Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guys can anyone do a photoshop here for the our K-8 in gray schme ? i would love to see it in that thanks.
Pakistan has dragged its feet over the single seat version for too long; now it looks like the Venezuelans are taking the lead.
A single seat version is long overdue.
Why? How does a single seat K8 fit into Pakistani defence requirements even for COIN. Trainers converted to single seat attack aircrafts like the Hawk are for air forces with limited experience is operating fast jets. We need a twin seater Jf17 than a single seat K8.
A single seat aircraft can carry more fuel, and serve as coin or cas. It is a far cheaper option than mach 2 aircraft.
There was also a posting about PAC testing a single seat version for low level air defence, again an effective deterrent against an enemy for virtually no cost.
There is also a market for single seat aircraft of this type, as the Venezuelan proposal indicates.
Even in coin situation in mountainous environment where the enemy is equipped with reasonable AAG a quick egress is needed after a bombing run, K8 simply doesnt have the juice.
I disagree a bit. COIN absolutely requires the ability to loiter, and slow speeds can be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. There is also the airborne FAC mission, controlling for both airstrikes and artillery.
In SEA, the USA brought the A-1 Skyraider out of mothballs because it was rugged, could lift an enormous load, could loiter for hours, and it did superb duty in Vietnam, even when confronted by vigorous ground-based gunfire.
Sir! ure points are reasonable but now its 21st century...Vietnam game is 50 years old....Nowadays time matters much....we shold have aircrafts could go at low aswell as high speeds...shold be versatile in speed nature... thats where the technology kicks in....I disagree a bit. COIN absolutely requires the ability to loiter, and slow speeds can be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. There is also the airborne FAC mission, controlling for both airstrikes and artillery.
In SEA, the USA brought the A-1 Skyraider out of mothballs because it was rugged, could lift an enormous load, could loiter for hours, and it did superb duty in Vietnam, even when confronted by vigorous ground-based gunfire.
@Chogy
You've made some very pertinent points above in your post. However in the Nam era, SAMs very poorly developed and shoulder-fired SAMs did'nt exist. Now any half-baked insurgent also may have access to Stingers/equivalents.
Does that not change the scenario drastically? Your views please.
I think guys don't understand... SEA had one of the densest and most heavily defended chunks of airspace on earth. Every soldier was taught how to use small arms fire to bring down aircraft. More jets were lost (by far) to AAA and small arms, NOT SAMs.
When you say FATA is not Vietnam... true, because Vietnam was FAR more heavily armed and defended. Yet the Skyraider worked well. If the Taliban/TTP had MANPADs, they would have been used in quantity by now. They DON'T have them. They also don't have the radar-guided 57mm AAA and the like that were all over Vietnam.
In COIN, an armed K-8 would do great, a lot like the old A-37 Dragonfly. In a heavy mechanized war with India or similar, not so much.