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.
There is nothing that says parts were changed. You can't just change the wing of an aircraft, it would cost the price of the aircraft at this point in its life. They must've done some major maintenance and stripped the parts of paintis this an upgraded F-16 at PAC, it seems quite a few of the airframe parts got replaced. was this example damaged?
This could be a structural upgrade or major parts replacement test bird, there seems to be some more hard point like new holes or it could've be structural techniques
There were almost 45 PAF ground technicians under training at TAI during the MLU process, so this is entirely possibleIt seems PAC fixed some structural parts to make this bird flyable
If so a great achievement
Can anybody confirmed
all i know is its landing at Mushaf,Sargodha so ofcourse not PAC and thats why i uploaded itis this an upgraded F-16 at PAC, it seems quite a few of the airframe parts got replaced. was this example damaged?
I find that hard to believe. You have the technical expertise to be able to reverse engineer any code; the premise that if you will fail to get any upgrades if you ever try to customise is long passe. Anyone who works in this field knows that once you get hold of any system, the first thing you have to get done is to dump their entire code and understand what it is doing; it is not quantum physics.i think the issue is objection from USA on used f-16s and lack of complete independence to integrate own weapons like we had with mirage5/3.
Sadly, the U.S. imposed quite a few restrictions on the PAF's F-16s (for IP sensitivities vis-a-vis China). I was also told by some retired PAF people that the PAF leadership was also reluctant to customize the F-16s outside of what has been done by the U.S. defence industry. In the 1980s the PAF had integrated the ATLIS targeting pod, but since then it has been on the hook for relatively steep support fees.I find that hard to believe. You have the technical expertise to be able to reverse engineer any code; the premise that if you will fail to get any upgrades if you ever try to customise is long passe. Anyone who works in this field knows that once you get hold of any system, the first thing you have to get done is to dump their entire code and understand what it is doing; it is not quantum physics.
which direct us back to basic question, why did PAF opted for new f-16s back in 2006-07 if f-16 was having so many restrictions, there should have been a better negotiated deal with more freedom back in 2007Sadly, the U.S. imposed quite a few restrictions on the PAF's F-16s (for IP sensitivities vis-a-vis China). I was also told by some retired PAF people that the PAF leadership was also reluctant to customize the F-16s outside of what has been done by the U.S. defence industry. In the 1980s the PAF had integrated the ATLIS targeting pod, but since then it has been on the hook for relatively steep support fees.
Further to that, there are some supply-side issues from the U.S. on hardware that isn't strictly relevant to COIN. Knowing the PAF's history (with used jets), it is wildly curious that the PAF has not pursued any used F-16s from the U.S. It almost certainly seems like there are supply-side issues from the U.S.
which direct us back to basic question, why did PAF opted for new f-16s back in 2006-07 if f-16 was having so many restrictions, there should have been a better negotiated deal with more freedom back in 2007