Nick_76Please dont take this the wrong way, but can anyone tell me if the LCA will make it to frontline service? Is the initial IAF order the only order they will make?
There are 34 LCA’s currently on order, plus the 3 prototypes of which 28 are for the IAF alone. The IAF has 20 more “on option”, which they will exercise upon the LCA reaching IOC to keep the production lines humming. Once the FOC is reached (another 2 years after IOC), the bulk orders for the fleet will be placed.
From the CNN-IBN report, on the “leaked” paper asking for quicker MRCA delivery, ACM Tyagi mentions quicker induction of the LCA to make up for delays in the MRCA purchase. Harry has already posted ACM Tyagis mention of assigning project personnel from the AF directly to the LCA team.
The current LCA test team crew includes 4 of the seniormost operational staff in the IAF, including Group Captains, all of whom could have been assigned to operational units instead. Every indication is that the IAF wants the LCA and wants it fast.
Meanwhile, the Navy chief has noted his views on the LCA purchase as well, saying that his force will wait for the LCA-N come what may .
Thats another two squadrons – ~ 30 aircraft.
I expect a much larger order will be made for the Tejas early next year at Aero India 2007.
Could be, but per all previous reports, the IAF will wait for IOC to exercise the remaining option of 20, and then place orders at FOC (bulk production).
HAL currently has its orderbook full with:
-34 LCAs to be manufactured (including prototypes)
-@ 14 Su-30 MKIs/ Year to be achieved
– Assemble 44 HAWK AJTs, with engines being manufactured in India
– Complete the IJT Program & bring it to serial production with IAF & IN orders of upto 200- 250 with production @ 20 / Yr
– Finish the CAT design and develop and launch prototype
-Finalize & launch the MTA project with Irkutsk, IAPO
– Upgrade the 40 Jaguars & 40 MiG27s, with more orders in the next plan
– Upgrade the MiG-29 fleet (2007 onwards)
This apart the MRCA order, which will also come in with substantial TOT.
These are without even their chopper plans & the UAV ones..
I think its high time, L&T or someone was also roped in for a second aircraft manufacturing facility, provided they are ready to invest..
Nick_76Why the crybaby face? Its the best news in a long time, the Times take on the LCA is well known, once it gets inducted they’ll call it superior to the Raptor etc.. :rolleyes:
..what counts is the MRCA now being disassociated from political BS and put on the fast track ….
Meanwhile, India moves to fix its ties with South Africa after Denel got caught in the bribery scandal.
India, S Africa to explore joint development in defence sector
PRETORIA, OCT 2 (PTI)
Apparently seeking to put behind themselves the controversy over Denel arms deal, India and South Africa today decided to explore the possibility of joint research and development in the defence sector.During their wide-ranging talks here, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Thabo Mbeki agreed to work towards closer cooperation in the defence field.
The two leaders agreed to explore the possiblity of joint research and development, a joint declaration issued after their talks said.
The decision is significant considering that bilateral defence cooperation in terms of procurement and supplies had been hit after corruption charges were levelled in the Denel deal of 2004.
Commenting on the controversy, Singh told a South African newspaper in an interview ahead of his South Africa visit: “There is no doubt a problem in this case of Denel. I hope ways and means can be found to resolve it.”
The Prime Minister said there are many South African companies with which India has good arrangements for supply of equipment and relevant materials.
The defence relationship between India and South Africa goes much beyond a simple procurement relationship, he said, adding it includes training and peacekeeping cooperation.
The declaration noted South African government’s appreciation for training provided by India on UN peacekeeping and operations of modern submarines.
IN trained SA servicemen on HDW subs..
The above also means that the Denel tieup for the 155mm ammo Bofors to be built in India will probably be resuscitated. And of course, basically making sure SA does not resume supplies to wherever.
For more detailed blah blah on the other bits:
THE TSHWANE DECLARATION ON REAFFIRMING THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA AND INDIA
Nick_76That is a strange claim, maybe that I am from the West are unable to understand such way of Eastern thinking. Hidden problems are true problems, where a possible foe has the most benefits from. See the Arab-Israeli conflicts about that. The Israelis are ashured to stay in their superior position as long as they are willing to discuss their military shortcomings, when the Arabs did/do all to hide theirs from the own public.
To highlight some shortcomings of a F-16-52 f.e. will not reduce the fighting capabilities of that at first, but force the user to adapt to that and look for smart solutions. An adversary will suffer a bad surprise from that, but I agree that even at our open forum outdated shortcomings of fighters/engines are still alive and presented still as given!
Much more transparency about the F-35 will be a win of the USA!
Sens, its definitely not an eastern way of thinking- at least not all of the east. In India, we have a saying – its the official Govt quotation come to think of it, the irony!- but anyways-its “Satyemeva Jayate”- “The Truth shall always be victorious”. But its equally true all large bureaucracies and powerful organizations try to limit the flow of information. In India we are currently having a huge debate on the momentous Right to information act, which allows anyone to see Govt correspondence/ decision making- as expected some paper pushers dont like it, but its still a really good start.
Its essential that faults be open and criticized, rather than left to fester and rot and cause problems. Thats my take on it anyways, and in fact I agree with you. I think the west has succeeded essentially because of this aspect- its unwavering commitment to seeking the best way forward rather than fixate on honor, loss of face or the like (not slamming any nation here), which can actually cause issues & lead to problems later on.
Nick_76If my goalposts were simply “orders” but I said deliveries. Over hundred deliveries and another 100 on order proves viability while 37 orders (which can be changed, denied or trimmed) do not. At the very least, it shows the huge difference between the state of the two programs.
Then how many have been delivered anyways? Got the exact numbers? But we are again left to speculation.
See thats the problem here. We can argue about the differing stages of the program & I can point out that the LCA is a larger technological risk (composite construction for eg) & it’ll never end.
Point is that to Indian eyes, the LCA is viable- to Chinese the J-10 is. Thats about it. Otherwise we end up debating in circles.
Huh? There are only four prototypes/demonstrators of the LCA, none of which is a two-seater. There are pictures of two-seater J-10s today not in some future aircraft.
There are currently LCAs on the shopfloor being made per the above specs. As regards “future aircraft”- these are hardly any uncertain types. The path was laid down long ago, as for the rest, its in my prior reply.
Even if it were (and there is nothing to substantiate that), it would still mean a new mark for the J-10. You don’t go from standard to TVC while still working out your basic design.
Which can lead to the point that the basic design was not good enough, what then? You see, conjecture can lead to two entirely different paths of reasoning. I can be a skeptic and say this. You can be an optimist and say the above. But at the end of the day, you need audits and the T- word to confirm the truth!
Information is information. Any program that has been exported or will be exported would by nature be more “transparent” than one that is used only the host nation.
Not necessarily!! Lets take an example- China can inform Pak(it put in the $$), but is Zambia being told about every trouble there is? On the other hand, a Zambian can go to ada.gov.in & learn about the LCA & has access to most of the resources Indian citizens get. There is a huge difference in terms of open information available & the RTIA, if applied to the LCA will further that.
“Transparency” is a ludicrous idea for military programs anyways. “Transparency” is brought up as an arguing point only by Indians. A “transparent” military project is no longer a military project. If the LCA were really “transparent” (maybe it is) then it’s a technology demonstrator and nothing more. Military projects cannot be transparent unless you want every weakness known by possible foes.
No, you would be incorrect here since you are taking the word literally and not what it means in the context of the discussion. Transparency means that the issues plaguing the project- say bad funding, improper management or the like, are known to the stakeholders – in the case of a Govt run project, the citizens. It does not mean, that the actual FBW code is placed in the public!
Or its radar details. Now you would be correct, that this can sometimes cause issues for the developers in terms of what to release & what not to, so there is a fine line they walk & they do so.
Having said that, transparency in multi-billion $ projects run with state money is essential. It may be brought up only by Indians because perhaps Indians appreciate the importance of having their Govt accountable to them, being a cynical lot in general (grin)- but I dont think you can seriously claim that witholding information from stakeholders is in general good for managerial and program oversight. Its part & parcel of ensuring an oversight process.
That basically contradicts the idea of “transparency.” An internal Indian project covered only by Indian press is pretty much less “transparent” than Chinese aircraft that are exported.
No, let me put it more clearly… An Indian project covered by Indian press AND on which accurate data is available from developers is more transparent than one in which foreign journals only have speculation to go upon & PR handouts.
The good & the bad vs only the handpicked good, and not even all of the information.
Friend, PRC aircraft had been of great interest to people for decades, even during the period when it was not a “threat” but a nominal ally. Just read the thread on the US Peace Pearl project. We’re posting scans from publications printed in 1979.
The PRC has always been on the opposite side of the fence, bar a hiatus (for a decade & more) in which the US-PRC rapprochment took place. Apart from that, its always been the communist other. I can still dig up articles literally frothing at the mouth about the Red Chinese & the threat to the west etc. Its the way things are.
If you look at the annual editions of Jane’s, you’ll find the Chinese section massively larger than the Indian one, year after year after year. “Transparency” had not expanded anyone’s knowledge of Indian aircraft.
No offence intended but most of those items being license produced / reverse engineered Russian designs, which India was license producing. Not much difference really.
If this “transparency” was helpful in anyway at all concerning the LCA, someone would have been able to state so and so is the date of the LCA’s induction and we would not have this continuous cycle of people claiming the LCA imminent induction/deployment and then retracting those statements.
The same has happened for multiple other open projects. This is exactly the point – you look at this and say “aha” but its entirely because so much information is available that you can say so! Otherwise, India too could selectively release information only per what best served its developers interests, but that may not coincide with the taxpayers!
Seriously, we could argue that the current state of the LCA is less well-known than either the J-10 or the FC-1.
Hardly. As stated earlier- I can post exact specs of the LCA including Test pilot reports and avionics architecture in detail, – the same kind of information is unavailable for China.
Nick_76Greenday,
Au Contraire! As far as I know, there are atleast three different ways available to the PAF for getting DFRM without any qualms.
I doubt this. The US has made it very clear that nobody can touch its F-16s bar itself and whats the point of denying DRFM via itself (and making its manufacturers money) when it can allow others to do so?
And all this RWR not being re programmable talk was started by a has been ex officer of the Pak army who in turn got it from a letter posted to him by a dunderhead whose letter reproduced in the papers showe a clear lack of knowledge of the subject on which he was writing.
Yes. I know the article by the ex Army officer, but his statements have been corroborated by a bunch of articles elsewhere.
Reality is other wise.
Lets wait & see.
And as for word on the F-16 deal, it will be out in the next week or thereabouts.
Ok.
Nick_76Again, more baseless BS. So what are these ‘bizarre claims’? Go on quote me. :rolleyes:
Didnt I already? You were the one saying “blindingly obvious” when asked to certify the same, you copped out. :rolleyes:
‘Jump through this hoop I made or you are a lier’, how typical. :rolleyes:
ROTFL! For one used to calling everyone a lier (sic.), you sure seem to be confused about what the term means.
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.
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:
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.
I have back up my claims, you just chose not to see them.
Right! :rolleyes:
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:
Seeing your statements, nobody has to twist anything. You can sprain your own back laddie, what with all the spinning.
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.
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:
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.
LOL! Anyone can go up this thread and see the one with the potty mouth.
Anyways, i am 22, how old are you laddie?
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.
In the real world, not on the internet, its just not done, old bean.
‘My sandbox, you play by my rules or you go away. If you don goaway, I fling doodoo at you…’
Is that what you do nowadays? Bleeding shame!
That must have served you well at day care, else you would not be using it still.
Assumptions, assumptions. Hmmm, I see your problem here.
Go on, quote where I said anything about the LCA. Go on if its soooo obvious.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
Haha..haha, now that is funny. You should do stand up.
When have I done that? Go on, quote me.
More Blah di blah blah…do you even expect any reply to this? :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.
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:
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:
There we see Maturity 101 yet again. Clean your mouth out with soap will you? :rolleyes:
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.
As nice it is to sit and listen to all your tiresome invective, I’d rather get some serious information rather than all this.
Nick_76Actually, you’ve shifted the goalposts forward for an easier score. I said the J-10 is viable because we know from the Russians that Salyut had delivered over 100 AL31FN engines. I did NOT mention the 100 AL31FN M1 thrust-vectoring in that the Russians said were ordered on top of that. Actually, the first 50 of the M1 TVC engines would have arrived in full by now.
If my goalposts were just “ordered” engines then the J-10 has over 200+ ordered and delivered (identified by the Russians) to the LCA’s 37.
If your goalpost is *orders*- then by those standards the LCA is a viable program. With 37 orders already, more than the FC-1 has at this stage and GOI support for IOC & FOC – its a viable program. It really does not matter how many engines are ordered or not. We can then go into each subcomponent and parse that, but thats beside the point. At this time, 37 LCAs have been ordered, with 20 options available- that basically means HAL has been tooling up for production, so its clear that the program is being taken forward.
Also there are two very obvious signs beside the numbers of aircraft that the J-10 is viable and in production.
One, there are multiple two-seat J-10s. It was a fighter that was developed as single-seater (none of the original J-10 prototypes were twins unlike the EF2000 which had its two-seater developed in parallel.) In order for a two-seater to created for the J-10, the design had to be mature. Chengdu would not be able to create a twin-seater if their base design is a still evolving.
