An Alternative comparative analysis : LCA VS JF-17

[desiman]

The aim of this essay is to explore the relative merits of the two essentially equivalent designs on a “single-system” basis. In doing so we must bear in mind that an aircraft is deployed as part of a wider warfighting system and therefore aircraft/weapons data, although a factor, is not in itself a sound basis for assessing combat capability. However, comparing aircraft performance, capabilities and suchlike, remains of great interest to the airpower enthusiast and amateur strategist.

One problem with this type of analysis surrounds the validity of the data, mostly gleamed from the web. Patriots embellish capabilities, estimations are optimistic and most data is presented out of context. But by browsing widely and trying to home in on more credible sources, we hope not be too far off.

It is also useful to compare them with equivalent aircraft worldwide, particularl Taiwan’s Ching Kuo fighter, South Korea’s proposed F-50 Golden Eagle (dedicated fighter variant of T-50/A-50) and Sweden’s superb Gripen aircraft. The latter is perhaps the benchmark, and as our analysis will show, is generally superior to either design.

Executive overview
Neither fighter is likely to be particularly outstanding. Whilst the LCA is generally credited with having superior performance and weapons systems, the FC-1 carries the price advantage. Neither fighter is likely reduce their respective airforce’s dependency on foreign systems for key combat capabilities as much as would have been hoped at their inception. In the case of both India and Pakistan, better solutions could have been obtained “off the self”, and indeed this is happening.

BVR capability
Both aircraft will have an up-to-date beyond visual range capability. Whilst nothing new for the IAF, it represents a quantum leap for Pakistan who currently makes do with Sparrows, it’s Mirage and Chinese fighter’s having no BVR capability whatsoever.

Whilst we know that Pakistani FC-1s will probably be equipped with the SD-10 missile (even if it is not up to PAF standards, there seems little choice), more uncertainty surrounds the LCA’s fit. It is generally supposed that it will employ the Astra BVR missile currently in development. This is despite India already buying AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder, Derby and MICA systems. Whilst the Astra is generally claimed to posess Adder like capabilities, it would be a great surprise if it actually lives up to such expectations. It will certainly be bigger and heavier, and probably less ‘deadly’ than either the Derby or MICA. This begs the question: why not simply switch to either Derby or MICA? It would probably be quicker and cheaper to use these highly credible foreign designs, and have less impact on aircraft performance.

Having just assassinated the Astra, let me turn to the SD-10. In common with its India counterpart, it is notionally an advanced BVR missile. It probably features much Adder technology including the seeker, although speculation of anti-radiation seekers persists. It reportedly has a lock-on jam capability which is a good feature, although unremarkable today. Again it is bigger, heavier and almost certainly less ‘deadly’ than the likes of AMRAAM, Derby and MICA. Pakistan now has access to AMRAAM (albeit export models), so the SD-10 will not be all that even in PAF service.

So what we have is lightweight fighters equipped with comparatively bulky BVR missiles…

Both countries (Pakistan and India) ought to have learnt from Taiwan’s IDF (“Ching Kuo”) program. Similarly motivated by the effect of sanctions, the Taiwanese sought to develop an indigenous fighter and equip it with indigenous missiles analogous with AMRAAM. The Taiwanese missile is called the Skysword II. Although few specific performance details have been released, presumably because they are embarrassing, it is almost certainly less effective than AMRAAM. Like Pakistan and India, sanctions faded and Taiwan was able to purchase Western fighters/missiles (Pakistan buying F-16Cs with AMRAAM, India buying Mirage 2000-5s with MICA….). Taiwan jumped at the opportunity, cutting Ching Kuo production (greatly increasing effective unit cost) and brought both F16s with AMRAAM and Mirage 2000-5s with MICA. What is more, it wasn’t until several years after the introduction of the Ching Kuo that the Skysword II could be described as an operational reality.

The only solace for the Ching Kuo progam is that at least the Skysword IIs are carried semi-recessed, thus reducing performance deterioration, something neither the FC-1 nor LCA has employed. Given the Ching Kuo’s somewhat lackluster performance to start with, it’s hardly worth partying about.

By comparison, other lightweight fighters are way ahead; the F-50 will almost certainly carry AMRAAM and the Gripen can carry AMRAAM, MICA and R-Darter (South African BVR missile believed to borrow from Derby), not to mention the Meteor when it enters service. The ramjet powered Meteor is a further quantum leap of missile capability.

