J-10 vs LCA Development Similar timeframe.

[PakShaheen79]

What do the J-10 and the Lavi have in common? Configration? Looks? Have you seen the manufacturing process of the J-10? The Lavi is internally a F-16 and externally still a F-16 with delta configration. You think you'd get a J-10 if you placed the Girpen's ducts on the bottom? No! The Girpen is redesigned F-16 internally! It may come out looking like something else, but its the fabric inside that makes the aircraft. Every aircraft has something in common, expecially on the out side.
IAF is happy with the low mantenance of the Mirage 2k. But that doesn't mean that they designed the Tejas with Mirage deltas! The Mirage 2k is a metal airframe with LRU. The Tejas is a Compisote airframe with exstensive LRU's. Tejas wings are widly uncommon and new. Manufacturing process for the wings arrived from Italy! The mirages delta give it high speed agility while comprimising low speed. Tejas does both, creating greater drage than these, which is why Gripen, Rafale, J-10, Typhoon have greater top speeds. The Deltas produce great amounts of constant drag in the case of Tejas, while the Canards are used for greater lift when needed, to produce drag while they turn static with the airflow at top speeds. Tejas wings do it at constantantly to provide lift and agility at low speeds. Thus no need for canards or extra weight. The wings are stronger, low mantiance even compared to deltas on the Mirage. But on the positive side, they provide the low speed handling capability. On the negative side, it produces drag and gives the Tejas lower top speed. The shoulders on the wing of the aircraft push up like Canards. HAL at first at concept expected a Gripen like design, similair on the inside and out. But eventually because of their moto to redisien the wheel they added Cranked Delta wings and removed the Canards. Reducing weight and increasing wing payload and fuel compacity. At take offs and landings the Tejas is very fuel effiecient. Comprimise.
What you said is that the J-10 is stolen Lavi technology. I'm not deneing the Israelis gave them blueprints, but they didn't learn much from looking at. Jews didn't go to China and tell them how to assemble like Lockhead. Russians did, but they gave away their soviet era techniques, Chinese used these methods on their J-10s. Look at the amount of bolts and rivits in the J-10 and new aircraft in this decade. Doesn't seem like the same workmanship. Because they aren't. Differnent build. The way the Chinese built their aircraft is very similair to a build of a J-7 or Su-27. Heavy metal airframes that require a lot manpower. Cost of airframe is dropped but mantaince is high.

HAL assembled aircraft before. But had no dedicated assembly line. They started with the newest avaliable technology on the market. China does not have that luxery. It is why you here of so many Chinese spyies. They are left in the dark. HAL learnt from the Tyhpoon project, Rafale, Girpen etc... which is why Tejas just like these aircraft have extensive LRUs and compisote materials. Cost would have been the same if the manufactured a metal airframe or compisote. But the former is less mantiance heavy. HAL will import compisote material manufacting machines and expertise. This just means that the Tejas, has more value as a project and fighter jet.

Aircraft don't have to be the greatest or hottest. They just have to get hte job done at the lowest possible price in the end. If you can't understand this than theres not point in me posting again and agian.


The Tejas and J-10 are in differen't leagues. The J-10 has a heavier airframe of mostly metal. Many hard points, powerfull engine, with greater take off time. Canards give it low speed agility, something you don't need if you were designing a interceptor to fire BVR missiles because its just added weight. The four pylons under its fueslage carry dumb bombs. A dead giveaway for what it is intended to do. I think the PLAAF have large amounts of gravity bombs and this is the aircraft they can use. Its no quick reaction interceptor like the FC-1 or Tejas. Its not light, it doesn't have a low RCS, even with the DSI to reduce this. Of course it has BVR ability, but so does a J-8. J-10 has to many arms for a interceptor and too small as a dedicated airsuperioty like the Su27 which has range and two engines for the job.

FC-1, short reaction time till launch. Not many hardpoints, ideal for carrying the correct amount for payload vs thrust. Simple J-7 assembly line with advanced avoinics. Small RCS, no large vents or too many external stores. Ideal interceptor/multirole aircraft.

Tejas, Low RCS, quick reaction, decent payload and range. Interceptor/multirole aircraft. This is what PLAAF wanted before the sanctions. Now they use a two teir solution which costs more but what are the other options? Where are they going to get F404 manufacturing line?

1- Have you seen J-10 manufactruring process, I highly doubt that. Did u were part of LAVI project... I don't even think it as a possibility so please restraint from making blind judgment.

2- Like Tejas J-10 also uses composites and remind you only parts of airframe can be made of composite. Even F-22 has some parts made of metal.

Constructed from metal alloys and composite materials for high strength and low weight, the airframe's aerodynamic layout adopts a "tail-less canard delta" wing configuration.
Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3-Do you have any proofs that Lavi documents were shared with China. On one hand you are saying that one can't learn much by looking at drawings and on other hand you are making it a contribution in J-10 project.
4- Bolts are used extensively even in 5th gen fighters.

Debbie Johnson (foreground), Stacey May and Brett Chandler check fuel cell seals in a Raptor wing box at the Boeing F-22 Assembly Center in Tukwila.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin seek to save F-22 fighter program - Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle):

One More
Bolt and Rivets work going on F-22


So having bolts don't prove a fighter assembly less sophisticated.

5- J-10 is no longer an interceptor or air superiority fighter. It is a multirole fighter so it does not need specs of a interceptor like J-7 or LCA etc.

6- Was HAL involved in projects like Rafale, Gripen,Typhoon etc? What HAL really learned... only thing i can fore see in HAL projects is DELAY. (Sorry no offence was intended)

7- Dumb bombs on J-10.... Why don't chinese use supersonic J-5 for that purpose. Ever heard PL-12, PL-11, Pl-8, L-500Js,LS-6, LT-3 etc? I doubt that. Otherwise you had not made that sort of comments about J-10's armament.

8- JF-17/FC-1 is only a multirole fighter. Interceptors are not multirole fighters; So don't misguide others using them alternatively.

Multirole Fighter A multirole (or multi-role) combat aircraft is an aircraft that can be used as both a fighter aircraft and a ground attack aircraft. They are lighter and less powerful than air superiority fighters.
Multirole combat aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interceptor An interceptor aircraft (or simply interceptor) is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, particularly bombers, usually relying on great speed.
Interceptor aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9- I think WS-10 is going to be matured in couple of years. It is already under testing on J-8 and J-11s So China wouldn't need a foreign engine.

 

[desimorty]

1- Have you seen J-10 manufactruring process, I highly doubt that. Did u were part of LAVI project... I don't even think it as a possibility so please restraint from making blind judgment.

I got time for you too.
I never said I've seen the J-10 assembly line etc... keep typing to waste time.

2- Like Tejas J-10 also uses composites and remind you only parts of airframe can be made of composite. Even F-22 has some parts made of metal.

Every aircraft still uses metal whats your point. I never said J-10 doesn't use compisotes, but its current batches don't use them extensivly. Keep the raptor out of this discussion. The tyhpoon rafale gripen and tejas use more compisotes in the airframe than the J-10. Why? To reduce the labour costs and time. Why doesn't the J-10? because the PLAAF would have to wait just like IAF for Tejas! and they still need the machines and consultantion. Chengdu didn't have the time nore the technology from the market. PLAAF doesn't like to wait. Example, Type 97 rifle had a development of 6 years? No extension, they fine tune it after. Its a Soviet design and manufactring method that they have used for decades. You go ahead and tell them how to r and d.

