how many years it took to build tejas?? lets settle the issue once for all

[Ping]

KLJ-7 Radar Range

An internet blog of some individual, posted a pic claiming to be the official brochure from CETC. It claims that the KLJ-7 onboard JF-17 has a detection range of 105km for a 5m2 target. However, PAF isn't too fond of this radar eventhough it has the same range as the APG-68(V)9 on F-16block52 & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000-5/-9(both radar's range according to official specs), & more range than RC-400 radar. Even in its most powerful form(meaning the version with the largest antenna, which the JF-17 cannot house due to its relatively small nose), the RC400 has 20% less range than the RDY-2 radar. RC-400 is the radar which the PAF is planning to equip their second block of JF-17 according to current reports. The APG-68(V)9 has a bigger antenna(bigger radar-dish/bigger antenna gives more range) than the KLJ-7, plus it is manufactured by Northrop Grumman, a more mature and advanced Military-Industrial complex than CETC by a large margin. And APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 are THE best & latest mechanically scanned array type radars on F-16s(Both APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 have the same range[ http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAPG-68_a001560001.aspx ]). Like the APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10, KLJ-7 is also a mechanically scanned array type radar. So the claim that the KLJ-7 has the same range as APG-68(V)9 seems more unlikely. Also is the fact that the PAF preferred a far lesser ranged RC-400 over the KLJ-7 radar. All this is fueling speculation that KLJ-7's true specs is lower than publicized by the closed-to-scrutiny Chinese Defence Establishments. This speculation turned out to be true when Janes Defence Weekly published that the Radar Range of KLJ-7 is actually 75km for a 3m2 Target.[ KLJ-7/10 Fire Control Radar (FCR) (China) - Jane's Avionics ] Or 85km For 5m2 Target.


Which is the No:1 BVR Fighter Aircraft in South Asia ?

 

[Screambowl]

at least the project LCA has given employment to the nation.
I am only concerned about the Kaveri and nothing more.

 

[Superboy]

30+ years. It's still under development with IOC 2 achieved.

 

[帅的一匹]

19 years (actually how long it has taken) despite 0 manufacturing base,0 technical knowledge, US sanctions, feeble budget, limited resources, limited manpower and little outside help to produce an advanced 4.5 gen lightweight fighter really is quite an ACHIEVEMENT. 0 crashes to date speaks for itself.

How you term a fighter without AESA and super-cruising abIlity as 4.5 gen fighter?

I will call it a 4th gen fighter. Anyway, congrats to India. Few country in the world could produce 4 gen fighters.

 

[spectribution]

How you term a fighter without AESA and super-cruising abIlity as 4.5 gen fighter?

I will call it a 4th gen fighter. Anyway, congrats to India. Few country in the world could produce 4 gen fighters.

It has mostly composites in it's body due to which given it's size it has a clean rcs of 0.3ms. The plane has an internal MAWS and EW system ( no pods here), a full digital quadruplex FCS for yaw, pitch and roll axis, TWR is greater than 1:1, low wing loading, FLIR integration and HMDS.

Man , we had to build it from scratch! USA promised help but kicked us out on sanctions.

AESA, Supercruise are all 4.75 GEN planes like EF 2000, RAFALE, F16 BLK60,F15SG,SU 35,MIG 35 etc.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

AESA, Supercruise are all 4.75 GEN planes like EF 2000, RAFALE, F16 BLK60,F15SG,SU 35,MIG 35 etc.

You made a new Gen. of fighter aircraft just to fit LCA.... Hats off ... !
Seems like we are out of benchmarks for this bird.

 

[kurup]

How you term a fighter without AESA and super-cruising abIlity as 4.5 gen fighter?

I will call it a 4th gen fighter. Anyway, congrats to India. Few country in the world could produce 4 gen fighters.

Is the super-cruising ability required for 4.5G fighter with or without payload ??

 

[帅的一匹]

Is the super-cruising ability required for 4.5G fighter with or without payload ??

Strictly, with payload. It depends how many payload you carry.

 

[Superboy]

It has mostly composites in it's body due to which given it's size it has a clean rcs of 0.3ms..

Tejas 14,300 lb. JF-17 14,520 lb. Gripen 14,600 lb. Doesn't seem like Tejas uses a lot of composites.

The plane has an internal MAWS and EW system ( no pods here), a full digital quadruplex FCS for yaw, pitch and roll axis, TWR is greater than 1:1, low wing loading, FLIR integration and HMDS.

AFAIK, JF-17 is the only one in its class that has MAWS.

 

[Kyle Sun]

LCA is not complete. U can say the programme is delayed. But how can u say LCA has falied when it is not complete??

surely LCA will be better then J-10, J-11b like fighters when it will be inducted. So LCA programme is successful but it is delayed.

u cant blame a fighter when it is not even complete. A failure would be if LCA is not able to perform upto the standards expected of it and for which it is designed, which is not the case.

Yes , we can not blame a fighter when it is not even complete.

But you have the confidence about LCA is better than J-10 J11b even when LCA is still not complete.

dude, you are really funny !

 

[kurup]

Strictly, with payload. It depends how many payload you carry.

If that is the case , there is not a single operational 4.5G fighter .

Tejas 14,300 lb. JF-17 14,520 lb. Gripen 14,600 lb. Doesn't seem like Tejas uses a lot of composites.

 

[gslv mk3]

You are right, thats not fair comparing both; one is Chinese (what you said) and the other one is combination of various techs from various origins which are yet to be demonstrated..

Can you elaborate???

 

[jarves]

Yes , we can not blame a fighter when it is not even complete.

But you have the confidence about LCA is better than J-10 J11b even when LCA is still not complete.

dude, you are really funny !

He is talking about LCAmk2.....

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

I think comparison of LCA mk1 with J-11b will be more fair. Indian air force is using in LCA mk 1 the best of the technologies from around the world. Whereas J-11b mostly is using the low quality(as compared to India and west) equipments. I would be surprised and shocked if LCA mk1 is not better then J-11b. I mean I know LCA is India's first aircraft being designed, and for China JF-17 is first and J-10 and J-11 are later ones. But it doesnt mean that India's first has to be compared to CHina's first only. Logically that is not a necessity or something ordained by God. China doesnt have any support from anyone in technology and their own tech is bad. So obviosuly India's first fighter LCA mk1 will be more superior to J-11b.

Also China loves numbering game like they keep on giving new numbers to planes regularly. Like J-10, J-11, J-15 etc etc. It is just to give impression to others that new number means more advanced, which is not the case. But in reality these are just designations to fool the public but there is not much improvement in the plane. The new number is given just to compare the new number plane with some super tech plane from the west or boast that the new plane is better then some western plane. But this numbering is just evewash reallly.

Lol Your time travel machine must have twisted your brain: if your LCA mk1 can be compared to J-11b, why you still need Rafale which over 100 millions price tag...

 

[OrionHunter]

I dont want to derail the thread but i am more concerned about the kaveri because it was specifically started along with tejas and for tejas I believe.

In 2008, Kaveri was de-linked from its original platform, the Tejas. Earlier this year, senior scientists said the project would be revived and would be used to fly unmanned air vehicles of the armed forces. Its derivatives could go into powering ships, too.

The MoD is buying 99 GE F414 engines for the LCA from global engines major GE for Rs. 3,000 crore.