What's new

Patent analysis shows how PAK-FA differs from F-22 in air combat philosophy

Nope like the time when PAF was cowering in the caves with their tails between their legs while the Vajras (Indian Mirage 2000's) were unloading tons of whoopass on their brothers in Kargil.

Yeah too bad you ran out of coffins n even lost a bunch of aircraft..


[
PUHLEESSEE, I know the truth stings. even hurts some.. but admitting it is way better then living in state of ignorant bliss.

COMBAT KILLS - 1971 INDO-PAK AIR WAR



Thank you. That was indeed an eye opener.


Oh my God orbit.com by credible Indian sources .. Damn how did I become to ignorant :rofl:


Picture worth a trillion words .. Food for thought :


image.jpg
image.jpg
 
.
Oh my God orbit.com by credible Indian sources .. Damn how did I become to ignorant

I could have chosen any no. of India sources. I chose Orbat.com as it the one of the most un baised combat sites on the web. You don't believe so fair enough.. I challenge you to show me a list of your air combat "kills" from any fair "non-pakistani" and unbaised source and I will shut up, if not, I know you can't shut up..but well .. you know .. :D
 
.
I could have chosen any no. of India sources. I chose Orbat.com as it the one of the most un baised combat sites on the web. You don't believe so fair enough.. I challenge you to show me a list of your air combat "kills" from any fair "non-pakistani" and unbaised source and I will shut up, if not, I know you can't shut up..but well .. you know .. :D

I'm using my phone right now n it's late.. 1:40am .. Either wait or search this forum you will find the thread with info posted by @Windjammer
 
. . .
Yup, because it is so obviously skewed to represent the PAK-FA as some unbelievable revolution in air combat philosophy and aircraft design that it falls flat on its face.

The whole argument that the article makes is to somehow downplay the importance of stealth and first shot /first kill in Air combat to show the PAK-FA a superior aircraft to the F-22. The rest of the article on the PAK-FA itself is all good.. but like a train.. it starts out fine and then derails itself.

Now now, Oscar, don't be so harsh. What will the poor Raju and Kumar have sleepless nights over now?
 
. . .
Well, it may be a Jack of all trades in flight characteristics but I have a difficult time believing the RCS figures.

It's not a jack of all trades, but developed with a credible aim, to be a 5th gen multi role fighter! The F22 was developed in a time were air superiority was the prime aim, the F35 is not much than a strike fighter that lacks core 5th gen capabilities. So the Russian only did what should be logical for a modern 5th gen fighter development and gave it high capabilities in all 5th gen fields.
And it doesn't actually matter what the article says about the RCS, more important is what actually speakes against a low RCS and that is the engine coverings, that purposely are unshaped so far. Other than that we only hear a lot of BS and don't even know so far what changes the next prototypes will bring. I am just highly impressed by the Russians and hope that the FGFA turns out even better.
 
.
It's not a jack of all trades, but developed with a credible aim, to be a 5th gen multi role fighter! The F22 was developed in a time were air superiority was the prime aim, the F35 is not much than a strike fighter that lacks core 5th gen capabilities. So the Russian only did what should be logical for a modern 5th gen fighter development and gave it high capabilities in all 5th gen fields.
And it doesn't actually matter what the article says about the RCS, more important is what actually speakes against a low RCS and that is the engine coverings, that purposely are unshaped so far. Other than that we only hear a lot of BS and don't even know so far what changes the next prototypes will bring. I am just highly impressed by the Russians and hope that the FGFA turns out even better.

Different story to what your saying here :what:
Russia can't deliver on Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft: IAF | Business Standard
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom