Compare capabilities and data - LCA & JF-17

[jatt2ooo]

http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/pix/fc1-1.jpg
Dicide, which is better! :cop :india :pak
http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html
facts :cop are at this site. lol :D :D :D :cop :cop :cop :cop :cophttp://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/images/lca-td1-17_mod.jpg

[ullu]

The site has old old info about FC-1. I don't know where it got its info for LCA. Looks like an Indian website, note the wording:

FC-1 is based on the MiG-33 1.which was rejected by the Soviet Air Force. MiG-33 was a single engined version of MiG-29. Pakistan hopes to buy 150 of them to replace most of its existing air force 2.while the Chinese Air Force does not want to purchase it. Lastest reports say that FC-1 may never enter production - 3.Russia has refused to supply the 4.powerful RD-93 engine. Pakistan has given the FC-1 the 'Super-7' designation.

1. Sad attempt to portray that FC-1 is not liked by the world and "RUSSIA" rejecting their mig-33 - as if its an inferior airplane.

2. Latest reports say China WILL buy JF-17. It was decided AFTER the prototype was tested and with good results. So, another indication that website has outdated and inaccurate info.

3. Russia has refused to... what does that mean? It seems that author of this nonsense is trying to tell us that jf-17(fc1) is so inferior that countries don't even want to supply engines for it. Which brings us to the 4th point I bolded:

4. Again, russia refused and then trying to show us how big and powerful was the engine that russia refused-further emphasising that fc1 is a failure without such a powerful engine which russia "refused."

Very sad and ignorant stuff coming from an Indian website which does not surprise me.

We have seen how long LCA has been on the table and how many 'test' flights it flew - yet still another decade away from being inducted into IAF. Failures of LCA are no secret. It may be a good jet but its long from becoming part of IAF which makes it very irrelevant to compare it to JF-17 which is to enter service in about 3-4 years.

:cop
Also, your post shows Indian flag then a gun shooting at pakistani flag. If you come here with that kind of sick and defaming attitude, the posts will be locked/deleted and you will be thrown out. Show some respect to get some respect-edit your post. :cop

I will let others do the technical comparing with LATEST facts from non partial websites. Not some geocities hosted 5 year old full of indian ego website.

[ullu]

Cool Admin. Keep this forum clean. :)

Thanku

[Londo Molari]

Lets let both see combat... or atleast be inducted.... then we'll know how capable they are.

[jatt2ooo]

i still see not point in the fc-1. If its defence've porposes its good. but if pak is planing to use it as a offensive weapon it will suck. sending the fc-1 against another country is sucide. Defensive proposes its good. And both need to show their advantages in battle STILL! The fc-1 is just not china's best. and china is good at avaiton and getting better. and one more thing... i heard pakistan has a air-air missile with bvr, is it true? guys visit this forum ok you'll like it. but u have to make a account!
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/211833 :cop :cop :cop :cop

[Oqaab]

Lets compare it. Thunder vs Tejas.

Range,

According to some ppl, LCAs range is less then JF-17. The Indian sources are quite about its ferry range. Jf-17 has a range of 3000 kms but its engine is also unconfirmed.

Engine Characteristics,

TWR of JF-17 is 95:100 and that oif LCA is 88:100. Fighter-planes.com says that even the Kaveri engines will not give enough TWR.

About thrust, LCA = 18,000 lbs and JF-17 = 18,300 lbs.

LCA has the speed advantage coz it uses lead composite materials over its surface whereas JF-17 uses aluminium.

Ceiling,

LCA = 16,400 m
JF-17 = 16,500 m

Payload,

LCA = 4000 kg
JF-17 = 3,600 (or 3,800) lbs.

Plzzz correct me if I m wrong somewhere. :D

[jatt2ooo]

Lets compare it. Thunder vs Tejas.

Range,

According to some ppl, LCAs range is less then JF-17. The Indian sources are quite about its ferry range. Jf-17 has a range of 3000 kms but its engine is also unconfirmed.

Engine Characteristics,

TWR of JF-17 is 95:100 and that oif LCA is 88:100. Fighter-planes.com says that even the Kaveri engines will not give enough TWR.

About thrust, LCA = 18,000 lbs and JF-17 = 18,300 lbs.

LCA has the speed advantage coz it uses lead composite materials over its surface whereas JF-17 uses aluminium.

Ceiling,

LCA = 16,400 m
JF-17 = 16,500 m

Payload,

LCA = 4000 kg
JF-17 = 3,600 (or 3,800) lbs.

Plzzz correct me if I m wrong somewhere. :D
what :cop :cop :cop u need to do is compare missle like astra and bvr for the lca and also understand the cost of the cheap lca as well as the inflight refueler! and the radar ohh and the fact its small, light and larger payload as well as its made out of lead so it won't show on radar that much! and the air inlets are really small on the lca. :D lca is just going to rule if we get isrealy radar, or do we have it. and ewacs. and the lca will also be a suport fighter. inducted in the navy. COMPLETELY ORGINAL!!!!!!!!!!! :alian
crap i almost forgot about the bhromos its gonna carry and the phlcon. hmmmmm mabe thats why india wants the lca. and than the lca is gonna have a better engine, hopefully.

and than we ave the fbw which has some american tech in it. srry but fbw in lca iz better my friend.
the lca will take a long time because its india's first supersonic jet ever.
fc-1 will replace the migs and most chinese admit that the fc-1 sucks compared to the lca. ask them, they know china isn't gonna put anything good in it. the lca will be a cheap small jsf. lca will have better stealth techology including flares and such as well as BVR witch is very important. Dont judge a book by its cover!

[corsair7772]

In certain aspects the LCA is inferior to the JF-17 such as range. Also the Jf-17 has more export potential meaning more money 4 pakistan off the bargain and we dont have 2 neccecarily buy the JF-17.

One more thing, The JF-17 can be bought in large enuff numbers and it is as the soviets said "numbers have their own qualities".

[gf0012-aust]

One more thing, The JF-17 can be bought in large enuff numbers and it is as the soviets said "numbers have their own qualities".

I'd have to disagree with this. Even the VP of Sukhoi has made comment on the fact that the old paradigms are gone.

The use of volume to rush or saturate an enemy will work on a less sophisticated military power.

I would not like to be a country like China, and assume that 4000 jet fighters will carry the air battle for me.

There is overwhelming data on how a professional force will carry and win against a force less competent and relying on numerical superiority.

China would make an average military power feel inadequate, but against even the Germans, French and English I suspect that they would be contained. (without resorting to nukes)

Field armies are just juicy targets for FAE's. In fact there are reports criculating that 1 american FAE wiped out a Republican Guard division and its armoured brigade that was at target zero.

You don't defeat another airforce with pilots, you use anti-air systems. - cheaper to build, no training, faster than the fighter and capable of sending enemy aircraft into a killing box for other systems to do their work.

[Londo Molari]

i still see not point in the fc-1. If its defence've porposes its good. but if pak is planing to use it as a offensive weapon it will suck. sending the fc-1 against another country is sucide. Defensive proposes its good. And both need to show their advantages in battle STILL! The fc-1 is just not china's best. and china is good at avaiton and getting better. and one more thing... i heard pakistan has a air-air missile with bvr, is it true? guys visit this forum ok you'll like it. but u have to make a account!
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/211833

Pakistan needs the JF-17 badly.

Pakistan air forces primary mission has always been air DEFENCE, not offence. So in that respect the JF-17 is great. And Pakistan's current fleet is a whole bunch of old fighters, which need to be replaced. No high tech fighters are available to Pakistan, and they don't want to replace old Mirages/F-7s with MORE Mirages and F-7s... so the JF-17 is the best fighter available to Pakistan right now

And since Pakistan will get ToT, it is a good deal indeed.

[Oqaab]

what :cop :cop :cop u need to do is compare missle like astra and bvr for the lca and also understand the cost of the cheap lca as well as the inflight refueler! and the radar ohh and the fact its small, light and larger payload as well as its made out of lead so it won't show on radar that much! and the air inlets are really small on the lca. :D lca is just going to rule if we get isrealy radar, or do we have it. and ewacs. and the lca will also be a suport fighter. inducted in the navy. COMPLETELY ORGINAL!!!!!!!!!!! :alian
crap i almost forgot about the bhromos its gonna carry and the phlcon. hmmmmm mabe thats why india wants the lca. and than the lca is gonna have a better engine, hopefully.

and than we ave the fbw which has some american tech in it. srry but fbw in lca iz better my friend.
the lca will take a long time because its india's first supersonic jet ever.
fc-1 will replace the migs and most chinese admit that the fc-1 sucks compared to the lca. ask them, they know china isn't gonna put anything good in it. the lca will be a cheap small jsf. lca will have better stealth techology including flares and such as well as BVR witch is very important. Dont judge a book by its cover!

BVR missiles ... ok,

Astra = 80 km range
SD-10 = ~80 km range
And this is not a big difference.

Unit cost,
JF-17 = 15 million USD
LCA = 21 million USD
LCA is more costly. Also JF-17 will cost 10 million to Pakistan.

Other facts, if it uses lead composite materials, it doesnt mean that the RCS is reduced. It was just to increase speed. And JF-17 will also have inflight refueling probe and deck arrester hook installed. The radar is unconfirmed, PAF is trying to get a better radar for JF-17 then Griffo S-7. And why not compare its maneuverbility with JF-17 ??? Even PAF is worried about the maneuverbility of its delta winged Mirages.

Another thing, why arent u giving solid reasons about JF-17s bad performance ?? Plzzz dont say that ask Chinese or anyone. Just prove it. LCA could be a third generation JSF without stealth. And as I said before, JF-17 will use SD-10 and this missile is superior to R-77 which ur Su-30MKI uses.

[jatt2ooo]

Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)

The Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is the world's smallest, light weight, multi-role combat aircraft designed to meet the requirements of Indian Air Force as its frontline multi-mission single-seat tactical aircraft to replace the MiG-21 series of aircraft. The delta wing configuration , with no tailplanes or foreplanes, features a single vertical fin. The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites, and titanium. LCA integrates modern design concepts and the state-of-art technologies such as relaxed static stability, flyby-wire Flight Control System, Advanced Digital Cockpit, Multi-Mode Radar, Integrated Digital Avionics System, Advanced Composite Material Structures and a Flat Rated Engine.

