The Shaguar is one of the best looking planes, IMO.
It has the same apeal as an US 1960s muscle car.
Any articles or literature on their combat usage and effectiveness?
** REMOVED **
Have you tried to take off with the drag chute deployed?
But aircraft are always being marketed. What’s your point?
If an article came out regarding the prowess of the EF2K (or any other plane), we should also discount it because EF2K is currently being marketed to Singapore?
I thought that’s usually how introduction of new things work. First introduce it to a low priority area and work out the operational kinks, get the doctrine right, get the operations right. Then introduce it to a full combat capable frontline unit.
So, the J-10A is the designation of the single-seater as opposed to the J-10B which is the two seater.
Then, what was the earlier confusion about?
Doesn’t the XXJ’s wing and tail planform have a resemblance with the FC-1’s? Also, the cheek intakes… hmm…
Explanation?
Here’s the REAL FC-1 pic
Without alterations…
Originally posted by Phil Foster
LOMAC.
Thx
What game is that?
It takes less than a billion $ for a probe… but would take over $50 billion to send people. Do the math. Also, the technical feasiblity is still in question on how to get the people back.
400 F/A-22s
400 F-15C/D/Es
400 F-16 Blk 50+ equivalent
1000 F-35As
15 B-1Bs
15 B-2
15 B-52
30 E-10As
100 KC-767s
250 Global Hawks
500 Predators (Armed and unarmed)
Oh yeah, and bases around the world 😀
Now, who want’s to play?
Why does it matter where the equipment comes from? Does it take anything away from the J-10’s performance that its engine is Russian?
Does the fact that the first couple of batches of LCAs will have US engines make it any worse in performance if had Indian engines? An Israeli IRST or HMCS will work fine on an Indian plane as it would on an Israeli plane.
What’s the big F-ing deal about where the equipment comes from as long as the system performs as per specs?
Also, there’s nothing taboo about comparing aircraft in development with existing ones if we limit our comparisons to the level of technology. There’s no point in comparing the FC-1’s performance with that of the F-16 because we know the F-16’s level of performance but don’t have a clue about the FC-1’s. But we can compare the level of technology of the FC-1’s engine with that of the F-16. We can compare the level of technology or sophistication of the FC-1’s radar (whatever it is) with that of an F-16 variant. We can compare the level of tech and sophistication of the FC-1’s MMI with that of an F-16 variant.
To make blanket statements like “the FC-1 should perform as well as an F-16XXX is pretty inane because there just isn’t any data points to make a valid comparison.
mav, you should be consistent and take up the cause of the F-16 Blk 52 when Srbin equates the FC-1 to it…. just for consistency’s sake 😉
What about the US Forces (Army’s) need for having loitering A-G assets for dial-a-target missions?
Can UCAVs give the loitering ability required for those types of missions?