What's new

IAF all Geared up to work on LCA MK-2 aircraft, with HAL and DRDO : Chief

We are also eagerly awaiting the JF 17 to be used in a war.
Easy target practice for India

:sniper:

I guess you meant all aluminium Junk fighter that would 'light up' Indian radars..hence corrected for you.....Has that 3.5 gen fighter got all axis FBW yet?


Why,coz you are unable to develop them??

And this is the same guy who claimed 'no one cares about Agni V'....No,one cares about a MIRVable ICBM having single digit accuracy......:lol::lol:
 

Yet you have the time to upload a picture just to unsuccesfully prove that you don't care?

hypocrisy.jpg
 
LCA MK1 is finished and only weapon BVR intigration is left, PAF flown many decayed without BVR in their planes and even you JF-17 flown without them and inducted.

That correct .some guys compared LCA with JF-17 but I show some difference.
Given development time-frame and mission profile, comparisons between the JF-17 and India’s“Tejas” light combat aircraft are inevitable. But similarities, if any, are merely superficial. The Tejas, meant to replace India’s massive fleet of MiG-21s, is a wholly different project as far as technology is concerned. Its airframe, made of advanced carbon fibre composites, is light years ahead of the Thunder’s all-metal airframe. The ADA, HAL, and NAL invested considerable time, effort, and resources in its development, and came up with what is arguably one of the finest airframes in the world. The same goes for the Tejas’ aerodynamics which, because of the compound delta-wing, extensive wing-body blending, and low wing loading are superior to those of the Thunder, which has a more conventional layout along the lines of the F-16 and a rejected Soviet light fighter design. As far as flight dynamics and control go, the Tejas, with its relaxed static stability and quadruplex, full authority fly-by-wire digital flight control system, is far more advanced than the Thunder, which still features conventional controls (fly-by-wire exists only for pitch control)

This is early case about 2010.Now we going to Induct LCA one can assume what are the advanced technologies in LCA in 2013.Also in its class it is LCA is only aircraft in the world that uses that much of composite materials.
 
DSI is not a requirement of 4th gen tech. Air intake of LCA is beautifully carved under Y-duct configuration. IRST is a requirement of FOC. Similar to EW suite, which is ready but will be tested on prototype first and will be added before FOC.


Don't troll. It is miles ahead of your junk.
Tejas Mk1 even with a slightly under powered GE 404 engine is a generation ahead of anything in PAF other than the small fleet of F16 from USA.

The mirages 5 & F7 which PAF flys are 25 YEARS BEHIND the technology of the Tejas

Even THE THUNDER which is their future main combat plane has inferior flight control , no composites materials and carrys chinease radar weapons and EW suites over TEJAS which has western designed israeli jammers Radar & weapons.

Their is a reason why each thunder costs half the price of a Tejas. They have cut corners too save price per unit.
8468770463_b2bf056ec2_b.jpg


L mera, Proof Thunder EW systems are chinese and it's flight controls are inferior to Tejaas.

A little FYI for ingnorant dumb trolls. JF-17 can achieve 26 degree of AoA with it's flight controls. How much AoA tejas achieved????

JF-17 has German SDR which enabled to it to be linked with both Swedish and Chinese AWAC.

Spanish, Korean, and un-named western country EW systems are being used in JF-17

Continuous improvements in CHinese radars have enabled it to have Detection range for 5 M^2 130-140 KM and for 3-4 Meter sqaure, the standard range quoted is 60 NM (112 KM's). Works is in progress to mate it with Upgraded SD-10 (SD-10 B with dual guidance systems and 100 KM range)




A friendly warning,,, Haters and dumb fools, please keep your self updated with latest updates on JF-17 which currently improving.


Now tell us what Tejaa's has achieved in respect to Data link capabilities, AoA, radar capabilities for 5 M^2, 3 M^2 etc etc

That correct .some guys compared LCA with JF-17 but I show some difference.
Given development time-frame and mission profile, comparisons between the JF-17 and India’s“Tejas” light combat aircraft are inevitable. But similarities, if any, are merely superficial. The Tejas, meant to replace India’s massive fleet of MiG-21s, is a wholly different project as far as technology is concerned. Its airframe, made of advanced carbon fibre composites, is light years ahead of the Thunder’s all-metal airframe. The ADA, HAL, and NAL invested considerable time, effort, and resources in its development, and came up with what is arguably one of the finest airframes in the world. The same goes for the Tejas’ aerodynamics which, because of the compound delta-wing, extensive wing-body blending, and low wing loading are superior to those of the Thunder, which has a more conventional layout along the lines of the F-16 and a rejected Soviet light fighter design. As far as flight dynamics and control go, the Tejas, with its relaxed static stability and quadruplex, full authority fly-by-wire digital flight control system, is far more advanced than the Thunder, which still features conventional controls (fly-by-wire exists only for pitch control)

This is early case about 2010.Now we going to Induct LCA one can assume what are the advanced technologies in LCA in 2013.Also in its class it is LCA is only aircraft in the world that uses that much of composite materials.

A mere verbiage. and lot of hot air being blown. Talk realistically, How much Angle of attack Tejaa's has achieved?

With it's inferior "FCS", JF-17 has achieved 26 degress which is same as of Gripens. Beat that then we can talk


And only advantage tejaa's can achieve is their composites. Rests is nothing!

LCA MK1 is finished and only weapon BVR intigration is left, PAF flown many decayed without BVR in their planes and even you JF-17 flown without them and inducted.

Do you know how much dumb you sound? Have you ever considered how F-16 program and Euro fighter program And F-22 fighter program went?

How they were inducted first and many features were later introduced on them? For example BVR on F-16 was introduced after 5-6 years of it's induction. Euro fighter is still to get it's A2G capabilities after 5-6 years of it's induction. F-22 AIM 9-X, JDAM capability and several others features were added later on.

Dear ignorant. This is called IOC. Inducting them and then adding capability latter.


2r9b.png
 
Last edited:
L mera, Proof Thunder EW systems are chinese and it's flight controls are inferior to Tejaas.

A little FYI for ingnorant dumb trolls. JF-17 can achieve 26 degree of AoA with it's flight controls. How much AoA tejas achieved????

JF-17 has German SDR which enabled to it to be linked with both Swedish and Chinese AWAC.

Spanish, Korean, and un-named western country EW systems are being used in JF-17

Continuous improvements in CHinese radars have enabled it to have Detection range for 5 M^2 130-140 KM. Works is in progress to mate it with Upgraded SD-10 (SD-10 B with dual guidance systems and 100 KM range)




A friendly warning,,, Haters and dumb fools, please keep your self updated with latest updates on JF-17 which currently improving.


Now tell us what Tejaa's has achieved in respect to Data link capabilities, AoA etc etc

Achieving 26 degree AoA is not the hard part. Sustaining it without bleeding energy is. The AoA that can be sustained by LCA is 22 degrees and for a pure delta wing fighter it is pretty good.

We have Datalink II which connects it to all of our systems, even the American weapons bought by us have the Datalink II installed in it. It works in the Ku band frequency

The LCA has it's own EW systems developed by DRDO.

And you cant argue with the Israeli Elta EL/M 2032.
 
Achieving 26 degree AoA is not the hard part. Sustaining it without bleeding energy is. The AoA that can be sustained by LCA is 22 degrees and for a pure delta wing fighter it is pretty good.

We have Datalink II which connects it to all of our systems, even the American weapons bought by us have the Datalink II installed in it. It works in the Ku band frequency

The LCA has it's own EW systems developed by DRDO.

And you cant argue with the Israeli Elta EL/M 2032.

I have presented the Chinese radar detection ranges. Please don't destroy your argument with such arrogance.

And I hope that Next time before "Inferior FCS, Chinese Radars, EW" crappy arguments, your brethren should have a better knowledge about their adversary aircraft
 
I have presented the Chinese radar detection ranges. Please don't destroy your argument with such arrogance.

And I hope that Next time before "Inferior FCS, Chinese Radars, EW" crappy arguments, your brethren should have a better knowledge about their adversary aircraft

Elta 2032 is much better than the F-16 Northrop Grumman AN/APG-68(V)9 as per Isaf who uses F-16 Sufa. They really wanted 2032 in their F-16I Sufa but Americans did not allow it, much disappointment to IsAF guys.

" JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - FEBRUARY 18, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radar concerns cast shadow over F-16I buy
ALON BEN-DAVID JDW Correspondent
Tel Aviv

The Israel Air Force (IAF) is "highly dissatisfied" with the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-68(V)9 radar installed in its new F-16I multirole fighters, according to senior Israeli defence sources.

With the first of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16Is scheduled to arrive in Israel on 19 February, a growing number of defence officials are now criticising the procurement.

JDW has learned that following a series of test flights at Lockheed Martin's facility in Fort Worth, Texas, IAF pilots assessed the synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) mode of the AN/APG-68(V)9 to be "below IAF operational standards".