The LCA design has been configured to match the demands of modern combat scenario such as speed, acceleration, maneuverability and agility. Short takeoff and landing, excellent flight performance, safety, reliability and maintainability, are salient features of LCA design. The LCA integrates modern design concepts like static instability, digital fly-by-wire flight control system, integrated avionics, glass cockpit, primary composite structure, multi-mode radar, microprocessor based utility and brake management systems.
The avionics system enhances the role of Light Combat Aircraft as an effective weapon platform. The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multifunction displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information. Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels. A state-of-the-art multi-mode radar (MMR), laser designator pod (LDP), forward looking infra-red (FLIR) and other opto-electronic sensors provide accurate target information to enhance kill probabilities. A ring laser gyro (RLG)-based inertial navigation system (INS), provides accurate navigation guidance to the pilot. An advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite enhances the aircraft survivability during deep penetration and combat. Secure and jam-resistant communication systems, such as IFF, VHF/UHF and air-to-air/air-to-ground data link are provided as a part of the avionics suite. All these systems are integrated on three 1553B buses by a centralised 32-bit mission computer (MC) with high throughput which performs weapon computations and flight management, and reconfiguration/redundancy management. Reversionary mission functions are provided by a control and coding unit (CCU). Most of these subsystems have been developed indigenously.

The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful digital flight control computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link. The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful digital flight control computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x107 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

Multi-mode radar (MMR), the primary mission sensor of the LCA in its air defence role, will be a key determinant of the operational effectiveness of the fighter. This is an X-band, pulse Doppler radar with air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes. Its track-while-scan capability caters to radar functions under multiple target environment. The antenna is a light weight (<5 kg), low profile slotted waveguide array with a multilayer feed network for broad band operation. The salient technical features are: two plane monopulse signals, low side lobe levels and integrated IFF, and GUARD and BITE channels. The heart of MMR is the signal processor, which is built around VLSI-ASICs and i960 processors to meet the functional needs of MMR in different modes of its operation. Its role is to process the radar receiver output, detect and locate targets, create ground map, and provide contour map when selected. Post-detection processor resolves range and Doppler ambiguities and forms plots for subsequent data processor. The special feature of signal processor is its real-time configurability to adapt to requirements depending on selected mode of operation.


Seven weapon stations provided on LCA offer flexibility in the choice of weapons LCA can carry in various mission roles. Provision of drop tanks and inflight refueling probe ensure extended range and flight endurance of demanding missions. Provisions for the growth of hardware and software in the avionics and flight control system, available in LCA, ensure to maintain its effectiveness and advantages as a frontline fighter throughout its service life. For maintenance the aircraft has more than five hundred Line Replaceable Units (LRSs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is the Principal Partner in the design and fabrication of LCA and its integration leading to flight testing. The LCA has been designed and developed by a consortium of five aircraft research, design, production and product support organizations pooled by the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), under Department of Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). Various international aircraft and system manufacturers are also participating in the program with supply of specific equipment, design consultancy and support. For example, GE Aircraft Engines provides the propulsion.

The first prototype of LCA rolled out on 17 November 1995. Two aircraft technology demonstrators are powered by single GE F404/F2J3 augmented turbofan engines. Regular flights with the state-of-the-art "Kaveri" engine, being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in Bangalore, are planned by 2002, although by mid-1999 the Kaveri engine had yet to achieve the required thrust-to-weight ratio.

The LCA is India's second attempt at an indigenous jet fighter design, following the somewhat unsatisfactory HF-24 Marut Ground Attack Fighter built in limited numbers by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in the 1950s. Conceived in 1983, the LCA will serve as the Indian air force's frontline tactical plane through the year 2020. The LCA will go into service in the 2003-2005 timeframe.
Following India's nuclear weapons tests in early 1998, the United States placed an embargo on the sale of General Electric 404 jet engines which are to power the LCA. The US also denied the fly-by-wire system for the aircraft sold by the US firm Lockheed-Martin. As of June 1998 the first flight of the LCA had been delayed due to systems integration tests. The first flight awaits completion of the Digital Flight Control Systems, being developed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE).


Specifications
Wing Span 8.20 m
Length 13.20 m
Empty Weight 5500 kg
Engine Prototype - GE F404-F2J3 turbofan rated at 18,097 lbst
Production - Kaveri GTX-35VS turbofan rated at 20,200 lbst
Fuel Capacity Internal fuel capacity - 3000 liters
Centerline and the two-inner hardpoints under each wing can carry five 800 liters fuel tanks
also has an in-flight refuelling probe
Maximum Range ?
Maximum Speed Mach 1.7
Service Ceiling 50,000 feet.
G Limits +9/-3.5
Armament internally mounted GSh-23mm twin barrel gun with 220 rounds of ammunition
Seven external hardpoints, can carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers and ECM pods

Maximum External Stores Load 4000kg (8818 lbs.)
Self Defence RWR system, jammer and chaff & flare dispensers.
whow this is amazing. :laugh do i trust my source, yes i do! lca is a fourth generation jsf :lol . Its cheap and stealthy. the only thing not stealthy about it is the weapons bay are located out side.
this is the thing. the lca is gonna have far better isrealy radar and armament aswell as american fbw :dance3 . just because the project is daleyed dont mean squot. the lca will also be a navel virsion.
:india :cheers :israel :cheers :usa
:finger

[WebMaster]

:cop Jatt2ooo, please post a link/source of your information.

[jatt2ooo]

:cop Jatt2ooo, please post a link/source of your information.
i dont know the exact url, but it was fas.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/lca.htm
are u happy! :cop :cop
:nutkick

[WebMaster]

The URL info was requested for users/members, not for my self. Any info you post make sure it has its source listed.

[Oqaab]

Maximum External Stores Load 4000kg (8818 lbs.)
Self Defence RWR system, jammer and chaff & flare dispensers.
whow this is amazing. do i trust my source, yes i do! lca is a fourth generation jsf . Its cheap and stealthy. the only thing not stealthy about it is the weapons bay are located out side.

About Self defence systems like RWR, jammers, chaff and flares, our upgraded ROSE mirages have all these systems installed, so there is no need of being too much happy. :lolol

I doubt that LCA is a fourth generation fighter coz it was just to replace Mig-21s and mig-23s.

About stealth crap, do u know internal weapons bay is not the only thing which makes an aircraft stealth. The main ingredients are carbon and ferrite materials which have the tendency to absorb radar rays. Also, u have to minimize the amount of heat comming from the engines which is extreamly difficult.

Now, how come LCA is stealthy ??? Plzzz care to explain.

this is the thing. the lca is gonna have far better isrealy radar and armament aswell as american fbw . just because the project is daleyed dont mean squot. the lca will also be a navel virsion.

And JF-17s avionics are not decided yet. Probably Italian or Franch. FBW is also there. And yes, JF-17 will also have a naval version coz as I said before, a deck arrester hook will be installed in the aircraft. There is not a big difference in both the aircraft.

[gf0012-aust]

Going on the current config of the LCA I'd argue that its not very stealthy.
(this is predicated on the fact that I have a picture of a tailless, blended wing twin engine fighter on my desk)

The design isn't what you'd expect of a plane that is trying to minimise its RCS. It's actually a "blended wing" in concept. That means that it will be rather aerodynamic, have an elevation advantage and nominally be long range. (Its nominally a high altitude cruise design). Its not a low signature low RCS design though.

Anyplane with external weapons points is "dirty". A dirty aircraft may as well hold up a sign telling everyone that it is coming.

The other give away is the engine ducts and the engine vectors. they are all "proud" of the design, thus they are sending large returns if the aircraft has been painted by Radar.

The other thing is that with no vertical or canted stabilisers, the closeness of the two engine ducts would indicate a very twitchy plane. I wouldn't like to be a pilot and lose an engine. It would be like a helicopter going into a rotor stall.

I suspect that the drawing is nothing like what will eventuate.

Plus, there are confusing contradictions in the data that bis released. The LCA is touted as a tailless compound delta wing, yet the majority of pictures show a single fin conventional aircraft.

It is in NO way similar to a Mig 33. So I don't know where some press areas got their info.

ADDENDUM

I have different and conflicting schematics for the LCA, one one hand I have a conventional supersonic aircraft, on the other hand I have a twin engine tailless blended wing/delta config.

IF the LCA is the latter, then I would argue that eventually it has the capcity to be a superior fighter. If it is the conventional single engine, single tail (Tejas) then the aircraft are very similar and really the difference will be determined by on board systems and weapons mix.

[jatt2ooo]

The body of the LCA is mostly made of composite materials and lithium-aluminium alloys. Titanium was also used in the body and airframe of the LCA. The LCA due to its small size has proved to be having a low radar cross section which makes it difficult for enemy radars to detect it. [Admin Edit: I don't want to edit your post every time you reply, read and follow the rules next time you post otherwise your reply maybe deleted (www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php) Do not disrespect others...

:finger http://www.totalairdominance.50megs.com/Fighters/LCA.htmThe LCA is one of the best the world can offer like the advanced stealth fighters which America and allies are making or the EF-2000. There is nothing that is not present in the LCA's cockpit. Equiped with the state of the art digital avionics the LCA is one of the most pilot friendly aircraft in the world. The pilot is placed in a glass cockpit with good visibility. The avionics of the LCA include MFDs (Multi Functional Displays), HOTAS and a Quadruplex fly-by-wire system. This system was designed by Indian scientists. The LCA also has a helmet mounted target designation system. The other systems onboard the LCA are LANTRIN, FLIR, MMR (Multi Mode Radar), INS (Internal Navigation System), advances electronic warfare suite and a Laser Designation pod.

The LCA first had the fly-by-wire system which was bought from the Lockheed Martin. But due to the nuclear tests in 1998 the Indian scientists wre denied sale of this system by the US's Clinton administration. But the scientists of various firms developed the fly-by-wire system within two years after the embargo was placed. This was truly a great achievement for the Indian aeronautical industry and a morale booster.
:cop :cop wasted!american avonics!ahahahahahahaha.
The LCA has one of the best MMR (Multi Mode Radar) in the world :rolling america! we love u! :D :D he LCA is likely to be marketed to countries like South Africa which has shown interest in this particular project.
yea, why do they want our stuff? maybe cause its good! :D :D :D

[ullu]

OH great! :roll Yet another Indian who is full of himself with "india is great" crap with no respect for others.

Another indian trying to sound like LCA is like f22 and the like. :lolol :lolol :lolol

[gf0012-aust]

The body of the LCA is mostly made of composite materials and lithium-aluminium alloys. Titanium was also used in the body and airframe of the LCA. The LCA due to its small size has proved to be having a low radar cross section which makes it difficult for enemy radars to detect it. [Admin Edit: I don't want to edit your post every time you reply, read and follow the rules next time you post otherwise your reply maybe deleted (www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php) Do not disrespect others...

