JF-17 Block II, A Final Thunder & The FC-20 - Updates

[SBD-3]

lol oh mere bhai if an aircraft has a clean configuration of say 4m2 RCS while the other aircraft has a clean configuration of 1m2 due to the use of composites both uses same weapons with say total RCS of 3m-2 (supposition) so what will be the the total RCS of both aircrafts while fully loaded? the first one will have 7m2 while the later one 4m2 , so doesn't it make any difference?

Just as your MKI's dont use composites and have big RCS so you are trying to prove the composites concept wrong, Do you think Americans or french or Europeans have been fool enough to spend millions to reduce the RCS of their aircrafts using composites? You can't turn a 4th generation aircraft into a 5th because you need internal weapon bays and for that whole new structure and design but you can turn a 4th generation aircraft as much close to 5th gen as you can ,

Instead of asking me you go and ask some military professional and he will tell you wat are you upto , my friend bharat rakhshak is not the end of the world where many fanboys get together to have party by trying to please and illude eachother with fictions, get out from this mindset and grow up , i wonder are you mature enough to join this forum

I think mods have to come up with disclaimer stuff like " Proceed only if you are 18 or above "

We refer to it as "Bharat Bak Bak" forum

 

[kingdurgaking]

lol oh mere bhai if an aircraft has a clean configuration of say 4m2 RCS while the other aircraft has a clean configuration of 1m2 due to the use of composites both uses same weapons with say total RCS of 3m-2 (supposition) so what will be the the total RCS of both aircrafts while fully loaded? the first one will have 7m2 while the later one 4m2 , so doesn't it make any difference?

Just as your MKI's dont use composites and have big RCS so you are trying to prove the composites concept wrong, Do you think Americans or french or Europeans have been fool enough to spend millions to reduce the RCS of their aircrafts using composites? You can't turn a 4th generation aircraft into a 5th because you need internal weapon bays and for that whole new structure and design but you can turn a 4th generation aircraft as much close to 5th gen as you can ,

Instead of asking me you go and ask some military professional and he will tell you wat are you upto , my friend bharat rakhshak is not the end of the world where many fanboys get together to have party by trying to please and illude eachother with fictions, get out from this mindset and grow up , i wonder are you mature enough to join this forum

I think mods have to come up with disclaimer stuff like " Proceed only if you are 18 or above "

Your are failing to understand the real concept and the current radar capabilites... while you believe 7 m2 and 4 m2 is a difference ofcourse we do believe it... but the radar detection of the fighters have been increased manifold and it is not like 90's.. your 1m2 detection happens in 90 KM itself and it is enough for present fighters to take a BVR lock (so tell me what advantage you get?)... secondly your concept of composite for RCS reduction doesnt yield enough result in RCS but for sure in reducing in weight..

 

[chat]

is he drunk??

Senator Dilawar Abbas, a committee member, said, “We have assured Chinese think tanks that we would not sell JF-17 aircraft to India.” He said Chinese think tanks wanted only Pakistan and China to manufacture JF-17 aircraft.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Mani2020]

is he drunk??




Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

WTF not again yar , for heaven sake, time an time again i have told people that check out the dates of the articles before coming up to conclusions, this article is 4 years old and was written in April 2007 ,when both Pakistan and india had good relations , and india was looking approx 50 jf-17 airframes from Pakistan which were planned by india to be equipped with their own avionic systems

Try to understand the retrospect before coming up this insanity thing , this is 3rd time someone has come up with this article in last 3 days

 

[Mani2020]

Your are failing to understand the real concept and the current radar capabilites... while you believe 7 m2 and 4 m2 is a difference ofcourse we do believe it... but the radar detection of the fighters have been increased manifold and it is not like 90's.. your 1m2 detection happens in 90 KM itself and it is enough for present fighters to take a BVR lock (so tell me what advantage you get?)... secondly your concept of composite for RCS reduction doesnt yield enough result in RCS but for sure in reducing in weight..

