JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 2]

[DANGER-ZONE]

There are 3 possible station currently:

thanx alot,u made it.uv solvd my problem,thank u so much dear.
regards

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Targeting POD is normally installed the middle

thank u sir,but Tempest II had done the whole job for me.
but just confirm that the pic is original,and jf-17 can load all these wepons in this way.
regards

 

[Tempest II]

thank u sir,but Tempest II had done the whole job for me.
but just confirm that the pic is original,and jf-17 can load all these wepons in this way.
regards

Yes the loadout diagram is from PAC - IDEAS 2009. All I did was add the lines to make it easier to read. YES, THOSE WEAPON LOADS ARE OFFICIAL!

 

[Gucci Juice]

Would help you if you did some research before posting.

I don't want to turn this into a vs thread. I have posted enough material on both on the JF-17 vs LCA thread.

Just a few facts
- LCA is heavier than JF-17
- LCA does NOT have an AESA radar
- LCA currently has limited weapons load (less than its intended)
- LCA hasn't been able to pull more than 5/6 g
- LCA has inferior range than JF-17
- LCA has fallen short of IAF AoA parameter.
- JF-17 uses far advanced MIL-STD 1760 databus for weapons that allows real time processed information for the pilot. Its SHUD and all glass cockpit provides the pilot with a much better situational awareness than even the Su-30MKI.

Prove to me LCA has better avionics. Does LCA has 360° MAWS coverage? Does it provide as much processed information on HUD? Does it uses 1760 bus? Does it have dedicated EW suite housing or will it be using up one of its hardpoints?

-dont use wikipedia, ada's site claims empty weight of 5500 kg for lca and pac site claims empty weight of 6400 kg

-look at the Stockholm peace research institute site which says 5 elta 2052 aesa's were delivered

-yes the weapons load is limited due to thrust shortfall, but that doesn't mean jf-17 can carry more since the lca weighs less and has the same thrust engine

-5 or 6g part i dont know but at the 09 airshow it did some pretty good maneuvers.

-again dont use wikipedia for range, i think its unknown for both planes but the lca has flown 1000 km nonstop so far idk about jf-17.

-again they have high standards for aoa and other things

-mil std 1760 is for weapons and is just an add on to the previous one nothing special.

-the mki has 2 people who man it each with 4 mfd's i doubt the jf-17 has as much awareness as the mki, its huge and can carry loads of stuff.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well just one point... the Elta hasn't been delivered.

 

[Arsalan]

-dont use wikipedia, ada's site claims empty weight of 5500 kg for lca and pac site claims empty weight of 6400 kg

-look at the Stockholm peace research institute site which says 5 elta 2052 aesa's were delivered

-yes the weapons load is limited due to thrust shortfall, but that doesn't mean jf-17 can carry more since the lca weighs less and has the same thrust engine

-5 or 6g part i dont know but at the 09 airshow it did some pretty good maneuvers.

-again dont use wikipedia for range, i think its unknown for both planes but the lca has flown 1000 km nonstop so far idk about jf-17.

-again they have high standards for aoa and other things

-mil std 1760 is for weapons and is just an add on to the previous one nothing special.

-the mki has 2 people who man it each with 4 mfd's i doubt the jf-17 has as much awareness as the mki, its huge and can carry loads of stuff.

can you back up all thihs from some reliable source? this will be helpfull indeed!

regards!

 

[Munir]

I am looking forward to see the pretty good maneuvres of the LCA. Show me the pudding Gucci...

 

[mean_bird]

-dont use wikipedia, ada's site claims empty weight of 5500 kg for lca and pac site claims empty weight of 6400 kg

-look at the Stockholm peace research institute site which says 5 elta 2052 aesa's were delivered

-yes the weapons load is limited due to thrust shortfall, but that doesn't mean jf-17 can carry more since the lca weighs less and has the same thrust engine

-5 or 6g part i dont know but at the 09 airshow it did some pretty good maneuvers.

-again dont use wikipedia for range, i think its unknown for both planes but the lca has flown 1000 km nonstop so far idk about jf-17.

-again they have high standards for aoa and other things

-mil std 1760 is for weapons and is just an add on to the previous one nothing special.

-the mki has 2 people who man it each with 4 mfd's i doubt the jf-17 has as much awareness as the mki, its huge and can carry loads of stuff.

Man, I don't feeling like going over all again to explain everything. Your facts are wrong on almost all accounts. I have talked about this in greater detail with all the links in the JF-17 vs LCA thread.

Here's the thread : http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/21301-jf-17-has-edge-over-lca-pak-officials-10.html

Please read through it. Post 137 on page 10 is a good place to start and read through till the end.

It will help clear up all your misconceptions about LCA's weight and supposed IAF great standards.

And no I am not quoting wiki, lol.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

question is dat,is wikk gives wrong information?

 

[Keysersoze]

Danger zone it is "That" not "dat"

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Danger zone it is "That" not "dat"

sir there r other people too using short form words n even different languages,i think it is not in the rules.people can understand word like u,im,ur,dat,r etc easily.
forgiv me if im rong and dont ban me
regards

 

[araz]

sir there r other people too using short form words n even different languages,i think it is not in the rules.people can understand word like u,im,ur,dat,r etc easily.
forgiv me if im rong and dont ban me
regards

Sir
It is better to use standard English for discussion on serious fora. Look at all the serious fora and see how they discourage use of slang and short forms. Plus it is easier for old ones like us to understand. To be honest I have often pointed out this fact and the use of Urdu to other members as well.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[Keysersoze]

sir there r other people too using short form words n even different languages,i think it is not in the rules.people can understand word like u,im,ur,dat,r etc easily.
forgiv me if im rong and dont ban me
regards

Danger zone it is in the rules. And the reason for it is that it makes the fora look a little more professional and not just a bunch of teenagers. Frankly it would improve language skills as well.

Now you have been warned. So I would take it on board, and spend the few seconds extra to write a world correctly.

 

[Gucci Juice]

Man, I don't feeling like going over all again to explain everything. Your facts are wrong on almost all accounts. I have talked about this in greater detail with all the links in the JF-17 vs LCA thread.

Here's the thread : http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/21301-jf-17-has-edge-over-lca-pak-officials-10.html

Please read through it. Post 137 on page 10 is a good place to start and read through till the end.

It will help clear up all your misconceptions about LCA's weight and supposed IAF great standards.

And no I am not quoting wiki, lol.

ok than i believe u on the maneuverability part, that should be fixed in a few years. but overweight by 1.5 tons? wow that's a lot that means that the lca should be 4000 kg? that's less than a trainer aircraft (the hawk weighs only 4400 kg). i think they will reduce the weight by 300 kg max since this is the 2nd a/c they have built they dont know weather they should make some parts thinner or thicker and they just kept them thicker to be safe.

but everything else i said is a fact although the aesa hasn't been integrated but the fact that it has been ordered means it will be and when the 1st squadron is raised in 2010-2011 all of the lca's will have aesa, and the aesa alone is a potent ew system, that combined with jammers, composites, and a small size should give it less rcs than jf-17, and also another ew will help its survivability. not to mention better avionics.

so basically the jf-17 scores over the lca in close range combat and maneuverability and the lca scores in bvr combat and strike thanks to its aesa, ew systems, and better avionics.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Danger zone it is in the rules. And the reason for it is that it makes the fora look a little more professional and not just a bunch of teenagers. Frankly it would improve language skills as well.

Now you have been warned. So I would take it on board, and spend the few seconds extra to write a world correctly.

first of all im not a teenager frankly,well ill try to write in full form.iv tried hard to get rid of it,but not succeded yet.it happened once that i wrote the shortforms in my exam
well what ever,tell me that i have heard from many people that wikkipedia doesnt provides exact information.is the information about jf-17 there,is totally wrong or a little bit wrong?