Both the LCA and FC-1 are likely to be equipped with credible X-band pulse Doppler multi-mode radars. The LCA’s is indigenous, which may cause delays and cost overruns (what system doesn’t these days??? But crucially, the radar is still in development). Like the Astra program, India’s indigenous radar is generally reported optimistically, yet the end result seems questionable. The FC-1 has at least an off-the-shelf radar fit, presumed to be the Italian FIAR Grifo S-7 in PAF service. This series of radar is already produced in Pakistan for the J-7M aircraft. It was conceived as an upgrade replacement for baseline APG-67 which equips most export F-16s, so we can safely assume that it outperforms most models of APG-67. However, it is said to lack multi-target tracking/engagement capability, which obviously detracts from basic air-defense efficiency.

Both radar systems are a generation behind the leading European, Russian and American systems now entering service. By comparison, the Gripen, notionally a lightweight fighter, is complimented for its network-centric avionics and represents a major capability step-up compared to either the LCA or FC-1.

Dogfight capability
The traditional strongpoint of the lightweight fighter was good old-fashioned WVR engagement. Both the LCA and FC-1 represent a performance improvement over the F-5E, Mig-21 and even F-16A generation of lightweight fighters. The FC-1 is credited with an +8.5g limit which is a shade behind the LCA’s +9g, implying that the LCA is probably more agile.

The FC-1 in PAF service is likely to be equipped with AIM-9P Sidewinder and/or Chinese PL-9 missiles. The AIM-9P in particular is not particularly good by today’s standards, lacking many of the features considered standard for current generation fighters, such as helmet mounted sighting and high off-boresight capability. Idle speculation that the FC-1 will now be equipped with AIM-9X advanced WVR missiles now that the US has lifted sanctions seems unlikely in the initial operations of the FC-1 in PAF service. If AIM-9X is deployed, priority will surly go to the F-16Cs expected to enter service. The PL-9 is on paper a step above the AIM-9P with a high off-boresight capability, high agility, compatibility with helmet mounted sighting and suchlike. However, it does not appear to be a runaway success, since China’s flagship J-10 fighter is consistently seen carrying PL-8 missiles and Janes Defense Review has expressed the opinion that it is very short ranged.

The LCA will probably be equipped with AA-11 Archer WVR missiles. Whilst not as cutting edge as they were when they first entered service, but nonetheless features helmet mounted sighting, high off-boresight lock-on and carries a distinct performance advantage over the AIM-9P and likely PL-9. If Israel sells the incredibly lethal Python 4 or 5 missiles to India, the LCA could well jump further ahead.

Getting back to the AIM-9P issue, it is worth noting that most Gripens also carry similar Sidewinder models, whilst South Africa apparently deploys the promising A-Dartar. But Swedish Gripen’s a slated to get the next generation IRIS-T missile which is likely far more capable than either AIM-9P or PL-9. The F-50 looks set to get AIM-9X, though the Ching Kuo is stuck with the modest Skysword I Sidewinder copy.

Both aircraft are equipped with the reliable but unremarkable twin GSh-23mm cannon.

Weapons load
On paper the LCA appears to have a marginally greater weapons load than the FC-1 although the round figure of 4000kg appears an estimate.

Perhaps a better indicator is the thrust to weight ratio. The higher the figure, the greater the margin for bolting on various bits of kit, such as missiles, with (simplistically) less effect on performance. To calculate the thrust to weight ratio I’ve used the maximum thrust with afterburner and the normal take-off weight. Both come out with a 0.91 ratio. That’s not bad, but a far cry from the >1 (i.e. more thrust than weight) claimed by the F-15 and Su-27 families of aircraft. So, no prospect of impressive “cobra maneuvers” at airshows from these two.

A key factor in translating on-paper thrust to weight ratios to actual combat performance is the likely weapons fit. If we assume that both aircraft will be deployed with two BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles, we can calculate the weight of the typical in-combat fit (keeping the fuel load factor in the back of our minds):
FC-1 = 2 x AIM-9P and 2 x SD-10 = 520kg
LCA = 2 x AA-11 and 2 x Astra = 518kg
Even-Stevens, although if the FC-1 carries the heavier PL-9 in place of the AIM-9P, the weight goes up noticeably to 590kg. By comparison, weapon loads of four Derby missiles weighs 484kg and four MICAs just 360kg.

It should be noted that I used the GE F404-F2J3 turbofan rated at 18,097 lbst in my calculations for the LCA. The as yet unproven Kavari engine will supposedly develop 20,000 lbst. That would increase the thrust to weight ratio to close to that of the Gripen. However, 20,000 lbst is only an estimate, and without credence, I discounted it from my calculations.

