Labelling others is just hiding own deficiencies. About the radar. We know the size and we know what it should be able to handle. Even with western options Pakistani or chinese products are labelled as worst even without any knowledge. Somehow it is just labelling.

Desert fox, your remarks about Fc1 are maybe correct. Maybe not. Just wait a few months to see the final production model. No need to bash continously. I see you post a lot. Maybe time to take some breath.

big difference ! dont backtrack now, by claiming that you said “No longer the most important thing”. the point is that you basically said that a 3-gen aircraft with decent avionics can do what a 4-5 th gen fighter that is a better platform, can do. and that is so not true ! a good new-gen platform holds a lot of advantages, weight wise, performance wise, strength wise, over an older all-metal frame. only avionics cant make up for deficiencies of the platform.

for instance a Jag wont ever become a superb dogfighter, whether you put a radar on it or not. Im not saying that the FC-1 is equivalent to the Jag, but just having the overall layout of the F-16, does’nt make it an F-16.

I agree that the Thundaaaaar is basiq metals. But does that make it woser then composite planes? I don;t think so. There are some advantages at the same time. The reason that it it basic are very well known. Easy to maintain and to produce. Low cost. It is known that hte plane will get better parts when in service. Somehow people compare a failed project atleast as good as Gripen while almost the same plane is not even comparable with 1970’s F16. Do we actually have to listen to these comments when the plane is not even a finished products?