Yar no doubt the radars are improving with every passing day , but you can't ignore the benefits of reduce RCS . Ok by going with your example , i will try to make you understand (if you really want) though basic thing.

Suppose an aircraft XYZ uses a radar ABC with a stated detection range of 120km for an aircraft of 5m2 ( fully loaded) now the radar range will be dependent on the RCS , mean it will increase or decrease with the increase and decrease of RCS of an aircraft. if it has 120km for an aircraft with 5m2 RCS then for an aircraft with more than 5m2 of RCS the detection range will automatically increase ,and for an aircraft with RCS of less than 5m2 it will decrease .
Now as we supposed the detection range earlier which is 120km for 5m2 ,as its increasing in case of target with 7m2 so lets suppose it to be 150km, now as for decreasing when the RCS is lower than 5m2 so lest suppose for target of 3m2 RCS its detection range comes to 8o km

Now this supposed equation makes

ABC range = 120km for 5m2
ABC range = 150 km for 7m2
ABC range =80km for 3m2

Now tell me if you are flying that aircraft XYZ ,which aircraft among these three will you detect first?

And if these 2 aircrafts are flying with radars of same ranges at a distance of 150km from eachother so which aircraft will detect other aircraft first? obviously an aircraft of 7m2 will be the the first to get detected by the aircraft with 3m2 providing the latter one "shoot first capability" while the other aircraft with 7m2 is still unable to detect the enemy aircraft . So which aircraft has advantage here ?

 

[kingdurgaking]

Yar no doubt the radars are improving with every passing day , but you can't ignore the benefits of reduce RCS . Ok by going with your example , i will try to make you understand (if you really want) though basic thing.

Suppose an aircraft XYZ uses a radar ABC with a stated detection range of 120km for an aircraft of 5m2 ( fully loaded) now the radar range will be dependent on the RCS , mean it will increase or decrease with the increase and decrease of RCS of an aircraft. if it has 120km for an aircraft with 5m2 RCS then for an aircraft with more than 5m2 of RCS the detection range will automatically increase ,and for an aircraft with RCS of less than 5m2 it will decrease .
Now as we supposed the detection range earlier which is 120km for 5m2 ,as its increasing in case of target with 7m2 so lets suppose it to be 150km, now as for decreasing when the RCS is lower than 5m2 so lest suppose for target of 3m2 RCS its detection range comes to 8o km

Now this supposed equation makes

ABC range = 120km for 5m2
ABC range = 150 km for 7m2
ABC range =80km for 3m2

Now tell me if you are flying that aircraft XYZ ,which aircraft among these three will you detect first?

And if these 2 aircrafts are flying with radars of same ranges at a distance of 150km from eachother so which aircraft will detect other aircraft first? obviously an aircraft of 7m2 will be the the first to get detected by the aircraft with 3m2 providing the latter one "shoot first capability" while the other aircraft with 7m2 is still unable to detect the enemy aircraft . So which aircraft has advantage here ?

While you believe that if 1m2 RCS if put a drop tank and missile on wing will increase the rcs by 3m2.. and for a 20m2 RCS if we put a drop tank and missile it will increase to 23m2.... but the underlying fact is if we put a drop tank and missile under the wing the RCS will become minimum to 5m2.. unless they are shaped for LO.. but no missile or LGB or bombs in present technology is so stealthy...once you load it under the wing with 2 or 3 dropt tanks it will be 5m2 minimum ... adding to it will be the missiles with their fins... so what i am trying to explain is unless you put them inside the body of the aircraft they will increase your rcs to 5m2.. that is why F-22 of F-35 will never have outer configuration in stealth mode.. even a small lens camera put below the body of F-22 increased its rcs which was enough for Rafale to take a lock durign the exercise...

