JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

[Contrarian]

yes...that's what I have said....its a heck of a lot more...its face saving.

Let's see what proof you can provided that it has improved its AoA or pull high enough g's or carry enough weapon load.

Your wish should you continue to believe that. Proof has been given by Zeus. I dont care for a contest of mine's bigger than yours. If IAF is accepting it, then it implies that IAF's minimum criteria has been cleared, then it will be employed in a war.

Because without that, participating in a combat would be nothing more than a suicide mission.

Lol. Fine!

 

[Contrarian]

I never said it wasn't.
I wrote "prove Pakistan has "little tech. developments if anything" and that the JF-17 project only has short term benefits for Pakistan."
In the words of Mr macintosh, Pakistan has little tech developments and only short term benefits from JF-17. I asked him to prove it.

No, JF-17 is definitely a step up for Pakistan and will provide access to better technologies and developments.

My point was only that what Pakistan is doing now with JF-17, India has already done that route and more. LCA is an attempt on a different level. One which Pakistan will also try when it gets the requisite base and research level. Hopefully it will not have the pitfalls that the Indian project suffered.

 

[mean_bird]

Picture does not say that this are the achieved objectives of JF-17 and link, proof to read on about the 8Gs achieved by JF-17 ,Again the Hindu article is full based on TOP UNNAMED MOD SOURCES but i have given you the names and people who actual work on the Tejas .you should have seen defence journalist luking around Aero India 2009 when i was talking to Cdr Maolankar for some time (TEJAS TEST PILOT) he is a NAVAL HARRIER Pilot deputed to ADA for Tejas program and very senior pilot and since we had Goa connection (Harrier is based and me to) journalist could come and ask him question actually some weired questions ,none i have seen asking a technical questions ,level of Defence Journalism is really falling has wannabe Journos are writing this days ,but i did find lot of youngsters who knew what they were talking and asked the right questions

That picture is saying : Buy a JF-17 with these characteristics. You cannot list characteristics you haven't achieved when you are selling a plane. And as you might know, JF-17s original Gs was 8.5g and that listed is 8g.

Well, if two more credible links, that can be verified, are of later date are just journo fails and one disputable newspaper, with no link, cannot even be verified if it is indeed an article or some fanboy wrote it is correct....then I see no further discussion here.

You may be right in what you have asked the pilot, but unfortunately we cannot verify that information. Besides, if that were true...I would have expected the IAF or ADA to have clarified the news report that appeared not only in the Hindu but also IE.

i agree with Munir here ,more Gs often the aircrafts pulls more wear and tear the airframe gets has more stress on airframe is put, which reduces life of the airframe ,even modern AAM and ASM cannot operate under just high Gs .can any one put what AOA has JF-17 achieved yet ??

You do not practice high Gs everyday, but ask any pilot they would rather have it when going for a dog-fight than not having it.

Are you trying to say more Gs are a bad thing because they cause wear and tear?

I would also be interested in JF-17s AoA...perhaps some senior member knows?

 

[Zob]

this is something ironic i came across.... indian boys out here say that JF-17 is underpowered....well according to MIG news ur MIG-29 is pwoered by the same engine....isn't that weird...

Klimov RD-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so how can a JF-17 be underpowered and before the indian boys jump saying we got 2 we got 2....well the mig is heavier and bigger so u need a pair

 

[zombie:-)]

this is something ironic i came across.... indian boys out here say that JF-17 is underpowered....well according to MIG news ur MIG-29 is pwoered by the same engine....isn't that weird...

Klimov RD-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so how can a JF-17 be underpowered and before the indian boys jump saying we got 2 we got 2....well the mig is heavier and bigger so u need a pair

THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO OF MIG-29 IS 1.13

THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO OF JF-17 IS 0.95

so which is heavier

just stop flame baiting

 

[zeus]

Problem with India media and Armed forces is that ,Armed forces are not allowed to talk to media and civilians, just because it was a Airshow Tejas Test pilot where willing to disclose some facts but if it was any other day i bet he could have refused to even answer that .coming back to Aircraft Fatigue there are number of Aerodynamic elements which are involved more the stress on the airframe more Metal Fatigue shows up this are minor cracks which are not easy to spot if i am not wrong F-18 crashed some time ago due to Metal Fatigue ,i am not an expert on matter of Aircraft Fatigue may be some seniors could be able to make better views on it

 

[saiko]

For what it is, the JF-17 is a great aircraft. The LCA is undoubtedly more sophisticated based on what we know right now, but the design philosophy of the JF-17 is spot on for the PAF - a cost effective solution that they can afford. The IAF will always be better funded so the PAF needs asymmetric solutions.

I'd liken the JF-17 to a tank destroyer while more sophisticated fighters are battle tanks. Battle tanks offer better overall combat capability, but the tank destroyer can kill it all the same.

If the JF-17 encounters something it can't hang with in WVR it can just avoid WVR combat. Any crucial area denial missions can be flown by the F-16s or J-10s. The JF-17 really only needs to get the missiles in the air to shoot them then RTB. And all it needs to do that is a quality radar and missiles - both things that the JF-17 can match (and potentially best) the LCA on with upgrades.

Personally I think any expensive "light-weight" fighter is a waste these days and it remains to be seen how much the LCA acutally costs. If it costs $20-$22 million for the specs provided that's great and arguably a better bang for the buck than the JF-17! But I somehow don't see that happening.

Advances in avionics mean cooling capacity is one of the major bottlenecks for more effective BVR capability. Lightweight/small fighters are inherently at a disadvantage here because the airframe would have to be redesigned (with all the perils that entails) to compete with heavier fighters. Not to mention lightweight fighters usually carry less missiles - another important consideration in BVR combat.

 

[mean_bird]

For what it is, the JF-17 is a great aircraft. The LCA is undoubtedly more sophisticated based on what we know right now, but the design philosophy of the JF-17 is spot on for the PAF - a cost effective solution that they can afford. The IAF will always be better funded so the PAF needs asymmetric solutions.

I'd liken the JF-17 to a tank destroyer while more sophisticated fighters are battle tanks. Battle tanks offer better overall combat capability, but the tank destroyer can kill it all the same.

If the JF-17 encounters something it can't hang with in WVR it can just avoid WVR combat. Any crucial area denial missions can be flown by the F-16s or J-10s. The JF-17 really only needs to get the missiles in the air to shoot them then RTB. And all it needs to do that is a quality radar and missiles - both things that the JF-17 can match (and potentially best) the LCA on with upgrades.

Personally I think any expensive "light-weight" fighter is a waste these days and it remains to be seen how much the LCA acutally costs. If it costs $20-$22 million for the specs provided that's great and arguably a better bang for the buck than the JF-17! But I somehow don't see that happening.

Advances in avionics mean cooling capacity is one of the major bottlenecks for more effective BVR capability. Lightweight/small fighters are inherently at a disadvantage here because the airframe would have to be redesigned (with all the perils that entails) to compete with heavier fighters. Not to mention lightweight fighters usually carry less missiles - another important consideration in BVR combat.

On paper perhaps, in reality however... (just go through this thread)

 

[saiko]

Well clearly without it being operational who can really say. But it's performance parameters are, on paper, better. It will also cost more, so that's hardly surprising. I'm not up to speed on what the Pakistan and Indian currencies are trading at in nominal USD so it may actually be that the JF-17, in PPP, is even more cost effective relative to the LCA. But I'm too lazy to check.

I read through a fair portion of the thread and mostly its just people saying the LCA isn't operational or offering subjective "proofs" of superiority one way or another that aren't terribly concrete.

If the JF-17 can hang in WVR with the LCA, that'd just be gravy. The JF-17 is a poor man's multirole fighter, but for a more sophisticated airforce like the PAF the JF-17 offers a low-cost BVR platform that, in crucial BVR performance characteristics can be upgraded to be very effective.

In any case, the most important thing Pakistan gained from the JF-17 project is kickstarting its domestic aerospace industry. More than anything else that makes the JF-17 project worthwhile, but doubly so that the JF-17 is exactly what the PAF needs.

 

[mean_bird]

Well clearly without it being operational who can really say. But it's performance parameters are, on paper, better.

The first versions of both the Planes are fully mature now. Serial production of JF-17 has started, while that of LCA will also start within a few months if they intend, as they said, to have 40 planes by 2010-2011. There will be no changes in airframe or engines to any one of them in the first batch.

I read through a fair portion of the thread and mostly its just people saying the LCA isn't operational or offering subjective "proofs" of superiority one way or another that aren't terribly concrete.

If the JF-17 can hang in WVR with the LCA, that'd just be gravy.
...

What good are specifications on paper that cannot translate to reality?

All "concrete" proof has been provided on more than one occasion in this thread. Read it, especially the last 5-10 pages. We are not going to go through it again for every new arriving member.

Batch II (that might make it upto written specifications) is another 4-5 years away. We will talk about it then.

 

[saiko]

What good are specifications on paper that cannot translate to reality?[/

All "concrete" proof has been provided on more than one occasion in this thread. Read it, especially the last 5-10 pages. We are not going to go through it again for every new arriving member.

Batch II (that might make it upto written specifications) is another 4-5 years away. We will talk about it then.

Like I said, much of it is subjective or based on the idea that paper specs won't meet reality, which you have no way of knowing yet. You're entitled to think differently. And for the record I never asked or expected anyone to "go through it again". I gave my opinion, which you clearly disagree with. That's nice.

 

[Hayreddin]

AIR MARSHAL TANVIR MEHMOOD in interview said that JF17 is compatible with F16 BLOCK50 ,TYPHOON AND GRIPEN ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

realy interesting it seems to be ,,,,,,,,

 

[pakpower]

Oh come on guys why you Mr. Saiko and all other guys dont fly in the air without any proof what so ever when the time came everything about these two jests will be revealed fully to their maximum capability so till then just chill and let the game begin.

 

[mean_bird]

Like I said, much of it is subjective or based on the idea that paper specs won't meet reality, which you have no way of knowing yet.

NO, nothing here is subjective or assumptions.

Its is objective and based on the fact that it has not met and will not meet the specifications it started with...not in the first batch of 40 planes.

The first batch will be made with the current specifications. This is not an assumption but a fact, admitted by the Indian MoD and proof of which has already been given in this thread.

The second phase or MKII, which supposedly will meet the specifications based on foreign help , is atleast 3-5 years away and will require changes to the structure of the plane.

 

[adm_havemercy]

AIR MARSHAL TANVIR MEHMOOD in interview said that JF17 is compatible with F16 BLOCK50 ,TYPHOON AND GRIPEN ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

realy interesting it seems to be ,,,,,,,,




aTY2L6P9Aa0[/media] - Interview with Air Chief Marshal Tanveer on JF-17 Production

now this is height of optimism .