You do realise that you are appearing like a twit, by resorting to childish inanities when bereft of a technical arguement, right?

Ericcson cannot reinvent the laws of physics and electromagnetics. And Flight and many other industry mags are not developers either. It makes ample sense that what Northgrop Grumman wrote is correct, that Erieye if it does indeed offer 360 coverage does so in a reduced manner, thanks to interference and clutter generation from the wing. Nor do there appear to be additional arrays for forward and aft.

If you have any additional information, bring it up. Make sure that it is technical rather than an appeal to authority.

Spectre82= Yasser= Greenday1. Was wondering when you’d show up.

😮

Even if the FC-1 had issues with flight envelope, its design is able to incorporate some radically new ideas in a very short period in time.

In fact, there are signs that far from having to make changes in order to make up previous flaws, the DSI had decreased weight and increased range much greater than the original specs. The initial specs called for a top speed of 1.6m and combat range of 1200km. The latest Chinese aviation mags report that the 04 increased the range to 1800 km. You can look those up in this thread and in the Chinese news, pics and specs threads.

Those Chinese Aviation mags are by no means reliable. They are tarred and feathered one day for some data and held to be true the next minute. The fact is that the specs will only be known as and when CATIC itself announced the figures or put it up on its website or via the PAF.

Second thing is that you cannot say DSI is used on the JSF so this is proof of the JF-17s design superiority- thats akin to me saying that the LCA uses glass cockpits so its akin to a Rafale. DSI is just an aerodynamic solution for foibles with the JF-17 design that had to be fixed.

Let’s accept everything that you say about the FC-1 being full of design flaws so its designers are forced to make changes.

But that still means the FC-1 is incorporating new technologies to handle whatever flaws imagined. The DSI is a prime example.

So how does that make it superior? Thats just finding solutions to problems which every manufacturer has to do.

Now has the LCA’s ability to avoid the “time consuming” changes made it closer to induction than the FC-1? Not really. In fact, it looks more likely that the FC-1 will reach batch production and induction earlier than the LCA.

The LCA was from day 1 designed to be a much more complex aircraft than the FC-1 and the program by its very nature is far more ambitious. The FC-1 is probably a fine aircraft, but it mostly makes use of simpler mature technologies and hence its natural that its debugging and flight eval will be smoother. Secondly, the PAF will rely on a high degree of external OEM purchased items for key aspects of the FC-1 which will speed up the program. The LCA cannot do this since its meant to build local competence. So its apples to oranges.

Truthfully, the speed of the second prototype 06 appearing in the new configuration is a pretty good sign that new DSI planform is not a tentative step to fix earlier problems. It is almost impossible to change the FC-1 in prototype form from standard inlet to DSI without the tolerances already factored in the basic design.

This is your perception. It can also be pointed out that no visible changes of the magnitude of the DSI should be visible in the prototypes at this stage unless the designers were forced to undertake redesign- again, nothing bad per se- but hardly a virtue, more of a necessity.

Even the US cannot simply change the latest build of the F-16 into a DSI machine without a protracted test period. That’s because the original F-16 was not designed for DSI.

What is this DSI machine? Lets have some perspective please. DSI is no panacea or bleeding edge solution by itself or equivalent to (for example) an AESA set in terms of combat ability or technology. Its just a solution.

The FC-1 has two radically different sets of prototypes. It simply wouldn’t been able to do this if DSI had not been factored in as a possibility for the original design. It’s almost certain that they’ve tested the 04 planform at the very beginning at least in windtunnels and simulations.

That is not a certainty. It can also be argued that CATIC was forced to adopt DSI thanks to test results which showed a problem, and which news reports at the time mentioned.

The FC-1 is a more conservative design than the LCA, true. But it is also a more modern design. We could see it in the elements incorporated. The DSI is a new design element with only the F-35 using it aside from the FC-1.

The DSI was incorporated because the FC-1 had issues in some aspects of its flight envelope. Using your line of reasoning, it can be pointed out as being evidence of FC-1 having design flaws since its being changed so late into the program.

As a single-line project (not attempting to link in predeccessors like the Super 7 or Marut,) the LCA is much older than the FC-1 but incorporates far less changes externally than the FC-1 which indicates that its planform is more or less static. The FC-1 design has shown an ability to rapidily even during its initial set of prototypes. These are not new marks but prototypes before the first production machines. (According to Chinese news groups, the first two batch machines are already being built.)

The Super 7 is directly related to the FC-1 and is relevant. The Marut has nothing to do with the LCA and is irrelevant, in terms of design or features.

The FC-1 design being changed in prototype stage only goes to show that they are being forced to change because of deficiencies observed during flight testing. Otherwise nobody would bother with time consuming and expensive changes this late into the program. You are making a virtue out of necessity.

These are the other things in the program
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Avia/Russia/MiG21/mig21.htm

Alfa as far as I can remember was a designation for one of the Klub series of missiles.

Nick…did u really mean what u wrote down here, or was it to just get one up? :rolleyes:

Vikas, the Russian POV is clear that they didnt regard the PAF as much of a bother. If they had, or wanted to make a point, those Afghan Su’s would have been escorted by their fighters. They didnt even station any dedicated fighters for the purpose bar a desultory deployment of a few shortranged MiG-29s for political purposes. If the Russians had actually decided to mount a punitive strike on Pakistan nand backed it up with actual deployment- the results would have been far worse for the PAF than a turkey shoot where vectored F-16s take on heavily laden strike aircraft without even rudimentary air cover. We are talking of a superpower here, and if it had wanted to take the fight to pakistan- we have to have a sense of proportion. Besides, I dont think the PAF is a ragtag force, but some of Gd1’s chest thumping deserves being brought back to reality.

Bringiton,

There you go- obviously Tonga is better off than the USAF, PAF is better than the IAF, IDF, Russians etc.

OK, theres been alot of talk here.
Just to clarify a few points.

Harry
Whose pilots have shot down more of the others in air to air combat? If we are talking about pilots skills and how “crap” certain natiosn are, then I would day thats a pretty good “Key Perfromance indicator”.

Lets talk numbers here.

In every case PAF has shot down more of the enemy then it has lost. Thats a proven historical fact.

Indian, Isreali and Russian pilots have suffered. We are an “equal opportunities” air force. Does not matter what race or religion you are, we are happy to shoot you down. 😉

Now I belive every online and offline source concedes PAF shot down more aircraft then it lost.

Remember, the discussion is “pilot skill” here.

I just burst a stitch laughing! So now Yasser is bragging about the Israelis and Russians! OMG…talk about delusional! If the Russians had wanted, they could have wiped out the PAF in the time it would have taken a squadron of your finest to hit the privy! That they didnt even bother about the few a/c you shot down (and an own kill, stroke of genius!) during the Afghan conflict, only goes to show that they didnt care much for your lot- with what one MiG-29 squadron or the like deployed to Afghanistan, if even that! :p
Israelis & Indians then …LOL!
Your silly braggadacio is beyond the heights of delusion. Numbers even, one force is offensive and engages in an offensive air campaign that ensures the other is left watching as the state of pakistan is split into two, so who won the war eh? 😀

The news on teh Gwalior exercise was posted a full 2 months before any Indian or western news source mentioned it. Unless someone has a crystal ball, that woukld mean a pretty accurate source in my opinion.

Name, rank, and contact details- so we can crosscheck and verify what you claimed, without your “spin” on it. No running, now.

My point remains, everything written on the net is hearsay and hard to prove.

As someone pointed out, it would be really nice for this thread to get back on track.

Typical isnt it. First make stupid claims. Then get caught. Then skedaddle and quickly retreat. Till “next time”. :p