Cost
Indigenous fighter programs are on the face of it expensive. Taiwan’s Ching Kuo was supposed to have a fly-away cost of $24m (US) in 1994. But with the limited production run (intended 420 down to 130), it is likely far higher than that. The LCA is often quoted at about $26m (US) but that seems grossly optimistic, as its detractors constantly remind us. The FC-1 apparently carries a $15m (US) price tag which again seems optimistic. However, Chinese fighters are generally quite cheap, so the FC-1 will almost certainly be significantly cheaper than the LCA. If China does purchase the FC-1 (as the JF-17), as now seems likely, then costs alt to be reduced, although whether Pakistan will benefit from this economy of scale is uncertain.

However, the LCA as a potential export market, provided the Kavari engine materializes. The FC-1 could be exported by China, thus reducing unit cost, but its prospects are limited due to its Russian engine; Russia apparently attaching the condition that the FC-1 is not marketed against the similarly engined Mig-29 Fulcrum.

But for about $30m (US) you can get Gripen (whether the Swedes would sell to either India or Pakistan now is open to debate).

Conclusion
Neither aircraft is as impressive as many of the patriots would like us to believe. In the quest for increased self-sufficiency in arms, both Pakistan and India are paying the price attached to indigenous development of fighter aircraft; a trend mirrored in Taiwan’s Ching Kuo and Japan’s F-2 programs. South Korea’s Golden Eagle program proves that such projects are possible, but in many respects the Golden Eagle is unadventurous. And the rewards are correspondingly modest.

The real weakness of both aircraft is likely to be the missile systems. Whilst notionally “current”, they are unlikely to outperform off the shelf systems widely available.

http://www.****************/forums/air-force-aviation/alternative-comparative-analysis-lca-vs-jf-17-fc-1-a-4272/

A very interesting and unbiased article, thought ill share it with you guys, hope you like it, please feel free to comment

 

[desiman]

FC-1 "Chao Qi" / JF-17 Thunder

The FC-1 "Chao Qi" is an all-weather, multipurpose light fighter aircraft. The aircraft is equipped with advanced avionics and armed with medium-range missiles. It is capable of carrying out both air-to-air and air-to-groud missions.

By 2004 this new multi-role fighter had been redesignated the Xialon (Fierce Dragon), and for Pakistan as JF-17 "Thunder". It might be designated J-9 when it becomes operational.
Super-7 (Chao Qi)

In 1986, China signed a $550 million agreement with Grumman to modernize 55 of its fleet of J-7 fighters under the so-called "Super-7" upgrade, but this agreement was canceled in early 1990, in the wake of the cooling of political relations with the West, as well as in response to a 40% increase in the cost of the project.

The "SUPER-7" was the first fighter jet completely designed and manufactured by China. Super-7 (Chao Qi) fighter is China's new generation fighter and the first of its kind of the nation's own intellectual property rights. The third-generation fighter plane, which can carry 3.8 tons of missiles, also has improved systems for attacking ground targets. Its advanced radar positioning and operating systems give the plane greater flexibility and better close-range manoeuvrability.

Development of the "Super 7" upgrade was slowed with the end of American technical assistance following the Tienanmen repression of 1989. Pakistan and China foreclosed the option of producing F-Super 7 Aircraft due to non-availability of Engines. It had been planned around MiG 27 Engine which the Russians refused to supply.
FC-1 (Fighter China 1)

As a substitute for the Super-7, China is developing the FC-1 (Fighter China 1) lightweight multipurpose fighter based on the design for the MiG-33, which was rejected by the Soviet Air Force. The FC-1 is being developed with a total investment in excess of $500 million, including support from the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC), mainly for export to replace the 120 F-7M/P fighters currently in service in the Pakistani Air Force, though it is possible that the Chinese Air Force will use this aircraft as well. The deal to manufacture 150 FC-1 (Fighter China) jets was struck when General Musharraf visited China just before the Kargil war in 1998.

Chengdu Aircraft Industry Company [CAIC], based in Sichuan Province, is China's second-largest fighter production base, and the enterprise is cooperating with Pakistan's Aviation Integrated Company and Russia's Mikoyan Aero-Science Production Group [MASPG] in the development of the FC-1. Israel and several European countries are being considered as suppliers for the plane's avionics. The first flight was planned for 1997 with delivery to the Pakistani Air Force scheduled for 1999.

