JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

[iceman2009]

I disagree. It IS a capable fighter or PAF wouldn't have developed it. They could have went for an all J-10 and F-16 fleet, but they developed JF instead and are buying 275 of them, increased from 250 we had been hearing last year.

PAF did not develope JF17

It was developed by CHENGDU in china.

PAF provided the money and the specifications.

unless of course you can provide Y TUBE vedios showing flight sims wind tunnels ETC in Pakistan.

YES PAC wil assemble the pl;ane at some stage but this project is the same as india,s huge SU30MKI programme.

SU30MKI a upgraded flanker MRCA was paid for by India but developed by SUKHOI.

As for PAF having 250 JF17 to defend their skies I HOPE your correct

IAF will be a lot happeir facing them rather THEN 250 J10/F16 combo.

Too me the JF17 just looks dated es. in comparison to F16 and the awesome looking J10.

but looks could be deceiving..

 

[hj786]

PAF did not develope JF17
It was developed by CHENGDU in china.
PAF provided the money and the specifications.
unless of course you can provide Y TUBE vedios showing flight sims wind tunnels ETC in Pakistan.
YES PAC wil assemble the pl;ane at some stage but this project is the same as india,s huge SU30MKI programme.

I'll tell you what. YOU prove that Pakistan did nothing to help develop JF-17, THEN you come here and post it. Until then, your posts are unfounded rubbish trying to mislead people, same as your posts that JF-17 is an "inferior 3rd gen Mig-21".

As for PAF having 250 JF17 to defend their skies I HOPE your correct
IAF will be a lot happeir facing them rather THEN 250 J10/F16 combo.

Good. PAF is even happier if InAF under-estimates their new fighter.

Too me the JF17 just looks dated es. in comparison to F16 and the awesome looking J10.
but looks could be deceiving..

You typed "but looks could be decieving" when you realised LCA looks even more dated than Mirage 2000?

 

[iceman2009]

Calm down HJ786 is just my opinion

Re Wind tunnels & flight sims you know exactly wat im talking about..

I don,t need to prove nothing

As long as you be;lieve in the low cost MRCA designed by china FOR PAF USING pakistanni money

JF17 a Chinease plane with a Russian engine

versis

LCA a indian plane with American.israeli tech

i know wat i want !!!!

 

[mean_bird]

LCA a indian plane with American.israeli tech

More like "no one's planes needing everything from everywhere".

 

[blain2]

PAF is going for JF-17 merely because of its cost factor. At about 15 to 20 million dollar a unit, it is the cheapest plane available today. A 4.5th generation fighter aircraft costs anywhere between 60 to 90 million $. 250 of these aircrafts would cost about 20billion$. Pakistan does not have the capacity to buy those things. Morever, Pakistan expects to export 800 JFs. I wonder who will go for these 3rd generation fighter jets at a time when the world powers are investing there money to develop and procure 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft. The only advantage JF has over all other aircrafts is its cost and nothing else.

DO you even understand the difference between a 3rd generation and 4/4.5 generation aircraft? Before making such sweeping statements about this and that, please do some research.

If JF-17 is a 3rd generation aircraft then all of the MKIs in service are nothing but 3.5 generation aircraft.

There is no aircraft in production anywhere in the world that fits the bill for a 3rd gen MR aircraft any longer. All of the aircraft being manufactured are with 4th generation avionics and weapons and beyond. JF-17 is no exception!

 

[zeus]

MK-II is the advancement of the Tejas ,just like Grippen to Grippen NG ,more then 50 MK-I will enter service i IAF before MK-II enters

 

[Hasnain2009]

Why you are talking abt cost?? LCA and JF-17's cost have only difference of $5mn!!
And one thing to note that, china's costs are so cheap, thats mean if india is developing jet in $30mn then china can make equal capable fighter in les then $20mn.

And JF-17 cost with chinese weapons in $15-20mn and LCA's cost with expensive US and israeli avionics is $20-25mn.

And JF-17 with werstern weapons will add cost $8-10mn, that will reach near $30, no you can think what JF-17 will have!!

 

[blain2]

So be it. but my first point still holds true that PAF is going for JF mostly because of its cost factor. And by the way, do you know which jet was the first 4th generation aircraft?-The F-16. And what new did it have- Fly by wire technology. I dont think JF-17 possesses this. And u just cannot produce a 4.5th generation aircraft a such a low cost. Its just like talking about a 10$ laptop. We produced nano a 2000$ car, but it is no where near BMWs.

Fly-be-wire technology is an old thing. All new aircraft have this as does the JF-17. The difference being what kind of FBW technology you are using (older analog vs. digital). JF-17 currently utilizes a mix of analog and digital FBW FCS.

The problem with most Indians is that they really have this misplaced superiority complex when it comes to the JF-17 without even knowing what the aircraft is capable of. It will give the vast majority of the IAF inventory a run for its money when its operational. It would be one thing if PAF needed to operate the type against the USAF. But here we are talking about the IAF. The vast majority of the aircraft are essentially in the 3.5-4.5 generation range. This is where the JF-17 can do very well holding its own.

Secondly, the example of Nano and BMW is not applicable here. First of all, Chinese industrial production is not in the same class as the Indian industrial production (responsible for Nano) and secondly, similar quality controls as the ones in the West but at lower costs can be had in China. A ton of "quality" US companies are getting their manufacturing done in China so not sure why the concerns about low cost = bad quality are pervasive among the Indian community? After all you guys should be well used to even crappier quality given the state of affairs in maintaining the tons of Russian junk in service with your Airforce and Army.

You folks will sit around and put down JF-17 until you have to go up against it. In the meantime we will do what we must to make this platform as capable a MR platform as possible. Not only will this aircraft be very potent, it will integrate capabilities that will ensure that it will maintain its value as a very credible deterrence against the IAF come what may.

 

[blain2]

Why you are talking abt cost?? LCA and JF-17's cost have only difference of $5mn!!
And one thing to note that, china's costs are so cheap, thats mean if india is developing jet in $30mn then china can make equal capable fighter in les then $20mn.

And JF-17 cost with chinese weapons in $15-20mn and LCA's cost with expensive US and israeli avionics is $20-25mn.

And JF-17 with werstern weapons will add cost $8-10mn, that will reach near $30, no you can think what JF-17 will have!!

Its a simple issue of efficiency...producing the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. Chinese can do a much better job of it thus they can lower their costs. Indians have to rely on a lot of outside support to get the LCA up. Obviously the cost will be more. The original LCA was supposed to be in the same league as the FC-1 in terms of costs (they were to replace Mig-21s 10 years ago). What changed was not by design. It was as a result of program mismanagement, underestimation resulting in cost overruns, integration challenges leading to involvement of outsiders and western components resulting in higher cost. Replacing the backbone Fishbed inventory will require a large number of aircraft. Anything beyond $30 million will become too cost prohibitive for the IAF. So some humility and resetting of the targets is bound to happen.

 

[paritosh]

Why are you discussing stealth when LCA is not stealthy? Just because the designers may have took measures to reduce RCS, it doesn't become a stealth fighter. In any case, you have absolutely no figures to prove that LCA's RCS is lower than that of a damn airliner, you're just here shouting "LCA has 50% composites and jammers so it's a 50% stealthy fighter" (the stuff claimed by the manufacturer than exaggerated on places like BR) even though articles from neutral and reliable sources have proved otherwise.
Boeing 787 Composite Fuselage
By your argument, the 787 is stealthy too! LOL.

i just said that the RCS of LCA would definitely be lower than that of JF-17.prove me wrong if you can instead of shooting from the mouth.

 

[blain2]

i just said that the RCS of LCA would definitely be lower than that of JF-17.prove me wrong if you can instead of shooting from the mouth.

Circular argument. How can one prove you wrong when you give no figures? Secondly how do you know that LCA's RCS will be lower than that of the JF-17 when the two aircraft have not been evaluated in the same manner? Have you seen some JF-17 specific figures to state this? PAF is also talking RAM and already has DSI on the intakes to curb some of the RCS so who knows what the final RCS would look like? Also you are basing your claim on an unknown. While its possible as to what you say, I do not think the facts are there to establish this.

 

[Contrarian]

I agree with you blain. But i still have a grouse. JF-17 has zero composites used. Its an all metal/alloy body. That has its significant disadvantages.

Lets see if this changes if CAC redesigns JF-17 in the next phase as many members have mentioned here.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I agree with you blain. But i still have a grouse. JF-17 has zero composites used. Its an all metal/alloy body. That has its significant disadvantages.

Lets see if this changes if CAC redesigns JF-17 in the next phase as many members have mentioned here.

you need to go through this thread and find out that JF-17 is not only metal alloy body! the DSI are composites and so are some of the sensitive edges on JF-17. mean_bird has summed it up very well.

 

[paritosh]

Circular argument. How can one prove you wrong when you give no figures? Secondly how do you know that LCA's RCS will be lower than that of the JF-17 when the two aircraft have not been evaluated in the same manner? Have you seen some JF-17 specific figures to state this? PAF is also talking RAM and already has DSI on the intakes to curb some of the RCS so who knows what the final RCS would look like? Also you are basing your claim on an unknown. While its possible as to what you say, I do not think the facts are there to establish this.

lets talk about the obvious first.lets talk about the things on which the RCS of an aircraft depends...size,shape,material used
LCa is the smallest jet...it's has the maximum amount of composites in it's frame....a canard less delta airframe.now these are obvious facts aren't they?
so based on these we can argue the case of JF-17 v/s LCa in terms of RCS.

 

[paritosh]

you need to go through this thread and find out that JF-17 is not only metal alloy body! the DSI are composites and so are some of the sensitive edges on JF-17. mean_bird has summed it up very well.

are the composites used more than the 45% in the LCA?if it would have been then the fact would have been made well known.