Insigthat’s complete non-sense, they are not buying WZ-10 because it’s not offered yet. WZ-10 has engine issues (aka arms embargo) and haven’t even been cleared for service in PLA.
I agree with Tphuang. Why should China sell its best option while it needs to get inducted in their own services? If US is telling that the cobra won’t be exported till 2015 (internal needs) then why is China an exception? BEsides that there is the other valuable remark of settling issues for China for which we do or do not know…
InsigJANES 1992-1993 p 34 and Aerosalon 1989 and 1991 about CAC Super-7.
“Agreement between CATIC and Grumman (USA) for joint preliminary design signed 21 October 1988; Grumman participation suspended by US government mid-1989. Preliminary design and wind tunnel testing testing completed; CATIC seeking alternative partner to continue programme; discussing power plant options with Rolls-Royce and Russian companies late 1991.
Design features: Lateral air intakes for more powerful engine; ‘solid’ ogival nosecone for modern fire control radar wings of ….”
Customers: Pakistan regarded as main market.”The redesign around the RD-93 took place with the help of MAPO.
Project 33
Around 1980, the Mikoyan OKB design bureau began working on a very light “strike fighter” that was intended to be a direct competitor to the F-16 Fighting Falcon. This new Mikoyan design, designated Izdeliye 33 (Izd 33) (and variously translated as “Article 33”, “Project 33”, “Product 33”, or “Project R-33”), was of conventional layout and similar in appearance to the F-16. It was powered by a single Klimov RD-33 afterburning turbofan engine – the same engine used by the twin-engined MiG-29. While extensive wind-tunnel testing was conducted on the design, no prototypes were built since the Soviet Air Force (VVS) dropped its support for concept about 1986. The program was one of several victims of the VVS’ changing operational needs, financial constraints, and a growing preference for multirole designs.
Influence on the Chengdu FC-1 “Xiao Long”
Following the cancellation of U.S. and European companies’ participation in the development of the Westernized Chengdu J-7 variant known as the “Super-7”, China launched a program in 1991 to develop an indigenous evolution of this MiG-21-based design, which it designated the FC-1 (“Fighter China 1”). To expedite its development, officials of the Chengdu Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAC) or the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) – or perhaps both – approached Mikoyan for technical support. In 1998, CATIC purchased Izd 33 design and test information from the Mikoyan design bureau, along with other research and development assistance.
The first flight of the FC-1 took place in August 2003.
Janes 1992-1993 is outdated. China moved from superb Mig19 (J6-A5) and Mig21 (J7) clones to now… 2 decades old info to show that FC1 had assistance? You must check latest AFM where it shows that design was frozen at much later date. Above means that USA designed Gripen cause it has US engine and some avionics.
Insigdoing what ? we hang out in the PAF thread for less than a few hours, point out a few facts and they cannot stand it, whereas Insig and Rimmer have been trolling on this thread since its start. apparently they cannot read what the title of this thread is- FLAMERS NOT WELCOME AT ALL.
If someone cannot explain the need of LCA after HAWK as AJT then it is called trolling/flaming if one asks questions. I still see no need for LCA as AJT.
InsigMaybe I am just dumb and need points explaining to me. If disagreeing with things I am told sometimes makes me dumb, maybe it is not such a bad thing.
You have STILL not answered my question of HAWK/LCA yet indulged in a personal attack.
Shall we stick to the topic in hand or do you now realise you cannot back up your argument on the HAWK/LCA/OCU training claim you were making?
Maybe that HAL is not able to produce Hawk? So eryone gets one ride in the Hawk end goes to the (yet to be developed) LCA?
InsigIn a massive reply you managed to cover eberything bar answering the main question.
Please explain (consideing you are th eone suggesting it), how a HAWK/LCA/OCU training programme will be better then a HAWK/OCU programme. If you cannot answer this one question, you entire argument falls flat on its feet.
Unless of course, as you hint. India has been sold duff Hawks.
Google:
India had bought 66 ‘Hawks’ from UK in a Rs 6,600-crore deal in 2004, after a two decade delay in the procurement process. The first Hawk under deal was delivered by BAE Systems to India last year and the HAL started licensed production of the AJT around the same time. However, HAL was besieged with teething problems during the production, leading to dissatisfaction over the support from the original equipment manufacturer in overcoming them.
http://www.zeenews.com/news582772.html
And now HAL wants its LCA to be after Hawk?
InsigI agree. Multiple Id’s and trying to defame by by using personal remarks or degrading remarks about either China or Pakistan.
InsigMunir, isnt it high time you quit whining and realized that copy pasting what the RAF etc are doing is not worth much without understanding the topic at hand.
What works for the RAF may not necessarily work for the IAF. It may not even be the only option.
Ah, lets see what Korea is doing.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/
And lets see what systems go on the T-50:
Actually quite similar, even if not as powerful (eg AN/APG-67 versus the larger MMR) to whats on the LCA.
Few of these systems are on the IAF Hawk.
Nice flamebait – as usual – about the “indiginous aircraft” (its spelled indigenous btw). However, I note your reticence all this while about how the PAF calls its license assembled JF-17s jointly developed.
Perhaps if you spent less time complaining, making dubious comments about “zero facts” and “cannot be taken serious” and spent some more time making sense, then it would be better?
Also do refrain from outright falsehoods and putting words in peoples mouths, e.g.: “And he surely can tell us that it is cost effective”, since it was I who said that a cost benefit analysis would have to be done, in the first place.
Lastly, when you remark while we have no clue when its superior alternative ever gets operational status. – you would be quite correct that you have no clue. Apparently, this would remain the case, no matter what the facts are, since you dont believe in facts, merely flame baits, followed by a lot of whinging when somebody points out your comments for what they are.
Its not that hard to go to Pakdef and pull out your quotes and what your entire purpose on this thread is for.
And then..
All I can say that mr Teer does add zero facts and is trying to “convince” (I would say intimidate with personal remarks) that his opinion is true. Maybe he thinks that quantity of posts is more important..defines irony, since all you have done above is add personal remarks (about facts and the like) and then you have the gall to complain that you are facing personal remarks. Amazing.
As regards quantity of posts Munir, I think the difference in quality of posts is also quite apparent.
Good you bring up the T50. The Koreans admitted it is overpriced, a bit to good for the role and that is the reason it is not selling.
Good to know that RAF is wrong that it uses the Hawk as AJT. Same goes for US Goshawk.
Seems to me that you are obsessed with an id. It reminds me of Mufassa mufassa… But in your case it is Munir Munir… 😉 I hope you do enjoy Pakdef. You have the knowledge to post there or is it only reading? I can pull a lot of defaming quotes on BRF about others. Pakdef is horrible correct. About your quality. Again it is your personal opinion. I do have a different idea.
O gosh, now you add AESA on LCA. Already integrated and operational on a prototype? As I said, you hardly need testing on LCA while you ask technical data and battles against the best if it is about others. seem to me the same sens is doing when it comes to engines of China. 😉
InsigSamsara,
Pakistan matches India in many fields and sometimes is further ahead. Let us not talk about importing belts. See Arjun history and the Pakistani Khaled. Then you have the Babur versus Yakhunt. Then you have the homegrown Pakistani UAV against the Israeli imported IAF drones. Smartly I am avoiding LCA-JF17 developments but you know what the reality is. Same goes to the shooting round the corner guns. POF developed and sells them while India looks for them to buy. And the last item is, as some Indian already said, strangely already developed by Pakistan while China still needs it. So the usual statement that India is advanced in every field. They might be further in some fields. Don’t make your personal opinion sound like the reality.
I have the idea that you are here only to make this turn into flame.
InsigCan’t even read properly, why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
When have I said the WS10 has already matured? I said that the PLA might choose it over russian engines once it has matured and been developed enough to give similar if not better performance.
