CHENGDU REPORTEDLY ACHIEVES MILESTONE IN JF-17 BLOCK-III DEVELOPMENT

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Offsets are only for production deals. Not for joint ventures. There are no offsets in Barak-8.

Even the US doesn't yet operate a missile that's as capable as the Barak, solely because of the rocket motors that DRDO delivered. At the time, even Israel did not have the technology for a missile of this size.

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and RIM-174 Standard Missile 6?

 

[randomradio]

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and RIM-174 Standard Missile 6?

They are not in the same class as Barak. The SM-2 was dual thrust as well.

Missiles of the Barak class require a whole new level of engineering due to size constraints. And when we are talking about early 2000s, there was only Trishul.

In fact I think only Barak is operational today with a dual pulse motor.

Congratulations.

You have completely underestimated DRDO when it comes to missile tech.

Radars, underwater tech and missiles. We have already started achieving world class status in these areas.

 

[Ultima Thule]

They are not in the same class as Barak. The SM-2 was dual thrust as well.

Missiles of the Barak class require a whole new level of engineering due to size constraints. And when we are talking about early 2000s, there was only Trishul.

In fact I think only Barak is operational today with a dual pulse motor.

Yeah yeah your blah blah blah-8 is out of this universe missile is better than US missile now happy @randomradio

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

They are not in the same class as Barak. The SM-2 was dual thrust as well.

Missiles of the Barak class require a whole new level of engineering due to size constraints. And when we are talking about early 2000s, there was only Trishul.

In fact I think only Barak is operational today with a dual pulse motor.



You have completely underestimated DRDO when it comes to missile tech.

Radars, underwater tech and missiles. We have already started achieving world class status in these areas.

Congratulations. Now Shut Up!

 

[EAK]

With you being a professional, I'm really, really happy you said this, and there is a reason for it.

Cheers.

Failed Miserably ..But At least You Tried..

 

[Cookie Monster]

With you being a professional, I'm really, really happy you said this, and there is a reason for it.

Cheers.

U r going off topic in a thread about JF17 Block III. He is right to tell u that.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

U r going off topic in a thread about JF17 Block III. He is right to tell u that.

Thank You.

With you being a professional, I'm really, really happy you said this, and there is a reason for it.

Cheers.

You have not hit any nerve. Leave this thread to its title, and open a new thread where you need to do your marketing.

 

[ni8mare]

No one told me you could crap on DRDO on a JF-17 thread. I was merely reacting.



I never said I hit any nerve. The reasons are entirely different.

There is no need to continue the discussion anymore.

Stop wasting time here or open a thread on India AESA radar development in Indian section and discuss...leave this thread for what it is.

 

[The-Hack]

Tail appears to be straight, as we have in JF-17 Block I/II instead of B. Do you agree? If this is the case, that would mean something interesting;

We know JF-17 Block III will equip a heavier AESA radar, yet we find a vertical tail is in use. JF-17B was said to need a slanted tail to compensate increase frontal-load (2nd Seat). Since Block-III is using old tail stabiliser yet it has a heavier radar, does that weight balance is provided by a heavier and a new engine? AESA radar would also need more power, so a newer, more powerful engine would make sense.

And a newer more powerful engine actually means, even a wider wing-span to carry even more fuel - and that changes the category of Block III from light weight aircraft to medium weight aircraft - that leads to more hard points, longer ranges and increases loitering time to challenge Su-30s and Rafael - and I suspect speed would also increase - possibly to Mac 1.8?

What are your thoughts ?

I think the speed will be around mach 2.0 or 2.0+ .............. hopefully

 

[Silicon0000]

I think the speed will be around mach 2.0 or 2.0+ .............. hopefully

probably same as block 2 I.e. 1.6-1.8 mach with afterburner

 

[The-Hack]

probably same as block 2 I.e. 1.6-1.8 mach with afterburner

That's your own views,,, but, with due respect: all relevant blogs and articles which i read ...... the speed of block 3 mentioned in these blogs and articles 2.0+
we can easily accept this up-gradation in speed through common sense that if all main functions of aircraft would be upgraded than why not the speed of aircraft which is the core feature of a fighter aircraft.

 

[araz]

That's your own views,,, but, with due respect: all relevant blogs and articles which i read ...... the speed of block 3 mentioned in these blogs and articles 2.0+
we can easily accept this up-gradation in speed through common sense that if all main functions of aircraft would be upgraded than why not the speed of aircraft which is the core feature of a fighter aircraft.

I have repeatedly asked this question and not had a reply. Which fighter in existence has a DSI and achieves a Mach 2 speed? The F35 remains limited to 1.6. and when the DSI was introduced into J10B, its speed dropped down to 1.6/1.8. So to date there is no fighter with this feature supporting a Mach 2 speed to date.
Secondly what is our infatuation with the mach 2 speed? Howwill it help when most missiled have double/triple the speed and can pull 30-50 Gs. Speed will not save you but countermeasures might. So concentrate on countermeasures rather than speed.
A

 

[Sine Nomine]

I have repeatedly asked this question amnd not had a reply. Which fighter in existence has a DSI and achieves a Mach 2 speed? The F35 remains limited to 1.6. and when the DSI was introduced into J10B, its speed dropped down to 1.6/1.8. So to date there is no fighter with this feature supporting a Mach 2 speed to date.
Secondly what is our infatuation with the mach 2 speed? Howwill it help when most missiled have double/triple the speed and can pull 30-50 Gs. Speed will not save you but countermeasures might. So concentrate on countermeasures rather than speed.
A

F-16 achieved Mach 2 during DSI testing.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=181

 

[araz]

F-16 achieved Mach 2 during DSI testing.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=181

And is it inducted and utilized? One wonders why it was then not done for the f35? That remains a question rather than a sarcastic remark so feel free to educate me.
A

 

[Sine Nomine]

And is it inducted and utilized?

Same Article states that,it is not good enough for Mach 2+,from Article.
"Historically, inlet complexity is a function of top speed for fighter aircraft. Higher Mach numbers require more sophisticated devices for compressing supersonic airflow to slow it down to subsonic levels before it reaches the face of the engine. (Jet engines are not designed to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow.)
These compression schemes involve the conversion of the kinetic energy of the supersonic airstream into total pressure on the compressor face of the engine. Speeds over Mach 2 generally require more elaborate compression schemes. The F-15 inlet, for example, contains a series of movable compression ramps and doors controlled by software and elaborate mechanical systems. The ramps move to adjust the external and internal shape of the inlet to provide the optimum airflow to the engine at various aircraft speeds and angles of attack. Doors and ducting allow excess airflow to bypass the inlet."

One wonders why it was then not done for the f35?

Sir Your own Post #102 Answers it very well.

1-

Secondly what is our infatuation with the mach 2 speed? Howwill it help when most missiled have double/triple the speed and can pull 30-50 Gs. Speed will not save you but countermeasures might. So concentrate on countermeasures rather than speed.

2-If even speed in upto Mach 3 still it's invalid infront of Missiles approaching Mach 4 in blink of an eye,a weapon which is today deployed by every AF against fighters.
3-Airwar isn't Dogfight only today,in which Turn Rate,Climb Rate and Speed would be used as means of escaping,you can't outmaneuver even a 3rd grade missile locked on to you by these means,only way forward is ECCM and better Missile coupled with sensor fusion.
4-According to my Raw knowledge Fighter Fuselage takes a lot of toll due to turbulence,caused by high winds and high speed.
In Nutshell as you said Sir,either speed should be so high that you are able to outflank Missiles or it only should be enough for gaining max tactical advantage,under your doctrine.For the time being we are not capbale of making platforms reaching Mach 5 or 6 offcourse without tearing themselves apart,so Enough speed coupled with load of Counter Measures is best.

so feel free to educate me.

Sir itna tou sharminda o gunahgar na kee jiyeh,hun log to aap ke shagirdi kai kabil bhe nahi