MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: lca v/s fc-1  (Read 7472 times)

Offline bhushan

  • Pilot
  • **
  • Posts: 13
lca v/s fc-1
« on: October 01, 2005, 02:16:18 PM »
hi i'm bhushan,

i want to know which of the 2 aircrafts is better.
lca is from india while fc-1 is from china ( partly funded by pakistan ).

Offline Air Marshal

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 267
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2005, 06:56:59 AM »
Fc-1 Images
PAKISTAN AIR FORCE (www.paffalcons.com)

FOR THOSE WHO DARE THE FUTURE IN THE SKIES

Offline Joopey

  • Pilot
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: nl
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2005, 05:08:13 PM »
Not much difference between the two... Approx. same weight, range, weapon load and engine thrust. They are so much alike, you wonder why these guys don't just talk it out, make up, kiss and develop 1 aircraft together...  ;D

The winner of these 2, will probably have the best avionics set (and the smartest pilot). Looking at export sales, knowing the Paki's, you can probably buy a squadron of these for 1 F/A-18E...

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2842
  • Country: nl
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2005, 03:55:28 PM »
REMOVED ACCUSATIONS REGARDING TERRORISM, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION

@ BHUSHAN
Regard this as a warning. Keep to the discussion of the aircraft. If you want to discuss terrorism I suggest you open a topic for it at the conflict or general discussion board. But be aware, I do not accept any posts that may lead to flame wars.

@ alyster
After removal of Bhushan's post, your reply was off-topic so I deleted it as well. Please understand and don't feel offended. Thanks.
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2842
  • Country: nl
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2005, 04:12:04 PM »
Back on the discussion.

Yes, I believe they will both be very cheap, but especially the JF-17 (FC-1). A whole squadron maybe not...but considering the cost of a single super hornet is between let's say 50 and 75 million...I think you can at least buy a flight of JF-17s for that. But in my opinion the success of it really depends on the integration of the BVR SD-10/PL-12 with the weapon system and selected radar.

Regarding the JF-17/FC-1 versus LCA, I think it is hard to comment right now, they are quite similar in specification and possible type of weapons as well. but let's hope a real vs. match will never take place. LCA has got a slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio I think, but I would not be suprised it is has already gained weight.

Both aircraft had some troubles regarding the engines...for the JF-17, first it appeared Russia would not agree on the sale of the RD-93 to third party countries (so only Chinese) but there are reports about a co-produced russian-chino variant (WS-13). The LCA was planned to get the F404 engine at first, until the US denied exports, then the Kavari was developed with much delays and problems, now relations have improved India would be able to import F404s again. I am not sure about the Kavari progress as of today, and I don't know if there's a decision yet on its definitive engine.
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline Air Marshal

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 267
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2006, 07:20:22 PM »
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.
PAKISTAN AIR FORCE (www.paffalcons.com)

FOR THOSE WHO DARE THE FUTURE IN THE SKIES

Offline Air Marshal

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 267
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2006, 07:25:28 PM »
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?
PAKISTAN AIR FORCE (www.paffalcons.com)

FOR THOSE WHO DARE THE FUTURE IN THE SKIES

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2842
  • Country: nl
Re: lca v/s fc-1
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2006, 08:11:52 PM »
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.

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.

  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA