Military Aviation > Military Aircraft

lca v/s fc-1

<< < (2/2)

Air Marshal:
According to here Prototypes, LCA not satisfactory as compare to JF-17/Fc-1. What thing made LCA 5th generation super duper fighter aircraft & JF-17 inlist of obselete 2nd Generation.

Air Marshal:
The only cost of these imrovement is R&D. we should see it as a time cost not the money cost. cz production has not begin yet........  :)  If these modification came after the production then cost can be a problem.

anyways things like this happen in the fighter design world. take a look at the dfifference b/w f-22 and its prototype. JSF's both prototypes. the whole reason prototype project management is used isto deal with hurdles like these. every prototype is better than previuos one or is designed to do something specificaly.

all these advancements make it definitly a better fighter. but i still think it could have used a better engine to get a good thrust to weight ratio. we'll have to wait & see what wngine we are gtting from china.

i saw on PTV's world review an interview with jf-17's project director.
he said that jf-17's R&D cost + manufacturing plant cost would come out of the planned production. both for chineese and pakistani 150. the number he gave for the chineese im not too sure.

He also said that jf-17 is currently better than f-16 pakistan operates. he said that never before any airforce has relied on planing based around a single fighter and succesfully completed it as per requirements. he said that jf-17 can take on any frontline fighters in our region.
nothing much more than we already know cz the person asking the questions didnt ask that much technical questions.

I hope that we will see what we are getting after the 04 takes off. I know i sound like off the topic but compare this to LCA and then ull see what i m trying to say. Any one knows does thunder have HMS. in its avoinics?

Webmaster:
No not off topic, nice reply.

I am not sure about what modification we are talking about, but it's true, it is probably better to modify it now, than after or during production. That's the case with every product, except when you need to offer it on market ASAP or you don't have the funds or technology to fully develop it. But R&D engineering costs a lot of time as well as money... and if you have to prolong the service life of your current fleet because of those delays, it costs altogether maybe more than if you had planned the modification for the next production batch.

However, what I understood from interviews with PAF officers, is that Pakistan is leaving a lot of things to be implemented later. And that costs more, but it looks like they are taking efforts to make sure it is ready for integration of future mods. No shame, they are doing the same with other combat aircraft. The HMS is just one of those things to be added on later...I think.

Yes, I believe the project director is right when he says the JF-17 is currently already better than the F-16 Pakistan has. It should be really, you are talking about 25-30 year gap here. Besides that the F-16As were conceived as day fighters and delivered without real multi-role and no BVR capability. Don't forget that the US has already retired quite a number of F-16As, even the reserve units are equipped with F-16Cs I think. But it has to got a decent radar and engine though...which still need to be selected.


--- Quote ---he said that never before any airforce has relied on planing based around a single fighter and succesfully completed it as per requirements.

--- End quote ---

I don't understand that comment, because:
1. Pakistan is certainly not relying on a single fighter, as it is trying to get new fighters off-the-shelf as well.
2. I think many fighter developments/plans have actually been completed 100% as the requirements state... for some this was successful, for others not. In the last case, the problem was mostly that requirements were no longer valid.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page