:finger http://www.totalairdominance.50megs.com/Fighters/LCA.htmThe LCA is one of the best the world can offer like the advanced stealth fighters which America and allies are making or the EF-2000. There is nothing that is not present in the LCA's cockpit. Equiped with the state of the art digital avionics the LCA is one of the most pilot friendly aircraft in the world. The pilot is placed in a glass cockpit with good visibility. The avionics of the LCA include MFDs (Multi Functional Displays), HOTAS and a Quadruplex fly-by-wire system. This system was designed by Indian scientists. The LCA also has a helmet mounted target designation system. The other systems onboard the LCA are LANTRIN, FLIR, MMR (Multi Mode Radar), INS (Internal Navigation System), advances electronic warfare suite and a Laser Designation pod.

The LCA first had the fly-by-wire system which was bought from the Lockheed Martin. But due to the nuclear tests in 1998 the Indian scientists wre denied sale of this system by the US's Clinton administration. But the scientists of various firms developed the fly-by-wire system within two years after the embargo was placed. This was truly a great achievement for the Indian aeronautical industry and a morale booster.
:cop :cop wasted!american avonics!ahahahahahahaha.
The LCA has one of the best MMR (Multi Mode Radar) in the world :rolling america! we love u! :D :D he LCA is likely to be marketed to countries like South Africa which has shown interest in this particular project.
yea, why do they want our stuff? maybe cause its good! :D :D :D


jatt2ooo, let me make one thing really clear before I post the rest of my comments. I have no political leanings towards Hindus or Muslims. I am fortunate to be able to count followers of both faiths as my friends. Most of my friends are in the military. I work in a military environment, my principle background is in aerospace and has been for the last 12 years. The last military project I worked on involved Indian scientists. having worked with people of their calibre, I can assure you that they would positively recoil at your dissertation of aerodynamics.

I have been involved in electronic warfare projects and electronic countermeasures projects, so I'm not a troll wasting space.

What you have written is unmitigated rubbish. It defies all of the current analysis of 4th and 5th generation aviation design. In fact that aircraft appears to be a bastardised Gnat. The design features are identical

Radar cross section has nothing to do with size. It is SHAPE that counts. There are enough angles and reflectors in that design to make any radar system think that the Empire State building has developed wings and is airborne. The air intakes alone are enough to send a signal back to a radar system that you nare about to enter an EADS zone.

That aircraft in its current guise is not in anyway flight competitive with a gripen, rafale, typhoon and I would argue a block 60 falcon. It's shape dictates what it is likely to be able to do. And that shape is not competitive.
(let alone slippery)

BTW, can you show me where the LANTIRN, FLIR, capability is in that platform? It does not exist. on that aircraft. I have actually seen a few generations of LANTIRN systems, none of them exist on that airframe. If you add them then the aircraft will then be "dirty" and will send alarm bells to any radar system that is turned on. It is a middle order fighter, and even though it demonstrates a technical ability, it is not, I REPEAT NOT, a 4th gen competitor.

"Fly by wire" also exists in the latest BMW and Mercedes Benz braking systems, so what???

By overpromoting the aircraft you do yourself and the Indian design team a disservice.

Anyone with a modicum of aviation experience and patience can sit down and write out all the problems that the aircraft will have in a hitech combat scenario.

The one thing that I despise in people is when they lie to promote their preferred point of view. There is no technical merit in any of your arguments, there is no supporting evidence so substantiate any of your claims.

Finally, if someone had written the same garbage about the JF-17 that you wrote about the LCA, I would have responded as well.

I can only assume that you are a patriotic kid who got carried away in defending his nations capability. All you've done is belittle their effort.

One other thing, all the drivel about op-fail-op-fail is just normal aeropsace technospeak to say that the aircraft is milspeced and has triple redundancy.

milspec triple redundancy has been the tool de rigeur of all western mil aircraft for about 40 years.

[jatt2ooo]

right..............hmmm. ok. this shows how arrogant some people are. :smokingc: when did i compare lca with raptor :smokingc: the lca will be equped with better radar and have far better munverbility. it will be better than the fc-1. the fc-1 is just a engine glowed to a jostick. :D patroitic kid my ass! :mad the air intakes are hell a lot smaller on the lca helping it achieve stealth. its not the stealthest plane in the world but sure is beter than the fc-1! u give me some proof the fc-1 is better than the lca! all youve done is compared lca to other superior jets and cars! :roll [/quote]

[gf0012-aust]

right..............hmmm. ok. this shows how arrogant some people are. :smokingc: when did i compare lca with raptor :smokingc: the lca will be equped with better radar and have far better munverbility. it will be better than the fc-1. the fc-1 is just a engine glowed to a jostick. :D patroitic kid my ass! :mad the air intakes are hell a lot smaller on the lca helping it achieve stealth. its not the stealthest plane in the world but sure is beter than the fc-1! u give me some proof the fc-1 is better than the lca! all youve done is compared lca to other superior jets and cars! :roll [/quote]

I haven't compared it to the F22 at all. What I am pointing out is the farago of nonsense you spout about the aircraft being superior to current 4th gen (let alone 5th gen aircraft)

For goodness sake, it is NOT the size of the intakes that determines a radar return, it is shape and placement. That statement alone from you hilights that you know nothing about what is required to reduce an RCS, about how stealth is achieved.

Its irrelevant to me whether its stealthier than the FC-1 as I don't have a lot of concern. A spitfire would probably have a lower RCS than an FC1

If you wish to continue to trot out garbage about superior avionics, weapons systems and FC systems when there is nothing of substance in your claims then far be it for me to prick your nationalistic fervour. Just don't trot out sentences as fact when they are clearly flawed.

You've yet to show the LANTIRN and FLIR capability which you so proudly spoke of earlier.

If you want to engage in serious debate about the flaws of the aircraft, and that goes for any aircraft I am happy to oblige you. If you want to post stuff that anyone in the aviation sector could punch holes in, then don't expect to be left alone and continue to post it with a contumelious disregard for the truth.

If you want I can dissect your prev post even further. I have elected not to do that as you are obviously proud of Indias achievments. So you should be, that doesn't give you a license to build it up into something that it clearly isn't.

If you want to have a technical argument then I'm happy to engage you, if you need to attack the messenger rather than recognise that your post lacked a high degree of accuracy - and thus deserved a challenge, then so be it.

Try not to use me as a vehicle of discontent of your own frustration for being caught out.

Just to keep you busy for a while:
Where is the LANTIRN capability
Where is the FLIR capability
How is it stealthy by design, where are the aerodynamics affected to influence its stealth advantage
Wheres the Laser designation pod
How is a service ceiling of 50,000 feet going to keep this aircraft out of harms way of any supersonic combat aircraft that was built in the last 45 years?
Out of all the mumbo jumbo that you added in your prev booklet, what part is any different from a standard milspec requirement?
What significant part of this airframe demonstrates a stealthy design brief?
How does Titanium add to a stealth advantage?
Tell me why titanium has been used? I know why its been used but am curious as to what you comprehend about its role in the airframe.
How does an aircraft made of titanium/derivatives, carbon fibre and composites only have a service ceiling of 50000 feet and is still underpowered?

The aircraft is not stealthy even without an external ECM pod, you obviously are prepared to take this on blind faith from someone who must design helicopters, they certainly don't design jets.

You stated "lca will be a cheap small jsf", when you make comments like that you leave yourself wide open for criticism and rebuttal.

It may be a fine aircraft, and I do have the utmost respect for any nation that attempts to build indigenous supersonic aircraft, but that doesn't excuse nationalistic chest beating coupled with informational crap.

"lca will have better stealth techology including flares and such as well as BVR witch is very important. Dont judge a book by its cover! "

Most aircraft (including transport planes) in afghanistan and bosnia have flare kits added. and I'm curious as to WHERE these dispensers are on the aircraft, I can't see any.

In short, if you added all of what you say exists onto this aircraft then its no wonder its not meeting its performance parameters.

IF you want to have a serious conversation, then demonstrate it with answering with facts. Don't use the lame excuse that its classified. The airframe is exposed enough, there are enough pictures and photos in circulation to make any assessment of its capabilities possible.

Please desist from using words such as stealthy when it is apparent that the aircraft has an RCS greater than an F14 Tomcat.

I'm far from arrogant, but I hate charlatans though. I am happy for you to prove me wrong (especially on stealth), but until then I question your credibility.

[umair]

Way to go gf0012! That's how one tackles flamers and charltans(stating the facts politely smack in their faces)
For jatt2000:
You mentioned in one of u'r posts that the LCA utilises lead in it's constuction & I quote"as well as its made out of lead so it won't show on radar that much!" OK! I suppose everybody knows that lead can absorb radiation an therefore may be helpfull in achieving LO in an aircraft design.But there is a thing called LEAD POISONING which is fatal to humans.But then again maybe u'r pilots aren't human. :roll
( Whats the use of arguing guys like u don't learn :hitwall )

P.S gf0012 the schematics u have show both the LCA(Tejas) and the MCA(that's the tailless twin engined blended wing delta) which is still on the drawing board.[';)']

[gf0012-aust]

My apologies if I offended anyone re my last response. I make no apologies for the thrust and intent of my message though.

As I have said before, I have friends and work colleagues in both the Indian and Pakistani militaries and it irritates me no end when I see some of their work misrepresented as part of a chest beating exercise.

I would suggest though, that if there is lead in this platform that it be removed rather quickly. Its probably the main reason as to why the engine is underperforming, it's carrying just a just a tad too much weight :)

Lead hasn't been used in bodywork forming since the halcyon days of George Barris,

[jatt2ooo]

The Lca will have a modern radar (western sourced) and a western sourced engine , It will be able to fire beyong 35 mile BVR as well as track aircraft 60-90 miles out, its a delta design so that means good high altitude manuverability, but poor turning radius high angle of attack and poor landing and take off speeds.

The Fc1 will have an arguably poor radar which can fire off misiles only in air to air or air to ground modes it can track aircraft 50 miles out but only shoot missiles 35 miles out, its engine is from the mig-29 so that means high mantinence, its of a double delta design so that means it will be more menuverable than the lca BUt this is muted because it uses an analogue system, its engine will be sub mach 2 Pakistan will need to keep the mirage 5's and f-7's in service :D :D :D OK. Now i've givin good reasons why the LCA is better than the FC-1, now you tell me how the FC-1 is better than the LCA instead of just voting for it! Your calling me a flamer! When did i flame! You guys have'nt said anything about the FC-1. Show me the stuff its gonna have! Why are you just voting for it! Pakistani pride maybe thats blinding your judgment about which fighter is better!

