With due respect, i still stand corrected on my statement. A-5s never had the independant LGB capability of their own. Even Spitfires can drop LGBs for that matter. The real thing is to have autonomous capability because no body will be there to lase from the ground in enemy territory. So brother, I understand your love for A-5s but these are FACTs!
A2A : When we talk of air to air typical (No AIs, No all aspects) fight we talk about turn radius....ur relating turn radius with bombing and attack capabilities...dude u seriously need some lessons on this stuff coz u think u know it and u DONT.
I need lessons? And when did PAF used A-5s for air superiority? Now dont tell me those PAPA's were for shooting down enemy aircraft incase they penetrate our land. They were solely for self-defense purposes. An A-5 pilot would least want to get into air combat with enemy. And same goes for a Mirage pilot. F-7s and vipers have a different story though.
Differencees from F-6: There was and IS no difference in the ops of attack computer of the F-6 and A-5. Go check it on the flight lines if u want to, im sure u have access to that :). They both have a simple manual sight. The only upgrade which is there on the A-5 is not in its attack computer...it was the garmin 296.
Hence my point proved, A-5 was no more than a colorful F-6. And you are calling it better then Mirages and F-7s. Now that is something unique.
SUPUERSONIC, less hard points: So the A-5 is not supersonic and has less hard points than a mirage? seriously dude....an a$$ whipping from ur dad is seriously on the cards for u...can u plz tell us ur superior knowledge of how many hard pts are there on the mirage and how many on the A-5....so that later i paste here pages from their DASH-ones to clarify things.
This bird never carried a designator pod which ur so interested in and u think thats the only way of acquiring targets...thers something known as buddy lazing and ground based lazing....get a lecture from daddy first boy.
Kindly refrain from spoiling the image of PAF dude. Talking like a spoiled american kid will not make you any cooler. Personally I have never seen the pilots around me using this kind of foul language. And I thought Risalpur really polished and filters the cadets to minimize all their inabilities to cope with the matters. :S
As i said before, NO ONE will laze the target for you on the ground. This is not USAF nor this is Iraq of Afghanistan where we will have all the air dominance. The matter of fact is, even the LGBs and all, A-5s will remain the LAST LINE of Defense due to their limited capabilities or infact capabilities which were actually required in 1970s to be very honest. :S
Roles which an F-7 cant perform better...ground attack....cant it carry 04 Mk-82s along with 02 papas on the wings? And alll those fancy roles which the mirages are performing....agaiin...why are u failing to understand that the A-5 was just as capable if ud given it the right radar and targeting pods....u think it cant carry the exocet? n why is that? becoz u never made it carry it....u never installed an AGAV in it...wat else u want me to tell u here? Do u think the Mirage was BORN with a FLIR? a GRIFO M? a LIMA integration? NO SIR....these were installed much much later.
Again you are not landing on the point, if A-5s never got upgrades whats so ever their potential was its none of our concern. What we are discussing is whether they were any better then our mirages or not. And a simple answer is NO which you are denying again and again.[/QUOTE]
Lolz, tell you what brother, F-7s can carry 2 LGBs INDEPENDANTLY along with 2 papa's and infact they can inflict damage to the target more effectively. Whats the use of those 4 Mk 82s when one has to risk another chopper full ground troops in the battle field. :S
Two torbofans in the A-5: uffffffffffffffffffffffff i cant imagine what ur dad wud do to u if u said this in front of em. Dude the F-16 has a turbofan, A-5 have two trubojets ok. Turbojet is the older technology. Do u even know what a turbofan's and turbojet's differences are?
No i dont know the difference between them. Can you kindly differentiate b/w them for me?
Ferry range: Dude visit me some time n see my log book....that seems to be the only way to convince u by showing u my sorties while proceeding for inter sqn armament competition from pesh to khi. No refuelling dude. one go. As far as the PGs are concerned dude if they had to carry anything (a Pod or weapon) on the belly n fuel only in the fuselage and wing drop tanks...then i'll see what their ferry range is.
.
PLEASE dont confuse looks n beauty with performance. If u ask me which of the two is more beautiful, feels better, better build quality, better onboard avionics and systems, well its the mirage, There is simply no better sight to see than a delta pitching out over ur head n comin in to land being fully visible to u. But if u think that their performance differences are as if a corolla against a bugattti then ur seriously flawed dude. The oldest mirages in 5 Sqn used to be called a "bit better A-5". Ask anyone who went for a conversion from A-5s to mirages n then got posted to 5.
Ur estimates on the combat radius are again flawed....combat radius just isnt simply combat radius....it has a few types...hi-lo-hi, hi-hi-hi, hi-lo-lo...n ur estimates arent in conjunction with any of the actual figures for all these types for this aircraft im sorry.
I have alot of people with log books around and most of them have served on the A-5s
And i know what hi-to-hi and hi-lo-hi combat radius's are! A-5's maxmium ferry range is around 1200km where as F-7s ferry range is well above 1600km with papa's and drop tanks. And please, F-7PG is a well equipped fighter/interceptor, please donnot compare it with A-5.
A-5s were no good for us and that is why they were first to leave after the induction of JF-17 Thunders.
P.S
Even i find the looks of A-5 to most lethal maybe due to their camo. But their capabilities never matched its looks.
