Just Yash
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 0
initially it was 8 per year and was being said that it can be increased to 12 per year..
We need to do batter than that, if we also want to export this fighter..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
initially it was 8 per year and was being said that it can be increased to 12 per year..
initially it was 8 per year and was being said that it can be increased to 12 per year..
^^ 100 is not PRETTY SMALL, however its not big also...dont forget that LCA is somehow increasingly becoming test bed for techs which will be used in AMCA..
and it will take atleast 6-7 years to produce 100 LCA MK-2..who knows we might be testing AMCA by then...
Why is it not big? With the 40 MK1 we would compete PAFs present orders for 50 block 1 and 100 block 2 JF 17. What comes beyond them is hard to tell.
For example, everybody is thinking about AMCA, a multi role twin engine strike fighter. But does IAF really need another twin engine multi role fighter? We alrady will have an heavy class, multi role fighter. The Aura UCAV is maint on stealth and strikes, so be it for air superiority, multi role capbability, or preemptive strikes, there seems to be no futher needs, which leads me to one question:
" Wouldn't a stealhy 5. gen LCA MK3 be a better choice? It can take over the interception and CAS role, instead of just another twin engine fighter?
Why is it not big? With the 40 MK1 we would compete PAFs present orders for 50 block 1 and 100 block 2 JF 17. What comes beyond them is hard to tell.
For example, everybody is thinking about AMCA, a multi role twin engine strike fighter. But does IAF really need another twin engine multi role fighter? We alrady will have an heavy class, multi role fighter. The Aura UCAV is maint on stealth and strikes, so be it for air superiority, multi role capbability, or preemptive strikes, there seems to be no futher needs, which leads me to one question:
" Wouldn't a stealhy 5. gen LCA MK3 be a better choice? It can take over the interception and CAS role, instead of just another twin engine fighter?
Why is it not big? With the 40 MK1 we would compete PAFs present orders for 50 block 1 and 100 block 2 JF 17. What comes beyond them is hard to tell.
For example, everybody is thinking about AMCA, a multi role twin engine strike fighter. But does IAF really need another twin engine multi role fighter? We alrady will have an heavy class, multi role fighter. The Aura UCAV is maint on stealth and strikes, so be it for air superiority, multi role capbability, or preemptive strikes, there seems to be no futher needs, which leads me to one question:
" Wouldn't a stealhy 5. gen LCA MK3 be a better choice? It can take over the interception and CAS role, instead of just another twin engine fighter?
plz do not compare iaf to paf ....... iaf is already much better than paf ..... we must see the chinese threat !!!! thats why i said 100 lca's is a pretty small....
Wats the engine which would be used in lca? and wats its thrust?
plz do not compare iaf to paf ....... iaf is already much better than paf ..... we must see the chinese threat !!!! thats why i said 100 lca's is a pretty small....
lca mk1 uses fe 404in20 engines ... but iaf is not happy with the thrust ... so lca mk2 version which will come with improved avionics , aesa radar and a 95-100kn class engine .... for which contenders(99 engines) are ej200 and fe 414 engines ...ej200 also has tvc on offer but is expensive too thus rising the lca cost !!! m88-kaveri hybrid is also on offer !! which maybe used on further lca's !
^^ ha how typical...bring 50 yrs. old result which does not matter a bit...
you keep dreaming and live in the past..