[WebMaster]

I haven't compared it to the F22 at all. What I am pointing out is the farago of nonsense you spout about the aircraft being superior to current 4th gen (let alone 5th gen aircraft)

For goodness sake, it is NOT the size of the intakes that determines a radar return, it is shape and placement. That statement alone from you hilights that you know nothing about what is required to reduce an RCS, about how stealth is achieved.

Its irrelevant to me whether its stealthier than the FC-1 as I don't have a lot of concern. A spitfire would probably have a lower RCS than an FC1

If you wish to continue to trot out garbage about superior avionics, weapons systems and FC systems when there is nothing of substance in your claims then far be it for me to prick your nationalistic fervour. Just don't trot out sentences as fact when they are clearly flawed.

You've yet to show the LANTIRN and FLIR capability which you so proudly spoke of earlier.

If you want to engage in serious debate about the flaws of the aircraft, and that goes for any aircraft I am happy to oblige you. If you want to post stuff that anyone in the aviation sector could punch holes in, then don't expect to be left alone and continue to post it with a contumelious disregard for the truth.

If you want I can dissect your prev post even further. I have elected not to do that as you are obviously proud of Indias achievments. So you should be, that doesn't give you a license to build it up into something that it clearly isn't.

If you want to have a technical argument then I'm happy to engage you, if you need to attack the messenger rather than recognise that your post lacked a high degree of accuracy - and thus deserved a challenge, then so be it.

Try not to use me as a vehicle of discontent of your own frustration for being caught out.

Just to keep you busy for a while:
Where is the LANTIRN capability
Where is the FLIR capability
How is it stealthy by design, where are the aerodynamics affected to influence its stealth advantage
Wheres the Laser designation pod
How is a service ceiling of 50,000 feet going to keep this aircraft out of harms way of any supersonic combat aircraft that was built in the last 45 years?
Out of all the mumbo jumbo that you added in your prev booklet, what part is any different from a standard milspec requirement?
What significant part of this airframe demonstrates a stealthy design brief?
How does Titanium add to a stealth advantage?
Tell me why titanium has been used? I know why its been used but am curious as to what you comprehend about its role in the airframe.
How does an aircraft made of titanium/derivatives, carbon fibre and composites only have a service ceiling of 50000 feet and is still underpowered?

The aircraft is not stealthy even without an external ECM pod, you obviously are prepared to take this on blind faith from someone who must design helicopters, they certainly don't design jets.

You stated "lca will be a cheap small jsf", when you make comments like that you leave yourself wide open for criticism and rebuttal.

It may be a fine aircraft, and I do have the utmost respect for any nation that attempts to build indigenous supersonic aircraft, but that doesn't excuse nationalistic chest beating coupled with informational crap.

"lca will have better stealth techology including flares and such as well as BVR witch is very important. Dont judge a book by its cover! "

Most aircraft (including transport planes) in afghanistan and bosnia have flare kits added. and I'm curious as to WHERE these dispensers are on the aircraft, I can't see any.

In short, if you added all of what you say exists onto this aircraft then its no wonder its not meeting its performance parameters.

IF you want to have a serious conversation, then demonstrate it with answering with facts. Don't use the lame excuse that its classified. The airframe is exposed enough, there are enough pictures and photos in circulation to make any assessment of its capabilities possible.

Please desist from using words such as stealthy when it is apparent that the aircraft has an RCS greater than an F14 Tomcat.

I'm far from arrogant, but I hate charlatans though. I am happy for you to prove me wrong (especially on stealth), but until then I question your credibility.


Jatt, you need to read this carefully and answer the question. Don't babble about same thing over and over again. Put some thought into it.

[gf0012-aust]

The Lca will have a modern radar (western sourced) and a western sourced engine , It will be able to fire beyong 35 mile BVR as well as track aircraft 60-90 miles out, its a delta design so that means good high altitude manuverability, but poor turning radius high angle of attack and poor landing and take off speeds.

The Fc1 will have an arguably poor radar which can fire off misiles only in air to air or air to ground modes it can track aircraft 50 miles out but only shoot missiles 35 miles out, its engine is from the mig-29 so that means high mantinence, its of a double delta design so that means it will be more menuverable than the lca BUt this is muted because it uses an analogue system, its engine will be sub mach 2 Pakistan will need to keep the mirage 5's and f-7's in service :D :D :D OK. Now i've givin good reasons why the LCA is better than the FC-1, now you tell me how the FC-1 is better than the LCA instead of just voting for it! Your calling me a flamer! When did i flame! You guys have'nt said anything about the FC-1. Show me the stuff its gonna have! Why are you just voting for it! Pakistani pride maybe thats blinding your judgment about which fighter is better!

You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked earlier, and now you want to complicate your life by adding more into the mix....

a delta isn't designed to give good high altitude manourvrability, its designed that way for other reasons. If it was designed to turn and burn at high altitude then you wouldn't have the taiwanese so fed up with the preformance of their mirages because they're starving at altitude.

the LCA won't have a western sourced engine (now you are contradicting yourself) It will use an indiginous engine as India doesn't want to risk being exposed to the deleterious side effects of an arms embargo. (read your own initial thread as well to update and remind yourself of what you copied from the initial web pages))

what the heck has the delta design got to do with poor turning, take off and landing speeds. Ever seen a Rafale or a Gripen, or a Typhoon turn? They can scare the pants off of an F16 driver! You are avoiding questions by throwing in spurious distractants.

You haven't given any credible responses as to why the LCA is a superior plane, you certainly haven't provided any info that says that the LCA is a match for the Typhoon (read your original post again)

When you can answer these things satisfactorily then I'm happy to discuss performance comparisons with the JF-17 which was your initial comparitor - NOT the FC-1. After that then we can chat about performance differences on the FC-1.

You should be greatful that I'm being independant here, imagine how hard the questions could be if I wasn't... :eek

You have yet to prove your case with the LCA, its a little rich to expect the pakistani or pro LC-1 or JF-17 advocates to put up counter claims when you have made such a mess of your supporting arguments. Its your credibility (and unfortunately now, by association the LCA) which is at risk.

[Revival_786]

Jatt2000 maybe you should just calm down and shut your trap. Think before you talk.

[The Watcher]

Our friend Jatt2000 is having trouble answering your questions so he is out there looking for answers and asking people for help and then copy pasting their replies:

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1071976313&lp=1072 025654

It puts old arrogant indian to shame! :smokingc: :pak
:lolol

[Winter]

Watcher, Fine....Just keep the 'indian' part out of it...It just doesn't matterand for all you know he's an Azerbaijani caretaker who perhaps didn't like his hotel when he went to Pakistan okay? This is the anomynous, international internet on a website not supposed to care about countries, races, creed, skin colour...

jatt2oo...What the heck is wrong with you? You call gf0012 an 'annoying pakistani' and hate him because of it and that he's 'dising' you....Though what you do on forum does not matter and you can do whatever you want, just don't bring it here.

The idea of letting people's nationality (including your own) seriously affect your decisions on grading military equipment is quite preposterous. I mean, of course, there is nationalistic pride and bias with everyone to a certain extent but then there is....

[gf0012-aust]

Just so that it is obviously clear to everyone. I am Australian. Not Pakistani, Not Indian, Not American, Not British etc. etc......

Nationality shouldn't have anything to do with this.. :roll

Addendum.

I have worked with Indian and Pakistani military people on different projects, I've worked as a defense analyst and on military projects across a number of disciplines. Its my job as well as my "hobby".

Like everyone here I have an interest in things military, but I also have a desire to understand a lot more clearly how other people think. If you deal with people purely at a military level you end up getting caught in a rarefied atmosphere. Therefore its good for me to be able to see how other people see military issues.

What I can't tolerate is people who try to inflame situations and create racial tension - it craps me right off.

I am quite happy to talk to anyone about anything, but I won't suffer trolls.
If we can all play nicely, then we'll all learn something along the way (as I have).



/speech off

[Winter]

Just so that it is obviously clear to everyone. I am Australian. Not Pakistani, Not Indian, Not American, Not British etc. etc......

Quite...Read the thread and what our man in Network54 says.... :roll

[shamsi]

GF0012, cheers mate.

There are a bunch of patriots (kids) here.

If i remember correctly, it took a lifting in embargo to test gly the LCA.

JF17 seems like a compromise Pakistan is making in light of their options (or lack thereof).

[gf0012-aust]

Just so that it is obviously clear to everyone. I am Australian. Not Pakistani, Not Indian, Not American, Not British etc. etc......

Quite...Read the thread and what our man in Network54 says.... :roll

Unfortunately I can't get into the forum to read what was said, but I hope he's calmed down a bit.

He wasn't doing the LCA any favours by carrying on like that.

[umair]

Well buddygf0012 the whole page copied and pasted for your reading pleasure.(Every body on that forum is just shooting arrows in the dark) :D



<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Every one who knows jets better tell me!
December 21 2003 at 3:11 AM
No score for this post Anonymous (Login jatt2ooo)
Redcoats


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what ways is the lca better than the fc-2. give credible answers and resources. explain and show your logic!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Respond to this message

Author Reply

Fanny
(Login IndianPride)
Forza La Banda Di Fratelli
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 3:24 AM

You mean FC-1? (Fighter China)

_________________________________________________

On January 26, 1950, India's Constitution came into effect. For almost half of a century since then, on that day every year, thousands show up to honour the moment. The Republic Day Parade, however is a well-rehearsed part of the official celebrations

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login kronicFever)
Satyameva Jayate
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 3:39 AM

For the Most part on Paper Both AC are similar and have a similar Role.
However while the FC-1 was built as a Mig-21 Replacement the LCA is a little omre than that. BLOCK 30 LCA will feature TVC and Canrads . ADA is currently in the process of Building its AESA along with the MMR . THE FC-1 AS OF NOW has no avionics whatsoever. and has undergone only 1 test flight so we dont evenknow if its air worthy yet.

THe FC-1 has a slightly larger payload by the LCA is more manoverable and has a lower RCS .

Lastly the LCA will be backed by a MUCH powerful Air Survellience Infrastructure than the FC/1. IT will include the Green Pine , Rajendra , INdra II Ground Survelience Radars backed by the PHALCON AWAC.

ALso Currently Pakistan has no SD-10 whatsoever while India has a Large INventory of R-77 BVR missles.



