dabrownguy
New Member
so which jet is better? is the jf-17 better than the lca?
Compare capabilities and data - LCA & JF-17
- Thread starter jatt2ooo
- Start date
- Status
The Watcher
New Member
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 said:
dabrownguy
New Member
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.
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.
[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.
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
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.. lolumair said: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
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
New Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
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.
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
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
New Member
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.dabrownguy said:
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
New Member
JF-17 vs. LCA
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]
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
New Member
Which aircraft - LCA or JF-17 - would be cheaper to buy? What are their cost (any numbers)?
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....... :?
Hmmmmmmm....... :?
darklegent
New Member
There is a saying " IF YOU GIVE PEANUTS ALL YOU GET ARE MONKEYS"
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.
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
New Member
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.dabrownguy said:
And yes, the JF-17 will also get upgrades with the passage of time. Dont worry.
- Status