By the same standards, the LCA prototypes alone have two two seaters, one from the AF and one for the Navy. This apart, there will be two seaters in the LSP batch of 8 and the IOC batch of 20.
Secondly, the TVC engine orders is another sign that base design has matured. It is extremely unlikely that any aircraft firm would change engines (especially one of massively different capability such as moving from standard to vectoring) in the midst of an immature initial design.
In both the J-10B twin-seater and the TVC J-10 Chengdu is already into second generation variants or “marks” of the J-10. The LCA base design is still in demonstration mode.
Or it could be that the initial J-10 maneuverability was found lacking, and the PLAAF went for TVC to compensate. The Latest mag report on the J-10 makes the claim that its basically a ground pounder and without the Israeli advances in composites, its basically somewhat limited compared to the original Lavi. Of course, I could be wrong. But the point is that without exact information on why & what drives the PLAAF to do what it is doing & without a clear answer on them, you can only make reasonable guesses at this point.
But I absolutely agree that the J-10, as aircraft in a totally different stage of development and production and as an unofficial project, it should not be compared with the LCA.
You have made that statement repeatedly. I agree, but for different reasons which I give below. 🙂
The FC-1 which enjoys even more press attention and scrutiny than the LCA is a far better project to gauge the LCA against.
I disagree. I think comparing the LCA against either type is a flame war par excellence. Lets leave the whole shindig apart.
Nope, I merely said that while the latest progress report on the LCA that is near ready comes from a National Geographic report, the latest report on the progress of the FC-1 is that it will actually be in Pakistan (and out of its Chinese incubator at Chengdu) by March according to the Pakistani government.
Ok, but your wording was unclear on that point. Be as it may, its incorrect that the LCAs latest “progress report” is from the National Geographic. The ada.gov.in site gives a running update on every flight, plus there are periodic interviews on the LCA progress from ranking members of India’s defence establishment, nevermind the open official reports on the different GOI websites. All in all, the LCA data is available via a variety of sources.
Except for the J-10, and I’ve already agreed that the J-10 not be compared because it is unofficial (even with the engines deliveries confirmed by the Russians), Chinese aircraft like the J-7PG, MA-60, K-8, etc. and now the FC-1 are FAR better known to the aviation world than the LCA. They have to be “transparent” to great extent because they are exported (or are designed from the ground up with exports in mind like the FC-1 or L-15.)
That is not transparency. That is PR. You can have positive reports galore about a particular export oriented program (and you have to avoid the negative reportage for fear of alienating customers), but we have little on actual audit reports or internal development goals and achievements available to the PRC decision makers declared publically, like the LCA’s is. By law, the LCA’s every foible or development issue has to be investigated and declared publically. The latest GOI initiative is the “Right to Information Act” wherein I or anyone can ask for information about GOI performance & I can obtain broad specifics about certain programs, that kind of data is simply unavailable for the PRC.
So you would be correct in saying PRC’s export oriented programs have high “visibility” but not high transparency. They dont have the corresponding transparency to the general public that similar programs have in the west/ India which are more open to the press/ auditors and public stakeholders in the project.
Most of the information we get from the LCA are from Indian newspapers reporting on Indian officials. No insult intended, but the press in the third world are tabloidish and jingoistic to the extreme.
Which is why that information can be crosschecked and compared with many official GOI sources to sift the wheat from the chaff. Besides, journalistic flights of fancy are not unique to the third world- India, China, etc but generally defence journalism across the world is the pits, bar professional dedicated media on the topic, of which too there are in India, and where interviews can be generally relied upon.
Whatever the abilities or capabilities of the LCA, it is has not engendered much interest or investigation from the rest of the world (outside the internet.) There are rarely any first world publications delving into statements on the LCA and dissecting the LCA. There is no reason to. It’s not considered a possible export or have any impact on the world market.
Why should it? Its an internal program for the Indian armed forces first and foremost. Second, there are geopolitical aspects to it. If the PRC was not deemed as the next threat to the US or the like, there would be little interest in the F-10 etc- they would be yet another “interesting” Asian fighter project. But since its otherwise, and there is secrecy, people like to follow it.
On the other hand, there are massive amounts written on Chinese aircraft by Western and other third party publications over the years because they are on the world market. Much of them are actually critical (in fact, it is the wide coverage by Western publication on Chinese aircraft that provides the most sources for those posting on PLAAF aircraft on English language forums like this since most members don’t read Chinese.)
But you forget the caveat. Most of this information is speculative, unlike the LCA there are no official sources to correct them & provide the exact data. I can misquote information on the LCA, but there will be a press release or questions raised in parliament or the like, rebutting me if I am wrong, the system works that way and has been shown to several times over. Hence, the information on the LCA is far more accurate and precise.