" While we teach the Art of war we should not Glorify the Acts of war"



R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login hsz)
Member
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:06 AM

I just read a report, it says China's arms sales to foreign countries has dropped significantly last year, from 3 billion in the previous year to 400 million. I hope FC-1 can be successful in export market, we better make some money out of FC-1 so that we can keep buying russian weapons. hehe...many countries that are currently operating Chinese J-7 are gonna buy FC-1 to replace their aging J-7 fleets for sure, (certainly Pakistan and bangledesh, maybe myanmar egypt and some african countries as well).



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)


badr and Uhud
(Select Login BrotherAbdullah)
Member
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:11 AM

the fc-1 will not have a digital FBW system, it will not have HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick)

Me against my Brother
me and my brother against my cousin
me my brother and my cousin against the stranger

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login kronicFever)
Satyameva Jayate
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:17 AM

brotherabdullah. You are correct the Fc-1 as of now has nothing but an Engine and A joystick to fly and land it.

" While we teach the Art of war we should not Glorify the Acts of war"



R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

I ain't no han, I'm Mongolian, I'm Manchu!
(Login hsz)
Member
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:46 AM

But it's good enough for third-world countries air forces.

remember China's J-7 was indeed a crappy plane, but it has been VERY SUCCESSFUL in export market, it was exported to many countries around the world.





Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login jatt2ooo)
Redcoats
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:47 AM

but i heard they were still making that. give some proof so i an use it in another forum. and is lca stealthy, and will it have better radar as well will it function better in dogfights against fc-1. when fc-1 is complete.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=708
this sob is dising lca with fc-1.

This message has been edited by jatt2ooo on Dec 21, 2003 4:51 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login jatt2ooo)
Redcoats
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 6:04 AM

answer me!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)


badr and Uhud
(Select Login BrotherAbdullah)
Member
ok lets compare
No score for this post December 21 2003, 6:07 AM

The Lca will have a modern radar (western sourced) and a western sourced engine , It will be able to fire beyong 35 mile BVR as well as track aircraft 60-90 miles out, its a delta design so that means good high altitude manuverability, but poor turning radius high angle of attack and poor landing and take off speeds.

The Fc1 will have an arguably poor radar which can fire off misiles only in air to air or air to ground modes it can track aircraft 50 miles out but only shoot missiles 35 miles out, its engine is from the mig-29 so that means high mantinence, its of a double delta design so that means it will be more menuverable than the lca BUt this is muted because it uses an analogue system, its engine will be sub mach 2 Pakistan will need to keep the mirage 5's and f-7's in service

Me against my Brother
me and my brother against my cousin
me my brother and my cousin against the stranger

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login jatt2ooo)
Redcoats
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 4:54 PM

thnx
i need more info. i need you guys to dis these anoying *****!
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=708&start=20
i need you guys to give me reasonable responses to did these guys!
help a brother out!


This message has been edited by jatt2ooo on Dec 21, 2003 5:12 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Defence Talk
(Login Defencetalk)
Hellenic Phalanx
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 10:14 PM

Hey jatt2ooo,

Did you actually read this?

http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4236#4236

There are no answers my friend, so stop looking for them. These guys don't have the answers either. The guy debating you on defencetalk isn't pakistani. He is Australian Defence Expert or something.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Anonymous
(Login jatt2ooo)
Redcoats
Re: Every one who knows jets better tell me!
No score for this post December 21 2003, 11:19 PM

then why are those ****in ****'s voting for **** land!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

Current Topic - Every one who knows jets better tell me! Respond to this message

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

The poor kid's got into a mess here just by shooting off his trap
Thats why I don't like such forums,people come and post without any research and or knowhow about the topic.




[/b]

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks umair!

Silly bugger, If he'd been a little more circumspect and reasonable then we could have had a sensible discussion.

Live and learn. Its the first time I've been called a **** though.. ;)

Was that meant to be an insult?? :D

[umair]

Yep! the British neonazis used to call immigrants from Pakistan that in the 60s-80s.But now the use of this word has abated, still it is disliked by us as it was used as aderogatory method of adressing Pakistanis

[tabbas]

jat2000 wrote.....The other systems onboard the LCA are LANTRIN, FLIR, MMR (Multi Mode Radar), INS (Internal Navigation System), advances electronic warfare suite and a Laser Designation pod.

what is "Internal navigation System" :-D

[dabrownguy]

I thought the LCA is better than the JF-17. Will the JF-17 be a BVR jet?

[ullu]

JF-17 will have BVR capability thats for sure.... a fighter must have BVR nowadays to be a good fighter.

pakistan recently tested a new bvr missile based upon south african darter

http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=704

so the reports say!

[dabrownguy]

so which jet is better? is the jf-17 better than the lca?

[The Watcher]

so which jet is better? is the jf-17 better than the lca?

Well, that can't be determined until both fighters enter service and more info is known about them. Also, if both come face to face in a combat like situation then we can determine which one is better-i hope there is never a need for them in combat scenerio.

[dabrownguy]

From the facts I have gathered I have conculded that the LCA is a very good aircraft. It will be better than the mig-23 for sure. It seems superior to the F-16 as well, which is practically a mig-21 flying coffin. I just have one question, if the LCA is given a midlife upgrade after it is inducted will it be capable as the mariage 2000?, which is a very fine aircraft. I know the LCA and mariage 2000 have some things in common.

[gf0012-aust]

oops!! sorry dabrownguy, was thinking about the replacement for the LCA

[About the only thing in common between a Mirage 111/5/2000 and a LCA is the fact that they both have a pilot. :)

LCA - Blended wing
Mirage - Delta
LCA - dual engines
Mirage - Single engine
LVA - no Skeg
Mirage - traditional tail]

This bits still valid though... ;)

Why would you say that the F16 is like the Mig 21? A flying coffin??
Look at the stats for the Viper and there is no modern jet that has the kill rate, up time, load ability of a single jet engine fighter. Look at the survival rate etc... how many Vipers have dropped due to systems failure?? Then have a look at the Mig21.

Admittedly the Mig21 in the Indian AirForce has blown out the data somewhat, but if you exclude '21's from the Indian airforce it has been a lethal capable platform. (hence Chinas modification of them to produce an indigenous model)

Under the IAF, the Mig21 on the other hand has a track record that rivals that of the halcyon years of the starfighter. Take out the IAF stats and its a very very credible fighter, more than a match for its western contemporaries.

[Oqaab]

From the facts I have gathered I have conculded that the LCA is a very good aircraft. It will be better than the mig-23 for sure. It seems superior to the F-16 as well, which is practically a mig-21 flying coffin. I just have one question, if the LCA is given a midlife upgrade after it is inducted will it be capable as the mariage 2000?, which is a very fine aircraft. I know the LCA and mariage 2000 have some things in common.

Yes, LCA is superior to F-16 block 5 or 10. :D All it needs is a good engine, state of the art avionics, more hardpoints, and it will be comparable to Mirage 2000.

[umair]

Er! gf the twin engined fighter is the MCA which still is on the drawing board.The LCA is a single engined fighter.Brownguy the LCA will be as capable as the block 10 F 16(compare the stats) cept for the BVR capability.
I had achat with afriend who is studying aeronautics/aerodynamics in the States.I mailed him schematics and pictures of both the Thunder and the LCA.According to him the Thunder's design has more agility than the LCA's.Too bad this has been muted by the huybrid flight controls in the Thunder's protos.But then again the production Thunder will have a3 channel triplex digital FBW flight control system allowing it to perform to the max of it's design envelope.Also my uncle(wng cmdr in PAF) told me that the avionics contract for the PAF thunder will go to the French(all the avioncs have been decided except for the radar either Thompson,CSF's RDI or the same firm's RDY1).The cockpit has been redesigned with 3 MFDs(one colored) instead of the original 2.HOTAS controls will be fitted as standard in all prod fighters.
Both fighters will be very impressive in their category.Lets hope that they never see combat ;)

[gf0012-aust]

Er! gf the twin engined fighter is the MCA which still is on the drawing board.The LCA is a single engined fighter.Brownguy the LCA will be as capable as the block 10 F 16(compare the stats) cept for the BVR capability.
I had achat with afriend who is studying aeronautics/aerodynamics in the States.I mailed him schematics and pictures of both the Thunder and the LCA.According to him the Thunder's design has more agility than the LCA's.Too bad this has been muted by the huybrid flight controls in the Thunder's protos.But then again the production Thunder will have a3 channel triplex digital FBW flight control system allowing it to perform to the max of it's design envelope.Also my uncle(wng cmdr in PAF) told me that the avionics contract for the PAF thunder will go to the French(all the avioncs have been decided except for the radar either Thompson,CSF's RDI or the same firm's RDY1).The cockpit has been redesigned with 3 MFDs(one colored) instead of the original 2.HOTAS controls will be fitted as standard in all prod fighters.
Both fighters will be very impressive in their category.Lets hope that they never see combat ;)

Umair, yeah I stuffed up before like this, I have to stop looking at the "blender" (MCA) and then write about the LCA.. lol

too much data on my desk, too many fingers and only one brain makes a bad combination sometimes..

I agree that at first cut the Thunder is a contemporary version of the Mig21 or Starfighter in its flight profile. Its a "streetfighter" design

[dabrownguy]

F-16 is almost out of date! The Jf-17 is better than the F-16. I have found an article that I think was writen by a pilot. I is a must read!
An LCA Study



The Aeronautical Development Agency's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Without doubt the most talked about fighter program in India, whether it is in the media or in public. And rightly so - with the LCA, the most ambitious fighter program ever in India - possibly in the world took wing.

Look at the odds - the last jet plane that India built was the HF-24 Marut - a subsonic, ground attack fighter. The LCA would be a couple of generations ahead of the Marut. With no experience of manufacturing supersonic airframes and systems, all infrastructure had to be built from the ground up. Which is also why doubts have been cast on the viability & need for the LCA program, some of them genuine, some of them outlandish!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets pick up some questions that have been thrown by both the media and the general public at the LCA program over the years.

1) The LCA is not required

If anything, the LCA is more than necessary for the IAF, to replace outdated MiG-21s and MiG-23s - a cool 400+ aircraft. Although the LCA will not be built in as large numbers, it will combine the roles and payloads of both these aircraft into one neat package - making it cheap to operate and maintain due to commonality of parts.

2) The LCA is not capable enough

The LCA is more than what is required for the aircraft it is intended to replace. It can not only act as a close support, ground attack aircraft, but an equally capable air defense and interception platform with Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and short range (air-to-air missiles). With advanced avionics, a very good electronic countermeasures (ECM) package and compatibility with Russian, Israeli and French armament, it fills the gap created by the retiring of older MiG aircraft.

