F-16 versus J-10

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Viper786

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Jun 2006, 00:52

wanna know something funny that Pakistan is the only country to get J-10's and they have american F-16's too and with there induction of JF-17s with latest avionics and there good pilots i see PAF a very good airforce
i need speed
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post27 Jun 2006, 12:49

and there good pilots i see PAF a very good airforce

They are so good they managed to shoot down one of their own Mirages in peacetime - April 20th 2006 near Karachi.
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

Viper786

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Jun 2006, 04:39

:lol:, I never heard of that but PAF is known as one the best airforces.
i need speed
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post28 Jun 2006, 07:35

PAF is known as one the best airforce

Among its supporters, yes. But I really doubt that's true.
I don't want to be misunderstood, but I'm sick and tired of reading on almost all aviation forums about how good PAF pilots are.

No matter how talented PAF pilots are, they can't log hundreds of hours per year because their jets can't stay in the air that long. Mirages are old and there's a lot of maintenance to be done on them. Chinese-built planes (F-7) are a maintenance nightmare and the F-16 are just a few (34)

Here is an interview with a PAF F-16 squadron leader
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article6.html

He clearly states this: "I have been flying the viper since 1990. But there was a break of 2 1/2 years in between when I did a tenure as a Flight Instructor in PAF Academy. Due to some restrictions, we do not fly as much as USAF or Turkish AF pilots do, therefore I only have about 500 hours on the F-16."

Now this site is active since 2003 in its present form. This interview was among the first ones. So 2003 - 1990 is 13 years minus 2and a half years he spent not flying is roughly 10 years for 500 hours. That means that a PAF F-16 squadron leader flew 50 hours per year . A pilot needs to fly at least 100 hours per year to be considered operational and 180 to be combat ready…
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

Viper786

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jul 2006, 03:53

RoAF and your point being what, obviously Pakistan can long as many hour as USAF or Turkish Airforce because they have a more capable airforce, and look at Pakistan they're pretty good for what they have in there inventory, please be realistic here and compare them to India where they dont even log as many as a 100 hours, ( im look for the link)
i need speed
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post07 Jul 2006, 09:03

RoAF and your point being what

My point is that they can't be one of the best air forces as long as they don't fly enough - according to their own statements compared to NATO standards. I tend to believe numbers, not stories.
obviously Pakistan can long as many hour as USAF or Turkish Airforce because they have a more capable airforce, and look at Pakistan they're pretty good for what they have in there inventory

Looks like you didn't read the quoted text in my previous post.
please be realistic here and compare them to India

Why? So we could start a flame war here? When assessing flying hours for country X or Y everybody uses NATO standards as a comparison term. Why should this time be different?
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

blain2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 16:52

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 06:22

RoAF wrote:My point is that they can't be one of the best air forces as long as they don't fly enough - according to their own statements compared to NATO standards. I tend to believe numbers, not stories.


As you should. PAF has and continues to fly along NATO standards barring the times when they were the most sanctioned airforce in the world (1989-2000). Also the guy you quote Sqn Ldr Sameen Mazhar was stating the # of hours he has flown the Viper and he had breaks from it due to his assignments as a flight instructor which is not very typical of all PAF F-16 pilots. Also during the sanction prone days obviously the number of hours flown on the F-16s were impacted. However prior to it and now, PAF continues to fly around 180 hrs/year.

Here is a recent one from the horses mouth (Chief of the PAF) about the challenges with the flying hours and how they have been restored to 180 hours per year (which is considered competent by NATO standards as well):

PAKISTAN - PLUGGING THE GAPS
Robert Karniol JDW's Asia-Pacific Editor
Bangkok

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) lost an average of nine aircraft annually through attrition over the period 2000-03, but this has halved over the past two years. "We enhanced our flying," explained Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, the chief of air staff. While acting as PAF chief of operations ACM Kaleem launched an initiative to reduce losses due to pilot error. He spoke to Jane's shortly before his retirement on 20 March, when Air Marshal Tanveer Ahmad Khan assumed the top post.

"In 2000, our flying per pilot was in the region of nine hours per month. We have progressively taken this up to 15 hours, or 15 sorties," he said, adding that the figure has now stabilised.

This expansion of flying hours is paralleled by increasingly complex exercises. These include the introduction of surface effects in dissimilar air combat training exercises and intensified operations. The latter saw one air base generate 175 sorties in a day during a trial, for example, while the PAF as a whole flew 8,000 sorties of various types in a month during the September 2005 Exercise 'High Mark'.

Another core development is the PAF's rewrite of its basic doctrine, which dated back to 1988.

"We tried to amplify the characteristics of air power for our sister services," said ACM Kaleem, noting that this also outlines force goals and new missions. The doctrine was released in April 2005 and a revised edition has just been completed following input from the army and navy.

The focus in combat aircraft is on preparing for the introduction of the JF-17 (FC-1 Super-7) attack fighter: a collaborative programme with China involving 150 platforms. This will become the PAF's mainstay fighter as older models are phased out, with delivery of four aircraft from the first small batch production due in March 2007.


Russian sources have told Jane's that the RD-93 engine powering the Chinese model will not be re-exported to Pakistan, but ACM Kaleem says that Beijing has provided solid assurances otherwise.

Three prototypes now undergoing evaluation are fitted with a Chinese radar, probably the NRIET KLJ-10, and this will outfit the Pakistani fighter if it performs as required.

Beyond this, ACM Kaleem says there is an outstanding requirement for 35-50 additional advanced fighters. Plans to acquire more Lockheed Martin F-16s were suspended due to the October 2005 earthquake that devastated Pakistan. This could delay any deal by at least two to three years. The air chief is concerned that both circumstances and requirements may have changed by then, necessitating new negotiations and still further delays, and he suggests that Islamabad may end up turning again to China.

This could also impinge on plans to obtain the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which has been requested from the US.

The PAF has meanwhile finalised a contract for Italy's Galileo Falco medium-altitude endurance tactical UAV, with delivery due in December. Four systems are involved and these will supplement an indigenous UAV already deployed but requiring further development.

ACM Kaleem says tactical and strategic-lift assets are currently sufficient. Strategic-lift assets have been supplemented by six Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport aircraft to bolster the 10 currently operational. The first of these arrives in March and all will be delivered before 2007. Twelve C-130s should then be upgraded to C-130H standard, including a glass cockpit, with the remainder placed in storage.

The PAF is also upgrading its air-defence network, including indigenous development of a multiradar tracker and graphic user interface. The service has also acquired several new radar systems from China, including the YLC-2 long-range 3-D phased-array surveillance system and previously unknown YLC-6 low-level system. Six of 10 YLC-6 radars on order have so far been delivered and Pakistan is also gaining six US-made AN/TPS-77 tactical mobile radars for medium-level application.


ACM Kaleem says that Pakistan has also finalised a contract with Sweden for the Saab-Ericsson airborne early warning and control aircraft, thought to involve seven platforms. This has the Ericsson Microwave Systems Erieye airborne radar mounted on a Saab 2000 turboprop aircraft.

Talks are now under way to replace the Thales Defence Systems Crotale low-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, with the current inventory including 11 acquisition units and 23 firing units.

Discussion involves acquiring the MBDA Spada 2000 low- to medium-altitude SAM system, which offers both tactical and strategic mobility that includes air-transportability by C-130 Hercules. A contract could be finalised before the current financial year ends in June.

A pilot needs to fly at least 100 hours per year to be considered operational and 180 to be combat ready…


I think PAF is right about there (I.e. 180 mark).
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 09:12

blain2, thank you for your comprehensive answer!
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

Viper786

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Aug 2006, 05:41

so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???
i need speed
Offline

Ayubi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 04:01

Unread post08 Aug 2006, 18:12

Viper786 wrote:so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???


How can you compare something when you don't really have something to compare in the first place? Do you know what kind or radar the J-10 uses? It's range etc, do you know the avionces it uses. Agreed that it's a new fighter which obviously means that it has room for upgrades. The only thing we actully have to the J-10 is that pakistan air force is very impressed with it and want to buy it, along with the thunder and the falcon blk50/52.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5822
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Sep 2006, 07:00

Ayubi wrote:
Viper786 wrote:so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???


How can you compare something when you don't really have something to compare in the first place? Do you know what kind or radar the J-10 uses? It's range etc, do you know the avionces it uses. Agreed that it's a new fighter which obviously means that it has room for upgrades. The only thing we actully have to the J-10 is that pakistan air force is very impressed with it and want to buy it, along with the thunder and the falcon blk50/52.



If, Pakistan was so impressed with the J-10 why purchase F-16's at all............... :shock:
Offline

Viper786

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Sep 2006, 18:21

so your trying to say that Pakistan should stick to one aircraft, so what if there interested in J-10, J-10 does cover all the gaps in PAF and with the purchase of F-16 it improves there air force wouldn't you say.
i need speed
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5822
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Sep 2006, 22:56

Viper786 wrote:so your trying to say that Pakistan should stick to one aircraft, so what if there interested in J-10, J-10 does cover all the gaps in PAF and with the purchase of F-16 it improves there air force wouldn't you say.



I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:
Offline

Corous

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 03 May 2006, 19:41

Unread post09 Sep 2006, 22:56

Corsair1963 wrote:I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:


I think if we try to get into the Pakistanis' shoes, it comes down to this: on the one hand, you have a mature platform that has been proven to be capable but is expensive; on the other hand, you have a newer, cheaper platform that has potentials but still needs to be worked on. So what the Pakistanis are doing is a logical move: get a bunch of the mature platform to fulfill their immediate needs while investing into the newer and less-expensive platform in the hope that it will be as capable and thus more cost-effective in the near future.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5822
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Sep 2006, 23:12

Corous wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:


I think if we try to get into the Pakistanis' shoes, it comes down to this: on the one hand, you have a mature platform that has been proven to be capable but is expensive; on the other hand, you have a newer, cheaper platform that has potentials but still needs to be worked on. So what the Pakistanis are doing is a logical move: get a bunch of the mature platform to fulfill their immediate needs while investing into the newer and less-expensive platform in the hope that it will be as capable and thus more cost-effective in the near future.



In Pakistan case a mix of both is not a bad idea...........yet, the J-10 as it is currently available is not even close in capability to Blk 50/60 F-16's. :roll:
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests