Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Why would JF-17 would need a retractable IFR probe? JF-17 would start getting its fixed IFR probe from next year because they are in the process of integrating them in Block 2 and Block 1 simultaneously
Does this look like an optimal solution considering drag, RCS, cockpit observation etc? Do not most aircraft have integrated, hydraulically actuated, IFR probes these days? Could there not be a reason for this?
So we can agree that the Block.III JF-17 will just about be as capable as the Mk.1 FOC standard LCA? Okay then. So why are we even having this discussion? Why is the JF-17's induction being used as some sort of trump card to diminish the LCA's capabilities entirely?2. You pretty conviently ignored my question. How does JF-17 avionics are inferior to LCA ? JF-17 has been integrated with Spanish EW and Brazilian MAR-1 ARM. We are in the process of getting other contemporary systems. Another thing is Thunder is half chinese. How come European vendors would share LOAL BVRAAM with JF-17 ? But no worries. I will point you to this thread. Chinese solution in working
Next-Gen Chinese AAM for JF-17 Block III
3. No HMDS has been integrated and it is deferred to Block III because Pakistan has only two options for True HOBS missile. Brazilian A-Darter which would only be available to export customers in 2018 and the chinese one which would become available in 2018-2019. So what is point of HMDS when there is no true HOBS missile to be mated with HMDS ? Logic 101
If the IAF had been agreeable to accepting a sub-standard product (in the sense it was not compliant with all their outlined requirements) then the LCA could have been in service in around 2011/12.
There is a different thought process adopted by the IAF- they want the best of the best with no exceptions, the PAF is not in a position to demand this and thus are pursuing divergent policies. As such it is absurd to use the fact the Thunder is in service and the LCA as a means of criticising the LCA. One is comparing apples and oranges in this sense.
4. Why would JF-17 needs a quadraplex FBW FCS when it is a stable design ? while Delta design s are unstable and to achieve a similar performance as that of stable designs they require more complex FCS to control its movememnt. Common Sense 101.
Well this is obvious but it also highlights how much more complex the LCA was to develop.
Carbon composites to not only aide in increased manoeuvrability but a whole host of additional performance measures over traditional airframe compositions such as RCS, maintainability and life cycle costs.5. This is one place where JF-17 lacks. But answer me one thing does lack of carbon composites has affected JF-17 maneuverability in any case judging you have seen latest JF-17 solo performances ?
And whilst the LCA's stipulated AoA (as per FOC) is 26", this does not mean it will never surpass this. Did the Thunder demonstrate 28" prior to induction? Right now the LCA is being flown by ASTE (test pilots) to attain the stipulate performance levels as set by the IAF and doing so in a controlled and cautious manner. Once the bird is in service she will be handed over to TACDE and it is these pilots that will extract ever last bit of performance out of her and we will then learn what she is truly capable of.