3) The LCA lacks range

This is one of the most vexing questions - but one thing needs to be made clear, the LCA does NOT lack range. With a published combat radius of 850 kilometers (multiply the figure by 1.2 to get an approximate range), the LCA has a very good range. This figure can be compared to the combat radius of the MiG-21 (350 km) and the MiG-23 (1100 km). Please not that the MiG-23 is a significantly larger aircraft, but still has only 6 weapon stations, as does the LCA.

Also, many reports indicate that the LCA has a larger fuel capacity as compared to the Gripen, which means since the two aircraft have similar engines, they have similar fuel efficiencies. This gives the LCA slightly greater range than the first fourth generation fighter to enter service.

4) The LCA will be obsolete by the time it enters service

A lot of people tend to go by the mid-1980s date when the LCA program was launched, and straight away assume that the LCA is obsolete. What needs to be made clear is that the LCA is not built using technology from that era. All avionics are up to date, all design methods are cutting edge tools. And there has been a considerable use of computers involved - whether it is the use of CAD/CAM in designing the LCA, the three MIL STD 1553 equivalent data buses on board the LCA, or the complex software involved in the radar and avionics suite.

The LCA is predicted to enter service by 2006-07. By this time it will certainly be at least five-six years late, but not obsolete. With equipment such as digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System (FCS) it will be at least 2015 by the time the LCA can be called obsolete.

5) The LCA is not "indigenous" at all

There is some validity in this argument. The engine currently is American, and the later engine will be a modified version of it. The Helmet mounted sight (HMS) is Russian and the engines are being tested in Russia, while the ECM suite is Israeli, and the radar is supposedly based on the Israeli Elta. Then there is the fact that BAe and Dassault were somewhat involved in designing the LCA.

But that does not make the LCA any less indegenous. After all, it was first built in India, the the airframe design and composition is Indian, the structural testing is Indian, the software is Indian. The computers are Indian and the Head-Up Display (HUD) is Indian. What more do we need? This will improve after the Kaveri engine is fitted on the LCA.

Even if you look at other aircraft companies like SAAB, some foreign participation is always involved in the building of the airplane! The Gripen, for one, uses an American engine and has BAe helping out with the system.

6) The LCA is a waste of money, too much money has been spent

How much money is too much money? A reported US $500 million has been spent so far, but two points have to be looked at when comparing this figure.

That amount of money is quite low compared to what is spent by developed nations for their aircraft. A case in point is the FC-1, another, the Gripen.

Secondly, a large portion of the money is spent within India - which means it only aids the economy and cannot be considered a wasteful expenditure.

7) The top speed of the LCA (Mach 1.7) is too low

Well if it is, the so are the top speeds of the Gripen (M 1.7), the F/A-18 Hornet & F/A-18E/F SuperHornet (M 1.8), the RAF Tornado (M 1.3) and the F-22 Raptor (approx M 1.8) though admittedly the Raptor is in a different league compared to the rest with its stealth and next generation equipment.

The point is the top speed is not as important for an aircraft as its velocity profile i.e. its graph of velocity v/s altitude. This is because top speed of an aircraft is possible only at and beyond certain very high altitudes, such as 35,000 ft above sea level. It is a very rare occasion that any aircraft has to reach its top speed during combat. The Tornado for example has an awesome Mach 1.1 speed at sea level! Therefore if the velocity profile is "wide" enough, the top speed of the LCA will not matter. The velocity profile of the LCA is currently not known.

8) The Mirage 2000 is as/more than capable when compared to the LCA

The Mirage 2000 is an admirable and lovely aircraft. It is supposedly the favourite of the maintenance crews all over because of its ease of handling and parts replacement, especially when compared to older Russian machines.

But the Mirage 2000 is getting old in its years, with the first squadron having formed in the eighties. Yes it is still a capable aircraft, but its airframe will be twenty years old when the LCA is inducted. Which means it will be viable for only around 10 years from today. The LCA is as capable as the Mirage 2000, and in some ways even better.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One factor many people seem to forget that the most important thing India gains out of the LCA program is not just an amazing versatile multirole fighter - but the experience required to build,, fly, maintain and maybe even export its own aircraft. The experience gained by our engineers, scientists, designers, programmers, technicians and of course, pilots will be invaluable in building our next aircraft, and will set stage where the Indian Aviation industry is not just considered as underdogs, but as equals.

Check out the comparison table between the LCA, Gripen and FC-1.

For more details see the LCA Fact Sheet..

http://www.indianpilot.tk/
They LCA and Mariage have many things in similar including radar and their porpose, I just want to know if the LCA will be able to carry laser guided bombs? and will it be useful in air to ground strikes? the Mariage proved that is great air to ground aircraft in the Kargil conflict.

[gf0012-aust]

dabrownguy. fundamentally all you are doing is cutting and pasting pro-LCA fact sheets. Thats fine. But, certainly within the aerospace industry some of what you are saying about the capability of the LCA is abolsute nonsense. That doesn't mean that it is not a capable aircraft - it does bring into question the positive beat up you give it.

Before you continue to extoll the virtues of the LCA I'd suggest you do the following:

Look at the design brief for the LCA
Look at the shape of the LCA
Look at the problems that are substantial and present in the platform and then go back and look at the design brief again
Give me some empirical data on why the F16 is a flying coffin as per the Mig21
Look at the tasking profile for an F16 and explain to me why you would compare it (LCA) to an F16 anyway

You are posting statements about the LCA which are known to be flawed within the aerospace industry. That is not necessarily a deliberate intention on your part, but it does raise the issue of questionabloe and reliable source material.

NO manned future aircraft will be built to be a streetfighter. Those planes are long gone, they became dinosaurs very recently due to missile development.

The LCA's role in a modern theatre would be restricted to standoff capability and CAS in a controlled environment. It would not and will not survive a 21st century joint dominated theatre. You are focussing on the impact of one platform to dominate a theatre when since 1991 all capable militaries suddenly realised that jointness/C4i integration was the key.

Technology Feudal wars are not part of modern warfighting. Isolated solutions will die. Integrated will last longer. The LCA platform does not have the capability or internal real estate to be part of a modern integrated weapons solution - at this point in time.

India will have to spend much more on other force elements for that to happen.

[Aussie Digger]

As to the argument that the LCA design dates back to the early 80's, well the F22 program began in the early 80's as well. I don't think you'll hear anyone argue that the F22 will be obsolete when it enters service!!! I wouldn't be too concerned about top speeds either. The maximum top speed of an aircraft is really only relevant if you need to run away... The supercruise capability on the F22 however will really revolutionise air warfare though. It's ability to fly at twice the speed of other aircraft for extended periods will double it's mission rate, will double the performance of it's onboard weapons and combined with it's stealth capability and passive radar and onboard systems will ensure it is vastly superior to any other planned aircraft. Gettting back to the original topic however, I read an extensive article on the LCA in "Airforces Monthly" magazine a while ago. They generally praised the aircraft (whilst pointing out it's admitted faults...) Did anyone else see that article? Cheers.

[gf0012-aust]

The LCA is a perfectly capable unit on paper for its theatre. It has yet to be tested. It also has not kept pace with the paradigm shift in weaponry,

That doesn't knock it out as a player but it means that extra work still has to be done to help it survive in a modern theatre

[dabrownguy]

I understand, but I did not say LCA is the best aircraft ot will it be used in real air superiority roles. I was saying since Mariage 2000's porpose is bombing ground and getting rid of unwanted aircraft in Indian terriotory that the LCA could do the same if modified. LCA has BVR and will be armed with Astra aam which will be enough to scare the F-16's away. Mariage and LCA carry almost the same weapons but the LCA will carry Astra unlike Mariage 2000 which can't carry Russian T-77 aam. LCA is mean't to replace Mig-23 but is far more than Mig-23. I have not read anything faulty about the LCA yet being my only source is the internet may be you can tell me of the faulty abilities of the LCA?

[gf0012-aust]

I understand, but I did not say LCA is the best aircraft ot will it be used in real air superiority roles. I was saying since Mariage 2000's porpose is bombing ground and getting rid of unwanted aircraft in Indian terriotory that the LCA could do the same if modified. LCA has BVR and will be armed with Astra aam which will be enough to scare the F-16's away. Mariage and LCA carry almost the same weapons but the LCA will carry Astra unlike Mariage 2000 which can't carry Russian T-77 aam. LCA is mean't to replace Mig-23 but is far more than Mig-23. I have not read anything faulty about the LCA yet being my only source is the internet may be you can tell me of the faulty abilities of the LCA?

The issues for the LCA are the same problems that most aircraft go through at the design stage.

In Indias case this jet has been designed as a low level "throw away" interceptor and launch platform. What has happened is that (like the Arjun) they have progressive imposed other tasks into the base platform so that it is potentially compromsied to deliver at its initial role.

My opinion is that they have lost focus and instead of recognising that the plane is a launch platform and not a streetfighter, they could have cut back on the R&D and developed more lethal ordinance.

As a shooter the LCA is very capable. Its not the capability of the LCA that should be focussed on, it is the capability of its most likely opponent that should be attended to. That means strong BVR and a capacity to integrate the plane with ADS and AWACs

[ShandongGIANT]

Between the JF-17 and the LCA, the chinese fighter has more potential because will be build more rapidly and enter service earlier. with a initial batch of 12 being deliver sometime this year to Pakistan. while the LCA has yet been issued an order.


[Admin Edit: Topic merged]

[Revival_786]

Which aircraft - LCA or JF-17 - would be cheaper to buy? What are their cost (any numbers)?

[ullu]

JF17 is much cheaper than LCA. Estimated cost of JF17 is likely to be between 10-15 million a piece. While LCA can go as high as 25-30 million!

[umair]

Er! ullu the cost of the Thunder with the RCS400/200 radar is expected to be ruond 15-20 million$(that too cause of the low labour costs)If the cost of labour in China were as high as that in India(still lower than the west) then the Thunder would also have been in the 25-30 million$ range.Ps some reports are coming out these days saying that FIAR has offered a much improved version of it's Griffo S7 radar in competition against the French Thompson CSF RCS400/200.I wonder what the "echelons of power" will go for now?
Hmmmmmmm....... :?

[darklegent]

There is a saying " IF YOU GIVE PEANUTS ALL YOU GET ARE MONKEYS" :D
Dudes all I mean to say is that technology cost money how on earth can one compare the cost of defence equipment and argue that my product is cheaper? Given a chance (money) I would buy 25 advanced fighter jets like the F-22 (when availible) or the Su-27/30/37 or the Eurofighter or Rafel then buy a 150 midium - low tech fighter which would be canon feed when fielded against superior fighter jets.
Any ways this is of the topic.
My main point is if the LCA or the JF-17 is being developed it is best to evolve it with context to all the products availible in the current enviroment. AS I SAID TECHNOLOGY COST MONEY.

[dabrownguy]

Oqaab the is little differnce in labour cost for jet manufacturing when your makeing a jet worth millions labour is gonna cost you just a million. Plus LCA is extremely small so not much metal etc... went into it cutting the cost and that saved money went into radar and tech. LCA got some of its radar from the Su-30MKI. It was also made in block systems so just like f-16 the LCA will have blocks to meet with the changing tech.

[Oqaab]

Oqaab the is little differnce in labour cost for jet manufacturing when your makeing a jet worth millions labour is gonna cost you just a million. Plus LCA is extremely small so not much metal etc... went into it cutting the cost and that saved money went into radar and tech. LCA got some of its radar from the Su-30MKI. It was also made in block systems so just like f-16 the LCA will have blocks to meet with the changing tech.

So why the hell LCA costs more then 21 million per unit ? The JF-17 costs 10 million to Pakistan and even if we upgrade this plane, it will be cheaper then LCA. China is making another similar engine and I m sure that engine will cost less then RD-93.

And yes, the JF-17 will also get upgrades with the passage of time. Dont worry. :D

[dabrownguy]

Maybe its expensive because of the technology is better? Did you think of that? LCA radar is pretty advanced and on par with western radar, although LCA will see many midlife upgrades in blocks.

[Red aRRow]

Maybe it's expensive because it has taken 30 years(approx.) compared with the JF-17´s 10(approx.). :roll

[umair]

Maybe its expensive because of the technology is better? Did you think of that? LCA radar is pretty advanced and on par with western radar, although LCA will see many midlife upgrades in blocks.


Well I've been :hitwall for a long time trying to tell u guys again and again that don't think of the Thunder as a med tech fighter.It's earliest production version is destined to be in the 4.2-4.4 gen fighter range, making it equivalent to the block 40 and 50(export version) Falcon.The main reason which comes into my mind for the LCA being more expensive is that India spent more time and money in the programmme's R&D stage.Whereas Pakistan partenered China which already had much experience in developing aircraft(the J-8,A-5,JH-7 etc) which led to much less time being spent in the R&D stage(10 odd years as compared to 20 odd years for the LCA)

[gf0012-aust]

Theres also all the money and years spent by the Israelis in developing the Lavi that need to be factored into this.

The JF-17 is a combination of US, Israeli and Chinese input now - a mini eurofighter type concept. :) I imagine Lockheed will be watching public flight displays with some interest.

[The Watcher]

Theres also all the money and years spent by the Israelis in developing the Lavi that need to be factored into this.

The JF-17 is a combination of US, Israeli and Chinese input now - a mini eurofighter type concept. :) I imagine Lockheed will be watching public flight displays with some interest.

:lolol You love play with our young minds, dont you? Don't joke around with our feelings man. :cry

[gf0012-aust]

Theres also all the money and years spent by the Israelis in developing the Lavi that need to be factored into this.

The JF-17 is a combination of US, Israeli and Chinese input now - a mini eurofighter type concept. :) I imagine Lockheed will be watching public flight displays with some interest.

:lolol You love play with our young minds, dont you? Don't joke around with our feelings man. :cry

Hmmm, not sure if I have offended you (or anyone) but if I have it was unintentional. I was just stating the tech history of the plane.

[The Watcher]

No its okay. I didn't think plane was THAT good. :)

[gf0012-aust]

No its okay. I didn't think plane was THAT good. :)

It remains to be seen. The base unit was very good, IIRC the Israelis only stopped development as the US perceived that it was paying for the development of a plane that would act as a competitor for the F16.

Am a bit fuzzy on the overall history of this, so don't take me literally.

The Lavi was supposed to outperform the cranked wing F16XL (??), if that was the case, then it would have been a very good low alt dog fighter (with the right thrust engine) and a very good bomb truck due to its capacity to load up on hard points etc...

[dabrownguy]

I know India spent more on R&D but why is LCA more expensive is what I was trying to say.

[gf0012-aust]

I know India spent more on R&D but why is LCA more expensive is what I was trying to say.

Purely indigenous programmes will cost more - it is to be expected. Couple this with the fact that there are some new technology concepts involved, then it's likely that a "greenfields" development will incur high initial costs.

"Greenfield" projects tend to look at amortising the development costs by onselling the platform. In one of the US news alerts I get there is already discussion about whether the LCA and JF-17 will be the new lightweight fighters to compete for volume sales on the international market. This was basically part of an article which said that they could be a direct sale competitor for approx 2000 second hand F-16's.

Both India and China will need to consider offshore sales to reduce the pain of development costs. (if that doesn't compromise strategic interets)

[umair]

In one of the US news alerts I get there is already discussion about whether the LCA and JF-17 will be the new lightweight fighters to compete for volume sales on the international market. This was basically part of an article which said that they could be a direct sale competitor for approx 2000 second hand F-16's.


That's why Uncle was trying to twist our arm by offering us all the Peace Gate Falcons if we dropped out off the Thunder project! :eek

[The Watcher]

Countries in Africa, Middle East and maybe in far east would probably go for JF-17 as the future will show its as capable as F-16abc, etc. plus the reduced price will be the factor of its sucess. Central and South America could be another market as large as africa and ME combined. 2006-08 would be interesting years. ;)

[adsH]

So as gf said that indiginous programes cost more !! so the EF2000 had multiple countries contribueing, so the high price would either mean that the actual R&D cost was realy huge or that the BAE is ripping off the prospectfull buyers!. hmm? :mrgreen

oh and gf the Israeli input was only in the J-10 i don't think it was the JF-17 its still a good fighter its was based on the mig-33 nice craft but the soviates could not afford to runn the R&D on it

and i think the israeli input in the j-10 was the technology like the phased array radr on bord computers avionics and the air inlet modification this craft is basically based on a russian design again the soviates at the end didn't have much money so they stoped R&D :smokingc:

[adsH]

gf uve just don something i could never have don good on you finally some one who can deal with people who talk loads of crap.
gf :D2 ur comment were good they made me laugh out loud in the lab when i was at uni :onfloorl: jatt mate there got abit of a shock i guess lol

[Roger Smith]

Theres also all the money and years spent by the Israelis in developing the Lavi that need to be factored into this.

The JF-17 is a combination of US, Israeli and Chinese input now - a mini eurofighter type concept. :) I imagine Lockheed will be watching public flight displays with some interest.

Well said, I second the aforementioned motion! ;)

[gf0012-aust]

and i think the israeli input in the j-10 was the technology like the phased array radr on bord computers avionics and the air inlet modification this craft is basically based on a russian design again the soviates at the end didn't have much money so they stoped R&D



adSh. In principle I was referring to the '10. The 17 will also have got some lateral spinoff as the Chinese would have learnt a substantial amount on platform development from the '10 learning curve.

Even though there may not have been direct Israeli input, I woould hazard a guess that all of the Israeli experience in the Lavi and their after market expertise in modifying Mig-21's would have been bought into play.

[adsH]

good thinking but the part where u reffered to the Israel modyfying "modifying Mig-21's" did it happen i thought they never touched a AC in that class its too primative to even bother. i guess they work a principal the A good AC with a the best AVionics suite.

[gf0012-aust]

good thinking but the part where u reffered to the Israel modyfying "modifying Mig-21's" did it happen i thought they never touched a AC in that class its too primative to even bother. i guess they work a principal the A good AC with a the best AVionics suite.

Israel has a lot of experience in modifying Migs. They were very early suppliers to the US of captured aircraft. They currently contract to a lot of the former warsaw pact "poorer" countries looking for upgrades to existing fleets. They are considered to be the best of the refurb models, with the French Sagem conversions coming in second. Mikoyans own upgrades come in 3rd (which says a lot for the first 2)

I think the Israelis provided the US with a Mig 21 in the early 70's, funnily enough it is still a classified issue as it involved an arabic pilot who was fed up with his wife being persecuted by neighbours for being a christian.

There may not be any substance to the latter part of the story, but it seems to have been donated by a disaffected Syrian.

[adsH]

they did modify the Mig 29 in the indian inventory Mig 29 are great but just not worth the money i mean they can sure do what they were built for but for airforces like RAAF RAF or even PAF who rely on robust platform (and who try to make the most out of what they have). changeing the engines every 500-600 hrs would not be practicle and ideal and not economical duhh! lol
mig 21 are brilliant in dog fights i mean they were designed when dog fight were the only air fight combat tradition but that was like 4 decades ago they are being phazed out no matter what u put in it they will have to be retired the airframes will dye out aswell once the aircraft goes out of serial production and, YOu know that chinese or russian build quality don't hold up to there end of the deal atleast in the mig 21 case.(indian/pakistnai mig21 crashes well known )(PAF i think is lucky enough to have better ejection systems mostly from western nations and better updated avionics compared to the IAF Mig 21 so a PAF pilot would technically would have a better chance of saving him slef incase of a malfuntion) and i just wanted to ask do the russian still make the mig 21 i think they have fased them out but the chinese make them primarily becase thats the only jet they have available to for mass production.


I frankly think operatring Migs 21 is a risk that out ways the benifits the amount of trained pilots that have been lost in pakistan and Indian airforce is unacceptable and frankly would be unacceptable in a modern AIR force.

[mysterious]

I believe it was this Mig-23 which is said to have become part of the Israeli Air Force after a Syrian pilot defected to it in the late 80s:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6556/mig23.jpg

:smokingc: You can see both the Syrian and Israeli symbols on the aircraft!

[adsH]

"I think the Israelis provided the US with a Mig 21 in the early 70's, funnily enough it is still a classified issue as it involved an arabic pilot who was fed up with his wife being persecuted by neighbours for being a christian. "

good story might be true american did counter them with the F-16 which were put to the unltimate test in the Arab- israel war and Pak-soviate+Afghan war. in both cases F-16 were apperntly tweaked by the data recorded on these crafts in the paksitan case f-16 usually took onn mig 21 in the ratio of 1 to 8 damm thats good for any jet if it can achieve that well f-16 is one of the best out there no wonder paf (which have extensive logistics in place for that jet) would want more they ordered more after that they ordered 70 again block 15 the best at the time but after 28 the production stoped and the preslers amendment prevented delivery of the 28 built. i think the orignal number invisioned by the PAF was i think was about 120 could of been more.

i have to give PAF and IAF pilots credit in both cases they were defenders not aggressor the advantage of being a defender is not an unknown fact. and the fact that they were given probably the best dog fighter coupled with there talents gained by there exelent training withe the USAF adn that fact that they had to win or else they would the most unthinkable the annihilation of there people (unthinkable) i believe that made both of them out perform there opponents

Pakistan and Israel have had a military relation from the eairly soviate wars they both had something in common the soviats as enemiess and the US as there friend this built a relation of "Natural ally"(they modified chinese tanks for the pak army the T59 to an impressive fighting machine). if u check out this book its called charlie willsons war it would detail the extent of the collaboration. things aren't what they seem to many the deception of international polotics and deplomacy is unknown.

[gf0012-aust]

I believe it was this Mig-23 which is said to have become part of the Israeli Air Force after a Syrian pilot defected to it in the late 80s:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6556/mig23.jpg

:smokingc: You can see both the Syrian and Israeli symbols on the aircraft!

Thanks Myst. I'd forgotten about the '23. They did also get a Mig 21, I'll see if I can drag something up on it. It was assessed by the New Technologies Div(??) of the USAF -

[mysterious]

Were you able to see the picture? I think its not showing here, perhaps something wrong! Well I've uploaded it to the Gallery so that you guys can see it there. :smokingc:

[Pathfinder-X]

LCA is better than FC-1.........in theory. but keep in mind dat the FC-1 is a tested aircraft and is entering service while LCA is still undergoing initial stages of testing. by the time LCA comes into service i won't be surprise if FC-1 has been upgraded already.

[adsH]

LCA is better than FC-1.........in theory. but keep in mind dat the FC-1 is a tested aircraft and is entering service while LCA is still undergoing initial stages of testing. by the time LCA comes into service i won't be surprise if FC-1 has been upgraded already.


Hey no offence to LCA Lovers here but all i wan't to say is that the LCA seems to be more like an ornamental AC like a symbol of indignation i don't think it it will see much combat when you have SU30mki that are being built in India i see litle reason why INdia would divert Resources towards LCA IN R&D. I would think LCA could possibly be used as support AC and test platforms for newer Weaponry like missiles!! I am not saying LCA is a FAIlure infact it looks like a good AC but i see litle reason why india would now press ahead with LCA when they have SU30mki on the full steam production and R&D in the LAB for it.

[Pathfinder-X]

LCA is better than FC-1.........in theory. but keep in mind dat the FC-1 is a tested aircraft and is entering service while LCA is still undergoing initial stages of testing. by the time LCA comes into service i won't be surprise if FC-1 has been upgraded already.


Hey no offence to LCA Lovers here but all i wan't to say is that the LCA seems to be more like an ornamental AC like a symbol of indignation i don't think it it will see much combat when you have SU30mki that are being built in India i see litle reason why INdia would divert Resources towards LCA IN R&D. I would think LCA could possibly be used as support AC and test platforms for newer Weaponry like missiles!! I am not saying LCA is a FAIlure infact it looks like a good AC but i see litle reason why india would now press ahead with LCA when they have SU30mki on the full steam production and R&D in the LAB for it.

none taken. i think the LCA looks lk a mini Mirage-2000, but from wut the indians claim, LCA more capable than FC-1 in theory, the only way we can find out is wait and c.
P.S. no offends to the indians here but their jet often is less worthy than they claim in theory, let's c if they can finally get it done good dis time.

[Libyan]

Lets hear it from a neutral source?

Im libyan which would make me neither pakistani nor indian

Lca is the better aircraft for the following reasons

1. technology India is not forced to surce their aircraft avionics and missile systenms from china only, Indias lca will feature domestic as well as american and european parts and technology.


2. Radar you cannot still insist that the grifo s-7 radar which has a 35 mile range is able to take full advantage of the bvr missiles you will be planning on using, nor for a momment can you think that israel will allow russia to sell your their modified kopoyo radars


3. design the fc-1 is conventional the pilot does NOT have a very good range of view look over the nose of the a/c do you think you can see very far, The Indian lca however the indians apparently learnt from their terrible field of view on the mig-23

4. The design theory the fc-1 was designed to give pakistani pilots something better than 1960s mirages and mig-21's to fly it succeeds in this

The Indian Lca however was designed to replace the mig-23, mig21 and take advantage of the latest trends in aviation the indian aircraft is atleast one full generation ahead of the pakistani equivilant.

[Pathfinder-X]

Lets hear it from a neutral source?

Im libyan which would make me neither pakistani nor indian

Lca is the better aircraft for the following reasons

1. technology India is not forced to surce their aircraft avionics and missile systenms from china only, Indias lca will feature domestic as well as american and european parts and technology.


2. Radar you cannot still insist that the grifo s-7 radar which has a 35 mile range is able to take full advantage of the bvr missiles you will be planning on using, nor for a momment can you think that israel will allow russia to sell your their modified kopoyo radars


3. design the fc-1 is conventional the pilot does NOT have a very good range of view look over the nose of the a/c do you think you can see very far, The Indian lca however the indians apparently learnt from their terrible field of view on the mig-23

4. The design theory the fc-1 was designed to give pakistani pilots something better than 1960s mirages and mig-21's to fly it succeeds in this

The Indian Lca however was designed to replace the mig-23, mig21 and take advantage of the latest trends in aviation the indian aircraft is atleast one full generation ahead of the pakistani equivilant.

FACT:LCA is still in early stages of testing, FC-1 is a tested aircraft.
FACT:LCA is the smallest fighter in the world in existence today, a plane wif such a small body would increase the difficulties in upgrading.
FACT:LCA has been in development since 1983, and still not finished while FC-1 started in 1992 and is ready to be deployed.
FACT:LCA will most likely to be deployed in limited numbers around 2006, full scale production won't start until 2008.

it doesn't matter wut u design, u could design a space battleship is u want to, but wut matters about a fighter is whether it is finished or not. blank talk on paper is plain-O BS. i don't know why some ppl love to talk about how a plane is better than others when the plane is still not finished.

[umair]

Lets hear it from a neutral source?

Im libyan which would make me neither pakistani nor indian

Lca is the better aircraft for the following reasons

1. technology India is not forced to surce their aircraft avionics and missile systenms from china only, Indias lca will feature domestic as well as american and european parts and technology.


2. Radar you cannot still insist that the grifo s-7 radar which has a 35 mile range is able to take full advantage of the bvr missiles you will be planning on using, nor for a momment can you think that israel will allow russia to sell your their modified kopoyo radars


3. design the fc-1 is conventional the pilot does NOT have a very good range of view look over the nose of the a/c do you think you can see very far, The Indian lca however the indians apparently learnt from their terrible field of view on the mig-23

4. The design theory the fc-1 was designed to give pakistani pilots something better than 1960s mirages and mig-21's to fly it succeeds in this

The Indian Lca however was designed to replace the mig-23, mig21 and take advantage of the latest trends in aviation the indian aircraft is atleast one full generation ahead of the pakistani equivilant.

First of all please research before u post.Reads the whole JF-17 thread and u'll learn a lot about it's evolution from a medium tech 3rd gen fighter, to a modern 4th gen fighter.
The radar for the Thunder will either be an improved RC-400-4 or the Griffo-S7(u'r confusing it with the Griffo 7 which equips our mig21s).Both radars are very good in terms of range, radarmodes service life etc etc.The Griffo s-7 is an advanced derivative of the Griffo2000 which is used as an F-16 MLU radar and is thus equivalent to the APG68(V) carried by F-16A/B MLU'S and F-16C/D's.Further more the Griffo-S7 can be upgraded to an AESA status.
The avionics for the Thunder are of French Origin.
It has a digital full authority 4 chanel FBW system.And is of the same class as the LCA..
About visibilty issues,take a look at any LCA picture,Do u see a bubble canopy?I don't.
The combat radius,range of the Thunder is more than the LCA.The design of the Thunder is that of a fast turner and burner,meaning emphasis on maneauverability.There's more but u'll have to find it out u'rself.

[Indianguy]

Hey no offence to LCA Lovers here but all i wan't to say is that the LCA seems to be more like an ornamental AC like a symbol of indignation i don't think it it will see much combat when you have SU30mki that are being built in India i see litle reason why INdia would divert Resources towards LCA IN R&D. I would think LCA could possibly be used as support AC and test platforms for newer Weaponry like missiles!! I am not saying LCA is a FAIlure infact it looks like a good AC but i see litle reason why india would now press ahead with LCA when they have SU30mki on the full steam production and R&D in the LAB for it.

"The LCA wing gives good performance, we understand its aerodynamics well, and would like to retain it for the MCA," says Dr. Harinarayana. It will operate at a much higher wing loading than that of the LCA. The MCA will be in the 12 ton clean weight class, with a maximum take-off weight of about 18 ton. With the emphasis on stealth, the MCA will have two small, outward-canted fins. For stealth reasons, the Kaveri engines will be without afterburners. They will have a slightly higher dry thrust than the LCA engine. These engines will also have thrust-vectoring nozzles for manoeuvring. A super cruise capability is not being sought for the MCA. The MCA will use the radar-absorbent material to reduce RCS.

[Indianguy]

Well India is making LCA for the purpose for the following Purpose.

1) To be an First line of defence agaist any Air Attack and will be deployed in all farward base while alll heavy FC on central and backward bases.
Its ability to quick takeoff and small body to hide easily make it perfect to put of farward bases and act as a first like of defence again enemy aircraft.

2) To act as an Escotee to heavy bombers , While Su30 will fly from deep inside bases towards enemy positions which was then joined by the LCA on farward post to Esscot these planes to their target.

3) To act as a defensive FC, When Indian heavy planes return from their bombings , after that they need time to refueal it , reload it . While PAF planes will be in the Sky and move towards India , then LCA will be the planes who stop them and delay till more advance Splanes reloded for Air to Air compbat roles..


Small body makes LCA almost invisble to Rader , also it is not visbile to Enemy piolt duringclose Dog Fight.


So the LCA is perfectly fit into its intended role. I don;t think one should compaire LCA with JF which is ment for another purpose

[gf0012-aust]

Well India is making LCA for the purpose for the following Purpose.

1) To be an First line of defence agaist any Air Attack and will be deployed in all farward base while alll heavy FC on central and backward bases.
Its ability to quick takeoff and small body to hide easily make it perfect to put of farward bases and act as a first like of defence again enemy aircraft.

2) To act as an Escotee to heavy bombers , While Su30 will fly from deep inside bases towards enemy positions which was then joined by the LCA on farward post to Esscot these planes to their target.

3) To act as a defensive FC, When Indian heavy planes return from their bombings , after that they need time to refueal it , reload it . While PAF planes will be in the Sky and move towards India , then LCA will be the planes who stop them and delay till more advance S