plawolfIs that why they are taking long meaningful looks at the F22 and F35?
It will take a great deal of political will power to get enough support for another indiginous project after the inglourious demise of the F2 programme, and there have been no indication of such. All the noise so far is about F22s and F35s.
plawolfThe F2 is not that great a fighter since it was not designed to be a fighter but a multi-role striker.
You also need to look at the specs again if you really think that the F2 is really ‘nearly as big as the F15 yet retain the agility of the F16’. Its AESA is also riddled with bugs and not operating as advertised. There are also reports of cracks on the airframe.
The Japanese have pretty much decided to cut their looses and not buy any more after the current order has been fulfilled.
The F2 is one of those planes that looks impressive on paper but really proves disappointing in the field.
plawolfRight, make them up after getting caught out..funny how all the “explanations” come out after being found on a sticky wicket…
You want to actually put all that in a timeline? :rolleyes:
I can’t really decide if you just plainly suck at making up BS or if you are trying diluded.
For the nth time, we are not discussing you ..
So says the guy/girl quoting me and replying to me. :rolleyes:
Anyways, speaking of butting in, I was pointing out the holes in Harry’s posts, who the hell said anything to you? :rolleyes:
Wow, the prima donna of rabid hyperbole giving a certificate.. :rolleyes:
Yawn.
More drivel…this forum, sadly for you, is not a Greater china fanboy board where you can claim all sorts of nonsense and not get called on it. The fact that you dont have any sort of figures but yet spout off, only testifies to your desire to spout off, but without any sort of exact rationale to back you up..wonderful.. :rolleyes:
Some serious projection going on here.
What exactly have you called me on? What point do you disagree with exactly? Thus far, you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence, reason or arguement of any kind about why you disagree with my views. All you have done is drone on and on about why you refuse to discuss anything.
So if you dont have the figures, admit to it & walk on…dont sit and complain about how unfair it is to be asked for figures.. :rolleyes:
You act as if I made a claim specifice to figures or that the ‘exact specs’ of the J10 are out in the public domain. They are not. And that is the only reason you keep asking for them, so you can say the above and not have to deal with a point of view that does not fit your perfect view of how the world should be. I have yet to see a better example of someone trying to turn this board from a discussion forum into a fanboy self gratification blog. :rolleyes:
Exactly, so change your behaviour will you.. :rolleyes:
I have. You haven’t.
ROTFL…for one so willing to dish out insults, when its pointed out to you that you lack any sort of locus standi to act like a boor, you resort to more theatrics..
Kettle and pot ring and bells? :rolleyes:
I never heard about that, is it washing once a month? Not interested in your concept of hygiene….. :rolleyes:
Once again you astound us all with your maturity.
Sorry, not in your age group…go find some kiddie to exchange these insults with will ya? On the internet of course, safe behind some keyboard and macho “aggressive titles”… :rolleyes:
Yes, it really is an excerise in futility to try and reason with someone who has the mental age and maturity of a petrulent pre-teen.
Well get professional help, then.
Real mature and original. Haven’t heard a comeback like that since what, year 5? I forget.
We are not talking of your fascination with the communist party here..
Yawn. Even my 4 year old sister think that is old hat.
Is there anything even remotely dignified about the way you talk & comport yourself, even if online? Do you expect your bizarre temper tantrums to be rewarded?
God, do you have to copy everything I wrote? I have talked to call centre drones with more imagination. :rolleyes:
Dont abuse the term “patriot” by comparing your rabid jingoism with the same. Never mind, go tow the party line on Taiwan, Tibet or something & get back when you have it all out of your system..
A shame that your current residence has not sobered you up, but then nothings perfect, is it.
What do you know about patriotism to be giving out lectures. Some people have no shame or self respect. And what blind ignarence and arrogence to persume about things you clearly have no understanding in. Guess the big bad CCP really must hate the Chinese people to give them a literacy rate, child mortality rate, equality level, living standard and living environment etc that puts another superpower wannabe to shame. Yet some still find pride in boasting about how much more and better arms their government has bought. Must make you soooo proud. :rolleyes:
I cannot even begin to describe the level of delusion you are operating under-your every other post has some aside about India, an idee fixe’ if anything…the fact is you cannot handle any critique of China “patriot”, and come out screaming like a banshee with invective. Get used to free speech. Now that you are in the UK (which passport do you hold btw?) get a good grip on the concept and what it means…do you some good…instead of screaming @ the enemy Indians who are responsible for everything, daring to talk about PLA Wolf’s , the aggressive members PRC, what they forgot to read his title?.. :rolleyes:
The one who refuses to do anything other then drone on and on about the same technicality actually has the audasity to speak of ‘delusions’? How amusing.:rolleyes:
And what utter BS. Good luck finding those ‘every other post’ that has something to do with India. Thats in the region of 1500+ posts. I’d be amazed if you find more then 100.
I, and most likely the vast majority of Chinese members won’t even both talking about India if some Indian members didn’t take every opportunity to take a swipe at China because of their deep rooted inferiority complex.
What is funny is that when I first posted in this thread, i wasn’t even talking about ANYTHING Indian. Nicky boy here is the one who brought nationality into the discussion as a pathetic attempt to flame, and not he is preaching about nationalism.
It is pointless to shame someone who clearly has no shame.
And you actually think you have the right to speak of ‘free speach’ after all your ‘shut and and go away’ remarks? The depths of your shamelessness really has no bounds. :rolleyes:
All this snobby ‘superior’ attitude is plain evidence of how inflated a oppinion Nicky has of himself.
Right…what with all the invective from the word go…you are already at a level which the word dignity cannot even begin to comprehend mate..
What BS. Go back and re-read if you have memory problems. You were the one charging in with an attitude problem when no-one was talking to you. I merely gave you some gental rebuke to start with because you clearly didn’t know what you were talking about.
Dunno – where I come from, people demand evidence…if you cant produce it, a pity for you..
Funny, people everywhere I have been tend to excerise a little bit of common sense in terms of what kind of ‘evidence’ they demand, and it is a universal view, even in far away India, that when someone’s sole cause of complaint is that evidence he clearly knows will not be made public is not presented, then that person is not interested in the truth, he is only interested in pushing his own agenda. Not even the legal proffession tolerates such transparent excuses.
dont you have any deep contacts within the PLA you can razzle dazzle us with?
Only a shallow and pathetically sad individual would jeperodise national security just to prove a point to some juvenile internet flamer.
After all, with all the deep knowledge that you display, wheres all that based out of then, eh?
Or is it one more case of internet foot – in – the- mouth itis, where you talk smack but cant back up anything of what you say & then resort to shouting down those who ask you to put your money where your mouth is? :rolleyes:
There is more then enough information on the internet to determine that the J10 is superior to the FC1, and I have given plenty of reasons. The only one shouting others down is you, with all your ‘give me top secret figures or go away’ rants while providing ZERO reason or evidence. Hell, you don’t even have an argument, your sole agenda is to pick a fight to prove some kind of point.
Looked in the mirror sometime? Trying to reason with fanaticism & jingoism is a waste of my time, but occasionally it serves to drag you down to reality.
Oh, did I bother you up in your ivory tower with a glimps of reality you don’t like?
Keep beleiving whatever you want, keep ranting about anything you want, just don’t expect to be able to make baseless smears without risk of being called on them.
plawolfThe most important PLA technology demonstrator is J-8, not J-10.
And?
Risks = potential problems. Problems = not meeting specs, schedule, or cost. Not meeting specs = less capability.
And this applies to the J10, how?
You already acknowledged that the J8 was used as a testbed and demonstrator for many of the key components and systems that would go into the J10 programme. Even the J11 can be classed as a testbed/demonstrator to validate the WS10 turbofan before it is intergrated into the J10. All that is risk reduction.
Also, if the J10 was running into delays or tech bottlenecks, do you think it more or less likely that key members of the J10 design team would be released from the J10 project to work on the FC1?
You are just doing what you always do, and that is through any random theory that might support your view around regardless of how they fit into reality.
There are always design decisions to make. Even the relatively safe evolution of F-16A/B to C/D has some risks, FC-1 and J-10 are no exception.
And this is relevent because?
Because delays and cost are sometime more acceptable, J-10 arguably has edge over FC-1 in the long run. However changing requirement to accommodate the project or use workaround to “fit” requirement isn’t really “rare”, just less talked about because of the sensitivity. F/A-18E/F is a case in point with public controversy. According to “The Navy’s super fighter is a super failure” by USN pilot Jay Stout:
“Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of “wing drop” — a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft’s performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a “band-aid” fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well.” (For those interested in follow-ups, see “Look at the Facts: The Navy’s New Hornet Is Super Indeed” by Nathman and other related arguments)
According to “The (Not So) Super Hornet” by Stan Crock:
“Another shrewd Navy ploy was to lower the bar for performance standards. When the Navy brass debated whether the E/F should be required to turn, climb, accelerate, and maneuver better than the C/D version, Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, then the head of naval air warfare, rejected all but acceleration. A good thing, too, because the E/F doesn’t perform so well in the other areas. In a Jan. 19, 1999, memo, Phillip E. Coyle, a top Defense Dept. weapon systems evaluator, says such Russian fighters as the Su-27 and Mig-9 “can accelerate faster and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes.” The memo says while that’s the price for more payload and range, the Navy plans to use air-combat tactics that won’t require the capabilities of the earlier F/A-18 models.”USN could have ordered the complete redesign to avoid degrading performance, but that would significantly increase cost and delay the project. They decided the tradeoff is acceptable and went for the add-on solution.
Super Hornet isn’t the only case, merely the well known one. When there are a lot of pressures riding on the project and no quick fixes in sight, requirement compromises could suddenly look attractive.
Again, the point is not to insist J-10 development must have problems like Super Hornet, but to show the effect of incomplete information could have on the analysis and conclusion.
How is that example relevent in any way, shape or form? Just because x,y and z happened does not in any way prove that it has happened here.
Ideally you only want to invest on one very successful project. However no one always gets what he or she wants and FC-1 could serve as a backup. In the absence of YF-16 vs YF-17 style competition, investment of parallel projects may be inefficient but would reduce risks overall.
That is a completely inaccurate comparison. The YF16 and YF17 were design in PARALLEL while the bulk of the work on the FC1 started AFTER the J10 programme had been finished, or at the very least, in the advanced stages of field testing. While the J10 programme was at its most risky, the FC1 was only an abandoned paper project called the Super7, if that. Thus the idea that the FC1 was concieved as a ‘backup’ for the J10 is plain nonsense. The FC1 was designed for Pakistan, and that has been stated by any number of offical sources many times.
More importantly, design compromises could also be considered “problem solved” by officials, but the impact of performance is the same.
McDonnell Douglas was working on F-15E and F/A-18C/D when it was selected for A-12 project, that didn’t guarantee success. Obviously FC-1 and J-10 aren’t of the different generation and thus the risks aren’t as great. However it doesn’t have to be “radical new approach” to matter, different design decisions and different technologies used would be sufficient to produce potentially different results. “Different priorities” is exactly the key factor.
Another completely unrelated example thrown in for no apparent reason.
If you actually have a point, please make it.
That is only if “superiority” is defined by “multirole”. A-10 isn’t “multirole” but it is certainly good at dedicated CAS role. We could therefore say A-10 is “inferior” or “less capable” to F-16A/B – but not everyone would agree.
Only problem being that both J10 and FC1 are designed as multi-role fast jets. Again, your examples defy reality.
Multirole is another loaded word. F-16A/B could be consider “multirole” as well because they could carry dumb bombs for attack missions, but A/B is clearly not like C/D version which is more optimized for A-G missions for precision/night strikes. Is J-10 and FC-1 both optimized exactly the same way for all the different kinds of mission? Unknown.
You were the one who brought up ‘multirole’. :rolleyes:
What exactly are you on about? I was merely pointing out the obvious mistakes you made in your statement about the J10 somehow being inferior to the FC1 because the FC1 is design as a pure fighter when it is not. And your F16A/B example is again, poor and inaccurate. FC1 models have been shown with LGBs and other PGMs right from the start.
A project doesn’t have to “die” to be unsatisfactory. This is the difference in position: PAF wants FC-1 to succeed more, and PLAAF wants J-10 to succeed more. Because it is possible everything will complete according to PLA’s plan (which is what you argue “must” happen), there is no reason for Pakistan not to diversify investments to reduce risks and incur potential gains. There are a lot of overlapping requirements in FC-1, J-10, and F-16, but PAF still look into all three for precisely this reason.
Er…how does that make any sense?
One project’s success does not come at the cost of the other. Both are perfectly capable of being completely successful side by side. Even if you use your inlogic, if the PAF wants the FC1 to succeed ‘more’ (whatever that means), how does buying into the J10 help the FC1 exactly? If there is a risk of the FC1 project going belly up, buying the J10 is as sure-fired a way as there is to maximise the possibility of the FC1 project failing. The J10 is also pretty much ready to buy ‘off the shelf’, and the lines for them should be open for years if not decades to come, meaning that they will remain available for quite some time. The safety margin is garenteed. If the FC1 fails, the PAF can buy J10s any time they want within the next decade at least. Absolutely no reason to buy into the J10 now because of risk. If anything, if the PAF wants to minimise risk to the FC1, they shouldn’t buy into the J10 according to your inlogical assumption that one has to fail for the other to succeed.
You also seem pretty certain that the PAF is buying the F16, FC1 and J10 to reduce risks. Do you have anything to justify this confidence? Because I have heard nothing of the sort.
plawolfExactly: Proven technology may turn out to be less capable on spec, but they are a much safer project. New technologies always have more risks.
Proven tech, as in tech developed from the J10 project. Besides, risks have little to do with capability. Two planes, one light, one medium, designed and built by the same company, the same people, using the same design philosophy, the same or extremely similar tech level. Which is more capable is as clear as night and day.
This is still assuming all must go according to plan. JSF also used a lot of proven technology from the F-22 to save money, yet it still encountered problems like weight gain. If nations with advanced aerospace industry like US and France sometimes don’t get what they want, I don’t see why it’s “obvious” China must have all perfect development and succeed with all experimental technologies without any possibility of setbacks.
What has this to do with the issue at hand? Setbacks usually result in delays and cost over-runs, they rarely cause a scaleback in capabilities and project cancelations are rarer still.
That is not to say J-10 must have problems and FC-1 must be a joy-ride without a hitch. But until more reliable numbers are available, it is not “obvious” which one must be “superior” – especially when the design optimization and philosophy are still unknown.
The commention of the FC1 project is a pretty good idicator that the J10 project is running smoothly if not finished (at least the first stage, with an upgrade verson being work on if not finished already). The PLA, and Chinese governement by extension, is not going to allow CAC to take on what is essentially a foreign design contract and divert men and resources away from the J10 project if the J10 is having problems. As close as China is to Pakistan, China is not going to put its own national security at risk just to do Pakistan a favour.
Design optimization and philosophy might be unknow, but they are almost certain to be very similar if not the same, since the main players in the FC1 design team also played key parts on the J10 project. People don’t tend to take on a radical new approach quickly, and especially not when their original approach proved so successful.
Suppose FC-1 is optimized for air-to-air combat, and J-10’s A-A performance is good at beginning but ended up much heavier due to incorporation of A-G requirements, is it still “stupid” for PLAAF to drop J-10 in favor of FC-1? In this case is the multi-role J-10 “more capable” than FC-1? Those are ambiguous loaded questions unless there are some qualifiers.
If the J10 is muli-role and the FC1 not, then its clear which is superior, besides, we already know that the FC1 is designed be be multi-role, so your point is moot.
Cost differentiation could easily come from the A-G requirements and the amount of new technologies used.
The FC1 is multi-role capable (depending on how much the customer wants to spend on theirs), and the very fact that the chief designer of the FC1 worked on the J10 should be enough to show that the FC1 owes much to the J10 project. You don’t use someone who’s worked on the J10 project for the past 10 years or more to design the FC1 if you want to start with a fresh design philosophy. The J10 does use substantially more composit materials then the all metal FC1, but composits are added in to improve performance.
J-10’s Multirole capability and the fact that PLAAF want J-10 more than FC-1.
The FC1 is multi-role capable, but will be the less effective platform because of its size, again, evidence that the J10 is superior.
Also, its silly to suggest that Pakistan would go with the J10 just because the PLAAF likes it better then the FC1. The two air forces have different priorities so a direct copy will not be the best solution. It would also be a given fact that Pakistan would have seen the specs for the J10 and would be able to compare that with the FC1 and F16.
Although F-20 wasn’t that bad compare to F-16, the project failed partly because F-20 was a private export project and USAF did not want to buy it at all. The nation that designs the aircraft must also purchase that aircraft in large quantity, otherwise others would not have confidence in it. Regardless of end project result, PLAAF’s favoritism of J-10 over FC-1 would mean J-10 is a good hedge bet for Pakistan. I would do exactly the same if I’m the PAF commander.
Again, what does this have to do with which plane is superior? Pakistan is fully invested in the FC1 and will not, cannot allow the project to die, so its not like the F20 at all. Had Pakistan or Taiwan sign onto the F20, it might well have been a huge success. But anyways, the future of the FC1 project is as certain as can be in terms of military projects. Pakistan has no reason to ‘hedge their bets’ because they already have the FC1 in the bag.
plawolfDidnt I already? You were the one saying “blindingly obvious” when asked to certify the same, you copped out. :rolleyes:
I did explain why I beleive the J10 is more capable then the FC1 in a post to harry and another post to cabbagemen. You just have blinders on that stopped you seeing them. And anyways, I have yet to see *anything* from you as to why my claims are ‘exceedingly stupid’ or ‘bizarre’? :rolleyes:
ROTFL! For one used to calling everyone a lier (sic.), you sure seem to be confused about what the term means.
Typical dumbass attempt to twist and spin.
ROTFL! I said that next you will be comparing the J-10 to the MiG-21 to somehow prove its superiority, and shiver me timbers, you go ahead & do just that! How surprising. :rolleyes:
What shameless theatrics. Bravo. :rolleyes:
Again, show the exact figures for the J-10, FC-1 & the LCA or admit that you dont have them & retire. Dont sit and squabble.
Brainless droning. Some posters from a certain part of the world think that they found the ultimate weapon to kill off any attempt at debate about anything that they do not like to acknoeledge by endlessly chanting about ‘exact figures’ and refusing to see anything else only because they know that exact figures are almost impossible to come by, even for old weapons systems never mind new ones. People like you have no interest in the truth or in expanding their knowledge, all you are interested in is propergating your view of the world, and you would mindlessly attack anyone who you see as an obsticle to your goal. Why the likes of you are tolerated here is not such a great mystery when one really thinks about it.
Seeing your statements, nobody has to twist anything. You can sprain your own back laddie, what with all the spinning.
Some people have become so used to twisting and lying that they don’t even realise they are doing it anymore, apparently. :rolleyes:
What made you think my laughing was fake? You seriously do appreciate how amusing you are? All that uncouth jingoism & bile that you drip, including over Taiwan, & where are you exactly? :rolleyes:
Typical flameboy tactics, when loosing an argument, bring in other issues to try and divert attention. You were amusing for a while, but your transparency and lack of imagination is quickly diminishing your entertainment worth.
LOL! Anyone can go up this thread and see the one with the potty mouth.
Yes they can, ever heard about monthwash?
29, run home and ask ‘er for a nice cup o’ broth then. And do think next time before opening your mouth & showering everyone with invective. And “wise up & grow up” and similar nonsense.
So what have you done with all those years to still have the maturity of a juvie? :rolleyes:
Is that what you do nowadays? Bleeding shame!
Yawn, lack of imagination not to meantion skill.
Assumptions, assumptions. Hmmm, I see your problem here.
Well, the world can be a complex place for those of us not enlightened by ‘the way of the drone’, so instead of mindlessly chanting after the great drone leader, we have to make up our own minds with the limited information available and have to make assmuptions from time to time.
More Blah di blah blah…do you even expect any reply to this? :rolleyes:
So asking you to quote me to back up your claims is ‘Blah di blah blah’? You can’t even find a dignified way to dodge a question. How pathetic. :rolleyes:
Funny! I would have thought Saddam would need another hyper patriot who goes on & on about China & bad old nasty India whilst sitting in the UK. :rolleyes:
Arh, yet more pathetic attempts to flame and hurl personal insult. I am a patriot and love my country, but I do not toe the party line, there are plenty of things I disagree with about how China is run. But thats just your attempt to change the subject isn’t it? And what does my current residence have to do with anything? :rolleyes:
Anyways, when have i ever said anything about India? The overwhelming trend here is Indians taking every opportunity to bash China and flame in Chinese related threads. That is the only reason any Chinese poster have a problem with anything Indian. You lot have got a lot of issues to work out, because all this bitterness, envy and denial is just not healthy.
There we see Maturity 101 yet again. Clean your mouth out with soap will you? :rolleyes:
Yes, I shouldn’t have sank to your level. Its beneath my dignity.
PLAWolf my aggressive 22 year old friend, heres the thing, put forth the figures for any of the fighter types you are debating or quit the game.
Typical drone tactics. Can’t argue with reason or logic or overwhelming facts, yes facts, so go demand something, anything that people can’t get and wave that about as evidence of your victory. :rolleyes:
As nice it is to sit and listen to all your tiresome invective, I’d rather get some serious information rather than all this.
I am getting bored of all your repetative droning. It is clear that it is a waste of time trying to reason with a drone who rejects anything and everything that does not fit with their view of how the universe should be.
plawolfLOL, flaming? You come up with some bizarre claims and then when called on them hurl invectives, and I am the one flaming? Look in the mirror. Again. :rolleyes:
Again, more baseless BS. So what are these ‘bizarre claims’? Go on quote me. :rolleyes:
Who’s lying? You are truly well and truly deluded that if you think your bravura and bluster can compensate for the lack of logic in your posts. Hurl all the invective you want, sorry laddie, but throwing a temper tantrum wont prevent the questions. Either answer them, or admit you dont know & retire.
‘Jump through this hoop I made or you are a lier’, how typical. :rolleyes:
Ah, then come up with the figures eh? More whinging from you about how unfair the world is doesnt cut it. Next you’ll be saying that the J-10 is better than the MiG-21 & its relevant etc. Enough already, do yourself some good & put up some figures & spare us the histrionics.
Who is whinging? Stop projecting. And you have really show how brainless you are with that one. Even without exact figures anyone can say with absolute certainty that the J10 is superior to the Mig21 or any of its dirivatives, including ‘your’ overprice bisons.
If you cannot back up your own claims then dont imagine that you can spew invectives and disguise the issue.
I have back up my claims, you just chose not to see them.
Your words were quoted previously and you can twist and move the goalposts all you want. Great to see you admit you know little about either the J-10 or the LCA and cant quantify your claims in any meaningful way.
Really? So where did I say LCA then? Are you so desperate you would try to twist something so obvious, or do you really not know any better? :rolleyes:
ROTFL, and thats the extent of your claims- naah, naah, my daddys so big he can beat you up!? :rolleyes: Funny that a yob sitting his teenaged self in the UK like you are, still feels the need to suck upto China every two posts. You have got an issue with patriotism dude, look it up. Confused identity apart, you have it mixed up with uncouth jingoism – the unadulterated kind you demonstrate every second.
Fake laughing too hard and spewing too much bile. Did I hit a nerve there? You should see a professional before that becomes a real problem for you.
Ah, nice caveat & CYA there in the second line! First, your behaviour is so juvenile, I cannot for the life of me imagine that you could be more than your teens. “Real age does not matter”, eh for someone so prone to asking everyone to grow up- you appear the quintessential internet persona “Wolf”. :rolleyes:
Again, do tell us what your age is then?
Well all one needs to do to tell who is the juvenile one is see who is spewing personal insult at every turn and frothing at the mouth with rage.
Anyways, i am 22, how old are you laddie?
Well “Aggressive member”, nice to see you get away from that one too…the question stands, kindly provide the exact stats or please remove yourself from more histrionics.
‘My sandbox, you play by my rules or you go away. If you don goaway, I fling doodoo at you…’
That must have served you well at day care, else you would not be using it still.
Right, what a shock indeed. Keep spinning and soon you’ll be a top.
Go on, quote where I said anything about the LCA. Go on if its soooo obvious.
Anyone can look through the above (bar of course your fellow lads) & see the utter drivel you write. :rolleyes:
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
Nonsense. I asked you to provide facts for your claims. No invective, nothing. Two lines would have done it, if you wanted to state that it was the FC-1 vs J-10 or whatever it is that you were now claiming. But instead we had more of the usual flaming from you. Get a grip, this is not a fifth standard food fight or the like- act properly. :rolleyes:
Haha..haha, now that is funny. You should do stand up.
Attacking posters based on their nationality (as you have done previously) & your resort to invective at every turn only shows how shallow your claims are.
When have I done that? Go on, quote me.
Glad to see you admit that you have no info worth its name on the topic. So much for the blindingly obvious. :rolleyes:
Yet more blatent lies and twisting of the truth. Your lack of shame and self respect is truely outstanding. I hear saddam might be in need of a new lawer, you should definately apply, I have a feeling he would love you on his team.
Lets see actual details on the J-10? No. For the FC-1? No. For the LCA? No.
But. “Idiot”, “BS”, “lying”…blah blah blah blah…yes. :rolleyes:
Well you are the one being the idiot by making up BS and resorting to blatant lies. Or do I need to present ‘exact figures’ for that as well? :rolleyes:
plawolfActually, same could be said about FC-1 vs. J-10 comparison. It is assumed that the domestic oriented J-10 would be superior than the jointly developed FC-1 (that may not be favored by PLAAF). FC-1 is probably “intended” to be the cheaper platform. But intention never guarantees the results. That’s why projects get cancelled or failed to meet the performance sometimes. A-12 sounded great as a concept, yet the cost and design problems ultimately led to its demise. YF-17 turned into F/A-18E/F by chance, not necessarily the best possible aircraft for USN. J-8 sounded less risky at conception, yet became outdated when it entered service in large number.
From J-10’s deployment news, there is no evidence that shows J-10 will be a failure or end up cancelled like A-12. However no one could truly say if J-10 has met all its requirements except PLAAF or J-10 designers. If J-10 and FC-1’s requirements are both unknown, and if it’s also unknown if they reached their design goals, it is not “obvious” which one is more “capable” in reality. Finally, J-10 and FC-1 are probably optimized differently and the costs are unknown, the word “capable” is a loaded word.
RD-33’s engine T/W ratio: 8300 kgf / 1055 kg = 7.86
AL-31’s engine T/W ratio: 12500 kgf / 1570 kg = 7.96AL-31 sounds better, but then where are the combat weights for J-10 and FC-1? Suppose normal combat takeoff weights are 13500 kg and 9000 kg respectively, then the total T/W ratio isn’t that different. Even if we suppose J-10 is more light-weight and has significant higher T/W ratio, where are the drag and lift factor?
I concur with Harry, even F-16, MiG-29 or Mirage-2000 details are hard to come by. And those comparisons could at least be supplemented by some actual (if incomplete) specification, user experiences, and exercise results. There are far less data about J-10 and it’s not “obvious” why J-10 must be superior to same generation aircraft XYZ. Anything that steer away from general impression and held as “obvious” truth because of personal guesses are simply over doing it.
Unlike the YF17 v YF16 example, both the J10 and FC1 are designed by the same company. The design of the FC1 stated almost immediately after the completion of the J10 project if not during, so with such a very short time frame, it is highly unlikely that revolutionary new design, materials or manufacturing technologies could have been developed. The speed of the FC1 project also strongly suggests that it was designed and developed with mature technology instead of starting with something new.
You have the same company using the same people and equipment as well as the same design philosophy to make a light weight and a medium weight fighter one after the other. Which is superior is obvious.
Then there are all the other factors, the PLAAF’s preference for the J10 and lack of interest regarding the FC1. If they two are of similar performance, the PLAAF would have to be stupid not to drop the J10 and go for the FC1 at much lower costs, and its not like there will be much political issues since CAC makes both meaning the money goes to CAC and its supporters either way.
There is the price for both planes, both are reported in a number of figures, but the J10 is consistently reported as the more expensive. Same company, same designers designing the two within a very short period of time of each other. If capabilities are similar, so should the costs.
Then there is also the reported Pakistani order for J10s. If the J10 is of similar capacity to the FC1, why would pakistan want to take on all the extra training and logistical problems of having another fighter type when they can just order more FC1s?
Its easy to find any number of generalistic examples that can explain pretty much anything, its much harder to find more then one theory that also fits with reality and the facts.
plawolfLook in the mirror while taking a deep breath. That will help. :rolleyes:
Can’t even think of something original to flame with, but instead had to settle on copying someone else, how sad. Do you even remember what this refers to? :rolleyes:
We are not discussing you, so no need to make it bloody obvious what you are. Of course someone with the kindergarten title of “aggressive member” quite clearly shows what member he is thinking with. :rolleyes:
God, can’t even lie convincingly. Just scroll up this page and then tell me you were not talking about me. What, you ran out of things to twist and lie about in my posts and had to stoop to trying to score points off of my self-mocking title? How truly pathetic.
You have shown nothing. All you have done is make claims, with no proof provided. So once again, put forth the exact stats or sit and suck on your thumb. :rolleyes:
Yeah yeah, thats all some people here seems to be able to do, whin and demand ‘exact figures’ that they know they will never get, and then use that as some kind of talisman against all the uncomfortable truths the overwhelming evidence is pointing at, as examplified by your determination to not recognise which is better between the J10 and FC1.
Once again with the autobiography. :rolleyes: Give the exact stats and then talk. Oh wait you dont have them, eh? Next you’ll be claiming the J-8 is better than the Gripen because its bigger. There are pros and cons to every design, but I think thats too subtle to be grasped by the likes of you. :rolleyes:
Blatant lies, baseless assumptions and a truly pititful lack of skill at twisting words convincingly. Can’t even flame properly after all these years of practics? How embarressing.
Oh wait, shift the goalposts again because you were caught out making asinine comments.
Shift the goalposts from where exactly? :rolleyes: Go on, I challenge you to quote where exactly I compared the J10 to the LCA. Even attack dogs can be trained to only go after real targets instead of lashing out at anyone that happens to be near.
As regards defending the honor of nations, its clear that you need a clue, & some more honesty besides. I am yet to see a bigger revanchist rabid nationalist than you, who repeats the party line ad nauseum- Taiwan or anything regarding China. It would be funny, were it not so hypocritical.
Well if India wasn’t outshun by China at almost every turn, maybe you would have more to be patriotic about instead of acting like a bitter, jealous yob.
BTW as regards growing up, sonnyboy, whats your age, eh? See you talk smack a lot on the board – I’d wager that you are in your teens even.
And you would loose that wager, so lets see some cash laddie. Besides, real age doesn’t matter as much as maturity and knowledge, and you have soon precious little of either.
Oh yeah? Care to point out what & where you have worked on them? Or is this one more fantasy you cooked up ? These planes became yours, whilst you were clutching your playstation joystick and yelling boom headshot? :rolleyes:
Notice that little detail people call quotation marks? For someone who demands ‘detailed stats’ so loudly and often, you sure don’t pay attention to details. :rolleyes:
And we have yet more pathetic attempts to twist what was said. What a shock. :rolleyes:
Nonsense. You made some exceedingly stupid claims which I asked you to provide exact stats for but wait, you couldnt do so, so you went into your usual attack dawg mode which is the norm as seen on all the threads involving China, dear nationalist. As usual, you dont have the information to back your claims up & so resort to invective.
What utter BS. What were these ‘exceedingly stupid claims’ you called me up on then? Go on, find and quote them. :rolleyes:
You only charged in frothing at the mouth because you thought I was talking about your precious LCA when in fact I was talking about the FC1, and now you are desperately trying to flame and twist the facts to change the subject so your true colours are not reveiled.
And as usual, some posters from a certain part of the world ignores the mountain of evidence and insists on getting the one piece of info they know will not be released so they don’t have to face what they do not like to beleive. Its old, pathetic and sad, and I have long lost interest. You can deny the sun shines for all I care, just don’t claim i said something i didn’t.
plawolfMaybe your mirror will tell you?!
Pointless flamebaiting. Grow up.
plawolfBut here you have a case – where one guy (plawolf) claims that looking at the airframe is enough to decide which is superior, material science and construction be damned. In general, the documentation of the J-10 programme has been poor (not that someone can’t fix that if he had the time or took the initiative), and a lot of so called information are internet rumors and speculation. This is far less than a desirable amount of information required to make such arguments as ‘The J-10 is in service for sure, the LCA is not, Nyaah Nyaah’
Don’t twist what I said. :rolleyes:
Looking at the airframes, as in size comparison, and I never said anything about the LCA, so i don’t even know how you managed to link that in.
As for material sciences etc, well its the same company that is making both planes. I kinda doubt that they were able to make a quantum leap in material sciences between the J10 and FC1, and looking at the speed of development of the FC1 project, that seems even less likely because it would take quite some time to fully explore the properties of advanced new materials and also more time to learn and master how to apply the new materials to production.
Transparency is not meant for PR – but to remain accountable to a taxpaying public. All of the time, you’ll see auditors tear these programmes apart, especially on financial grounds. The developers are thus under pressure to perform.
If a country realises exact figures on the tollerances and flight charateristics etc of its newest weapons systems to the general public, then the head of said country’s military should be tried for treason. Transparency in defence projects are almost always restricted to finanical matters, not performance, because no military is stupid enough to release detailed info that can be used to make a comprehansive technical analysis of the project in question. Anyone cleared to view such top secret infomation would be so closely linked to the government and/or contractor that their opinon cannot be treated as entirely neutral and objective.
The only way neutral outsiders can assess the technical performance of a project is through tests, but all we need to do is look at the fine print (which is almost always not released until years if not decades later) to see how such tests are almost always designed to show the system in the best possible light instead of trying to test it in combat conditions. Real tests are done by the military after delivery and the results are almost always kept secret.
plawolfThat applies to you as well. So stop the faux outrage and speak politely. :rolleyes:
Oh really, so how exactly does that apply to me then? :rolleyes:
If its that easy, put your money where your mouth is and come up with the exact stats to prove that its performance is indeed superior. But you dont have that do you? Quoting meaningless generics about how “obvious” it all is, doesnt count for nuts.
Only an idiot would still not get such a simple point. :rolleyes:
I have already shown you how it is obvious to determine which is the more capable platform. If you think that two planes made by the same country, by the same company no less, are of similar capabilities while one is powered by an AL31 compared to an RD93, is much bigger and has a significantly bigger radar, then you are a plain idiot. But thats not the case is it? You didn’t bother to actually read and understand what was written and stupidly assumed that I was talking about the J10 V LCA while in fact we were discussing the J10 V FC1, and just had to get a word in to defend the honour of your nation. Grow up and wise up. :rolleyes:
Most of us are willing to rise above this juvenile mine is bigger than yours obsession & live & let live. If you cant, then mores the pity.
Thing is, both the planes in question are ‘mine’. The only reason you are making such a fuss when I was merely pointing out the blindingly obvious is because you didn’t bother to read what was written, just who it was from and who it was against and then just automatically went into attack mode cos you assumed I was bashing your precious LCA and because someone is less mature and disinterested about flag waving then they like others to think.
plawolfIt might serve you well in future to read and understand what is being said before making a reply. Harry seems unable or unwilling to determine which is the more capable aircraft between the J10 and FC1. I was merely pointing out how obviously easy it is to tell which of the two is superior even without this pointless obsession about ‘exact stats’.
plawolfHow do you know? 1) Do you have official J-10 specs? and 2) How did you (technically) arrive about the sensitivities of the technologies on both platforms?
All this demanding of offical info from a source that is infamous for its secrecy is just nit picking for the sake of not having to face the difficult questions, and its beneath you, I would hope.
Anyways, even without offically released specs, its easy to tell which of the two is superior. Engine thust, which is a give figure for both; using airframe size to judge weight (not to the exact kilo, but enough to tell which is the heavier), hence having a rough idea of range and/or payload; using images to compare the radome size etc, its all basic stuff, and why you would refuse to accept the blindingly obvious is most puzzling.
As for the sensitiveity of technologies, well again, you ask for information you know is not in the public domain, so what is the point is asking? All this, ‘it has to be offical to be accepted’ whining is just self serving denial. As has been pointed out before, very little of the PLAAF could be considered as being in existence if one was to apply the arbitray conditions you set, so what is the point other then to make some people who have a misguided sense of hostility and/or rivalry with China feel better?
Anyways, anyone who has been following the PLA for some time would notice certain patterns developing, one of the most obvious and consistent in recent decades is that the PLA does not like to release any info on its in service kit. They never ever sell anything that is the same verson as what the PLA uses, not even to its closest allies. Be it tanks, planes, ships, missiles etc the PLA has always insisted that anything being exported be fitted with export oriented electronics at the very least even if that means delays and increased costs. Examples of these can be found everywhere, PL8 v PL9, SD10 v PL12, all the exported fighters, KJ2000 v KJ200 balance beam and the rotating radome Y8 AWACS verson etc.
PLA in service equipment and systems are always far more sensitive then those on export models, and its not even as if this is just the case with the PLA, so I really fail to see why you are making such a big deal of such an obvious point.
plawolfNot even the PLA have unlimited funds and they do have a huge number of important projects running, which would undoubtably get priority.
Also, fitting IFR probes is not just about money, there are experts and specialist equipment and facilities that would be needed for the development work, and the PLA can put all that to better use intergrating IFR onto J10s and J11s first. Then maybe they can have a look at the JH7, but until the J10 is IFR capable, fitting IFR on anything new would just be messing up their priorities.
Sign In