Oh yes, more of your thinly veiled racism. ‘China cannot surpass Russia because China can only copy stuff and cannot innovate or make breakthroughs independently’. That’s all you are saying and its pathetic.
What is also pathetic is you making judgements when you clearly lack even the most basic knowledge about the WS10. Its not based on the AL31, its based, as many have already pointed out, one the CFM56 core which in turn is the basis for the American F110 series.
What more, the WS10 is a far more ambitious project then the early AL31 with increased thrust and a far longer life as well as better reliability seen from much higher hours before overhaul.
Yes, more backdoor racism and willful disregard for basic common sense. Which pretty much says all there needs to be said about you. Just because China is behind now, they can never catch up because they will never get the newest russian stuff to copy. That’s the basis for your entire argument and its as shameful as it is pathetic.
An assessment based on ignorance, racism and self-dilutions.
My opinions is that China is 24/7 active in improving everything. Who predicted J11B, J10B, AESA radars and high perfomance engines? No one. And now even with pictures we still have certain messages that degrade direct or indirect. The good thing is that China will show more and more. 2010 will be better then 2009. 😉
InsigWhat makes you all think that a chopper that is not allowed to be exported till 2015 will end up in PAKITAN? Let us look at the reality. The 3-4 decades old Cobra’s F where sent to a upgrade while the company had no experience with it and it was on the other side of the world. Now with the cobra’s being older then the sum of the pilots age some start expecting something in 2015+X. I see the Indians go much firther with their LCH concept. If Pakistan wants to be taken serious it should stop asking for planes from USA and join developments elsewhere. Cause these outdates cobra’s are almost falling out of the sky, are expensive to maintain (only commercial support) and within a few years ready to be scrapped. By the time the next order starts the Indian lobby will try anything to get it killed or unrealistic strings attached.
InsigTeer
There is not supposed to be am big jump between Hawk and a fighter. I can keep up very well, in fact could you outline what difficulties a trainee fighter pilot would face?
Hawk can simulate many fighter chracteristics as a fighter and its cockpit will be almost as advanced as the LCA.
What you are saying is a
Hawk/LCA/Fighter training scheme is more effective then a Hawk/Fighter transition?
The costs will simply outweigh the benefits.
Many air forces more advanced then Indias wil choose the Hawk as its only LIFT.
Teer cannot be taken serious. Let us go to RAF where the Hawk is made and used. I do not think these people do not know what they do…
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hawk128.cfm
Quote:
The Hawk 128 was selected as the new Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the UK Armed Forces in July 2003. The Hawk 128 will be used by both RAF and RN pilots for fast-jet aircrew training and will replace the existing aircraft of Nos 19 and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons at RAF Valley. It will train aircrew for Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon and the future Joint Combat Aircraft.
Now mr Teer is telling us that we are pathetic and is allowed to do so for many posts. There is a need to have “indiginous” plane in between. And he surely can tell us that it is cost effective while we have no clue when its superior alternative ever gets operational status. All I can say that mr Teer does add zero facts and is trying to “convince” (I would say intimidate with personal remarks) that his opinion is true. Maybe he thinks that quantity of posts is more important.
Insig
Ok, it has weapons.
Insig, Rahul M,
I got it looking at the picture.
Thanks anyway.
It has IFR…! So the range and heavier loading seems to be possible. But it is a model. Not a flying operational plane yet. Weapon testing takes another 6 to 9 months.
Insig>>>Quite a lot of hot air there Munir.
We’ll see.
>>>The fact is that the LCA already has a role, we are just discussing where else the IAF may end up adding it, given prior discussions on the topic & how the IAF has been modifying its training regimen over the years.
It has the role of prototype.
>>>Unfortunately, little of what you wrote made any sense whatsoever. Where you did touch anything relevant, it was merely a rehash of what I already wrote.