So let’s not talk about transparency when you drag in a hidden project like the J-10. The J-10 is not even acknowledged by the Chinese government.
The question of transparency arises because if you or I or say someone uses speculative reports on a) to say a) is better than b ) because b )’s issues are well catalogued, then it is valid to point out that the bulk of information available on a ) is speculative.
Which is why I dont like comparisons & I tried repeatedly to avoid the same. What the PRC does with the J-10 is its own business.
Look at a Chinese export project like FC-1 and then compare that to the LCA. I actually see far MORE transparency in the FC-1 program than the LCA.
No what you see is visibility. Not transparency. Transparency is when the internal audit reports of the PRC- Chengdu team are put up on the internet, as the LCA’s are.
Look at the volume of pictures and articles on the FC-1 compared to the LCA. Look at the threads of the FC-1 here. We knew in advance when test flights are coming and had threads waiting for the pictures we knew will arrive because they were reported in Chinese, Pakistani and world press.
See above.
We saw huge design changes like the DSI on prototype 04 months before the actual aircraft flew because there were models of the 04 on display at international shows.
Again, there can be two angles to that. Visibility- we incorporated DSI because its the latest etc. Transparency- “performance in x regime was insufficient, we had problems, test pilots dissatisfied. Finally this late in the design stage we were forced to change the design, but we think this may solve the problem”.
Nick_76Can’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:
LOL, 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you cannot back up your own claims then dont imagine that you can spew invectives and disguise the issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
And we have yet more pathetic attempts to twist what was said. What a shock. :rolleyes:
Right, what a shock indeed. Keep spinning and soon you’ll be a top.
What utter BS. What were these ‘exceedingly stupid claims’ you called me up on then? Go on, find and quote them. :rolleyes:
Anyone can look through the above (bar of course your fellow lads) & see the utter drivel you write. :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.
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:
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.
Glad to see you admit that you have no info worth its name on the topic. So much for the blindingly obvious. Of course, how could the nasty posters from whichever part of the world that offends “wolf” ask for him to support his claims! :rolleyes:
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:
Nick_76Bringiton
Red Flag goes upto the Su-30 MKK in terms of the Flanker threat per an article I read. Is there any source you have specifying Super Flanker?
I feel sometimes that the US’s emphasis on hyper realism, trying to replicate the exact opponent capability limits the threat it trains against. In Cope we had AWST tell us that the USAF didnt normally train against an active missile threat or do full up combat training.
So I am curious.
Also has the Raptor been tested against an AWACs yet? (OT but asking)
Nick_76Actually, 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.
Another superb post.
Nick_76When Mikhail Gorbachev’s regime fell, everything in Russia was for sale. What makes you think NATO didn’t buy that information?
The fully developed systems at the time IIRC were the early S-300 ones, some of which china bought. After that theres been PMU1, PMU2, (both went to PRC) Antey 2500 and now the S-400..
So has all this information been available to the US?
Would the US/ NATO knows the T90 Vladimirs armour array because they got their hands on a few T-80s at the time?
ELP,
The S-300 family, designation wise, includes the S-300V as well…has this been purchased/ acquired/ known in detail to the US?
Nick_76Guesstimate based on the fact that F-22’s train against S-300 type targets and all they have to do it with are JDAMS and SDBs. It would be kindof pointless to train using a stealth aircraft inside a known kill zone don’t you think? May as well be dropping iron from a B-52 if you’re going to do that.
The point is that is the US aware of the exact capabilities of these systems? There was much talk of the US training against “possible” threats, ie aggressors with downgraded specs- the question is are these estimates accurate?
Nick_76Maybe your mirror will tell you?!
Pointless flamebaiting. Grow up.
What is your age, “aggressive member”? Care to tell us? :rolleyes:
Nick_76Oh really, so how exactly does that apply to me then? :rolleyes:
Look in the mirror while taking a deep breath. That will help. :rolleyes:
Only an idiot would still not get such a simple point. :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:
I have already shown you how it is obvious to determine which is the more capable platform.
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:
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.
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:
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:
Oh wait, shift the goalposts again because you were caught out making asinine comments. 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. 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.
Thing is, both the planes in question are ‘mine’.
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:
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.
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.
Nick_76Well it was correct. I dont think DRFM is the issue, I doubt PAF even thinks it will get that- the core issue is of the RWR reprogramming. That is a bigger thing than offensive EW but I Musharraf may have overplayed his hand in the States what with all his controversial comments.
Sign In