Initially it was anticipated that the FC-1 would be a high- performance, low-cost fighter plane to supplement the F-10 air superiority fighters developed for the Chinese Air Force. These planes will be fitted with a single Klimov Design Bureau RD-93 engines. They are a more powerful version of RD-33 engines, two of which are fitted in MIG-29.

It is widely reported that the FC-1 is a continuation of the "MiG-33 [R33]" program developed in the 1980s. The Russian company Mikoyan OKB Design Bureau, which designs all MIG series of aircraft, sold the design of MIG-33 to the China and Pakistan. This report is the source of considerable confusion, and indeed some rather fanciful speculation. The so-called MiG-33 design used in conjunction with the FC-1 program was apparently a the poorly attested "Product 33" lightweight single-engine project of the mid-1980s. A decade later, the MiG-33 nomenclature was briefly associated with the much larger twin-engine Mig-29M. This confused history has led to observations that the "FC-1 features air inlets on the lateral sides of the fuselage rather than the ventral inlets of the MiG-33. ... the most apparent modifications to the MiG-33 design is the repositioning of the ventral fins from the engine compartment..." These supposed modifications to the mid-90s MiG-33 design actually reflect the fact that the FC-1 is an entirely difference airplane with no design relationship to the MiG-33 [MiG-29M].

These improvement in performance have affected the program's costs, and if the final production order if fewer than 300 aircraft the unit price will rise from the original $10 million to $15 million.

The China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) is trying to persuade the Chinese Air Force to use the FC-1 so as to increase the production run and reduce the unit cost. But the Chinese military has resisted, being of the view that equiping the Air Force with two types of fighter planes with similar performance within the same time period would both consume limited financial resources and complicate logistical support for dissimilar aircraft.

The FC-1 was to make it's first flight in 1996, but the project was delayed when Pakistan sought to upgrade the performance characteristics of the FC-1 to respond to India's acquisition of Su-30MKIs. After several years of stagnation, the Pakistani Prime Minister's February 1998 trip to China resulted in an agreement to continue development of the fighter. Currently Pakistan is interested in acquiring at least 150 fighters, with the Chinese contemplating acquiring over 200.

The JF-17 Thunder project has been completed in a record period of four years. China National Aviation Corp officially signed the development contract for the FC-1 airplane in 1999. The project initially suffered a setback due to imposition of sanctions in 1999, which hindered acquisition of avionics and weaponry for the aircraft. The avionics had to be delinked from airframe development in 2001. China National Aviation Corp completes the detailed preliminary design in 2001 and in 2002 the company completed the detailed design structure and the system charts.

Formal production work began September 16, 2002, on the FC-1 aircraft in Chengdu, capital of southwest China's Sichuan Province.

The FC-1 made its formal debut at China's Fourth International Air Show scheduled November 4 to 7, 2002, in Zhuhai, the nearest mainland city to Macao. China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I ) made fresh progress in 2003, with 5 planes having passed evaluation and seven new planes completed their maiden flight. "Xiaolong/FC-1", or fierce dragon, produced by the corporation last year was applauded as one of the "Ten Major National Scientific Events in 2003"

In July 2003 it was reported that the "SUPER-7" fighter jet was ready to take its maiden flight, although a detailed timetable was not released. China's Super-7 Fighter completed its taxiing test on July 03, 2003 at a test ground of Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation (CAC). As one of the eight major ground tests that must be completed before test flight, the taxiing test is aimed at trying the correctness of the design of electricity supply system, as well as signal connections between the electricity supply system and other external systems so as to provide important data to guarantee a successful first fly. Leiqiang, deputy director of the Chengdu Flight Group's trial flight department under the Chinese Air Force, said on Tuesday he will carry out the maiden flight task. On the day of the first flight, China Central Television (CCTV) will dispatch a special report group to broadcast the whole flight live. Leiqiang, also a "SUPER-7" pilot, and Yangwei, the jet's designer, who is also regarded as the father of "SUPER-7," will be featured on the CCTV program "Face to Face."

On 25 August 2003 the "owlet dragon" FC-1 airplane carried on the initial flight. It flews 17 minutes before it returned to the airport.

The serial production of the aircraft will begin by January 2006. The aircraft will replace the Mirage, F-16 and F-7 aircraft with the latest technology and it will meet professional requirements of the Pakistan Air Force.

The JF-17 Thunder, whose performance is matched only by F-16s in the Pakistan Air Force's current inventory, would be replacing the aging fleet of Mirage, F-7s and A-5s. The aircraft is being considered as a match for the Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which is expected to form the backbone of the Indian Air Force in future. There are, however, some features like advanced and futuristic avionics and cost effectiveness that give the JF-17 an edge over the LCA.

The JF-17 is a light weight, all weather, multi-role aircraft having a capability to fly at a speed of Mach 1.6 and a high thrust to weight ratio. The aircraft has the ability to engage targets at all speeds and altitudes within the conventional flying envelope. In the surface attack and interdiction role, the aircraft can strike at long distances. The combat jet has been installed with an advanced flight control system, which is a mix of conventional and fly-by-wire controls, making it highly agile and manoeuvrable.

The aircraft would be capable of carrying short-range, beyond visual range, anti-ship as well as anti-radiation missiles. Additionally, the carriage of high and low drag bombs, laser guided bombs, run away penetration bombs and cluster bombs would be catered for. However, the air chief parried a question regarding the aircraft's ability to carry nukes.

This machines has prominent maneuver cabability, greater range, airborne period and combat radius, fine short distance take off and landing characteristic and stronger weapon carrying capacity. The prominent center low altitude and the high subsonic maneuver operational capacity, has a better interception and to the place attack capability, all-weather, single shot, single-seat. This machine uses nearby the medium aspect ratio the strip wing normal arrangement, entire machine has 7 outside viewpoints, may be hanging many kinds of empty, the open area weapon, and may outside hang 3 auxiliary oil tanks, outside hangs the ability 3,600 kilograms.

This machine has used the advanced air operated contour and the big thrust force, the low consumption turbofan engine, as well as the advanced digital fax flies controls the system, the integrated aviation electron and the armament system, has in the launch to be apart from the ball, to realize the multi- goals beyond line of sight attack ability, has many kinds of advanced precise function and so on navigation, battlefield situation sensation, target detection and recognition, operational attack as well as electronic warfare.

Because has used the contemporary advanced design and the manufacture technology, the owlet dragon/FC-1 airplane had achieved the third generation fighter aircraft synthesis fighting efficiency, can contend with with now the advanced fighter aircraft, simultaneously has the low cost the characteristic, completely adapts the modern warfare request and the military airplane market demand.

The Pak Tribune reported on April 29, 2004 that the first eight of these aircraft would be delivered to the PLAAF in 2006.
J-9

The J-9 designation was apparently initially applied to an unbuilt single engined development of the J-8 aircraft that was cancelled in development around 1979. The F-9 FANTAN designation was at one time applied to the Q-5 FANTAN attack aircraft. Should the FC-1 enter PLAAF service, it might carry the J-9 designation.

Specifications
Contractors Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG)
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC)
Projected [1999] Actual [2004]
LENGTH 13.95 meters 14.9679 m
HEIGHT 5.02 meters 4.77485 m
WING SPAN 9.5 meters 9.4646 m
MAX T-O WEIGHT 12,500 kilograms 12,474 kg
Empty weight 6,411 kg
Normal takeoff weight 9,072 kg
Maximum landing weight 7,802 kg
Fuel weight 2,268 kg
Weapons load 3,629 kg
Thrust/weight ratio >=0.9
MAX LEVEL SPEED 1031 knots Mach 1.6
MAX RANGE / Ferry range 864 nautical miles 2,037 km
SERVICE CEILING 16,000 meters 15,240 m
T-O RUN 500 meters 609 m
LANDING RUN 700 meters 823 m
Armament

* 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon
* 6 - PL-7 AAM
* 6 - PL-10 AAMs
* ASMs, bombs

 

[mean_bird]

Everything that could possibly go wrong, went wrong in that article. From the specs to the "analysis", its a waste of time. I guess it was written by some wannabe analyst and is quite old (outdated).

 

[conworldus]

Everything that could possibly go wrong, went wrong in that article. From the specs to the "analysis", its a waste of time. I guess it was written by some wannabe analyst and is quite old (outdated).

More importantly, you cannot compare a complete aircraft (JF-17) to an incomplete aircraft (LCA). The last I read about the LCA, it just hit 1300km/h maximum speed and it has no working trainer version. This aircraft is a bust and waste of money and the Indians know it they just don't want to admit. HAL is the worst company in the world. If you do a research on the aircraft HAL has assembled and worked on, 90% of them (Mig-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI) have crashed.

 

[BlackenTheSky]

whats the use of repeating same topic again and again?

 

[Conqueror]

whats the use of repeating same topic again and again?

In my opinion, its kinda fun for some people to watch Pakistan and India pull each other's hairs.. otherwise comprehensive discussions and comparisons have already been laid in multiple forums already.

 

[T-50]

More importantly, you cannot compare a complete aircraft (JF-17) to an incomplete aircraft (LCA). The last I read about the LCA, it just hit 1300km/h maximum speed and it has no working trainer version. This aircraft is a bust and waste of money and the Indians know it they just don't want to admit. HAL is the worst company in the world. If you do a research on the aircraft HAL has assembled and worked on, 90% of them (Mig-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI) have crashed.

well at that was at sea level testing, if you know , your own JF-17 canot cross 1200 KM/h at sea level, well how can you know , you didnt test it na.......

Yea thast why you own Air force which was planning to buy 250 and about numbers of JF-17 thinks that MIG 21 copy is more reliable then JF17 , thats why they didnt buy so it is rejected by your airforce , what was the reason for not buying 250 numbers ??

Oh F22, your planes also crashed infact f-16 also Crashed , those who fly will get crashed also......and more over your JF-11or 10 also got crashed

Can you tell me .... the versions of LSP and terner version you produced of JF-17??

 

[FulcrumD]

More importantly, you cannot compare a complete aircraft (JF-17) to an incomplete aircraft (LCA). The last I read about the LCA, it just hit 1300km/h maximum speed and it has no working trainer version. This aircraft is a bust and waste of money and the Indians know it they just don't want to admit. HAL is the worst company in the world. If you do a research on the aircraft HAL has assembled and worked on, 90% of them (Mig-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI) have crashed.

U've heard half the truth over here,Tejas has hit 1300km/hr but on the deck i.e:-at sea level which is a fantastic achievement by any aircraft.Talking about HAL,well take a stock about your companies,Chengdu Aircraft Corpn has taken years to understant the FBW of Lavi and even then had problems with it on J-10,no Aeronautical establishment can claim success overnight working on ambitious projects.

 

[Dark Angel]

More importantly, you cannot compare a complete aircraft (JF-17) to an incomplete aircraft (LCA). The last I read about the LCA, it just hit 1300km/h maximum speed and it has no working trainer version. This aircraft is a bust and waste of money and the Indians know it they just don't want to admit. HAL is the worst company in the world. If you do a research on the aircraft HAL has assembled and worked on, 90% of them (Mig-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI) have crashed.

I dont think u know ABCD of fighter aircrafts coz if u did u would know the diffrence btw sea level speeds and high alt speeds

 

[conworldus]

hahahaha.. JF-17/FC-1 's sea level maximum speed was recorded at 1.8 mach so all three of you above just failed spectacularly.

1200km/h is JF-17's normal sea level cruising speed (not supersonic cruising yet, but for a 3rd gen it is one of the best). 1.6 mach is the designed sea level speed. 1.8 mach is the highest recorded. Congratulations that the LCA just broke the cruising speed mark! By Indian standard this is a great achievement.

Don't be too surprised when the LCA (if ever enters service) start crashing like 5~6 a month. I am sure there will be some great Indian excuse for it. I feel sorry that the Su-30MKI will be made in India, though. Great aircraft gone crashing. The Indian government really should have let Russia make all of them...

 

[pakpower]

Indian have a habit of presenting their products as they are some sort of extra greatness in them.

 

[FulcrumD]

Indian have a habit of presenting their products as they are some sort of extra greatness in them.

Conworlds claim is ridiculous,no aircraft in the world has attained a speed of Mach 1.8 at sea level,speaks volume of the knowledge the Conman from Conworld has.As per the claims we have made are from the facts and not fiction.

Thanks

 

[pakpower]

Conworlds claim is ridiculous,no aircraft in the world has attained a speed of Mach 1.8 at sea level,speaks volume of the knowledge the Conman from Conworld has.As per the claims we have made are from the facts and not fiction.

Thanks

That's not true my friend and thanks in advance.

 

[desiman]

Indian have a habit of presenting their products as they are some sort of extra greatness in them.

and pakistani's dont ? JF-17 cough cough

 

[desiman]

More importantly, you cannot compare a complete aircraft (JF-17) to an incomplete aircraft (LCA). The last I read about the LCA, it just hit 1300km/h maximum speed and it has no working trainer version. This aircraft is a bust and waste of money and the Indians know it they just don't want to admit. HAL is the worst company in the world. If you do a research on the aircraft HAL has assembled and worked on, 90% of them (Mig-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI) have crashed.

can you prove even one point you made here ? seems more like personal opinion that fact to me