Just out of curiosity, did you just use the SQL notation for "not equal"?
Back on topic.
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
Just out of curiosity, did you just use the SQL notation for "not equal"?
Back on topic.
hehe, SQL or not, <> is a commonly used mathematic symbol in all engineering disciplines. I was trying to brag my strictness on accuracy.
and yes, SQL is in one of my educations/trainings. I could also have used =/=.
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Many thanks for shedding the light.
What exactly is Inter--Armament--competition ?
Is that Air to Ground * Bombing competition ?
I just google and got an answer ... ...
Yes, it was Air to Ground * Bombing competition.
I was hoping to see the pure Air to Air Combat Dogfighting + ECM ability of JF-17 versus other well known aircraft.
JF-17 #1 strength is Air to Air Combat Dogfighting + ECM ability using China avionics.
IMHO, ... ...the primary strength of PRC and Russian aircrafts are always their Air to Air Combat Dogfighting + ECM ability, because
their Scientists are able to design a Superior Airframe Aerodynamic and Superior ECM Jamming devices than the Opfor--that--can--not--be--named.
At this moment, the Opfor--that--can--not--be--named strength is on producing the Turbofan Engines, and their achilles heel is in designing and producing Super Maneuverable Airframe. That is why they always stress BVR combat. --- They are so afraid to face the prospect of WVR combat.
Yet, those State of the Art Datalinks and BVR combat do not function inside sustained Heavy EM interference and ECM Jamming environment against Matching--Peer foes.
Since WW2, the Opfor--that--can--not--be--named has been fighting the much INFERIOR and technologically outdated foes, such as Libya, Syria, YugoSlavia and their PR news outlets trumpeting their result as shocking and amazing. --- Wait until the Opfor--that--can--not--be--named fight the Matching--Peer foes. The result will exposed their weakness in terms not being able to design and produce Super Maneuverable Airframe.
Do you know whether PAF is marketing the JF-17 by stressing its Air to Air Combat Dogfighting ability ?
Source:
Nice, and as I expected (or at least hoped for) a J-10-style design and not that plain bolt-on one !
Is that MAWS? Does not appear in previous versions
IMO it is more a light related for night IFR-missions...
I don't think that these are different solutions ... the first one on that PAF-bird was simply a test-installation, whereas this new design is probably the final design.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The probe nozzle looks noticeably and significantly different, with the one at the CAC factor significantly longer and looking to have a very different design.
The way the probe is joined to the fuselage is also very different, with the CAC bird adopting a J10 like design, whereas the original at PAC looked distinctly different. Not to mention the positioning.
If was just the way the probe was afixed to the fuselage or even the postioning, I can get with the new and improved model argument, but right now, it looks like the only thing in common between the two probes is the plane they are attached to.
The nozzle head in particular suggests designs from different makers, as that is the most important part of the IFR probe and the two heads are different in too many ways and areas for one to be a version of the other.
The CAC bird looks to be using the same probe as the J10, whereas the one first shown at PAC most likely mounted the South African one they bought.
The question is why? Are the South Africans blocking transfer of their probe to China for integration so China had to put in its own? A fly off to determine the final probe to adopt? Some sort of disagreement between CAC and PAC?