bharatThe speed of the HF-III is said to be over Mach 2, probably M2.5.
bharatBring_it_on, create another thread, this is an LCA thread. I will be happy to reply if such a thread is created.
bharatBring_it_on..
Why did u include the f-16 c/d when the f-16 e/f are available and will be operationally flying before the LCA.
The F-16E/F isn’t godly, the only edge it has over the current fighters of its class is the AESA antenna for the APG-80. The EW suite (RWR, ISRT, Litening, Chaff), Cockpit, Engine, etc are not superior to the fighters of its class. One might ask, how does this relate to the thread title? Simple answer, if the LCA is inferior to the “Western” fighters then the LCA would not make sense.
I am just proving otherwise. 😀
BTW, does anyone know when BRF is coming up?
bharatwell on aforum we discuss according to opinions combined with the known facts to that person. range/payload/altitude dont make a aircraft superior alone as u know its the overall combo. i wont go into comparing LCA v ANohter ac anymore as we have seen it it will bring in again a flame war (what u call it).
The LCA design isnt obselete. i dont think the design is obselete, just saying its not all that new either. no harm in further improving already proven excisting designs. its not the way like india’s LCA is the first to have a “double delta” config as some are trying to bring in our minds. i wouldnt call it a breakthrough design config, that is what i am saying.
furthermore the cockpit layout is very impressive. although the number of MFD isnt a indication of how advanced an aircraft is. But if it brings the required information in a good way, situaltional awareness will be good. and that is certainly one of the major plus point of this fighter then. is this the final cockpit design ?
Thank You, this would mean that one must not state that the LCA is inferior or superior to the Gripen, M2k, F-16, because all here have been successful in proving that.
As for the cockpit layout, the current TD-1s and TD-2s, still use the Sextant LCD/MFDs. The LCA will eventually the CSIO MFD which is offers clearly picture quality, less noise, and is cheaper. The final layout will look a lot more cleaner than the Cockpit pics you see today. FYI, the MFDs are actually re-configurable, and it is a 100% digital.
bharatHarry: I understand.
Anyways,
for some people:
[…][B]I[B] highly doubt if the performance combined (Avionics/Shape/Materials) will be anything special or better then the latest F16C/D/I /grippen series more likely comparable to the FC-1 of china and pakistan, but for india it will be enough to fill up the numbers needed. so basicly a good job on the part of india.
I intentionally highlighted “I” because it is YOUR opinion. To make such a comment it will require some facts.
Why is the Gripen superior to the LCA? One cannot say it is European, tell us the specific advantages.
Why is the F-16C/D (Same thing, but D is just a double seat variant) than the LCA?
Include: Performance (Range, Payload, and Altitude), Design (Why is the design obselete? Is the F-16XL obselete because it uses the Cranked Arrow-Delta design?), and Avionics (Radar, EW, etc).
Why is the FC-1 on par with the LCA?
PS: I hope this isn’t considered a flame either.
bharatGoldenDragon
How about the launch rails?
PS. is there any definitive report/article about FC-1’s empty weight. I have also seen 6,400+ figures. Also how about its ferry range. Brochure says 3,000Km while recent articles have been mentioning 3,500Km for jf-17???
The FC-1 uses the RD-93 engine, not even the RD-33K has such spc. Since the JF-17 is larger than a Gripen, and also has a 2,300 Litres payload, how could it have a ferry range of 3000km? The Gripen is much lighter, has the Ge-404 (better spc), and has a larger internal fuel capacity yet it only has a 3000km ferry range.
bharatSince this SD-10 is claimed to be superior to the AIM-120A/B and the Mica. I wonder does it have DSP? Smokeless motor? What about ECCM capability? This is quiet surprising that the SD-10 can match the best especially when their only source of help is from Russia (whom does not have such level of ECCM capability either). Does anyone have the size and weight of the SD-10?
bharatAPG-66(V)2 is no slouch by the way. You’re talking MLU standards here that includes new modular mission computer, improved range, air to air mode that includes AMRAAM, various air to ground modes that includes stuff like the Harpoon and the Maverick.
It’s newer and probably better than most APG-68s except for APG-68(V)9 or an MLU’ed APG-68(V)5.
The Grifo-2000s other competition in the F-16 upgrade market is the ELTA 2032, which is no slouch. So this is at a very high standard.
I get the impression that the RC-400 is a mini me version of the RDY-2 radar.
This forum is so different so I am just gonna reply to this post.
You said that the Grifo S-7 has 23 modes, to prove that the Grifo S-7 does not lack multi-targets tracing and attacking capability. However working modes does not justify that the Grifo S-7 has multi-targets tracking and attacking capability.
Simply do a google search.
BTW that tripod source quotes Indian strategic review, a weekly magazine from institute of strategic reasearch and analysis.
Do I really care if it is Indian? I just need a more proper source, has there been any press releases from Thales about a RC-400 being an option for the JF-17?
bharatCertainly they are impressive in the field of radars and I am not doubting that.
I am getting feel that many believe the Grifo S-7 is a RC-400 level radar? Remember it is stated on “numerous” sources that the Grifo 2000 will be suitable replacement for the early F-16 with the APG-66 radar, and the same applies for the RC 400. It seems like the Grifo S-7 had a similiar purpose of the 2000, and that is to replace the older radars. However it doesn’t seem like a competition between the RC-400 and S-7 for FC-1 radar makes any sense and would be like the RDY vs RBEU.
BTW, that user that stated numerous sites mentioned that RC-400 is an option, can you provide me a source other than the Venik’s website (Russian one) or the tripod one.
bharatOriginally posted by phrozenflame
The Engine will be licence built by Liyang Machinery Corporation in China.
and GD there is no point in discussing further, I mean I remember how everyone told us no FBW no FBW, but see…its just a matter of time..we told them this before..we tell them this now ;)..when they’ll see in PLAAF..they’ll beleive
No FBW… I thought many agreed that the FBW, and a digital duel FBW like what is mentioned on SinoDefence.
bharatOriginally posted by Arthur
Uhh… don’t be too enthusiastic about Venik’s site, PLA. While he does a reasonable job in copy-pasting news, Venik himself is by far a reliable source. His crap concerning Allied losses over Yugoslavia is of mythical proportions, and he has ignored negative articles on Russian and Chinese gear more than once.
That does make sense, no wonder all the forum rumours are being mentioned on that site.
Now it makes alot more sense. 😀
bharatGet your reality check because the J-10—already in mass production and in operational service—is intended to be the front line fighter. It just needs to build up its numbers, since it started only late like going into service last year, while the Flankers has been with China in operation for over a decade.
Hey! I never said the J-10 was not in mass production, just looking at the title will tell one that. Also as in frontline I mean a F-15 in the US fighter fleet, so wouldn’t it be the Flankers?
bharatI decided to move the discussion here, since it is a FC-1 thread.
Originally posted by vikasrehman
As SD-10 pointed out…this is J-10 thread so lets not discuss such issues/comparisons here.PS. There r numerous sites which mention RC-400, supersky ranger, Grifo S7 and a russian radar (perhaps kopyo?) to b the main contenders for FC-1’s radar. OTOH, u raised the point…so dont try to push the burden of proof to me please.
I found a Russian source stating the RC 400 is being considered, but than why choose between that and the FIAR Grifo S-7? Then again some are stating that Sino-Defence made an error so I probably emailing the webbies to fix the problem would do the job.
Also one claimed a 102km of the RC-400, I only picked this up from a Tripod sources, does anyone have another source?
bharatOriginally posted by SD-10
So is this the credibility that they cannot differentitate?Have they got in operational service? and what led you to believe
that China phased Array is a Joke?
. It takes minimum 3 Years of training to operationalize AWAC. Read the bottom part of the page.
http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?postid=326429#post326429I am not even bothering to reply to RVV-AE-PD. I have already
put it in my SD-10 thread.
The PHALCON uses AESA, the A-50U/M uses PESA, and it was the variant claimed to be superior to the E-3 with the slotted array antenna.
bharatAre you guys sure the RD-93 is the best of the series?
The Fulcrum-K has the RD-33 Series 3M engine, so where does this RD-93 stand?
Lastly, is the Russians actually going to export the RD-93 unless the FC-1 will recieve the Tianshan-21 engine.
Sign In
