devices still have search functions in them. When the check out ur post and cross reference with others…

    • Augustine says:

      Oga Ifiok, airframe is the body of the aircraft apart from the engine. Is the landing gear not attached to the aircraft’s body?

      Definition of airframe:
      The structure of an aircraft, rocket vehicle, or missile without the power plant;
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airframe

      Oga Ifiok, don’t worry about me, worry about yourself, you need to go buy language dictionary to use before you post comments sir.

      • Are James says:

        Okay he is right on this one. Fatigue is actually a long term failure characteristic. The landing gear is strictly not part of the airframe. In fact completely different and incompatible means of assessing fatigue life of landing gears which are made and supplied by companies outside the industry. A failed landing gear before 10years is actually infant mortality failure – a warranty issue, because take-offs and landings of military aircraft at ten years are definitely very few or definitely low compared with civil aircraft. This one would be due to manufacturing defect or maintenance mistake bit fatigue in anyway.

      • Are James says:

        *not fatigue in any way*

  16. ifiok umoeka says:

    My chief, so the landing gear is made of composite abi? Its like saying that because a lexus LFA is made of composite then the suspension, hub and wheels are made of composites. No be quarrel o, but I’ll continue to challenge untruth here as much as I can. Before some bloke will not get into combat believing that his platform is beyond touch when in fact he goes in with obvious disadvantages. Its better to know ur weakness and to come up with doctrines and tactics that make those weaknesses mute

    More correct spec figures of this platform can be gleaned from the manufacturers’ site. Pac.org/pk.jf-17, http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/. This could help too! http://www.tmkb-soyuz.ru/85
    Pound to kilogram 2.2046i

  17. ifiok umoeka says:

    My chief, so the landing gear is made of composite abi? Its like saying that because a lexus LFA is made of composite then the suspension, hub and wheels are made of composites. No be quarrel o, but I’ll continue to challenge untruth here as much as I can. Before some bloke will not get into combat believing that his platform is beyond touch when in fact he goes in with obvious disadvantages. Its better to know ur weakness and to come up with doctrines and tactics that make those weaknesses mute

    • Are James says:

      I have replied him. Landing gears are not even made by airframe companies. They don’t keep the specialised skills and tooling required to make them. Landing gears are precision controlled systems built into extremely stiff and variable hydraulics ending up in extremely tough tires. Many components are involved and calculating what you call fatigue life is complex. That failure being described is a defect of manufacture or maintenance

  18. ifiok umoeka says:

    Sorry Oga Are James, the system is giving me a hard time posting. I post like 3 times in diff version for it to go…that’s after it tells me that I’m duplicating my post

  19. ifiok umoeka says:

    Been trying to post this for 4hrs
    More correct spec figures of this platform can be gleaned from the manufacturers’ site. Pac.org/pk.jf-17, http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/. This could help too! http://www.tmkb-soyuz.ru/85
    Pound to kilogram 2.2046i

  20. ifiok umoeka says:

    Ok guys, just go to the official site of the manufactures of both airframe and engine, I don tire to post and e no gree appear. Remember to convert from pounds to kilograms.

  21. ifiok umoeka says:

    Then compare the specs with what Oga Aficionado posted to arrive @ his t/w ratio the premise of his Thunder superiority theory. 9ja, I hail.

    • Augustine says:

      Oxford dictionary defines airframe as:

      “The body of an aircraft as distinct from it’s engine.”

      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/airframe

      Anybody who disagrees will need to prove ten dictionaries wrong as they all say the same thing.

      The landing gear is not part of the engine and is therefore part of the airframe, or does anybody know English language definitions more than Oxford dictionary?

      • Are James says:

        The aircraft = airframe + engine + landing gear.
        This is simple aeronautical reliability engineering. The consideration is to look at the function of flight = takeoff + cruising + landing. You cannot do this analysis accurately without taking the landing gear as a separate component. Also the airframe fails usually due to fatigue life which is dependent on age. Most failures of landing gears would be random.

  22. ifiok umoeka says:

    Oga carry go! Hehehehehe

  23. Capt Tobias says:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-and-greek-fighters-engaged-in-a-dogfight-over-the-aegean-sea-2015-12
    a) F1 Vs F16 = Winner F1 based on numeric and surprise advantage.
    b) Mirage 2000 Vs F16 = Winner M 2000, based on the home airspace advantage ( well within range, suprise, less stress due to available back up including ground defence system putting additional stress on a surprised F16 pilot .

