JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

[Jihad]

MODS CAN DO BETTER seriously i wish not BUT if india declared war you are going to see the MKI in its true form whatever that form may be tiger or a R.A.T.

You try and lecture mean_bird on the word "MAY" while you are using the word "IF"?
We will see MKI in it's true form? Like you said:

there is a word MAY which says that no one is sure until it happens and mind you block 15 was very long ago

So we won't know for sure untill we see it happen.

 

[zombie:-)]

You try and lecture mean_bird on the word "MAY" while you are using the word "IF"?
We will see MKI in it's true form? Like you said:

So we won't know for sure untill we see it happen.

why are you guys jumpin on me

i used if only for war which is the very reason these birds are meant to be existing and i dont do the declaring wars stuff

 

[Jihad]

why are you guys jumpin on me

i used if only for war which is the very reason these birds are meant to be existing and i dont do the declaring wars stuff

I'm not jumping on you, i'm merely pointing out a little hypocrisy.
Don't feel attacked or whatever, it's all about act and react, you act, and people react to your posts.

 

[zombie:-)]

I'm not jumping on you, i'm merely pointing out a little hypocrisy.
Don't feel attacked or whatever, it's all about act and react, you act, and people react to your posts.

i thank you for pointin out mistakes in my posts but there are lots of hypocrites and they DO bear a green flag on their profile and youmay also point to their mistakes

 

[Jihad]

i thank you for pointin out mistakes in my posts but there are lots of hypocrites and they DO bear a green flag on their profile and youmay also point to their mistakes

I continue to wait and receive the criticism regarding me and my hypocrisy if there is any, from the likes of you, or any other Indian or Pakistani for that matter.
I will always try and judge and be fair for everyone, it's not only because of my flag, don't think i'm so biased, I might be biased at times, but I sure as hell do let my senses take over.

 

[notorious_eagle]

there is a word MAY which says that no one is sure until it happens and mind you block 15 was very long ago

This old Block 15 got a confirmed lock on Mirage2000 , so its not as old as the Indians make it out to be . On the other hand as far as JF17 is concerned, it will engage Indian MKI and M2K in case of a war. MKI's biggest air superiority is its radar, it will be neutralized by the AWACS that Pakistan has purchased . So it will be an even playing field my friend, now it will depend on the pilot's capability and their BVRAAM . I know Indians are still under the assumption that MKI is a God's gift to aviation, but the world is not as black and white as the Indians make it out to be .

 

[Zob]

well Zombie and all my indian collegues see the problem is we keep saying the glss is half full u say its half empty...ur LCA is on the drawing board and i guess will be for a long time....and our JF is a reality and will just keep improving...except this fact and stop telling me that one fine day when LCA is ready it will kick a*s of our JF well let it get ready. and as for SU30MKI....(oooo i am scared to say the name) well if it is such a good send then why is india looking to buy more MRCA planes why not buy 5 more squadrons of ur MKI.well tell u waht i think our JF might be a GIANT killer...well if u can use the WORDS if i can use the word MIGHT...and hell ya i am bias... and i am not a senior member so let me enjoy my biasness...

 

[hj786]

dude i never said jf-17 cant kill a su -30 but in doing so it may not survive to tell the tale

Oh well, PAC will just build some more.

Mig-21, jaguar and your so on are just for defence in Indian skies and act as interceptors and second line of defence.And Besides I think Paf has Mirage ROSE fighters mainly for dropping Nukes and that is why they have not decommissioned them.

Mirage ROSE 1 are air defence interceptors.

 

[tabby]

I think some of the forums become v difficult because of the futuristic projections n planning of the forces.Particularly the..by the time u get this, we will ve that kind of discussion.
Coming to this thread Since LCA s still on drawing board n we dont know all abt Jf it would be inappropriate to discuss it.I request the moderators to discorage threads which have very litle value in imparting knowledge to others n only promote jingoistic proclamations from various sides abt their futuristic abilities..thanks

 

[Munir]

If LCA was better then JF17 (design) then there would be a lot more Mirage 2000 in the world and a lot less F16's. I agree that delta has some advantages like low wingloading, better high speed performance etc etc Surely it would have impressive ITR. But with that it will left without energy (speed) and we all know that you will end up dead. If I have to use my knowledge then I would say that LCA would be a nice intercept plane but it would need some range... I am intrested how it wil perform with 2 BVR and 2 fueltanks. It would surely be intresting to use it for MUD-work. A little vulnerable and low range but still decent when the opponent is closing in. But a delta needs longer runways and shows impressive IR signature...

In pure a2a I would prefer JF17. Less ordance, very agile and ideal for CAP.

 

[hasang20]

regardless of all i want to prove my point JF-17s is a 4.5th Gen Aircraft

List of fighter aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paritosh]

In pure a2a I would prefer JF17. Less ordance, very agile and ideal for CAP.

the LCA is more agile...and maneuverable....it has a better turn rate...the reason for that is the incorporation of 'relaxed static stability'....are you suggesting that the J-10 should have been based on the 'swept-wing' design rather?

 

[hj786]

the LCA is more agile...and maneuverable....it has a better turn rate...

Prove it. I very much doubt you can. LCA may well be more agile and maneuverable, but you state it as a fact when actually, we simply do not know. Ex-PAF fighter pilots here have already confirmed we do not know the full facts about JF.

According to Lao-Tzu, "To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.”

the reason for that is the incorporation of 'relaxed static stability'....are you suggesting that the J-10 should have been based on the 'swept-wing' design rather?

Now prove to me JF-17 is not a relaxed static stability (RSS) design.

JF has large Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX), similar to F-18, Mig-29 and larger than those of F-16, meaning the centre of lift has been moved forward since the re-design after 2003, shown in the fourth prototype. From what I have read, if the centre of lift moved forward far enough to put it ahead of the centre of gravity then JF is a RSS design.
JF has a composite FBW system - digital FBW in pitch axis, stability augmentation in roll, this means JF-17 could well have RSS in the pitch axis at least. It is worth noting that a source has stated that as of 2007, JF-17 has FBW in all axis - this is likely to be true as it has been stated even on the PAC Kamra website and a Janes article that JF-17's composite FBW system was planned to be upgraded to full all-axis FBW system at some point.
I have also read somewhere that originally, Su-27 had a similar composite FBW system design and was designed to be unstable in the longitudinal axis only, so it is certainly possible that JF-17 is unstable at least in the pitch axis - nobody has confirmed nor denied this as far as I know. If anybody has a source on this matter, please post it.

I don't think anybody is suggesting J-10 should have been a cropped delta like F-16, but it is telling that J-10's wing is a not simply a delta but a delta wing with canards. This planform seems to be superior to a simple delta such as, oh I don't know... LCA? If you disagree, why was Mirage 3 upgraded with two small fixed canards in the Mirage 3NG demonstrator in the early 80s? Mirage 2000 was fitted with fixed canards too. Viggen, Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, Lavi and of course J-10 feature moving canards (Viggen's canards had flaps that only moved during landing though, I think). Hard to believe that in a time when all deltas have canards, LCA does not need them. I am no aerodynamics expert though.

One more point - I read somewhere recently that LCA needs improvement of maneuverability at high AoA and that a French company is being consulted to help out with that. If that is true, then your claim that LCA is more maneuverable than JF doesn't hold much water considering JF's LERX (made larger in the fourth prototype re-design, remember) come into play at high AoA, causing a "vortex" to form over the wing and provide additional lift.

 

[mean_bird]

Prove it. I very much doubt you can. LCA may well be more agile and maneuverable, but you state it as a fact when actually, we simply do not know. Ex-PAF fighter pilots here have already confirmed we do not know the full facts about JF.

According to Lao-Tzu, "To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.”


Now prove to me JF-17 is not a relaxed static stability (RSS) design.

JF has large Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX), similar to F-18, Mig-29 and larger than those of F-16, meaning the centre of lift has been moved forward since the re-design after 2003, shown in the fourth prototype. From what I have read, if the centre of lift moved forward far enough to put it ahead of the centre of gravity then JF is a RSS design.
JF has a composite FBW system - digital FBW in pitch axis, stability augmentation in roll, this means JF-17 could well have RSS in the pitch axis at least. It is worth noting that a source has stated that as of 2007, JF-17 has FBW in all axis - this is likely to be true as it has been stated even on the PAC Kamra website and a Janes article that JF-17's composite FBW system was planned to be upgraded to full all-axis FBW system at some point.
I have also read somewhere that originally, Su-27 had a similar composite FBW system design and was designed to be unstable in the longitudinal axis only, so it is certainly possible that JF-17 is unstable at least in the pitch axis - nobody has confirmed nor denied this as far as I know. If anybody has a source on this matter, please post it.

I don't think anybody is suggesting J-10 should have been a cropped delta like F-16, but it is telling that J-10's wing is a not simply a delta but a delta wing with canards. This planform seems to be superior to a simple delta such as, oh I don't know... LCA? If you disagree, why was Mirage 3 upgraded with two small fixed canards in the Mirage 3NG demonstrator in the early 80s? Mirage 2000 was fitted with fixed canards too. Viggen, Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, Lavi and of course J-10 feature moving canards (Viggen's canards had flaps that only moved during landing though, I think). Hard to believe that in a time when all deltas have canards, LCA does not need them. I am no aerodynamics expert though.

One more point - I read somewhere recently that LCA needs improvement of maneuverability at high AoA and that a French company is being consulted to help out with that. If that is true, then your claim that LCA is more maneuverable than JF doesn't hold much water considering JF's LERX (made larger in the fourth prototype re-design, remember) come into play at high AoA, causing a "vortex" to form over the wing and provide additional lift.

In addition to that, the DSI design has reduced the forward weight and shifted the center of gravity backwards making the design highly unstable and highly maneuverability in the pitch axis. Thats also the reason JF-17 has had fbw in the pitch axis even when there was no full fbw in the role axis.

 

[paritosh]

Prove it. I very much doubt you can. LCA may well be more agile and maneuverable, but you state it as a fact when actually, we simply do not know. Ex-PAF fighter pilots here have already confirmed we do not know the full facts about JF.

According to Lao-Tzu, "To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.”


Now prove to me JF-17 is not a relaxed static stability (RSS) design.

JF has large Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX), similar to F-18, Mig-29 and larger than those of F-16, meaning the centre of lift has been moved forward since the re-design after 2003, shown in the fourth prototype. From what I have read, if the centre of lift moved forward far enough to put it ahead of the centre of gravity then JF is a RSS design.
JF has a composite FBW system - digital FBW in pitch axis, stability augmentation in roll, this means JF-17 could well have RSS in the pitch axis at least. It is worth noting that a source has stated that as of 2007, JF-17 has FBW in all axis - this is likely to be true as it has been stated even on the PAC Kamra website and a Janes article that JF-17's composite FBW system was planned to be upgraded to full all-axis FBW system at some point.
I have also read somewhere that originally, Su-27 had a similar composite FBW system design and was designed to be unstable in the longitudinal axis only, so it is certainly possible that JF-17 is unstable at least in the pitch axis - nobody has confirmed nor denied this as far as I know. If anybody has a source on this matter, please post it.

I don't think anybody is suggesting J-10 should have been a cropped delta like F-16, but it is telling that J-10's wing is a not simply a delta but a delta wing with canards. This planform seems to be superior to a simple delta such as, oh I don't know... LCA? If you disagree, why was Mirage 3 upgraded with two small fixed canards in the Mirage 3NG demonstrator in the early 80s? Mirage 2000 was fitted with fixed canards too. Viggen, Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, Lavi and of course J-10 feature moving canards (Viggen's canards had flaps that only moved during landing though, I think). Hard to believe that in a time when all deltas have canards, LCA does not need them. I am no aerodynamics expert though.

One more point - I read somewhere recently that LCA needs improvement of maneuverability at high AoA and that a French company is being consulted to help out with that. If that is true, then your claim that LCA is more maneuverable than JF doesn't hold much water considering JF's LERX (made larger in the fourth prototype re-design, remember) come into play at high AoA, causing a "vortex" to form over the wing and provide additional lift.

that's a long post...point out where the JF-17 scores over the LCA...you are right...it's hard for me to prove...RSS was incorporated to remove the short-falls of the pure delta design.the LCA's thrust/weight ratio is better than that of the JF-17...that should be taken into account as well...and the almost 50% composite material body does allow the LCA the flexibility of making high G turns at high speeds
FBW...incorporated in LCA as well...so lets stick to where the differences occur.
LCA is the smallest plane...it's composite body and and small size with the use of good israeli jammers would definitely provide it significant stealth.the use of canards would impair that...afterall we got the canards installed in the Su-30 mki...why would we miss them on the LCA?