LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
so you still believe JFT is a mig 21?

please say yes or no...since i wont waste my time here further than

Even after proving that LCA has alot of design flaws and will remain only a advance trainer and a technology demonstrator considering its design limitation..
It is not my belief mate, It is being repeated all over the net in all forums and authoritative websites,

the antibody , cobrato, blue sky , sole , and you can believe otherwise, I will,never challenge this belief,

If you give me one credible authentic link which says otherwise , I will change my ideas,

It is a well known fact that MIG-21 had big control problems leading to many crashes in IAF.

In fact the man KOTA HARINARAYANA who was the design team leader for the Tejas , was the man instrumental in spearheading a research study on LEVCONS to solve this problem,

SO it is no surprise that chinese added LREX to solve the same problem,And DSI is an improvement over the existing airintake.

But if you assert that this DSI and LREX moved the center of lift in fron tof the CG in subsonic corner speeds , like the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON guys assert in the website,

It is your responsibility to provide an authentic link from the manufacturers of JF-17 and that claim being endorsed by many reputed websites all over the net, Not mine. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that JF_17 is an RSS fighter, not on the person who is asking for a credible link to validate it, No use getting worked over this,

You go to any reputable website on tejas or Mirage or F-16 or Rafale or TYPHOON , it will say that they are all RSS fighters from the design phase.

Your claim that you proved many design flaws on Tejas is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, less said the better,

Which design flaw you proved in the debate lasting past three pages? I am eager to know,Man it is an original design , not a rip off like the chinese do, Why you get to dispute this is a mystery to me,

Lokk at every airframe design of all the fighters in PLAF, Tell me which one is not a soviet rip off? Even their latest carrier landing fighter is a rip off of SU series, what is J-11? J-10 has it's roots in LAVi or MIg-33 , a debate which rages which is the original father of J-10?

SO how come back in the eighties the chinese produced an original airframe design especially for PAF? Every one know it is a further development of J-7 or F-7 which was based on MIG-21s.

If JF-17 too is one such RSS fighter , we can easily see the reference to this attribute in all the websites. That's all.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
@ersakthivel,
Can you please tell me what kind of stability do F-16s after Blk-30 have, RSS or Negative or Positive. You answer it correctly and you will never again post this shit about RSS again.

1.Explain what do you mean by thrust line in your own words and , and how is it's relationship works with center of lift ,which keeps moving places in subsonic and supersonic flights,

2.And also since the center of gravity of the fighter changes with depletion of fuel, depletion of external stores like fuel in drop tanks , inside the fighter and bombs and missiles ejected,Since Cg changes with all those activities , how do you propose to keep the center of lift or thrust line just below the CG all time.


3. And also explain how this CG change can be counter acted by lower thrust line of F-16 XL without RSS ,while both the center of lift and Center of gravity keeps changing?How can you keep CL just below CG all the time in all flight profiles?

4. As you say turn rate is determined by just bank angle and speeds and it has no relation with RSS, I completely accept it.

5.But My point is to achieve this bank angle quickly and keep it up all the time with least force couple based momentum resistance of Cg (which pulls the plane down because gravity is acting on it and a downward couple is generated, since it is no RSS design)the figter has no other way other than having RSS.

6.RSS planes have their Cg behind Cl in sub sonic and near trans sonic flight at their corner velocity. That is the reason F-16 has better STR than F-15 irrespective of F-15 being much bigger and having two powerful engines.The F-15 is not an RSS plane means it's center of lift is behind CG in corner velocity, unlike the Eurofighter TYPHOON.

What this means is during cornering at around 300 +knots it's Cg being in front of the Cl produces a downward force couple all the time. That is the reason Why F-15 despite being a much bigger twin engined plane is unable to achieve high STR of F-16 A.Remember both the F-15 and F-16 belong to the same low wing area , high wing loading concept.