    With the out come of these dog fights above, most pilots know that it is not a straight forward paper exercise. the Key factors are;
    1) the aircraft significant aircraft core performance advantages,
    2)the skills of the pilot ( his intimate understanding of his platform ,based on numerous flights that has built up his muscle and mental interface enough to be integrated into the platform as part of the system.
    3) The whole strategy of deployment based on the knowledge of the opponents and fielding the aircraft in it’s envelope of advantage based on the intimate knowledge of the mission planners.
    4) Operational environment and conditions.
    The ace in the vietnam war was Col Tomb of the Vietnamese Air force flying a MIG17/19 ( not even the MIG21) against the US Phantoms, He knew his aircraft and lured his adversaries into his kill zone ( best performance envelope). It is all about strategy, if your aircraft is less capable and cheaper, you put up more numbers. if you have aerial combat limitations, you design your plans in coordination with your special forces/intelligence to catch the opponents on ground, take out there runways and support assets that make them useless (Runways, Fuel,), you avoid them and destroy there resources to function effectively, in defense you adequately disperse your assets. Even the MFI properly deployed in areas with unrecognizable runways can ambush returning MIgs s the land with “Bingo” fuel, this was done during the Nigerian civil war in PHC by the Minicons/MFIs.
    If Nigeria is going to field FJ17 then they must consider that it is cheaper and aim for overwhelming numeric advantage, anything less that a propers squadron is a sad joke. Let’s hope that this plan is directed at building up a pool of next Gen pilots to man future purchases.
    The Mil35 helicopters have a secondary role in an a convectional conflict, the SU25 are excellent RW killers ( and they/Su25 are all around our borders). Chad learnt that lesson with the serious loss of their Mi171Sh in one of it’s earlier Northern border area wars.
    The video/Pictures of the simulator shows actually an advance procedure trainer ( Level 4/5 ), this is a fixed base low level simulator, not capable to be used for checking out pilots, it is a system and procedure trainer with a synchronized moving screen. it must be part early sections of the training syllabus to convert pilots to the type, There must be some other fast jet aircraft fixed with the same cockpit layout and ergonomics to simulate the FJ17 behaviours, When planners have limitations on the two cockpit or advanced level simulators, they would normally drawout a more gradual training regime to cautiously “break in” pilots on a single seat aircraft , chase planes with flying instructors would be used to compliment the solo flights of trainee high experience pilots (Hours not years), who would easily understand the aerodynamics and attendant characteristics of the FJ17 platforms

  24. ifiok umoeka says:

    Oga Capt, on point all the way. However, I think u mean the JF-17, perhaps it the devil auto correct @ it again.

  25. beegeagle says:

    ALI from PAKISTAN says:

    Weight to thrust ratio is 1.4 according to Paris Airshow statistics !
    Please don’t lie on international
    forums..

  26. ifiok umoeka says:

    Lol, I guess he meant without internal fuel and radar

  27. Capt Tobias says:

    A very Happy new year every body , All Ogas and God’s blessing protection and prosperity to us all. Special cheers to Oga Beegs

  28. ifiok umoeka says:

    Oga Capt. 2 fast na.

  29. ifiok umoeka says:

    Welcome to 2016 Beegeaglian! 366 days of growing in greatness and we’ll be here contributing our quota! May our strength never fail, our patriotism never wean, our light never dim, our humor and free spirit never lost. May we grow to the point where our enemies can’t do anything about a destiny.
    Happy new year Nigeria and all our true friend. Oga Beeg, I salute u

  30. ifiok umoeka says:

    My time said 12:00am lol. Its raining fire crackers here

  31. Sokoto says:

    hAPPY JF17 TO EVERYONE

  32. abduleez says:

    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE BEEG 1 and other BEEGEAGLES MEMBERS.

    Seems we will be going into the new year with something to smile on frm NAF.

    Hope they are going to pack a whole punch, equipped with standoff weaponry…. but the numbers are too few

    Guess more are coming. We should buy at least 1 squadron of block II JF-17, then buy more JF-17 BLOCK III when it is out totaling 50-60 units by 2020, which is going to be our work horse. Hope the block II can be easily upgraded to block III with AESA.