Israel's former minister of defence, Moshe Arens, who negotiated the F-16I deal, told JDW he is not surprised to learn about the radar's performance problems. "Our intention was to install Israeli-made radar in the F-16Is, but the US government made the whole sale conditional on the purchase of US-made radar. I argued that [Israel Aircraft Industries' subsidiary] Elta's radar had a proven better performance and lesser cost than the US radars, but the Americans were unrelenting," Arens said.

The Israel Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson's office declined to comment on the matter, and a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin said that "the issue is between the Israeli and the US governments".

Senior IAF officers have recently met with both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman executives and presented them with what they described as "performance problems of the radar". IAF sources said that "once the aircraft arrive in Israel, further tests will be conducted in co-ordination with the manufacturer".

However, according to a Northrop Grumman spokesman, the company hosted a SAR "summit" for all key principals in January 2004, at the US government's request, to evaluate the radar's performance. At the end of that session, the parties agreed that the radar had met all its performance specifications, that the development phase was completed and that the IAF should now evaluate the radar in its own environment.

IAF sources said that in 1999 the service's preferred option was for Lockheed Martin's F-16I over Boeing's F-15I - partly because an offer to purchase two batches of 50 aircraft had significantly lowered the price per unit. However, the $4.4 billion F-16I deal, Israel's largest-ever single procurement, is now under increasing scrutiny by both former and current defence officials.

"I don't think we should have decided in 1999 on fighters we will still be receiving in 2008," said Brig Gen Eival Giladi, who until last December was head of strategic planning for the IDF. "I am not worried about their technology, but I'm not sure that what we will need in 2008 are fighters. We should have opted for the smaller [F-15] deal. Even though we would have lost the considerable discount, we would have gained much more freedom to decide later on the structure of our air force."

Arens, who supported the F-16I deal at the time, said: "In perspective, it could be that we were a little hasty. Considering the strategic changes in the region, I am not sure we should have made that deal."

While IAF Commander Maj Gen Dan Halutz (now IDF Deputy Chief of Staff elect) maintained that the F16I procurement "was the right decision then and still is today", other senior officers are questioning the decision, which committed a large part of US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel for almost a decade.

The IDF's budget was drastically reduced in the last two years, making the FMF the only available funds for new procurements.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently added NIS1 billion ($224.2 million) to the 2004 defence budget, totalling NIS33.4 billion, and pledged an additional NIS1.6 billion in 2005.
 
I have presented the Chinese radar detection ranges. Please don't destroy your argument with such arrogance.

And I hope that Next time before "Inferior FCS, Chinese Radars, EW" crappy arguments, your brethren should have a better knowledge about their adversary aircraft

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/38030.pdf

the Elta EL/M 2032 has a range of 80 nm or 148 kms

Indian-designed Data Link II delivered to Boeing - Economic Times

That is the confirmation of Datalink II installation

Approach to High Angle of Attack Testing of Light Combat Aircraft [LCA] Tejas

However, directional characteristics indicated the proverbial ‘cliff’ with a sudden drop inCn

, CRM (Coefficient of Rolling Moment) and CYM (Coefficient of Yawing Moment) atapprox 25
0
AoA as shown at fig-4 and 5. These phenomena require the High AoA trialsto be limited to 24
0
(as shown in dotted line) until directional stability is bolstered andaugmented by rudder control up to an expected 26
o
. Currently the Tejas is flying to AoAlimits of 20
o
and 22
o
never exceed.
 
well i love LCA more than i love rafale but i can never understand why it is so short legged & despite being smalest fighter in its calss usning the maximum ammount of comopsites whats its actual weight please can some one clear my doughts here
 
well i love LCA more than i love rafale but i can never understand why it is so short legged & despite being smalest fighter in its calss usning the maximum ammount of comopsites whats its actual weight please can some one clear my doughts here

The size is the reason why it is short legged. It carries lesser fuel compared to the bigger aircrafts.
 
The size is the reason why it is short legged. It carries lesser fuel compared to the bigger aircrafts.
what about its weight problem when it uses extensive composites and while being smaller its alost same weight as bigger JF17 or grippen
 

If I assume, that 148 KMs figure would be for 5 m^2. Give or take 10-20 KM less than KLJ 7.

And the goal of Tejaa's FCS is same, to achieve 26 AoA. I presume due to it's Delta config, it needed a more complex FCS to achieve a 26 Degree AoA, or my presumption is incorrect?
 
Back
Top Bottom