Coldfire, when NAL does fatigue testing, they dont ‘fly’ the aircraft. But merely simulate the flying stress by using weights. The airframe ofcourse is useless once the testing is completed. From what i know, atleast two Gnats, one MiG-21M and recently the MiG-21Bis have been subject to that kind of testing.

it might actually be a pressure chamber with water being used to generate the required pressure on the airframe.

To my knowledge J10 is in service and even up for export. How not appearing at Zhuhai makes it an automatic ‘miserable failure’ only you can explain.I gave 20 years as the litmus test – and you come up with this- and ask if 19 will be ok? – whats up can’t find anything other than the great success of the LCA?

the question about 19 years was meant in sarcasm..but you couldnt quite make out could you ? What I’m talking about is that since the J-10 is’nt appearing at the Zhuhai Air Show, and the JF-17 is, using your logic alone, would imply that the JF-17 is farther along in development than the J-10.

the LCA is as big a project for India as the J-10 is for the Chinese. both in terms of what it was originally meant to do for the respective AF’s(replace MiG-21s in IAF’s case and MiG clones in PLAAF service) and what it was meant to do for the respective Aerospace industries.

just that the Chinese sourced their engines and their help from more reliable sources as compared to India, which looked at the US. Had the sanctions not come along, the program would’ve been 3-4 years ahead of where it is now and induction should’ve started by now. and in just how big numbers is the J-10 serving the PLAAF ?! :rolleyes:
LCA’s LSP should be out by 2008 making it about 2 years behind the J-10..and considering the obstacles it surmounted, that is NOT A MEAN FEAT.

but just because its an Indian project it has to be demeaned by you, so I guess there’s no use arguing.

I think maybe you should read the post again. My point was to indicate the different possible interpretations of ‘designed by an AF’. Isn’t the SU30MKI a version of a existing type — the JF-17 was designed and produced from scratch to PAF requirements — see any difference?? As for being a ‘co-developer’ thats what CATIC says — take it up with them

it is so different from the existing type (Su-30K) as to be an almost different fighter..simply specifying what the PAF requires in terms of design and range hardly qualifies as being worthy of calling them “designed by an AF”..it should simply be “funded” partly by the PAF, which would accurately reflect the amount of work that they’ve done on that project.

Lets see- Pak AF, once, in AFM described the JF-17 as the first fighter designed by an AF if my memory serves me correct- hmmm. So how many windtunnel tests did the PAF engineers conduct? Did they design the airframe in detail?

‘First fighter designed by an AF’ now how does that translate into wind tunnel tests – would this not more likely be setting design criteria – range – payload – etc specifications??

FC-1 was manufactured solely for PAF requirements. It has been designed to meet PAF’s specific needs to its specification. Without the PAF there would be no FC-1. Can you say the same for India and the SU30.

Really? Are you talking of the Eurofighter? No wait, is it the JSF then? Hmm, lets see- can we have one fighter project which has been on budget & on time…hmm!

Ok lets narrow it down to fighters which failed to become operational within a 20 years of project launch – left with many examples now??

well, well, well..so you’re now claiming that simply laying down the specifications for the design is tantamount to being a co-developer ?! well, the IAF laid down the specifications for the Su-30MKI ! so, according to your own definition, henceforth you shall claim that the Su-30MKI is a part Indian product.

Also, the Su-30MKI was FUNDED SOLELY by the IAF, and also DESIGNED for the IAF ! without the IAF paying for its development and specifying exactly what it wanted, there WOULD BE NO Su-30MKI…so, once again applying your own parameters, the Su-30MKI is a part Indian product.

As for timelines, the J-10 project was launced in 1986…and in 2006, its still not going to be presented at the Zhuhai Air Show..so my guess is that the program was a miserable failure since you claim that 20 years is the litmus test for a programs success/failure ??

would 19 years be success according to you ?? :rolleyes:

Even a novice should know this, and one does not need any articles to prove such ‘common sense’ logic. However, i totally agree with what cat1 said. Having admitted that LCA project would have many benefits for Indian aviation industry, let me ask you a very simple question. What was the primary objective behind LCA project?

Well, then by your own definition, CAT1 is worse than a novice to claim surprise at the delays in the LCA program.

My point was that even an organisation like Boeing accepts that delays are almost inevitable and we have CAT1 behaving as if he’s never heard of fighter projects getting delayed before and using that as an excuse to degrade the project itself.

I know that India has licence manufactured for decades and do not deny all that it will learn from the LCA project.
However if you are from the industry as you indicate, I assume you understand – that fighter projects such as the LCA are launched to fullfill specific airforce requirements within specific time frames – increasing the local aviation industries abilities and knowledge during the course of the project is a valuable side benefit. To fail in the main purpose and be left clutching the side benefits – while making the best of a bad situation – can hardly pass as a great success. Had India opted for greater foriegn input and major components, earlier in this project – I’m sure the project would have hit its main as well as secondary aims.

What would you say if I was show you a Boeing magazine article that openly states that keeping to original schedules for ANY fighter program is a difficult task ?? would you claim that they dont know what they’re talking about despite being at the forefront of aerospace technology ?

Yes, India has struggled with the timelines for the Tejas, but that is expected when technologies are being developed from the grassroots up..It was a decision made at that time, and obviously will have its critics and its defenders.

but, crucially, the immeasurable benefits of the LCA are the ancilliary industries gaining critical knowhow that will help India not just in its fighter program but also in other aerospace or associated programs where it may not be quite that easy to simply pay others to develop technology for you.

You think that a project is a success even if it has massive cost overuns, huge delays, leaves your air force in the lurch – even if it gets canceled — provided it has allowed the nations industry to develop – you are entitled to your view.

My preference – is to get the type developed and in service, something like on time – as cheaply as possible -within the performance requirements — and let industry development take place inline with local manufacturing and support network. To me having the type in service is more important than where its radar was made.

HAL has been doing such substantial Licence manufacturing that doing what Kamra will do with the JF-17 was possible for it almost a decade and a half ago. the Local manufacturing and support network of HAL and its associated private firms is already in place.

What is crucial for India, is the Research and development base for future projects that it may pursue. the R&D that was done for the LCA, and the expertise it developed meant that the IJT which is on the same level as the JF-17 at least in terms of materials and structure was ready in altogether 36 months.

You may not see it, but I do at work as well…there are Indians who have worked on the LCA and the IJT and have expertise on par with Americans who have worked on the F-18. THAT cannot come with simple licence manufacture, but from building a program from scratch up.