secondly as per your calculation the BVR missile of 80km for 3m2 is the nominal range .... all the BVR's like R-77 and AIM 120D may look like have a range 120-140 KM ... but the real fact is those ranges can be achieved only on ideal condition and ideal alltitudes.. by normal R-77 and AIM 120D will have a range of 50-60 KM or max of 80 KM only to take a shot.. so 80 KM is more than enough for the fighters to detect it and give a BVR injection..

thats why i say composite is good for you to reduce weight.. but they are not good for RCS for a 4th generation fighter.. a 4th generation fighter muscle lies only in its avionics like MAWS, RADAR, EW , DECOYS etc ... RCS was a never a issue...

though i am not boasting on MKI .. but as you know MKI radars are too powerful to detect 3m2 size target at distance more than 150 KM.. but it will launch R-77 only at 60-70 KM so all the 70 KM it will just only detect and give a plan.. thats why it is a mere waste to reduce the RCS of MKI but give it a better avionics for its survivability

 

[Silk]

While you believe that if 1m2 RCS if put a drop tank and missile on wing will increase the rcs by 3m2.. and for a 20m2 RCS if we put a drop tank and missile it will increase to 23m2.... but the underlying fact is if we put a drop tank and missile under the wing the RCS will become minimum to 5m2.. unless they are shaped for LO.. but no missile or LGB or bombs in present technology is so stealthy...once you load it under the wing with 2 or 3 dropt tanks it will be 5m2 minimum ... adding to it will be the missiles with their fins... so what i am trying to explain is unless you put them inside the body of the aircraft they will increase your rcs to 5m2.. that is why F-22 of F-35 will never have outer configuration in stealth mode.. even a small lens camera put below the body of F-22 increased its rcs which was enough for Rafale to take a lock durign the exercise...

secondly as per your calculation the BVR missile of 80km for 3m2 is the nominal range .... all the BVR's like R-77 and AIM 120D may look like have a range 120-140 KM ... but the real fact is those ranges can be achieved only on ideal condition and ideal alltitudes.. by normal R-77 and AIM 120D will have a range of 50-60 KM or max of 80 KM only to take a shot.. so 80 KM is more than enough for the fighters to detect it and give a BVR injection..

thats why i say composite is good for you to reduce weight.. but they are not good for RCS for a 4th generation fighter.. a 4th generation fighter muscle lies only in its avionics like MAWS, RADAR, EW , DECOYS etc ... RCS was a never a issue...

though i am not boasting on MKI .. but as you know MKI radars are too powerful to detect 3m2 size target at distance more than 150 KM.. but it will launch R-77 only at 60-70 KM so all the 70 KM it will just only detect and give a plan.. thats why it is a mere waste to reduce the RCS of MKI but give it a better avionics for its survivability

You do know that having a powerful radar is same as shining with an huge flashlight in the dark? It means that the one that has the flashlight is seen by all opponents unless they shut their eyes... And an MKI is even with its radar off a big flashlight... If you were studying the past you will understand that smaller is better. That is why Gnat was better then anything else in the past. Now I bet the JF17 will show MKI that the latter is a big banana that is going to crash faster then planned.

 

[Mani2020]

While you believe that if 1m2 RCS if put a drop tank and missile on wing will increase the rcs by 3m2.. and for a 20m2 RCS if we put a drop tank and missile it will increase to 23m2.... but the underlying fact is if we put a drop tank and missile under the wing the RCS will become minimum to 5m2.. unless they are shaped for LO.. but no missile or LGB or bombs in present technology is so stealthy...once you load it under the wing with 2 or 3 dropt tanks it will be 5m2 minimum ... adding to it will be the missiles with their fins... so what i am trying to explain is unless you put them inside the body of the aircraft they will increase your rcs to 5m2.. that is why F-22 of F-35 will never have outer configuration in stealth mode.. even a small lens camera put below the body of F-22 increased its rcs which was enough for Rafale to take a lock durign the exercise...

