LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
It is time for ADA to sell Tejas design to HAL (and any pvt company wanting to build it), and let HAL own up Mk1A and so on.
Forget the Mk2, and focus on twin engine MCA, which eventually can become AMCA.
Forget the Mk2, and focus on twin engine MCA, which eventually can become AMCA.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Dunno if such simple sentences can't be understood by anyone the aversion to LCA is purely political and unethical vendetta to prove to match with other SEFs.“The specifications of Tejas are world class. If you are trying to compare the role of this (Tejas) with what is the role of a Gripen and role of F 16… they differ in their requirements. The requirements are defined for Tejas and we are meeting them. I really do not know how one can compare a Tejas with a Gripen saying they are of the same class,” he said
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712720.cms
Some big shot must give a blessing to Mk2 soon.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
arunsrinivasan wrote:shiv wrote:
I have also seen that a few private universities are starting to do high-quality research, & have achieved some early success. In education we have moved from scarcity to excess & many private universities have realised that to survive in the future, they need to deliver quality & that is the only way to differentiate themselves. This competition is driving increase in quality at 'some' private universities. Also many of of the low-quality engg colleges & universities are shutting down. I know of one private University which is already doing world-class research in a few areas, & if this trend continues, we can expect a few world-class private universities in the next 10 - 20 years.
With these trends in the Govt & Private Universities, I expect over the next 10 - 20 years one can expect some (hopefully >10) world-class universities with strong research capabilities to emerge.
IMHO, and that of some high-tech Indian SMEs, some IITs are responsive to industry trends and requirements but others are very rigid, and will not budge from their preconceived notions on R & D programs. He feels that R & D funding would be better utilised if SMEs' R & D ventures are supported directly.
I am for supporting Universities, along the lines of the US model, but flexibility may be in order wrt the observations by high-tech SMEs, which are frequently left to cope with unreasonable bureaucracies and rules on their own.
Excellent video, Shiv, should be widely shared on social media as general public is not aware of plus points of Tejas. Also, I endorse the request that a point by point refutation/ comparison with the Gripen be posted on all social media and publications.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Mmm.. 350mm !?Rakesh wrote:...
The LCA Mk.2’s wings will be moved out board by about 350mm, increasing the space between fuselage and wings, thus optimising load transfer and allowing for an increase of fuel (700 kg) in the central fuselage....
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Second video:
A rebuttal of media reports dissing the Tejas in favour of the F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc
A rebuttal of media reports dissing the Tejas in favour of the F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Great Video Shiv ji, I can only hope that media peoples understand this much of data and insight.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
We are all dissing IAF for trying to ditch tejas in favour of foreign SEF while the NSA has asked for more Tejas ditching foreign SEF.
Q is which Tejas?
This is just speculation but it really pains to think IAF is lying.
So, what if the NSA has asked IAF for its rational not to order more MK1 IOC version itself to quickly fill the gap in squadron no and IAF's protest is against this particular version of Tejas?
Does that reconcile with the known facts?
Q is which Tejas?
This is just speculation but it really pains to think IAF is lying.
So, what if the NSA has asked IAF for its rational not to order more MK1 IOC version itself to quickly fill the gap in squadron no and IAF's protest is against this particular version of Tejas?
Does that reconcile with the known facts?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5352
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
^i think the mk1 is being compared to later block gripen and solah, which would explain the payload difference.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
utkrisht! rumba solid!shiv wrote:Second video:
A rebuttal of media reports dissing the Tejas in favour of the F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc
shiv sir, why dont you write in a sustained manner on defence, you will do a much better job than most others
PS: The ease with which Tejas rolls is a delight to the two eyes..
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Trust me when I say that they are sitting with a smug smile on their face. There are reasons.Vivek K wrote:DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.
The primary one being it makes "business sense" for HAL and ADA (DRDO as an organization don't have much stake in the programme) not to refute the "report".
Another one (I am guessing here) is that the report is actually a blessing. It is so ridiculous that it proves the opposite point onlee.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
I agree that report does more bad than good to the single engine Make in India fighter than the Tejas. I REALLY hoping against hope that IAF did not make that presentation. If it did, it was an attempt to take the civilian babus/ministers for a ride and it will backfire badly.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
I don't like the present HAL CMD either.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
This is the problem - i.e. the "IAF" is a huge organization and it is possible that one or two vested interests are using the media to say some outrageous stuff. I suspect that the person/people who have said those things to the media imagined that if they used some jargon and some unverifiable facts - the public would be stupid enough to be dazzled and would all fall into the "Indian made is bad" bandwagon - a bandwagon that has more followers than is healthy for the country. I doubt if the "leakers" reckoned on a vastly more informed public.
That said - there will be a backlash. Expect another damning outrage against the Tejas in the coming months.
Would it be possible to rename this thread Tejas News & Disc or "LCA-Tejas... ... "
That said - there will be a backlash. Expect another damning outrage against the Tejas in the coming months.
Would it be possible to rename this thread Tejas News & Disc or "LCA-Tejas... ... "
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Suvarna Raju Speaketh
Fits in with the notion that HAL goes with IAF's demand for 'different type' as Quid for the Quo of buying more Tejas. I think this response happened because the "report leak" went a bit over the top and caused a stir in the media.Asked about questions being raised on the endurance, weaponisation and other key parameters of Tejas, Raju suggested that any comparison between Tejas and Gripen (Sweden) or F-16 (US) was unfair as Tejas was manufactured following a defined role and specific requirements of the IAF. “The specifications of Tejas are world class. If you are trying to compare the role of this (Tejas) with what is the role of a Gripen and role of F 16… they differ in their requirements. The requirements are defined for Tejas and we are meeting them. I really do not know how one can compare a Tejas with a Gripen saying they are of the same class,” he said.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Unless I am totally mistaken - the sequence of events went like this
Personally I see what i consider a lot of nonsense being shared as general wisdom.
I list two of them now
1. "Air forces like to divide their fighter fleets up into "large, medium and small" types". That's my left ball
2. "Most air forces like to operate just 2-3 varieties of aircraft." That is my right ball. This may be fine for Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium air force and nowadays even UK/France. But continent sized nations - like US, Russia, China and India who face multiple security issues over multiple geographic environments have huge fleets of more than 20 types. Typically. One or two, more or less is no big deal
- 1, The Air Force actually only wanted a MiG 21 replacement
2. When Tejas was delayed they wanted Mirage 2000
3. The UPA govt dangled the MMRCA carrot and made the IAF donkeys
4. India simply could not afford what the IAF really liked - because IMO Rafale is Gripen x 2
5. IAF got consolation prize 36 Rafale
6. Single engine fighter deal conceived partly as a way of setting up parallel aircraft prodn line in pvt sector. Air Force didn't choose it
7. Killing the Tejas will make the single engine fighter deal pukka and urgent
Personally I see what i consider a lot of nonsense being shared as general wisdom.
I list two of them now
1. "Air forces like to divide their fighter fleets up into "large, medium and small" types". That's my left ball
2. "Most air forces like to operate just 2-3 varieties of aircraft." That is my right ball. This may be fine for Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium air force and nowadays even UK/France. But continent sized nations - like US, Russia, China and India who face multiple security issues over multiple geographic environments have huge fleets of more than 20 types. Typically. One or two, more or less is no big deal
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Please count. I have myself posted the count on BRF before. Remember that air forces are more than combat aircraft and every wing depends on other aircraft types.srai wrote:20-types?
I think it is an act of wearing blinkers when people forget that transports and helos and planes of different function and size categories operate together with combat aircraft - and the same body of pilots and same system, hangars, air bases, purchase depts, warehosues and technicians needs to feed and maintain the whole. We do operate more than 20 types. So does the US, Russia and China. Probably UK and France as well
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
If we add all flying types, then pretty much most airforces will top 10 types. I thought the comparison was for fighter types (heavy-medium-light).
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
No. My rant was about to separate bits of "gyan" that are being peddled. One about this smallmediumlarge, and the other about "need to reduce variety"srai wrote:If we add all flying types, then pretty much most airforces will top 10 types. I thought the comparison was for fighter types (heavy-medium-light).
from here
viewtopic.php?p=2077751#p2077751
In 2017 we have (Ignoring Navy)
Jaguar
Mirage 2000
Su-30
MiG 21 + trainer (UTI)
MiG 27
MiG 29
An-32
IL 76, 78
Embraer
C-130
C-17
Do-228
Dhruv
LCH
Alouette 2
Alouette 3
Mi 8/Mi 17
Hawk
PC-7
Kiran
Tejas
HS-748
Assorted UAVs and Microlights
Probably a few more that I have forgotten...
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
+1. I would like to request the words be added too: LCA - Tejas 4+ Gen Multirole Combat Aircraftshiv wrote: Would it be possible to rename this thread Tejas News & Disc or "LCA-Tejas... ... "
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Since this topic was brought up, in the "medium fighter" category the IAF has (or will have) the following types over the next decade:
- 60+ MiG-29
- 50 Mirage-2000
- 120+ Jaguar
- 36 Rafale
- 110 SEF MII
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Some minor edits to Hakeem ji's posts.
shiv wrote:Unless I am totally mistaken - the sequence of events went like thisThe Air Force must take what it asked for - a Mig 21 replacement. If they want to move the goalpost and come up with rationalizations like "Large- medium-small" I wonder why this largemediumsmall concept was not conceived of before the MMRCA fly off and only AFTER?
- 1, The Air Force actually only wanted a MiG 21 replacement
2.When Tejas was delayed they wanted Mirage 2000Post Kargil (1999) IAF was pleased with the abilities of the Mirages and since they had built up facilities for 150 aircraft, they looked into purchasing more.
3.The UPA govt dangled the MMRCA carrot and made the IAF donkeysThe French dangled the Rafale and also were charging 50 to 60 million per M2K upgrade (more than the cost of two Tejas for one upgraded 20 yr old M2k). Also 10 Qatari Mirages with newer airframes were available and IAF was in negotiations to buy them. Then the French shut down the M2K line to put more emphasis on the Rafale. IAF felt that transitioning to Rafales from M2Ks would be easy and their existing facilities could be used. IAF and MOD started the MMRCA Nautanki.
4. India simply could not afford what the IAF really liked - because IMO Rafale is Gripen x 2 - IAF selected Rafale (a foregone conclusion because of IAF preferences, Geopolitics of the time) over the competitors unmindful of the cost.
5. IAF got consolation prize 36 Rafale
6. Single engine fighter deal conceived partly as a way of setting up parallel aircraft prodn line in pvt sector. Air Force didn't choose it
7. Killing the Tejas will make the single engine fighter deal pukka and urgent
Personally I see what i consider a lot of nonsense being shared as general wisdom.
I list two of them now
1. "Air forces like to divide their fighter fleets up into "large, medium and small" types". That's my left ball
2. "Most air forces like to operate just 2-3 varieties of aircraft." That is my right ball. This may be fine for Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium air force and nowadays even UK/France. But continent sized nations - like US, Russia, China and India who face multiple security issues over multiple geographic environments have huge fleets of more than 20 types. Typically. One or two, more or less is no big deal
Last edited by Vivek K on 20 Nov 2017 09:36, edited 1 time in total.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Dileep I don't feel confident in this presentation being a blessing. I hope you're right.Dileep wrote:Trust me when I say that they are sitting with a smug smile on their face. There are reasons.Vivek K wrote:DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.
The primary one being it makes "business sense" for HAL and ADA (DRDO as an organization don't have much stake in the programme) not to refute the "report".
Another one (I am guessing here) is that the report is actually a blessing. It is so ridiculous that it proves the opposite point onlee.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
I will reiterate my call here. "IAF will buy as many Tejas as HAL can build over a big number of marks, blocks, upgrades and whatnot. The basic airframe/engine combination will not change".
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
You have your finger on the pulse. We should try to show how LCA Mk1 == Gripen C/D and LCA Mk2 == Gripen E/F.Dileep wrote: Fits in with the notion that HAL goes with IAF's demand for 'different type' as Quid for the Quo of buying more Tejas. I think this response happened because the "report leak" went a bit over the top and caused a stir in the media.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Mk1A.Dileep wrote:I will reiterate my call here. "IAF will buy as many Tejas as HAL can build over a big number of marks, blocks, upgrades and whatnot. The basic airframe/engine combination will not change".
And any improvements to it.
More precisely, no Mk2. The unstated.
I agree.
And, that is not a bad deal *provided* the AMCA is supported to the hilt (by the IAF and the IN).
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
It is too early to call on AamKa. Right now, the airframe/engine TD is sanctioned. It should be obvious that the current generation avionics (well proven) will be used for the TD, and the next generation will be developed meanwhile. I don't think there can be a "deal" for support of AamKa at this point of time.
However, we can safely consider that at least a group within IAF will support this effort. There are (present) senior officers who literally lived through the process, and enjoyed flying the result.
However, we can safely consider that at least a group within IAF will support this effort. There are (present) senior officers who literally lived through the process, and enjoyed flying the result.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4102
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
- Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Doctor,
Are you willing to publish this article?
Can we take this discussion offline. PLease let me know which email address I should contact you on.
Are you willing to publish this article?
Can we take this discussion offline. PLease let me know which email address I should contact you on.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.
I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.
I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Sure bennedose at h0tma!lNeela wrote:Doctor,
Are you willing to publish this article?
Can we take this discussion offline. PLease let me know which email address I should contact you on.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 8549787649
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 7055931392
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 5636494337
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2871830530
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2871830530
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 5636494337
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1149759490
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 9851821056
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1171325952
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1299165185
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 7890109442
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 0045093888
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2971811841
Shiv,
Pls pardon me taking liberty but I have used your work and sending the same to PM, DM and IAF along with questions and requests.
Not sure if this will help but atleast this is what I could do. If a lot of people.can do the same, I am sure there will pressure to atleast respond.
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 7055931392
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 5636494337
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2871830530
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2871830530
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 5636494337
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1149759490
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 9851821056
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1171325952
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 1299165185
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 7890109442
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 0045093888
https://twitter.com/Reach2Indian/status ... 2971811841
Shiv,
Pls pardon me taking liberty but I have used your work and sending the same to PM, DM and IAF along with questions and requests.
Not sure if this will help but atleast this is what I could do. If a lot of people.can do the same, I am sure there will pressure to atleast respond.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
^ Your account is protected, meaning unless you accept the request to follow, we cannot see your tweets. Maybe, you can change the settings since you have linked here.
BTW, I have sent you a request to follow.
BTW, I have sent you a request to follow.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
V.well put! The emphasis should be entitled somewhat on "how to kill a truly indigenous aircraft industry and remain a colonial slave".I've just said elsewhere that there was nothing in all our prev. deals where the acquisition of a firang bird and its offsets,if there were,were specifically tasked with assisting in ensuring transfer of tech for laying the foundation whatever,for an indigenous fighter/military aircraft industry.The offsets for the Rafale is merely the R cos.' assembling the Falcon biz jet using screwdrivers!
Last edited by Philip on 20 Nov 2017 17:41, edited 1 time in total.
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
What sort of data are you looking for? (Oh OK I just saw that last part of your post) I have earlier linked a site that mentions actual mission data records of the Gripen and I used charts from that site for my second video. The site makes some very interesting and pertinent observations. For example - in "surge" operations the Gripen needs 6 hours maintenance time after every 4 hours flying. To stay safe the "expected length" of an earlier combat sortie is used. That is, if the last sortie was 1.5 hours, the next one will be 1.5 hours too. Then the Gripen would have used up 3 of its allowed 4 hours before standing down. Since the third sortie also is expected to be 1.5 hours - it will exceed the 4 hour limit so the Gripen has to come off the line for 6 hours maintenance after just 2 sorties. This cannot go on for long. When the force settles down to "sustained" ops the take down time for Gripen for maintenance is 20 hours.JayS wrote:Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.
I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.
The site points out that 70% fleet availability would be the norm in wartime. (Remember the Su-30 had reached 70%? ) The charts also show that that vast majority of missions were less than 500 km and only a couple were listed as 800 km
The site also talks of how long it takes to arm a fighter and how much time is needed for pilot rest - so even if the plane has "hot refuelling" other factors come into play.
Here is the link. I believe it is essential reading for any jingo who speaks of combat aircraft
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time. Thankfully we have the MKIs,almost 300 of them which will save our bacon in any future spat. Unfortunately the anti-Ru ,pro-Yanqui brigade have a Nelsonian blind spot to this fact.Someone also asked me how I knew that the IAF was happy with its upgraded MIG-29s.For one no complaints.Two,the very fact that we're lusting after 12 Malaysian AF 29s with just 2000 hrs. on the clock,wanting to upgrade them and pay for them by supplying them with Sukhoi spares,is indicative of two things.That we value the capabilities of the bird and that we have scarce money to throw around for aircraft in the budget....that is unless it has Yanqui snake-oil salesmen p*mping their aging beauties with an overdose of makeup!
PS: A third fact,that our Sukhoi spares are world class and that we've actually got some transfer of tech here,the ability to manufacture engines using 100% desi raw material (50 engines built/delivered out of 350 earlier).
PS: A third fact,that our Sukhoi spares are world class and that we've actually got some transfer of tech here,the ability to manufacture engines using 100% desi raw material (50 engines built/delivered out of 350 earlier).
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Saw the page, you shared on Twitter. Very good resource. A good remedy for Brochuritis if the patient has patience to read through...shiv wrote:What sort of data are you looking for? (Oh OK I just saw that last part of your post) I have earlier linked a site that mentions actual mission data records of the Gripen and I used charts from that site for my second video. The site makes some very interesting and pertinent observations. For example - in "surge" operations the Gripen needs 6 hours maintenance time after every 4 hours flying. To stay safe the "expected length" of an earlier combat sortie is used. That is, if the last sortie was 1.5 hours, the next one will be 1.5 hours too. Then the Gripen would have used up 3 of its allowed 4 hours before standing down. Since the third sortie also is expected to be 1.5 hours - it will exceed the 4 hour limit so the Gripen has to come off the line for 6 hours maintenance after just 2 sorties. This cannot go on for long. When the force settles down to "sustained" ops the take down time for Gripen for maintenance is 20 hours.JayS wrote:Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.
I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.
The site points out that 70% fleet availability would be the norm in wartime. (Remember the Su-30 had reached 70%? ) The charts also show that that vast majority of missions were less than 500 km and only a couple were listed as 800 km
The site also talks of how long it takes to arm a fighter and how much time is needed for pilot rest - so even if the plane has "hot refuelling" other factors come into play.
Here is the link. I believe it is essential reading for any jingo who speaks of combat aircraft
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
Sir,deejay wrote:^ Your account is protected, meaning unless you accept the request to follow, we cannot see your tweets. Maybe, you can change the settings since you have linked here.
BTW, I have sent you a request to follow.
Changed the settings.
Check if they are visible now
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
That is the theory. In practice it does not work that way. You need to read that paper in some detailPhilip wrote:Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time..
Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017
And where will they find hundreds of daisy fresh pilots for this?Philip wrote:Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time.
Unless you're talking of unmanned bandars of course.