It has been embarasingly proved many times in USAF exercise that F-16 is more agile than F-15. But since F-15 is a much bigger load carrying heavier long range interceptor with much high standards of BVRs and RADAR and electronic counter measures it's position as premier fighter was unchallenged. But this doesnot mean that it's non-RSS airframe design is superior to F-16's RSS airframe.

But still F-16 excels with high STR of 23 + degree at corner speeds and F-15 lags behind with poor 15 to 17 deg STR in corner speeds means F-16 is RSS and F-15 is the old conventional stable flight profile with positive static stability meaning the airframe resists the attempts of the pilot to maneuver and tries to stay level, which is not the case with RSS F-16 which goes with the pilot's effort to maneuver , because it is RSS based negative static stability platform.

also there is a small matter called force couple, which get generated by the distance between the CG and CL. Cg tries to pull the plane down with nose down momentum, Cl tries to lift the plane up. IF both are at the same exact place , no force couple arise.

But it is impossible to keep it that way all the time as the fighter maneuvers all the time and changes to super sonic and subsonic flight all the time resulting in changes in CL and with the reduction of fuel and external stores it's Cg too changes place. How do you propose to keep both of them at the same place with thrust line or CL just below the Cg all the time?

In RSS aerodynamic layout this force couple actually benefits the fighter, because the CG which tries to pull down the plane due to gravity is below the Cl which pushes the plane up. A force couple is generated that results in the nose pitch up momentum of the airframe. That is why it is described in all articles that describe the tejas's aerodynamic loadout that it has a tendency to pitch up the nose.

It is this nose pitch up momentum which results in achieving Gs faster and reaching it's higher AOA limit faster. Coupled with the fabulous wing loading of Tejas it results in attaining a high ITR pulling GS faster and getting a firing solution with HMDS enabled high of bore sight WVR missiles in close combat.

Through out the Sustained turn this force couple between the CL which is infront and Cg which is in the back acts on the airframe making it sustain the Bank angle or AOA at it's top limit with no opposition and little effort. But for non RSS fighter the it is exactly the opposite , that is the CL in the back and the CG in the front creates a negative force couple resisting the aerodynamic lift work done by the wings to achieve high ITR and high AOA along with high STR,

This is the reason RAFALE and TYPHOON have both high ITR and STR than the F-15 irrespective of the TWR.



You are welcome to contradict and put your explanations against the points I have made here.

As I believe every one learns something from a lively debate conducted with proper decorum,


instead of each throwing challenges to other guy on the dance floor, like those in the teenage Hollywood fast dance movies,


I nether hate to be proved wrong. In fact I look forward to it.Since I learn nothing by saying what comes to my mind, but i will learn a lot if someone else point out my mistakes to me.Since I have no claims of being a top dog aerodynamic expert , I lose nothing in being proved wrong.

Thanks.

So feel free to contradict me,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
It is not my belief mate, It is being repeated all over the net in all forums and authoritative websites,

the antibody , cobrato, blue sky , sole , and you can believe otherwise, I will,never challenge this belief,

If you give me one credible authentic link which says otherwise , I will change my ideas,
Reported in net forums and rumour is spread only by the Indians..Crobato is not someone like you or me..but rather someone who was directly involved in the jft project.Had discussion with PAF officials.not a random forum guy




It is a well known fact that MIG-21 had big control problems leading to many crashes in IAF.

In fact the man KOTA HARINARAYANA who was the design team leader for the Tejas , was the man instrumental in spearheading a research study on LEVCONS to solve this problem,

SO it is no surprise that chinese added LREX to solve the same problem,And DSI is an improvement over the existing airintake.

But if you assert that this DSI and LREX moved the center of lift in fron tof the CG in subsonic corner speeds , like the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON guys assert in the website,
JFT is actually based on Super 7 project.
if i go by your approach..LCA was initially thought to be a 3rd generation fighter..so it must be a third generation fighter by now as well considering your logic

but this was not the case beacuse with the passsage of development..many changes in the designs are brought and the final product is usually different

have a look at project super 7.






First picture=super 7
2nd picture=pt-01 without lerx and dsi
3rd==pt-04,the one on which JFT is based off with lerx and dsi..





It is your responsibility to provide an authentic link from the manufacturers of JF-17 and that claim being endorsed by many reputed websites all over the net, Not mine. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that JF_17 is an RSS fighter, not on the person who is asking for a credible link to validate it, No use getting worked over this,

You go to any reputable website on tejas or Mirage or F-16 or Rafale or TYPHOON , it will say that they are all RSS fighters from the design phase.

Your claim that you proved many design flaws on Tejas is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, less said the better,
Both china and pakistan are more secret in defence sector than india,france,eft or the rest of the fighter origin countries
Which design flaw you proved in the debate lasting past three pages? I am eager to know,Man it is an original design , not a rip off like the chinese do, Why you get to dispute this is a mystery to me,
the design and its limitation to remain as a AJT forever with no hope for a good level maneuverability even with 200kn engine...lca isnt a illegal rip off but rather a legal rip off of mirage and saab viggen..for more detail please go through the last page
Lokk at every airframe design of all the fighters in PLAF, Tell me which one is not a soviet rip off? Even their latest carrier landing fighter is a rip off of SU series, what is J-11? J-10 has it's roots in LAVi or MIg-33 , a debate which rages which is the original father of J-10?

SO how come back in the eighties the chinese produced an original airframe design especially for PAF? Every one know it is a further development of J-7 or F-7 which was based on MIG-21s.

If JF-17 too is one such RSS fighter , we can easily see the reference to this attribute in all the websites. That's all.
Sabre II was a pakistani project.but rather cancelled in favour of super 7

Super 7 was chinese project which was later replaced by FC-1

tell me which aircraft is more similar to JFT,

MIG 21 or F-16



Mig 21,F-16,JFT

The reality is that PAF allowed the Chinese official as well as the PAC engineers to look deep into the PAF f-16..which infact is the reason of 95% similarity of JFT and f-16
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
LCA is a hybrid of m2k and saab viggen
this was the reason IAF ACM termed it as a 3rd generation fighter.(mk2 only because if i remember he meant mk2 as mig 21 ++..which means lca mk1 or also known as the technology demonstrator is said to be either late 2nd generation or pre 3rd generation)courtesy indian air force air chief marshal


 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
different fighter aircrafts made unstable with design changes with the passage of time

I reckon, Relaxed stability (lack of equilibrium) can be added into an aircraft by removing its stabilizing elements.You can take a design that was stable and turn it unstable.

Words from an F-18 pilot.

http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/Sta...Stability.html

"First, a very brief review of stability and control: The stability of any airplane is its tendency to return to equilibrium when displaced. Controllability is a measure of the ease with which the pilot can displace it from equilibrium. An extremely stable airplane might be very hard to control depending on the level of controllability. An unstable airplane may be impossible to control regardless of controllability. The F/A-18 I used to fly was designed with very relaxed static longitudinal stability-almost neutral. The relaxed stability and very strong controllability make it a highly maneuverable fighter-the airplane would be extremely difficult to control without the digital flight control computers. Static longitudinal stability is normally indicated in terms of stick force versus airspeed measured about a trimmed point of equilibrium. A simple graph explains:"

.

WARPLANE | Thirteen/WNET

"When the F-15 RFP [Request for Proposal] came out, General Dynamics proposed a high technology version of the F-15. This version included a fly-by-wire flight control system, relaxed static stability, side stick, slope back seat and a single piece windshield/canopy."



Analog systems
Analog computers also allowed some customization of flight control characteristics, including relaxed stability. This was exploited by the early versions of F-16, giving it impressive maneuverability
Fly-by-wire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The F-16 began with an analog fly-by-wire system—the first production aircraft with fly-by-wire—and later switched to DFBW controls.
Fly-by-Wire Systems Enable Safer, More Efficient Flight
ARTIFICIAL STABILITY & FLY-BY-WIRE CONTROL
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
different fighter aircrafts made unstable with design changes with the passage of time
All nice photos, But I still maintain JF-17 as a Mig-21 with a radar in front and intakes moved behind to DSI form. it has the same dimensions of Mig-21 , not F-16.

it is being said in foreign forums and sites,where there are no Indians, And show me a claim saying Tejas is 3rd gen in reputable forums, ofcourse not the pakistani forums.

Dassault was a design consultant initially, SO mirage low wing loading delta influence is ther. But wing position was modified, Intakes moved, crank introduced, and the dimensions of Mirage is much higher than the tejas.

i never questioned F-16 being an RSS fighter. Looks alone won't make a fighter RSS. Mirage-III has the same loadout of Mirage-2000. Does that make the old Mirage-III of PAF RSS fighters?

We need a specific quote from the manufacturer's website atleast to clarify the issue.


How do you do keep secrets , when you ask other fighter pilots from 3rd world nations wanting to buy JF-17 are allowed to fly the plane?
 
Last edited:

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
JFT was planned to be fully fbw aircraft..notice this time JFT was in development

many aircraft during the development period were made unstable by design changes




F-16 and JFT both are unstable designs thats why they have fBW to stabilize them in flight. You cannot have a fbw in an already stable design because it will become useless since the role of fbw is to convert the negative stability into positive. Without a fbw, both F-16 and JFT have a nose down tendency and will eventually crash.
beside this i have already posted a long post by gambit.and gambit is a ex USAF pilot..
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
All nice photos, But I still maintain JF-17 as a Mig-21 with a radar in front and intakes moved behind to DSI form. it has the same dimensions of Mig-21 , not F-16.

it is being said in foreign forums and sites,where there are no Indians, And show me a claim saying Tejas is 3rd gen in reputable forums, ofcourse not the pakistani forums.
you are allowed to believe anything..since i cant change your mind from india tv.
It is said because all the info on wiki and other sites mentions the pre pt-04 states of JFT.while the fact is JFT was extensively modified later.

Leave the forum aside..i have quoted your IAF ACM..which says LCA mk2 is a mig 21++..and you know mig 21 is a 3rd generation fighter..
hence it means the 4.5th generation lca mk2 is a 3rd generation fighter
the source of my info is your ACM not member of any forums
Dassault was a design consultant initially, SO mirage low wing loading delta influence is ther. But wing position was modified, Intakes moved, crank introduced, and the dimensions of Mirage is much higher than the tejas.
so this is all about dimensions now?even after i have proved that LCA is a hybrid of mirage and saab viggen.
i never questioned F-16 being an RSS fighter. Looks alone won't make a fighter RSS. Mirage-III has the same loadout of Mirage-2000. Does that make the old Mirage-III of PAF RSS fighters?
by look i meant the design..both jft and f-16 are very much identicle.while mirage 2000 and mirage III are not that much identical.



We need a specific quote from the manufacturer's website atleast to clarify the issue.


How do you do keep secrets , when you ask other fighter pilots from 3rd world nations wanting to buy JF-17 are allowed to fly the plane?
manufacturer website is not updated since the past many years..and this aircraft is stable or unstable is not claimed in airshows.

please go through the JFT official thread.with the passage of time now JFT payload is 4600kg compared to LCA which has a very tiny payload of only 3500kg.
the JFT II with 700kg decreased empty weight and 91.2kn thrust..must have a payload of 5.5t.

JFT is getting evolved faster and faster while lca is struck in lsp's
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
JFT was planned to be fully fbw aircraft..notice this time JFT was in development

many aircraft during the development period were made unstable by design changes






beside this i have already posted a long post by gambit.and gambit is a ex USAF pilot..
But a link from the makers of the plane is the final authority. Why because when the makers sell the plane to 3rd countries if they say it is RSS and handover the relative document , then it is finally settled. Because no fighter maker wants to lie about their product and get caught red handed,because it will affect their future credibility,

The fighter is now ready to be sold in exports markets, still they haven't made RSS claims in any of their official websites is very surprising indeed, To stress the agility of their plane any RSS fighter maker document this fact in their official communication.No one will omit such a crucial design feature about their airframe design in official releases.

That's why I asked the makers statement in authentic web portal of their's. Then there is nothing to dispute the fact.Posts from Gambit and corbotto are not authentic credible proof. By the way you seem to regard tejas with utmost contempt,

Tejas is more of an academic project taken up by an autonomous society with various labs and universities roped in research. All claims about it are opensource and transparent , no james bond secrets, though,

I have asked you a question,

What is the time taken by JF-17 to complete one full vertical loop at corner speed or at whatever speeds?
 
Last edited:

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
But a link from the makers of the plane is the final authority. Why because when the makers sell the plane to 3rd countries if they say it is RSS and handover the relative document , then it is finally settled. Because no fighter maker wants to lie about their product and get caught red handed,because it will affect their future credibility,

The fighter is now ready to be sold in exports markets, still they haven't made RSS claims in any of their official websites is very surprising indeed, To stress the agility of their plane any RSS fighter maker document this fact in their official communication.No one will omit such a crucial design feature about their airframe design in official releases.

That's why I asked the makers statement in authentic web portal of their's. Then there is nothing to dispute the fact.Posts from Gambit and corbotto are not authentic credible proof. By the way you seem to regard tejas with utmost contempt,

Tejas is more of an academic project taken up by an autonomous society with various labs and universities roped in research. All claims about it are opensource and transparent , no james bond secrets, though,

I have asked you a question,

What is the time taken by JF-17 to complete one full vertical loop at corner speed or at whatever speeds?
well it will be made official one day if anyone asked them about this.be it janes or pakistani media.
could also be possible if Pshamim ever come online on def.pk.because he's also a paf official.

in interview they are usually asked about the radar,avionics,block 2,etc.

about the loop part i had already posted a reply yesterday.check out the last page.

though i had seen videos of jft.it doesnt perform a vertical loop..it does try to perform it.but rather go different later..
you should watch the videos of jft i posted in the previous page

NOTE:source of the above is Janes.interview of officials..and they had confirmed the plan of full fbw aircraft..this was the reason i had repeating for the past few months..good that i atleast found a source to confirm it
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
well it will be made official one day if anyone asked them about this.be it janes or pakistani media.
could also be possible if Pshamim ever come online on def.pk.because he's also a paf official.

in interview they are usually asked about the radar,avionics,block 2,etc.

about the loop part i had already posted a reply yesterday.check out the last page.

though i had seen videos of jft.it doesnt perform a vertical loop..it does try to perform it.but rather go different later..
you should watch the videos of jft i posted in the previous page
Why people don't ask it's makers that whether JF-17 is RSS or not is simple,

Everyone knows ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is not.No need to ask.


It is ready to be sold to export makets.Still Why it doesnot completes the vertical loop?


Tejas, RAFALE, SUKHOI, TYPHOON all complete it, Why not JF-17?
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
Why people don't ask it's makers that whether JF-17 is RSS or not is simple,

Everyone knows ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is not.No need to ask.


It is ready to be sold to export makets.Still Why it doesnot completes the vertical loop?


Tejas, RAFALE, SUKHOI, TYPHOON all complete it, Why not JF-17?
ok you are right while rest of all the sources are posted are wrong..including the janes and paf official statement of planned complete fbw..because fbw are for unstable design's

even our k-8 traimers does vertical loops.vertical loops are nothing specially.

now if a demand can you show me a full complete 360 of tejas?can you show me all the tight maneuvers done by tejas?
i am sure tomorrow you will claim why jft doesnt perform cobra maneuvers.

check out the tight vertical climb of jft..i doubt even tejas mk5 would be capable of such an tight vertical climb

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
ok you are right while rest of all the sources are posted are wrong..including the janes and paf official statement of planned complete fbw..because fbw are for unstable design's

even our k-8 traimers does vertical loops.vertical loops are nothing specially.

now if a demand can you show me a full complete 360 of tejas?can you show me all the tight maneuvers done by tejas?
i am sure tomorrow you will claim why jft doesnt perform cobra maneuvers.

check out the tight vertical climb of jft..i doubt even tejas mk5 would be capable of such an tight vertical climb

If I say tejas completed a vertical loop in 20 seconds with partiallly opened flight envelope of 6Gs , you would blithely ignore and say it is a dead design,

That will prompt me to post some reply like, "why can't JF-17 do what K-8 can do", you will get worked up .

Even if you search the four corners of the globe , you won't find a proof for RSS claim.

There is no point in continuing this tit for tat talk.

We both are stuck up on the same point. SO we will end the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
If I say tejas completed a vertical loop in 20 seconds with partiallly opened flight envelope of 6Gs , you would blithely ignore and say it is a dead design,

That will prompt me to post some reply like, "why can't JF-17 do what K-8 can do", you will get worked up .

Even if you search the four corners of the globe , you won't find a proof for RSS claim.

There is no point in continuing this tit for tat talk.

We both are stuck up on the same point. SO we will end the discussion.
but a vertical loop is nothing specially..even trainer aircraft does this

but can tejas perform as good as JFT has done in the above video?

IT is now very much confirmed from the janes source posted above of fully fbw planned in production variant

and majority of the 4th generation fighters are only unstable in pitch like jft which can be confirmed from even the older specs on pac
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
but a vertical loop is nothing specially..even trainer aircraft does this

but can tejas perform as good as JFT has done in the above video?

IT is now very much confirmed from the janes source posted above of fully fbw planned in production variant

and majority of the 4th generation fighters are only unstable in pitch like jft which can be confirmed from even the older specs on pac
the janes link you posted only says FBW in pitch axis , not an RSS airframe , Actually it proves my point that adding DSI and LREX hasn't made it a RSS fighter.
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
the janes link you posted only says FBW in pitch axis , not an RSS airframe , Actually it proves my point that adding DSI and LREX hasn't made it a RSS fighter.
currently(2005)

but said fully fbw is planned.

the janes source has actually confirmed that at the end which means the production variant would have a full FBW
 

SATISH

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,038
Likes
302
Country flag
currently(2005)

but said fully fbw is planned.

the janes source has actually confirmed that at the end which means the production variant would have a full FBW
Full relaxed static stability can be achieved only when the aircraft is intended to be RSS from the design phase or else you must seriously consider a complete redesign of the aircraft inside out...just like the difference between a F 18A to F 18E. This is a huge task and is almost like building a new aircraft. Adding LERX or DSI is not going to shift the CG of the aircraft only design modifications of the whole wing dimensions can make it possible.

Thats why I posted about the evaluations of the FBW earlier. And the aircraft spins on three axes that are the Pitch, Yaw and roll...the JF 17 has quadruplex fly by wire in one or 2 of the axes but not all 3 of them.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a200205.pdf

Fly by Wire system

this plog talks about the difference between a triplex and the quadruplex system.
 
Last edited:

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
sorry i have never said LCA is only a 30 years old design but rather even more...nothing bad in this though

the design is most likely borrowed from mirage and saab viggen

I can't get it...
please make up your mind before posting anything, once u told that LCA design is borrowed from mirage iii now u say its from saab Viggen and mirage 2000.
so if u have any brain (which i bet u don't now) if design is borrowed from 3 different type of planes then LCA is entirely different plane al together.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top