secondly as per your calculation the BVR missile of 80km for 3m2 is the nominal range .... all the BVR's like R-77 and AIM 120D may look like have a range 120-140 KM ... but the real fact is those ranges can be achieved only on ideal condition and ideal alltitudes.. by normal R-77 and AIM 120D will have a range of 50-60 KM or max of 80 KM only to take a shot.. so 80 KM is more than enough for the fighters to detect it and give a BVR injection..

thats why i say composite is good for you to reduce weight.. but they are not good for RCS for a 4th generation fighter.. a 4th generation fighter muscle lies only in its avionics like MAWS, RADAR, EW , DECOYS etc ... RCS was a never a issue...

though i am not boasting on MKI .. but as you know MKI radars are too powerful to detect 3m2 size target at distance more than 150 KM.. but it will launch R-77 only at 60-70 KM so all the 70 KM it will just only detect and give a plan.. thats why it is a mere waste to reduce the RCS of MKI but give it a better avionics for its survivability

Chalo oh bhai it was a supposed calculation not exact figure, i was not taking any particular missile rather all the readings were supposed , for heaven sake don't act so stupid , i m done with you i cant mess with someone who don't want to learn rather have illogical claims, your everything starts and ends on mki, for heaven sake try to understand in aviation there is not only mki rather dozen of other fighters and we have to consider all of them not just mki, as every aircraft has different radar and range and we can't calculate for everyone of them so thats why i supposed the figures

Havn't you ever learnt simple mathematics ?

Let x=y stuff?

Man you jst want to start and end with mki' ok your super duper mki is the best , now m done n not going to reply to some stupid and insane posts

 

[graphican]

Oh was India really looking to procure JF-17s.. that's a surprise to me. Can you mention some news resource or reference to study that further ?

 

[Manticore]

^^ they might be looking to buy jfts particularly since the iaf chief called the lca as mig21+ ... and they know what our stingers can do to them

jedna od dve zrtve(druga zrtva je helikopter mi-17) pakistanski stingera za vreme konflikta kargil.iako se pilot bezbedno katapultirao,na zemlji su ga ustrelili pakistanski vojnici.
MIG-21 Fishbed :: MyCity Military

i generally refrain from such posts but...

 

[kingdurgaking]

You do know that having a powerful radar is same as shining with an huge flashlight in the dark? It means that the one that has the flashlight is seen by all opponents unless they shut their eyes... And an MKI is even with its radar off a big flashlight... If you were studying the past you will understand that smaller is better. That is why Gnat was better then anything else in the past. Now I bet the JF17 will show MKI that the latter is a big banana that is going to crash faster then planned.

My argument has never reached you or Mani2020... while i havent stressed MKI is powerful which you people get pissed with the name.. what i stressed is need for the avionics in 4th gen... i just stated MKI is better to have good avionics than go for RCS reduction... any way.. i think i am bit of overdose for you people to understand.... while some onlookers or professional will really agree on it..

Secondly dragging JF17 vs MKI i am not an expert on it.. while you can ask your own PAF pilots about it

 

[SBD-3]

My argument has never reached you or Mani2020... while i havent stressed MKI is powerful which you people get pissed with the name.. what i stressed is need for the avionics in 4th gen... i just stated MKI is better to have good avionics than go for RCS reduction... any way.. i think i am bit of overdose for you people to understand.... while some onlookers or professional will really agree on it..

Secondly dragging JF17 vs MKI i am not an expert on it.. while you can ask your own PAF pilots about it

4th gen Avionics? now thats something new for me while being here for more than 3 years. can you enlighten me of examples of 4th gen avionics?

 

[kingdurgaking]

4th gen Avionics? now thats something new for me while being here for more than 3 years. can you enlighten me of examples of 4th gen avionics?

dont scramble the sentence.. read it as it is to understand...

 

[Khan Sahab]

Thunder is a big blunder
chinese jets ,chinese mobiles & chinese babes are of same kind (i.e) even
god cant say how long would it last (lol)

You can always participate in a constructive arguement. This just shows your ignorance or rather frustration regarding Chinese. