blk 2 JF-17s are being delivered with blk 3 AESA models being developed.
Tejas is still not in production, let alone in the 3rd phase of upgrades.

the only argument you can cling on to is JF-17 not in plaaf service, which it was never intended for.

And there is a Tejas Mk1A with AESA also being developed, so there you go. And the Tejas is in production with 2 in IAF service and a third handed over.

Oh so now the FC-1 wasn’t even intended for the PLAAF was it ? lol. Ok

The fact of the matter is that CATIC and Chengdu tried their best to interest the PLAAF in the FC-1 but failed since they preferred the bigger J-10. So using your logic, its a failure.

Now next what facts will you twist? About the antecedents of the FC-1 program? Or that it began development in 1991? Or that structurally it is a 3rd generation fighter, and that hybrid FBW of its lags that of even the F-16 C/D and Mirage-2000 by a generation? Don’t make it out to be something it isn’t. You’re making a fool out of yourself.

Fascinating insights into the difference that HMDS/HMSS are making to dogfights and overall pilot SA from RAF pilots..posting excerpts here since it puts into perspective the IAF insistence on the Rafale getting HMDS.

the IAF and the IN have gone in for the HMDS combined with high off-bore sight missiles in a big way. They use the DASH or TopSight/TopOwl-F HMDS/R-73E combo on the MiG-29UPG/MiG-29K, TopOwl-F/MICA-IR combo on the Mirage-2000I/TI and now the DASH/R-73E/Python 5 on the Tejas.

And it is the super maneuverable Su-30MKI that lacks the HMDS although it does have the sighting system with the R-73E for offbore engagements.

KUALA LUMPUR—British Eurofighter Typhoon pilots report that they defeated Malaysian Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flankers in mock battles this month, with a new helmet-mounted sighting system regarded as essential.

Warm-up drills for Exercise Bersama Lima 16, held in Malaysia Oct. 4-21, provided the first opportunity for Royal Air Force (RAF) Typhoons to be pitched against the Su-30MKMs of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).

Pilots of the Su-30s were unavailable for interview, however, so the RAF claim of victory is unverified.

Wing Commander Mike Sutton, commanding officer of the RAF’s 1 (Fighter) Squadron, which flies the Typhoons, says video recordings of the engagements show their success.

Sutton pointed to the importance of the BAE Systems Striker 1 helmet-mounted sighting system (HMSS), which was rolled out to RAF Typhoon squadrons in 2011 and became fully operational in 2015.

“With the Striker 1 HMSS, we just look at the target; we can engage it with a weapon or point our radar on it,” he said in an interview at RMAF Butterworth, a base some 350 km (220 mi.) north of here. The engagements with the Flankers were within visual range, where the helmet-mounted sight allowed off-boresight missile launches.

“It’s amazing the difference it makes” during air combat maneuvering says Group Captain Paul Godfrey, the commander of Lossiemouth Station, where the Typhoons are based. Without the HMSS, a pilot in a cloud could “spend all the time looking for the wingman. With this, you look and there he is.”

The Typhoons did not carry air-combat maneuvering instrumentation pods, Sutton says, so data from the fighters’ mission computers was used for debriefing after each sortie.

Earlier this year, 1 Squadron deployed with the HMSS during operations in Iraq and Syria.

Targets seen by the pilot on the HMSS can be data-linked using Link 16, the NATO standard, to another Typhoon by hitting a switch. Air and ground targets can be designated and fired upon using the same system.

Asked how important the helmet-mounted system was, Sutton says: “It is essential equipment nowadays.”
…

HMDS being worn by the pilot of this MiG-29UPG..cannot say for sure if its the Thales/Samtel TopSight/TopOwl-F or the Israeli Elbit DASH.

HAL Safran form JV for helicopter engine MRO

First grounded F-35s could be fixed this month

Helina ATGM for the LCH to be tested soon it appears.

LCH undergoing weapons integration

After the successful high altitude trials of the Light Combat helicopter (LCH) at Leh forward operating base in September, HAL is now working on integrating the weapons suite on the LCH.

HAL has started limited series production and intends to manufacture five LCH helicopters.

“LCH is ready, we are integrating its weapons, we tried rockets and it was good, we need to try missiles ATGM – anti-tank guided missile, (these) are the ones which we are integrating and we just have to demonstrate that,” chairman HAL Suvarna Raju said.

HAL carried out hot and high-altitude trials of the third prototype of the indigenously developed attack chopper with the participation of pilots from the Indian Air Force and Army.

“We have launched a limited series production, with a confidence and hope that we get definite orders on this. We have also inquiries on this platform from other countries, and so we will start making five helicopters this year,” Raju said.

sorry, no amount of spin you add will change the fact that jf-17s were designed for Pakistan from the beginning.
at least you acknowledge that there are enough jf-17s to replace j-7s and a large number of j-10s where as the Tejas is barely off the ground.

And still not a single FC-1 in PLAAF service. I think that speaks volumes, considering that it is not the price of the FC-1/JF-17 that is the issue here.

A Chinese AF JH-7A fighter-bomber crashes in Liuzhou.

http://www.eastpendulum.com/crash-chasseur-bombardier-jh-7a

bad luck for the Chinese that someone got cellphone pictures of this, else news of this crash would never have emerged.

faulty comparison.
Tejas is a program India is using to replace their mig-21s. It is barely doing so
FC-1 is a program by China that allows Pakistan to develop something that could replace their J-7s and Mirages. Pakistan already has 70 and now has enough to retire all J-7s in a few months.

If you don’t understand that, it means the FC-1/JF-17 program is different because it was designed specifically to be simple enough for Pakistan to make it on their own (Pakistan’s defence industry being much more behind). It is successful because it achieves the goal Pakistan wanted. To replace 3rd gen aircraft.
keep in mind, China is using the J-10, not the JF-17 to replace the J-7, and there are more than 250 of them.

Tejas on the other hand, has not been able to replace India’s 3rd gen aircraft. As a result India is launching a new tender for foreign aircraft to do it.

It was supposed to be a “joint” program intended to also replace a large number of J-7s in Chinese service apart from PAF service. It hasn’t done that, and the PLAAF clearly has no interest in the type. That while they’re busy inducting J-10As to replace hundreds of obsolete aircraft and there are still hundreds more that need to be replaced. Pakistani officials have in the past spoken about how the PLAAF would buy the FC-1, but so far nothing has happened and it seems very unlikely that it ever will. So much for a “joint” program. This is more of an export type that just wasn’t good enough for the national air force itself. Pakistan is a different case, they will take anything to replace their older jets, as long as they’re affordable. And even then, with the JF-17s, they are trying hard to get their hands on F-16s, if not new because they cannot afford them, then second hand. So if the PAF can get F-16s and JF-17s at the same time, I could use your logic to simply proclaim that the JF-17 is a failure. But you’re a troll, and I know that sound logic about different types, industrial constraints, etc. will make no sense to you. So this will be my last reply to you on this topic. Carry on with your BS, it won’t matter to me.