3-Do you have any proofs that Lavi documents were shared with China. On one hand you are saying that one can't learn much by looking at drawings and on other hand you are making it a contribution in J-10 project.
4- Bolts are used extensively even in 5th gen fighters.

Israel can't hide that. Lavi;s prints did make it to china. Now what could they learn from it? they could learn how they kept the electronics cool, where they seperated each LRU what else? Not much else because they don't use the same electronics, nore the same engine. The two aircraft are using different instrunments and therefore have different problems and solutions for those problems. And how are you going to learn how to manufacture the fighter assuming you built a replica? You can't, because you don't know what method they used, and even if you did, do you have the same machines? and if you build your own machines, what is the cost of the airframe now? thats poor project managment.
Bolts are used on every airframe, i didn't deny that. But the goal is to reduce them. You can use compisotes or simpilfy the design and reduce stress. Compisotes, simpifly the number of pieces since they are easer to fold and shape, and perfect pieces don't produce 'bumbs'.
J-10 is extensivly metal in and out right now. Evantually further refining can reduce this, but the basic design kept in mind the materals it would be made of.

5- J-10 is no longer an interceptor or air superiority fighter. It is a multirole fighter so it does not need specs of a interceptor like J-7 or LCA etc.

It doesn't need a quick reaction engine? Tell that to the PLAAF before the sanctions. The J-10 can be multirole and is multrole pending on opinon. But can only be so once its in the air. before that, it can't fight. So its not an interceptor because it can;t intercept on short notice, unless its patrolling the air with AWACS support.
J-10 fires missiles and bombs. Can do antishipping and air combat. what can it do when its on the ground? Thats why the Fc-1 is valued. Atleast it can get airborne. you think a Su-27 will do inntercepts on short notice?

6- Was HAL involved in projects like Rafale, Gripen,Typhoon etc? What HAL really learned... only thing i can fore see in HAL projects is DELAY. (Sorry no offence was intended)

You can bet your *** they were involved in asking questions and trying to reason with the newer technology they were seeing. What did they pay for?

Dumb bombs on J-10.... Why don't chinese use supersonic J-5 for that purpose. Ever heard PL-12, PL-11, Pl-8, L-500Js,LS-6, LT-3 etc? I doubt that. Otherwise you had not made that sort of comments about J-10's armament.

Those 4 hardpoints under the fueslage are not wet. They don't hold anything else besides gravity bombs.

JF-17/FC-1 is only a multirole fighter. Interceptors are not multirole fighters; So don't misguide others using them alternatively.

What ever you say. Its your opinon of what a multi role and interceptor is and how you translate it. But if the PAF wanted a multirole fighter, why didn't they purchase a J-10 and can the savings?

take note that the BIson is called a multirole aircraft, before that it was multirole as well. It could drop bombs. but given there base of operations, what does that tell you about their missions?

I think WS-10 is going to be matured in couple of years. It is already under testing on J-8 and J-11s So China wouldn't need a foreign engine.

It isn't going to mature in a 'couple' of years. it took the f404 decades and they still use the same family. it matured and had kids. take as you will, but the j-8 was fitted with Snecmas/ws-10? thats news.

 

[PakShaheen79]

I got time for you too.
I never said I've seen the J-10 assembly line etc... keep typing to waste time.

No I will not waste my time on a person who is using interceptor and multirole interchangeably..

The tyhpoon rafale gripen and tejas use more compisotes in the airframe than the J-10. Why? To reduce the labour costs and time

So Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen used composites to lower the labour cost and time... My dear read below and try to learn something before shouting like an ignorant
I would like you teach you purpose of composites (BTW, This is correct spellings) from ADA 's own website;

Advanced composites constitute more than 40% of the LCA airframe including wings, fin and fuselage, resulting in significant weight reduction. Co-cured cobonded technology for fuselage components, fin, rudder, elevons, airbrake and landing gear doors has ensured cost-effectiveness. The radome is made of Kevlar. The airframe has been strengthened to withstand high 'g' manoeuvres during close combat. Static and fatigue strength studies on finite element models, and aeroservoelastic studies have optimised the airframe for high strength and durability
lca

I think by now you know why composites are used in airframes; Weight reduction, Strengthening airframes.These are mandatory reasons for using composites in any airframes.
Hmm...40% composites, I think this is highest ration of composites in world but this is point when i feel sorry for LCA more and more because after using so much extensive composites it is still over weight.

Some of the problem areas include brake management, overweight undercarriage, and redesigning of the wheels and tyres to reduce wear and tear. Also, the aircraft, in the words of its Programme Director, P.S. Subramanyam, is 1.5 tonnes heavier than what it should be. ADA has set up a subcommittee to suggest ways to reduce the weight, but it has hardly made headway, suggesting a shaving off of hardly 250 kg.
The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : EADS to help with LCA programme

Why doesn't the J-10? because the PLAAF would have to wait just like IAF for Tejas! and they still need the machines and consultantion. Chengdu didn't have the time nore the technology from the market.

Again shouting without anything to back... As you yourself admitted that J-10 does use some composite so if CAC don't have tech or machines to fabricate composites where they did get these composites from? Any idea.

You go ahead and tell them how to r and d

Nopes, They know all this pretty well. JF-17, J-10 and JXX working on three different kind of programs at same time speaks volumes about capability of CAC and that too under embargo of any military tech from West.

Israel can't hide that. Lavi;s prints did make it to china. Now what could they learn from it? they could learn how they kept the electronics cool, where they seperated each LRU what else?

Again No proofs whatsoever. Sometimes theories comes as Pakistan did gave them a F-16 to make J-10 and sometimes it is Israel.But nobody present something concrete to support his claim other than mere speculations.

J-10 is extensivly metal in and out right now. Evantually further refining can reduce this, but the basic design kept in mind the materals it would be made of.

Extensive composites or not it is not under powered or over weight like Tejas currently is (emphasis is on Currently)

It doesn't need a quick reaction engine? Tell that to the PLAAF before the sanctions. The J-10 can be multirole and is multrole pending on opinon. But can only be so once its in the air. before that, it can't fight. So its not an interceptor because it can;t intercept on short notice, unless its patrolling the air with AWACS support.
J-10 fires missiles and bombs. Can do antishipping and air combat. what can it do when its on the ground? Thats why the Fc-1 is valued. Atleast it can get airborne. you think a Su-27 will do inntercepts on short notice?

I think AL-31F is quite well recognized engine and a mature one. I don't understand the term "quick reaction engine"? And i am unable to understand where AWACS come into discussion? J-10 is flying and will keeping on flying (I know how it sounds to you). As far as doing interception on short notice is concerned I think "Multirole" also include that. SU-27 was an air superiority fighter in begininig it transformed into Multirole afterwards and J-10 also transformed. Now duties of high altitudes interception is lying with J-8 families. Who told you that J-10 can't get into air? BTW, Ever Heard J-11B and J-11BS?

You can bet your *** they were involved in asking questions and trying to reason with the newer technology they were seeing. What did they pay for?

Don't lose you temper otherwise you will also lose debate pretty soon So you are suggesting that all manufacturers were busy in development of LCA other than their own projects? or you are telling that ADA hire their consultancy for LCA regarding new technologies? Either way none of them is feasible or possible.
Soon you will have full TOT of MRCA then you will comes to know who much international vendors share when it comes to intellectual property of their R&D on which their business is running.
Remember Russian reaction over J-11 production with indigenous components.

Those 4 hardpoints under the fueslage are not wet. They don't hold anything else besides gravity bombs.

As they say a picture worth 1000 words so here we go

and another configuration is;
2X PL-8 SRAAM + 2X 500kg LGB + 2X 1,600ltr drop tanks + 1X 800ltr drop tank + laser targeting pod

A variety of newly developed air-to-air (e.g. PL-8 short-range IR guided AAM and PL-12 medium-range active radar guided AAM) and air-to-surface weapons including KD-88 TV guided ASMs and LS-500J LGBs are also expected to be carried under 11 hardpoints.
Chinese Military Aviation

What ever you say. Its your opinon of what a multi role and interceptor is and how you translate it. But if the PAF wanted a multirole fighter, why didn't they purchase a J-10 and can the savings?

That is not my opinion and i don't shape my opinions on my imaginations only. Yes PAF is going to get J-10 version with WS-10 turbofans.

It isn't going to mature in a 'couple' of years. it took the f404 decades and they still use the same family. it matured and had kids. take as you will, but the j-8 was fitted with Snecmas/ws-10? thats news.

Only time will tell when it is going to be matured for now J-11BS are using this engine and prototypes are rolling out from SAC. BTW, first SUCCESSFUL testing of WS-10 was done way back in 2002.

 

[desimorty]

No I will not waste my time on a person who is using interceptor and multirole interchangeably..

than don't waste your time. Language is to understand each other. Its precise but your interpatation to mine is different.

So Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen used composites to lower the labour cost and time... My dear read below and try to learn something before shouting like an ignorant
I would like you teach you purpose of composites (BTW, This is correct spellings) from ADA 's own website;

I could get you quotes saying compisotes reduce time of assembly and reduciton of bolts. But weight reduction is just another advantage to many that I did not mention.

Again shouting without anything to back... As you yourself admitted that J-10 does use some composite so if CAC don't have tech or machines to fabricate composites where they did get these composites from? Any idea.

Small scale production is very different from fabricating complete wing skins of compisotes. China had been assembling pieces of compisotes for commercial liners before. Perhaps they applied that to defence use. Its been done before in CHina.

Again No proofs whatsoever. Sometimes theories comes as Pakistan did gave them a F-16 to make J-10 and sometimes it is Israel.But nobody present something concrete to support his claim other than mere speculations.

FC-1 has wings from the dierved from the falcon. But what can we do but speculate about the PLA.

Extensive composites or not it is not under powered or over weight like Tejas currently is (emphasis is on Currently)

And you know this how? speculation? If its not underpowered or not, i don't care. But it is probabily a gas guzzler. The Tejas GQSR requires it to super cruise with a Kaveri engine. That is why weight reduction was a huge issue, problem is solved with purchase of eurojets or tyhpoons. Tejas can only get heavier.

I think AL-31F is quite well recognized engine and a mature one. I don't understand the term "quick reaction engine"? And i am unable to understand where AWACS come into discussion? J-10 is flying and will keeping on flying (I know how it sounds to you). As far as doing interception on short notice is concerned I think "Multirole" also include that. SU-27 was an air superiority fighter in begininig it transformed into Multirole afterwards and J-10 also transformed. Now duties of high altitudes interception is lying with J-8 families. Who told you that J-10 can't get into air? BTW, Ever Heard J-11B and J-11BS?

You see what youre trying to do? your twisting my words and purposly trying to pretend you don't know what i'm talking about while trying to debunk me by agian twisting my words.

The J-10 uses Al-31? Flankers use the same line of engines. Heavy engines that take their time to take off. I think the exact term is fob? reducing the amount of aircraft that can be launched time wise. PLAAF gets around this by building more take off strips. J-10 can intercept, a goose could intercept. J-10 is multirole, but that fact is it has short comings with reaction time thanks to its engine compared to FC-1.

FC-1 and J-10 are both multirole. One could say that the J-10's heavier payloads makes it superior. Why didn't they purchase J-10? What do they know that you don't understand?

Don't lose you temper otherwise you will also lose debate pretty soon So you are suggesting that all manufacturers were busy in development of LCA other than their own projects? or you are telling that ADA hire their consultancy for LCA regarding new technologies? Either way none of them is feasible or possible.
Soon you will have full TOT of MRCA then you will comes to know who much international vendors share when it comes to intellectual property of their R&D on which their business is running.
Remember Russian reaction over J-11 production with indigenous components.

Yea. ADA paid for Dassualts help in the development, who at the time showed them the Rafale and the newest concepts in Europe and Americas. Once ADA designed the aircraft, it is up to HAL to manufacture, they recieved their help aboard. But that doesn't mean that they are fully capable yet. MMRCA tender will bring them up to speed. Thats the game plan. Chinas assembly of SU-27 and newer batches was their plan. They used what they learnt and paid for. They didn't have another choice besides Russian vendors. Nonethe less it brought they're manufacturing capabilities up to speed.

2X PL-8 SRAAM + 2X 500kg LGB + 2X 1,600ltr drop tanks + 1X 800ltr drop tank + laser targeting pod

Wow, i cant see the picture but if its holding LGBs than its just fore bombs as of yet.

BTW it is multirole, it can do air combat and bombing missions, but it still cant get to the skies faster than the FC-1 in my opinon. Their engines are different.

That is not my opinion and i don't shape my opinions on my imaginations only. Yes PAF is going to get J-10 version with WS-10 turbofans.

Than why not have it fufill FC-1s role? Why have two different types of aircraft?


I don't want to derail the topic. Your going to find more words to twist to bait time and try and pretend to win. Its an online forum, i don't take it seriously and i don't loose my temper that easily. You seem to be. I'll try to make this as easily understandable.

J-10, was concieved as a airsuperiority, interceptor aircraft. Newer avialably technology alowed it to be concieved as a multrole aircraft capable of using precision standoff weapons, which were just over the horizion. Still concieved with a F404 engine, the very same on the US F-16 Falcon which was designed to be a short legged but the back bone of the USAF defence. Similar goals. Sanctions where imposed, and the J-10 seemed to have almost dissappeared but with the colapse of the Soviet Union, China had access to their technology but at a heavy price because, there was only one vendor and they new it. Su-27 production lines started poping up pretty quickly. Nearly the same mehtods for production could be used on the J-10 which used the same engine. Chengdu, kept the cost down and found a way to leap from. Today, no matter how J-10 was concieved it still has prints from the F-7 and Su-27. Uniquly Chinese with its own set of unique problems. Using new technology, it became a multrole aircraft, capabable of BVR and bombing.

FC-1 paid for by Pakistan, which is also a multrole aircraft. Probabily, able to get to the air faster than its larger counterpart, considering its engine which was also used on a Soviet interceptor. Costs slightly less than J-10 because of advanced avoinics. One can speculate why PAF dicided on the FC-1 to be its future backbone when the J-10 has similair features at nearly the same costs.

and btw i'm just making educated guess. based on logic. but your logic, is clearly flawed. Keep your posts more direct.

 

[PakShaheen79]

than don't waste your time. Language is to understand each other. Its precise but your interpatation to mine is different.

Why don't you accept that Multirole and interceptors are two different kind of fighters? This will solve problem rather quickly.

Small scale production is very different from fabricating complete wing skins of compisotes. China had been assembling pieces of compisotes for commercial liners before. Perhaps they applied that to defence use. Its been done before in CHina.

Now again, How you know Chinese are only producing small pieces or large pieces? Do you have data about all the capabilities of composite fabrication of China? If you have please share and if don't please don't make wild guesses. And comments about using composites on commercial jets is little funny as well because they are much larger than fighter jet and also have much bigger parts like wings, tail fin etc.

And you know this how? speculation? If its not underpowered or not, i don't care. But it is probabily a gas guzzler. The Tejas GQSR requires it to super cruise with a Kaveri engine. That is why weight reduction was a huge issue, problem is solved with purchase of eurojets or tyhpoons. Tejas can only get heavier

This is perhaps the reason for next delay in this project. Why Indian keep on adding new demands for engineers. I never read anywhere that LCA was intended for Super cruise. Can you give me a link in this regard? It will be appreciated. How Typhoon's purchasing solved LCA over weight problem?

ADA paid for Dassualts help in the development, who at the time showed them the Rafale and the newest concepts in Europe and Americas. Once ADA designed the aircraft, it is up to HAL to manufacture, they recieved their help aboard. But that doesn't mean that they are fully capable yet.

Hmm... So design is actually a brain child of Dassault not of ADA, Wing assembly from Italy, EADS involved in testing phase... That is lot of foreign help.

MMRCA tender will bring them up to speed. Thats the game plan.

So technology gained from MRCA will be applied to LCA,Right? Pretty smart.. i must say.

Chinas assembly of SU-27 and newer batches was their plan. They used what they learnt and paid for. They didn't have another choice besides Russian vendors. Nonethe less it brought they're manufacturing capabilities up to speed.

Now this is trouble part for Indians here. Actually China HAS access to American technology for aviation. What? Need proves... here we go

The ACAC ARJ21 Xiangfeng (翔凤 Flying Phoenix)[2] is a twin-engined regional airliner, and is the first passenger jet to be developed and indigenously produced by the People's Republic of China. This program is supported by 19 major European and US aerospace components suppliers, including General Electric (engine production),[3] Honeywell (fly-by-wire system) and Rockwell Collins (avionics production)
ACAC ARJ21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we can see technology is leaking in from Giants like GE and Honeywell don't expect this will remain to AJR-21 Chinese also have a game planfor bringing advanced technology.

BTW it is multirole, it can do air combat and bombing missions, but it still cant get to the skies faster than the FC-1 in my opinon. Their engines are different.

Yes their Engines are different.But who get's air born earlier depends on weapon load, configuration, Take-ff distance etc. Engine is not only parameter.BTW, not all the J-10 will be on ground before any adversary get into Chinese air space thinking as entire fleet of J-10 will have to air born to counter an opponent from ground is flawed.

FC-1 and J-10 are both multirole. One could say that the J-10's heavier payloads makes it superior. Why didn't they purchase J-10? What do they know that you don't understand?

J-10 was not ready at the time FC-1 was envisioned and other than that J-10 was something China wanted to keep secret from world. so logically PAF went for FC-1... Still J-10 is ahead in tech used in FC-1. I am yet to collect data on Take-Off time on both only then i will comment on this take-off issue.

You see what youre trying to do? your twisting my words and purposly trying to pretend you don't know what i'm talking about while trying to debunk me by agian twisting my words.

I don't need to do that.

Wow, i cant see the picture but if its holding LGBs than its just fore bombs as of yet.

Please not again, I will not explain difference b/w gravity bombs and LGBs. Search for yourself.

Than why not have it fufill FC-1s role? Why have two different types of aircraft?

Why not have MKI only why going for MRCA? same apply here.

I don't want to derail the topic. Your going to find more words to twist to bait time and try and pretend to win. Its an online forum, i don't take it seriously and i don't loose my temper that easily. You seem to be. I'll try to make this as easily understandable.

neither do I and in you last post it was you using abusive language not me.

J-10, was concieved as a airsuperiority, interceptor aircraft. Newer avialably technology alowed it to be concieved as a multrole aircraft capable of using precision standoff weapons, which were just over the horizion. Still concieved with a F404 engine, the very same on the US F-16 Falcon which was designed to be a short legged but the back bone of the USAF defence. Similar goals. Sanctions where imposed, and the J-10 seemed to have almost dissappeared but with the colapse of the Soviet Union, China had access to their technology but at a heavy price because, there was only one vendor and they new it. Su-27 production lines started poping up pretty quickly. Nearly the same mehtods for production could be used on the J-10 which used the same engine. Chengdu, kept the cost down and found a way to leap from.

Totally wrong. Chinese plan with US was for some upgradation of J-7 with American systems or something like that which went in vain after tiananmen square incident in 1989. (Actually this is where JF-17 come from) J-10 was a secret project how you think China was looking at US to cooperate into a its secret project which She just acknowledged in 2007.
Please elaborate this part. Can't get you there.

and btw i'm just making educated guess. based on logic. but your logic, is clearly flawed. Keep your posts more direct.

I am keeping my post direct but I can't rant like you without anything to back or support your claims.

 

[desimorty]

Why don't you accept that Multirole and interceptors are two different kind of fighters? This will solve problem rather quickly.

They are roles. Each is capable of each but certian ones are more ideal than others.

Now again, How you know Chinese are only producing small pieces or large pieces? Do you have data about all the capabilities of composite fabrication of China? If you have please share and if don't please don't make wild guesses. And comments about using composites on commercial jets is little funny as well because they are much larger than fighter jet and also have much bigger parts like wings, tail fin etc.

You have plenty of pictures on the J-10. One can understand its largly metal. Gradually it was reported that more and more compisotes can be added. Just like in the FC-1 development.
Chinese never concieved large portions of the wings to be compisotes as in the case of Tejas and Euro fighters. Why? because they lacked the technology and machines but that doesn't mean you can apply some technology gained from commercial use to defence.

This is perhaps the reason for next delay in this project. Why Indian keep on adding new demands for engineers. I never read anywhere that LCA was intended for Super cruise. Can you give me a link in this regard? It will be appreciated. How Typhoon's purchasing solved LCA over weight problem?

There were plenty of sources. I believe it was in the initail conception. Otherwise Kaveri or F404 engines would never have been chosen. RD-33 would have done the trick. The reason for this was probabily because IAF and ADA new technology was readiliy avaliable. Purchasing Typhoon can get the assembly line started, and Eurojets can give this aircraft supercruise even overweight. Check articles. I don't save them, google them yourselve.

So technology gained from MRCA will be applied to LCA,Right? Pretty smart.. i must say.

Why go through the trouble to build machines to manufacture your self when you can't and a vendor is readily avliable to sell to you what you need. Project managment.

So we can see technology is leaking in from Giants like GE and Honeywell don't expect this will remain to AJR-21 Chinese also have a game planfor bringing advanced technology.

THe chinese have access to what Lockhead lab and engineers? No, its technology tranfered for commerical use that has little value in real defence use or is easy to access. Are you denying China has arms embargos? are you looking for loopholes again to twist my words? commn sense can make you understand my posts by your ignorant.

Yes their Engines are different.But who get's air born earlier depends on weapon load, configuration, Take-ff distance etc. Engine is not only parameter.BTW, not all the J-10 will be on ground before any adversary get into Chinese air space thinking as entire fleet of J-10 will have to air born to counter an opponent from ground is flawed.

In a air to air configration for intercepts. We assume two 800 litre drop tanks, to BVR missiles and two short range missiles. Same payload. You are right though but the largest time to take off is the engines. The biggest problem IAF had in Redflag was their take off time. This was due to their engines! Consider this, why do the Falcrum and Flanker use differnt engines? THe Mig-29 can get to the skies before their heavier conterpart even if the Flacker has a dry configration. Ontop of that the Falcrums engines can be easily reinstalled at a cheap price to keep its thrust preformance.

J-10 was not ready at the time FC-1 was envisioned and other than that J-10 was something China wanted to keep secret from world. so logically PAF went for FC-1... Still J-10 is ahead in tech used in FC-1. I am yet to collect data on Take-Off time on both only then i will comment on this take-off issue.

Yea, some secert. Is at a Raptor? China sells apparantly sold the J-10 to Pakistan why not earlier. I don't by your reasoning. CHina had everything to gain, otherwise they just screwed Pakistan with the FC-1. IF Pakistan purchased the J-10 the cost would have been dropped per aircraft and they had everything to gain.

Please not again, I will not explain difference b/w gravity bombs and LGBs. Search for yourself.

Both are bombs, precision or not.

Why not have MKI only why going for MRCA? same apply here.

The MMRCA all have a short take off. Ideal mult-role aircraft that can be scrabled on short notice. MKI is mantiance heavy. Theres more reasons but i've leave it out.

Totally wrong. Chinese plan with US was for some upgradation of J-7 with American systems or something like that which went in vain after tiananmen square incident in 1989. (Actually this is where JF-17 come from) J-10 was a secret project how you think China was looking at US to cooperate into a its secret project which She just acknowledged in 2007.
Please elaborate this part. Can't get you there.

It was all the same project or concept. Many solutions were tried. The goal was eventually a F404 powered light figher. They have mutliated F-7s before, this is nothing new. A F-7 with cards was tried before. Concepts change. Until it materalized. China didn't spend billions on two differen't independent aircraft projects at the same time, one was always ahead of the other to save costs.

I am keeping my post direct but I can't rant like you without anything to back or support your claims.

There is only one arugment here, but thanks to you, you've derailed and ranted yourself, with no proof and point.

I want you to explain why the PAF paid for the development of FC-1? Why they purchased something that is more subject to Russian intervention than the J-10?

My reasoning

My reason is simple. The FC-1 has a short take off time. Ideal for PAF. Their option is either to spend billions on more take off strips for the J-10 and ground based defence. Or have figher that can be in the air sooner to avoid this. The J-10 as a super top secert aircraft doesn't add up, if both aircraft will be inducted in the PAF at the same time. This would be the worst purchase of tax payer money Pakistan has ever known if this is true.

 

[PakShaheen79]

They are roles. Each is capable of each but certian ones are more ideal than others.

They are TYPES of aircrafts. F-8 can't do what a MKK can... F-7 can't what B-57 can. So carry on with your ignorance... Both are ideal where they are required in a war. You choose to confuse yourself and other's here. Only Multirole can adopt role of interceptor not other way around.

You have plenty of pictures on the J-10. One can understand its largly metal. Gradually it was reported that more and more compisotes can be added. Just like in the FC-1 development.
Chinese never concieved large portions of the wings to be compisotes as in the case of Tejas and Euro fighters. Why? because they lacked the technology and machines but that doesn't mean you can apply some technology gained from commercial use to defence.

Again your guesswork is on work Why a technology cannot be used which was gained for commercial use in a military project? I don't see any reason and if a commercial vendor is fabricating composites then both commercial and military vendor can reach him for orders for their requirements.. What is that difficult in that. I agree it is not using composites to an extend Tejas is using but thing is it is operational.

There were plenty of sources. I believe it was in the initail conception. Otherwise Kaveri or F404 engines would never have been chosen. RD-33 would have done the trick. The reason for this was probabily because IAF and ADA new technology was readiliy avaliable. Purchasing Typhoon can get the assembly line started, and Eurojets can give this aircraft supercruise even overweight. Check articles. I don't save them, google them yourselve.

Sorry but i can't find any even after googling them. So need your help in this regard. I am sure it is new demand from IAF. Which IAF and ADA technology you are talking, huh? Lol Kervai is still in development and contract for its development is with SNECMA not with Eurojet vendors

MRCA is not signed yet. So keep Typhoon out of this discussion for now. So no point to bring EJ-200 into debate until and unless agreement is reached with them and that will come after SNECMA done with Kevari development. My point is was it an initial requirement in 1983 when project was envisioned to have LCA with Supercruise.

Why go through the trouble to build machines to manufacture your self when you can't and a vendor is readily avliable to sell to you what you need. Project managment.

Great. You guys learned a lot from JF-17's project management then, I must say. So you admit that LCA is nothing indigenous. ( Design,Wings, Engine etc.)

THe chinese have access to what Lockhead lab and engineers? No, its technology tranfered for commerical use that has little value in real defence use or is easy to access. Are you denying China has arms embargos? are you looking for loopholes again to twist my words? commn sense can make you understand my posts by your ignorant.

Believe what you want but matter of fact is still 17 international aero space giants all over the world are involved with Chinese aviation projects including Honeywell, Boeing, General Electric. They are not building parts for this plane but are bringing technologies as well. Ever think how China was able to develop 634 Quadruple FBW control system for J-10?? Think dear it will give you good hint of tech coming in China through not to familiar channels.

In a air to air configration for intercepts. We assume two 800 litre drop tanks, to BVR missiles and two short range missiles. Same payload. You are right though but the largest time to take off is the engines. The biggest problem IAF had in Redflag was their take off time. This was due to their engines! Consider this, why do the Falcrum and Flanker use differnt engines? THe Mig-29 can get to the skies before their heavier conterpart even if the Flacker has a dry configration. Ontop of that the Falcrums engines can be easily reinstalled at a cheap price to keep its thrust preformance.

Very Nice. You admit that Weight is primary reason to get air born late. Engine thrust is only a relatively constant parameter in this equation.That's exactly what i am trying to tell you. Remember how long F-16s of Israel took when they got airborne to attack on orisis in Iraq. Pilot alive today and they have share that they were almost end of their runway before they were able to get airborne. Only reason this time F-16s were loaded to their max capacity with fuel and weapons.

Yea, some secert. Is at a Raptor? China sells apparantly sold the J-10 to Pakistan why not earlier. I don't by your reasoning. CHina had everything to gain, otherwise they just screwed Pakistan with the FC-1. IF Pakistan purchased the J-10 the cost would have been dropped per aircraft and they had everything to gain

Raptor or not. Are you denying that Chinese government acknowledge it just in 2007? As far as selling to Pakistan is concerned I will ask you "why not earlier?" because it was not ready and even China had no idea to get this plane in air while PAF was in urgency to have a fighter for itself prior to PLAAF which in case of J-10 will fulfill its own requirements ahead of PAF or any other customer. I don't want to sell you my opinion but i just want to stick with mine.

Both are bombs, precision or not.

Now shut up. It can carry missiles there as well. You proved wrong yet again.

The MMRCA all have a short take off. Ideal mult-role aircraft that can be scrabled on short notice. MKI is mantiance heavy. Theres more reasons but i've leave it out.

Apply it on FC-1 and J-10 you will get answer yourself.

It was all the same project or concept. Many solutions were tried. The goal was eventually a F404 powered light figher. They have mutliated F-7s before, this is nothing new. A F-7 with cards was tried before. Concepts change. Until it materalized. China didn't spend billions on two differen't independent aircraft projects at the same time, one was always ahead of the other to save costs.

hahahaha.... this is most funniest part. How come China-US project same for J-10 and Super Seven?? Super seven was something which gave birth to JF-17/FC-1 not J-10.
FC-1 (JF-17 Thunder) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

There is only one arugment here, but thanks to you, you've derailed and ranted yourself, with no proof and point.

Typical Indian trolling at work... Lol check last three posts of mine.It is only me who is providing link after link and pic after pic and it is only you who are shouting without anything to back. It is you who is confused between Multirole and Interceptors, It is you who has confusion about J-10 program initiation so you need to fix yourself not me.

I want you to explain why the PAF paid for the development of FC-1? Why they purchased something that is more subject to Russian intervention than the J-10?

My reasoning

My reason is simple. The FC-1 has a short take off time. Ideal for PAF. Their option is either to spend billions on more take off strips for the J-10 and ground based defence. Or have figher that can be in the air sooner to avoid this. The J-10 as a super top secert aircraft doesn't add up, if both aircraft will be inducted in the PAF at the same time. This would be the worst purchase of tax payer money Pakistan has ever known if this is true.

No one is interesting in you reasoning keep it to yourself. PAF know better than you what to get and when to get. Leave worrying about Pakistani tax payers... What J-10 will add is a heavier punch which FC-1 can't give as it is not designed for that and PAF not has habit of adding requirement after requirement which IAF did to ruin LCA projects. Yes, It is true ..go now and eat your wounds.



I

 

[desimorty]

They are TYPES of aircrafts. F-8 can't do what a MKK can... F-7 can't what B-57 can. So carry on with your ignorance... Both are ideal where they are required in a war. You choose to confuse yourself and other's here. Only Multirole can adopt role of interceptor not other way around.

FC-1 and J-10 are mult-role, why two typers of aircraft? One is better at the other in payload. So why agian the FC-1?

Again your guesswork is on work Why a technology cannot be used which was gained for commercial use in a military project? I don't see any reason and if a commercial vendor is fabricating composites then both commercial and military vendor can reach him it is not using composites to an extend Tejas is using but thing is it is operational.

I might not know the answer, but it certianly is different. Military sales sanctions on China, but no commerical. If they recieve so much defence tecnology from commerical use, why have sanction them when it comes to defence related materials?

My point is was it an initial requirement in 1983 when project was envisioned to have LCA with Supercruise.

1983 was when it was still a concept that was changing. 1991 and onwards the GQSRs changed, around that time the GQSR was changed again just like the geopolitical environment.

Great. You guys learned a lot from JF-17's project management then, I must say. So you admit that LCA is nothing indigenous. ( Design,Wings, Engine etc.)

Did Pak learn anything than? Like I said, J-10 is in service apperantly in the hundreds. Wouldn't it make sense to invest in the J-10? Or is some one doing dirty deals?

Believe what you want but matter of fact is still 17 international aero space giants all over the world are involved with Chinese aviation projects including Honeywell, Boeing, General Electric. They are not building parts for this plane but are bringing technologies as well. Ever think how China was able to develop 634 Quadruple FBW control system for J-10?? Think dear it will give you good hint of tech coming in China through not to familiar channels.

Yea, and they transfer technology, that is easily readily avaliable or not a threat.

Very Nice. You admit that Weight is primary reason to get air born late. Engine thrust is only a relatively constant parameter in this equation.That's exactly what i am trying to tell you. Remember how long F-16s of Israel took when they got airborne to attack on orisis in Iraq. Pilot alive today and they have share that they were almost end of their runway before they were able to get airborne. Only reason this time F-16s were loaded to their max capacity with fuel and weapons.

No, this 'time' i've been talking about is on the ground before, from igniation of engines to takeoff thrust, kind of like warming up car. Do you want to crack your engine? Weight is another issue that relies on air strip distance.

Raptor or not. Are you denying that Chinese government acknowledge it just in 2007? As far as selling to Pakistan is concerned I will ask you "why not earlier?" because it was not ready and even China had no idea to get this plane in air while PAF was in urgency to have a fighter for itself prior to PLAAF which in case of J-10 will fulfill its own requirements ahead of PAF or any other customer. I don't want to sell you my opinion but i just want to stick with mine.

Yea, and now they offer the J-10 to buyers. Some TOP SECRET project. I don't buy your opinon, and you can stick with yours. I really don't care.

Now shut up. It can carry missiles there as well. You proved wrong yet again.

I have yet to see another picture like this. So you can show me another one, that doesn't look PSed because there are a lot of them going around.
But even still, it brings it to the point agian. Additional hardpoints. Not just for AAM, if they were, a dual rail launcher would have been a logical solution.

Apply it on FC-1 and J-10 you will get answer yourself.

And what have i been saying? FC-1 easier to scramble, but the J-10 isn't. Its not the weight thats the issue. If the J-10 had clean config like FC-1, J-10 would need less of the airstrip, but because of their engines, you have to leave one on longer than the other, mult-ply that by 2 or 4 aircraft used to scramble and you'll reaslize that you need to revamp every PAF airstrip to make use of J-10.

hahahaha.... this is most funniest part. How come China-US project same for J-10 and Super Seven?? Super seven was something which gave birth to JF-17/FC-1 not J-10.
FC-1 (JF-17 Thunder) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

quote from sinodefence, your source

The FC-1 traces its origin to the Super-7 fighter programme, a joint Chengdu-Grumman development project worth US$500 million to upgrade the Chinese J-7 (MiG-21) fighter. Proposed upgrades included removing the fighter's nose air intake and replacing it with a ‘solid’ nose with two lateral air intakes, as well as upgrading the fighter with Western-made avionics and engine. The development agreement was signed in 1986, but the programme was cancelled in 1990, in the wake of the cooling political relations between China and the West, as well as in response to a 40% increase in the cost of the project.

After this the J-9 concept leased a new life with AL-31 engines. Both the Super seven and J-9 were redesigned F-7 airframes, to keep costs down. Like I said.

Typical Indian trolling at work... Lol check last three posts of mine.It is only me who is providing link after link and pic after pic and it is only you who are shouting without anything to back. It is you who is confused between Multirole and Interceptors, It is you who has confusion about J-10 program initiation so you need to fix yourself not me.

Typical Pakistani trolling at work.

No one is interesting in you reasoning keep it to yourself. PAF know better than you what to get and when to get. Leave worrying about Pakistani tax payers... What J-10 will add is a heavier punch which FC-1 can't give as it is not designed for that and PAF not has habit of adding requirement after requirement which IAF did to ruin LCA projects. Yes, It is true ..go now and eat your wounds.

See what i find ammusing here is that you actually take it emotionally. I like that. Its funny. The entire time i've spent with you was such a waste. What you proved is that the J-10 is heavier. I've been saying that it's wonderfull Russian engine keeps it on the ground. Which is why PAF initiated the FC-1 project, to have a fighter or multirole aircraft or attack aircraft or interceptor or boming machine with a short scramble time. You've taken me 360 back to where we started. According to you the J-10 was so ADVANCED that even PAF wasn't allowed to know about it, but they could buy it later on but untill than PAF can spend their money on FC-1, and according to you the J-10 does everything the FC-1 does but better. According to my logic and PAF, it doesnt. It doesnt get off the ground fast enough for them.

J-10 has a heavier payload, a single engine just like FC-1, and more hardpoints. If the FC-1 is PAFs multrole aircraft, why bother with the J-10? Do you honestly think the J-10 and FC-1 are the one in the same? If PAF wants airdenial or air superiority, they certianly made the right choice by investing in the FC-1 in my opinon because the J-10 doesn't scrable fast enough, ontop of that the extra hardpoints are of now use if the FC-1 can use dual rail launchers for BVRAAMs in the future and in my opinon will. Let it be known the PLAAF has their own doctrine, and they certianly have a solution that is different to what PAF has. No or take off and landing airstrips! Which is why they prefer the J-10, and perhaps when their J-7s are near their end of their lifetime, they will get FC-1 replacements.

On your note of LCA project. Judge it all you want. The final judgment comes from the IAF.

You are a troll at your best. I'll leave you to yourself so I don't catch your stupidity.

I say good day sir!

 

[PakShaheen79]

FC-1 and J-10 are mult-role, why two typers of aircraft? One is better at the other in payload. So why agian the FC-1?

Don't try to over smart. Why you are deviating from real debate that Multirole and Interceptor are different types of aircraft. I will answer your ranting about why J-10 and FC-1 both but in later.

I might not know the answer, but it certianly is different. Military sales sanctions on China, but no commerical. If they recieve so much defence tecnology from commerical use, why have sanction them when it comes to defence related materials?

If you don't know the answer why you kept on posting in reply.dude passing technology through commercial contracts is a economic dealing while putting ban on purchasing Latest hi-tech weapons is a political dealing.

1983 was when it was still a concept that was changing. 1991 and onwards the GQSRs changed, around that time the GQSR was changed again just like the geopolitical environment.

Hmm... So you are saying that LCA was envisioned as supercruise in 1991. CAn you provide any link for that? I could not find in last two days.

Did Pak learn anything than? Like I said, J-10 is in service apperantly in the hundreds. Wouldn't it make sense to invest in the J-10? Or is some one doing dirty deals?

J-10 in service in hundreds no doubt but with who's engine? Russian which PAF never wanted because we don't wanted to be screwed in war time. That is reason JF-17 will also got Chinese engine after wards. WS-10A is not ready and that is why J-10 time line is 2014-15.

No, this 'time' i've been talking about is on the ground before, from igniation of engines to takeoff thrust, kind of like warming up car. Do you want to crack your engine? Weight is another issue that relies on air strip distance.

Max. TO distance for J-10 is 500 meter with normal AA configuraiton don't know about FC-1. How long it will take for PAF J-10s it is not known yet as those planes will be powered by WS-10A not with AL-31FN. I can accept your argument of you can provide a link with acceleration of RD-93, AL-31FN and WS-10A. Only and only after this comparison one can say which fighter will be air born early...but again engine acceleration will do only its part. A J-10 loaded with AA configuration and FC-1 loaded with full weapon load... Who will air born first? Interesting, Isn't it?

I have yet to see another picture like this. So you can show me another one, that doesn't look PSed because there are a lot of them going around.
But even still, it brings it to the point agian. Additional hardpoints. Not just for AAM, if they were, a dual rail launcher would have been a logical solution.

Hahahahaa... It is getting funnier and funnier. Now it looks PSed to you huh. Can't help find one yourself. Even in its current configuration it doesn't prevent using rail launch solution.that is totally irrelevant to debate.

And what have i been saying? FC-1 easier to scramble, but the J-10 isn't. Its not the weight thats the issue. If the J-10 had clean config like FC-1, J-10 would need less of the airstrip, but because of their engines, you have to leave one on longer than the other, mult-ply that by 2 or 4 aircraft used to scramble and you'll reaslize that you need to revamp every PAF airstrip to make use of J-10.

So by your logic ... Going for MKI was a dirty deal by IAF as it will take longer time to get air born. I can't help myself how you are saying that all the J-10s will be on the ground when they will be needed in war.... lol Max TO distance for J-10 is just 500 meter.
Below is account of how take-off distance and hence time to take off change with weapon load in Mig-29

"The MiG-29 enjoys the combination of an advanced airframe design with two powerful RD-33 turbojet engines that produce a maximum speed in excess of 2.3 Mach. The max gross takeoff weight is at 18,500 kg. (40,785 lbs.), which is 500 kg (1100 lbs) above the first 100 series produced aircraft. The 38,472 lbs. normal combat configured takeoff weight leaves very little for growth. Takeoff Speed is specified at 260-280 kph. with takeoff distance running 1200 meters (3937 ft). A clean airshow style takeoff run with reheat could be accomplished at 250 meters and with dry power it would extend to 600-700 meters. Landing Speed of 250-260 kph while landing with the Drag Chute 600-700 meters. Max Landing Weight was noted to be 15760 kg (34,744 lbs). Service ceiling is published at 17,000 meters (56,000 ft.) with a maximum rate of climb 330 m/sec (65,000 ft/min) at sea level."

Fighter Aicraft, MiG-29/3

This is a prove that weapon load contribute a major factor in Take off distance and hence time to be air born.
Engine acceleration is also a contributor but problem here is none of us has data about WS-10A's acceleration viz-a viz RD-93 to see which one will air born earlier but again that is just one of the factors not the only factor.

After this the J-9 concept leased a new life with AL-31 engines. Both the Super seven and J-9 were redesigned F-7 airframes, to keep costs down. Like I said.

J-9 has nothing to do with Super Seven.Only connection is J-9 was given away in 1980 and J-7C was adopted as it was less risky than J-9 with (tailless delta wing and canard foreplanes). Did you ever see any J-7 with tailless delta and foreplane canard?? Super Seven was to enhance J-7 with US systems like engines and avionics again nothing to do with J-9 or J-10. BTW, Super Seven was initiated in 1986-87 and J-10 initiated in 1984 before Super Seven.

Typical Pakistani trolling at work.

As you have become color blind by now so you can't provide a single link in your post and neither you can see any link in my post so you decided to rant, troll and shout even more. Keep going on... no one cares.