For instance:
“PAF is having Mushaq, K8 and then F7. If F7 moves out then there will be direct move towards JF17.”….who is bothered about what the PAF does? Whats the point of even bringing in the PAF at this point, since clearly IAF procurement, inventory is substantially different from the PAF.
Who bothers what everyone else does? India seems to be entirely different, doesn’t it? You can compare it with Europe.
>>>“If you look at the unit price of the LCA and the cost of foreign parts in it you will have to recalculate the entire “advantage”
..as compared to of course, aircraft like the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 which have lesser foreign parts, right? I mean did you even think before typing? And never mind that the vast majority of LRUs in the Tejas are homegrown, and come with a cost advantage.
Define homegrown if Engine is foreign as are weapons and probably avionics.
>>>“Yet India should go for another not fully tested, not having reached operational status in between role? ”
..- which I already pointed out would commence only after MK2 production is completed & that by no means is it certain as a cost/benefit analysis would support it only at that point.
When will that happen? India moves on with MRCA/PAkFa etc etc. Gripen Naval might be an option and looking at the cash India has to spend a lot of sellers will be happy to offer more.
>>>And of course there is this gem:
“Putting HAWK (which is a superb advanced trainer) and having dual seaters in every section is just a clear sign that there is no role.”…
I mean where does one come up with such absolute and total BS.
If my opinion is BS then who are you so happy to join forums and hope that everyone copies your opinions 😉 ? Atleast give some reasons so we can discuss.
>>>The Jaguar squadrons all have dual seaters in each squadron. The MiG-27s had attached MiG-23 UBs. The MiG-21 squadrons had attached Mongols.
That is the entire idea. After advaced jet trainer going to operational squadron with the dual seaters.
>>>There is something called conversion training which every IAF squadron is focused on, because of which two seaters have long been part of every operational fighter unit.
So what adds the LCA?
>>>So in an effort to somehow imply the LCA has no role (something which you & your coterie are appearing more & more pathetic in attempting to force) you end up denying the reality, yet again.
Pathetic? A… God. If you are joining here just to write empty opinions where we can not ask logical questions then who is pathetic? Let us stay normal and not start becoming personal attackers? You seems to love calling others stupid.
>>>If you cant contribute anything of worth, why even bother commenting? Leave the serious discussion to those worthy of it.
You cannot handle serious discussions wthout becoming personal. If you ask me you should read your own statements before calling others not worthy.
InsigI am not sure that I read that anywhere that LCA trainers are required to have weapons capability. Please link me. I don’t know much about the trainers requirement.
The old definition of making single engined light planes into dual seater/trainers. Will it be less fuel or less ordnance? Having here the LIGHT combat airraft it means that whatever you select, it will be an offer that degrades the total capacituy of the plane.
InsigMight make sense for the IAF to append these to a new LIFT pool and save on training hours when trainees go to supersonic, much more advanced combat aircraft for the first time after a Hawk. I mean Hawk->LCA LIFT ->Su-30/MiG-29/Mirage/Jaguar may turn out both cheaper and more effective in the long run versus Hawk-> directly to the combat squadrons with fully supersonic aircraft and more advanced avionics (eg radar).
Just sounds so funny. You have to be creative to find a role for LCA. Putting HAWK (which is a superb advanced trainer) and having dual seaters in every section is just a clear sign that there is no role. If you ask me it would be enormous waste of tax. I mean serious. PAF is having Mushaq, K8 and then F7. If F7 moves out then there will be direct move towards JF17. The whole world wants less planes between first flight to operational duty. Or is it worth to have less flight hours/maintenance/fuel costs on the hawk and the extra type rating and another plane worth the effort? I think not. If you look at the unit price of the LCA and the cost of foreign parts in it you will have to recalculate the entire
“advantage”. India might be big but having so many types is hardly called effective. Look at Europe. They all went for same planes for effectivity. They alwork together for F35 for… Exactly. Yet India should go for another not fully tested, not having reached operational status in between role? 😉
Sign In
