BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
I have already explained what my point is but you guys are shooting left and right but not aiming the at the red zone.Batman,
I am surprised by some of your views. Maybe you can clarify a few points in there
Hands on experience and improving quality are different issues and I’m not discussing hands on experience but exposure which lead to learning. For design a comprehensive exposure is basic element and this is where the difference lies in JF-17 success and LCA failure. More exposure is even better.- Why do you think Gripen would have "helped improve the quality" of JF-17. What exactly would have improved by getting the Gripen that is lacking now? and how would getting a gripen improve it? considering we fly F-16s, even the latest blk 60version (for UAE) to have enough hands on experience.
Where as we are going into manufacturing phase there is lot to learn in quality and process etc. in addition to design issues.
Lot of geniun process (air warfare, design and engineering) know how is behind Gripen design as is behind F-16 but swedes lead in netcentric approach. i.e. using erieye in tendom with a/c. I believe, we could have exploited the erieye better with Gripen and perhaps complete package have been bit cheaper.
We are buying FC20 so we need delta wing for basic high altitude attack roles and super cruise reason but lets consider two possibilities one FC-20 and otheGripen inspired JF-17....what is better for us a 25 million dollar self designed/built canard delta JF-17 or 40 million dollar FC-20? Later comes with different engine, complete new design, electronics etc. in earlier case future development may have supplimented both, which in later case is not possible.- Why do you think JF-17 should go the Delta path? If we wanted a plane with a delta wing, we have have gone with it in the first place. The Chinese had experience with J10 so it would even have been easier.
In case of going for FC-20 it should have been complete Chinese….all what they need is littile more time to get even to that western stuff which we are fusing in it today…… too much for the idea of ''sanction proof''
I agree PAF requirement is a light weight fighter and this is why they built JF-17… as so and neither i'm subsituting it with Gripen and vice versa. I'm saying…. in parallel with the development of light weight JF-17 we should have re-engineered a heavier canard delta wing JF-17 for the required supplement and than we should have decided if we needed FC-20 or not. in such approach aquisition of Gripen may have put us in comfortable seat with lot of hidden advantages.- FC-20 is part of a hi-low mix. It is there to supplement the light weight workhorse, the JF-17. If we wanted JF-17 to be a medium weight fighter, we would have easily put that in the requirement or maybe just try to become partners in the J10 program in the first place.
Sure, we need finances for every thing and me suggesting Gripen instead of FC-20 is not out of proportion or neither have i mentioned any technical limitations of FC-20.Finally, you missed the point that inducting a new plane requires lots of efforts and finances. Even the blk 52, of which we already operate the F-16 for decades, needs training, maintenance facility, etc that is costing us. How do you justify such associated cost with just one squadron of a plane that comes with the same strings as a F-16 and is probably lower in capability?
One thing i will say for certain that PAF have to allocate much more huma resource to finally have FC-20 as compare to what we may have needed to have Gripen.
If we require efforts for F-16 blk xx we should have stop pursuing it from long. I think this is the hidden advantage with F-16…….that we have the essential training and infrastructure but again this is not the discussion and i love F-16 and love to see more of them but the discussion here is aquiring Gripen in begining of 2000 and following approach of PAF in reference to FC-20 and perhaps more.