    Most importantly NAF should be imposed on a decree that forces them to upgrade our key combat jets every 3-4 yrs to latest and most lethal standards since we know their lackluster maintenance culture.

  33. drag_on says:

    ‘If you want to win a war don’t give the enemy a chance.’

    Concerning the gripen vs JF17.Can we really expect them to match up against the other? They are both suited for glancing blows(defence).Neither have the range or onboard power/ avionics to overwhelm enemy forces in a hostile environment unaided.They will need major assitance from AEW&C,EW,ELINT suport birds and refuel tankers to maintain operations needed to degrade hostile enemy defenses. I dont expect to see either unaided in enemy territory possesing powerful ground radar, EO defences,,SAMs’ and silent vectored intercept. By concept,i think both aircraft are meant to be silently vectored to the enemy by ground radar or configured as multirole workhorses not air-superiority.If you want something to go into enemy territory with minimal help and give a big punch, you want the big or stealth war birds.
    lets stop comparing the JF17 and Gripen, i dont believe any right thinking nation would send any of them to face each other in hostile territory unaided.They are not designed for air-superiority.The mere fact that they are so close is the reason they should never merge in a battle space hence the above quote.
    Strategically, we need the su30’s for air superiority in the next 10 yrs.We should have gone for an extra 10 su27(russian stock) to get us used to heavy fighters. The balance of power in Africa is slowing tilting to our disadvantage. Our neighbours will get more adventurous if they smell weakness.They have always know we will go anywhere in west and central africa to get a job done. Liberia,serria-leone and chad come to mind, but is that capacity not being eroded? We could only send two alphas against AQIM in Niger.Imagine if we had sent 10, su27’s configured for ground attack,and giving AQIM a good hiding would have sent out! If our fighting doctrine does not involve heavy fighters then the above mentioned assets (AEW&C etc)and more will be required for a forward punch with light fighters.
    As always my humble 2 kobo.

    • drag_on says:

      If we had sent 10su27s and given AQIM a good hiding, we would have sent out a powerful message. “This is our territory dont mess with us”. That would have cowered bh before they became so daring as to seize territory.

  34. Augustine says:

    Oga drag_on, if FG in Abuja is not willing to pay for and maintain Su-27 flankers, where will NAF get the money? Also, I will not advice we go for the aged Su-27 jet, their time of glory is passing away rapidly, aircraft TTL will be low due to old second hand age of an old model Flanker.

    I would suggest if Nigeria wants Flanker jets, we buy 6 brand new Su-30SM Flankers or 3 new Su-35 Flankers and use them as detterent to big aggressors.

    However, you have NAF policy and doctrine to deal with, and I think only the FG can compel them to buy heavy jets.

    We on beegeagle’s blog will do well to be content with the JF-17 we are expecting to get as its almost a done deal by appearing in the 2016 budget plan by NAF.

    Arm the JF-17 Thunder to the best capacity of avionics/sensors/missiles/bombs as we suggested on the previous thread, back it up with AWACS and air refuel tankers, and support it with ground based army owned long range anti-missile/anti-aircraft SAM, I guaranty you, even France will think twice, and for Malian AQIM or Libyan ISIS, the strike range and precision guided munitions will make them go to their graves early when 500/kg laser guided bombs give them the kiss of death.

    I guess we need not press for Flankers now when the JF-17 Thunder has not even landed in TAC Makurdi base. After we rceieve the JF-17, I think we should be thinking about later in 2016 when extra cash recovered from defence funds loot re-enters MoD accounts, NAF will still need to reconsider Russian government owned stocks of SU-25 sm Frogfroot jets for COIN close support that needs armoured aircraft that can survive terrorists 23 mm triple A defensive fire.

    Meanwhile, let NAF urgently add guided munitions to all our Mi-24, Mi-35, and Mi-171 helicopters, then do same PGM munitions arming up for the expected Super Mushshak propeller aircraft.

    After all these are done and NAF has like say 18 Mushaks, 6 Frogfoots, 18 Thunders, we can start calling for Flanker to add second stage to the cake.

    Just my local thoughts and opinion.

  35. Stormslim says:

    PAF JF 17 Promotional Video (HD)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s