See what i find ammusing here is that you actually take it emotionally. I like that. Its funny. The entire time i've spent with you was such a waste. What you proved is that the J-10 is heavier. I've been saying that it's wonderfull Russian engine keeps it on the ground. Which is why PAF initiated the FC-1 project, to have a fighter or multirole aircraft or attack aircraft or interceptor or boming machine with a short scramble time. You've taken me 360 back to where we started. According to you the J-10 was so ADVANCED that even PAF wasn't allowed to know about it, but they could buy it later on but untill than PAF can spend their money on FC-1, and according to you the J-10 does everything the FC-1 does but better. According to my logic and PAF, it doesnt. It doesnt get off the ground fast enough for them.

I am not taking anything emotionally here i am taking all things logically backed by proves in shape of links and pics which you failed to provide in single of your post and kept on shouting without any thing to prove your claims. If you think it is waste of time why you kept on answering my post after post... actually you have been addicted First of all PAF J-10 will not use Wounderful russian engines PAF will use Chinese engine WS-10A next go and tell Indian to stop ordering more and more MKIs as same wounderful engine will keep them on the ground.

J-10 has a heavier payload, a single engine just like FC-1, and more hardpoints. If the FC-1 is PAFs multrole aircraft, why bother with the J-10? Do you honestly think the J-10 and FC-1 are the one in the same? If PAF wants airdenial or air superiority, they certianly made the right choice by investing in the FC-1 in my opinon because the J-10 doesn't scrable fast enough, ontop of that the extra hardpoints are of now use if the FC-1 can use dual rail launchers for BVRAAMs in the future and in my opinon will. Let it be known the PLAAF has their own doctrine, and they certianly have a solution that is different to what PAF has. No or take off and landing airstrips! Which is why they prefer the J-10, and perhaps when their J-7s are near their end of their lifetime, they will get FC-1 replacements.

Again you are comparing PAF's J-10 with PLAAF's J-10...Can I ask Why? It has heavier payload so it has more powerful engine as well and you are right air superiority mission will be done by FC-1 while J-10 and F-16M will take on roles of SEAD/DEAD ops but that is not necessary as both are multirole like FC-1 so can adopt any role that is beauty of Multirole aircraft... but i am afraid you can't understand as you don't know difference between types of air crafts. Dual rail launcher cannot increase max take off weight of an air craft. Can you read mind of PAF planners to tell if what PAF is thinking and how it is going to induct J-10..I think NOT... So please restrain from making such claims without any proper links and proofs. PLAAF will be replaced with J-10 not with FC-1.

BTW, If AL-31 is such a bad engine why IAF is adding more and moer MKI orders why not to stick with Mig-29s with upgrades which uses same efficient engine on FC-1? Any Idea.

On your note of LCA project. Judge it all you want. The final judgment comes from the IAF.

On your note of J-10 induction into PAF. Judge it all you want. The final judgment comes from the PAF. HAPPY?

You are a troll at your best. I'll leave you to yourself so I don't catch your stupidity.

Definitely you are at much higher pedestal in that regard How can you catch me it will be me every time catching you but you seems to go higher and higher with your...( you know what? )

I say good day sir!

Same to you dear!

 

[Arsalan]

Some of the problem areas include brake management, overweight undercarriage, and redesigning of the wheels and tyres to reduce wear and tear. Also, the aircraft, in the words of its Programme Director, P.S. Subramanyam, is 1.5 tonnes heavier than what it should be. ADA has set up a subcommittee to suggest ways to reduce the weight, but it has hardly made headway, suggesting a shaving off of hardly 250 kg.
The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : EADS to help with LCA programme

Ahm Ahm,,,
sorry for interupting the fruitfull discussion guys but can any one point me to what actually is right with this machine, which i guess some call a plane!!!

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

i wonder how many guys come up with:
LCA problem is solved by MRCA conduction??
i mean do you really rank these both a plane and a machine as same???
really????

regards!

 

[ISRO2]

i wonder how many guys come up with:
LCA problem is solved by MRCA conduction??
i mean do you really rank these both a plane and a machine as same???
really????

regards!

ofcourse not sir. LCA far behind then MRCA contenders. May be LCA is in leaque of F-16 but its not a match for EF, Rafael, mig-35 etc etc. India wanted huge number of LCA but LCA not ready yet. So we are going for MRCA. the more best jet fighter the more better for india. i think when LCA starts getting inducted then our MRCA winner too would start getting inducted. Thats even more benefit for india and our IAF. we need to kick vintage jet fighters fast. Alot good pilots loosing life in our vintage jet fighters sir. We need to replace them as early as possible.

 

[grey boy 2]

ofcourse not sir. LCA far behind then MRCA contenders. May be LCA is in leaque of F-16 but its not a match for EF, Rafael, mig-35 etc etc. India wanted huge number of LCA but LCA not ready yet. So we are going for MRCA. the more best jet fighter the more better for india. i think when LCA starts getting inducted then our MRCA winner too would start getting inducted. Thats even more benefit for india and our IAF. we need to kick vintage jet fighters fast. Alot good pilots loosing life in our vintage jet fighters sir. We need to replace them as early as possible.

SIR; J10 was already in mass production, while LCA is still under

testing may be for another 10 plus years SIR.

SIR; You really show your true colour when you insulting LCA, Pride

of India by saying LCA suck against EF, Rafael, Mig35 etc. SIR.

SIR; I really doubted whether you are an Indian SIR; LCA is the one

only beatable by F22 SIR;PLease stop hiding behind Indian flag SIR.

Regard SIR.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

SIR; J10 was already in mass production, while LCA is still under

testing may be for another 10 plus years SIR.

SIR; You really show your true colour when you insulting LCA, Pride

of India by saying LCA suck against EF, Rafael, Mig35 etc. SIR.

SIR; I really doubted whether you are an Indian SIR; LCA is the one

only beatable by F22 SIR;PLease stop hiding behind Indian flag SIR.

Regard SIR.

don't worry MK-2 will beat the hell out of every 4.5+ gen A/C, grey boy ur under estimating LCA,

@ Jatt
Man i want to know what exactly are u trying to say, if u plz conclude it in one post

 

[k7x]

don't worry MK-2 will beat the hell out of every 4.5+ gen A/C, grey boy ur under estimating LCA,

@ Jatt
Man i want to know what exactly are u trying to say, if u plz conclude it in one post

wow a two year old boy(China's Aviation industry) is laughing at a infant (Indian Aviation industry) trying to crawl and he is telling I can run but you are a failed human cant even crawl properly.

don't forget that you were once infant and now your are 2 .. probably some grandfathers are laughing at you as well for not running fast.


I know its off topic but . cant control

LCA is a lead project (first 4th gen aircraft of India) any lead project will take time .. and India has lot of red tapism ... our baby is slowly crawling now ; he will run soon but at any cost we wont stop him crawl..


Comparing time lines of LCA and J10 is waste of time.

1.working under communists is like do or die attitued ..
2. Thats not true for DRDO..

"3. China directly affects the progress of any weapon system in India. " -- might sound stupid. but that is true .. In the middle of weapon development there are so many changes to the requirement to counter what china inducts newly...( IAF wants to maintain quality edge as India cannot have quantity Luxury as china enjoys). this pushes every project.


It's always fun for Pakistani Brothers to say LCA is a faild project ... Why should we stop them let them have fun... Its always good at laughing others.when they are struggling.

we will continue to nourish LCA so that it can catch up big guys...

by the way J10 looks cool .. congratz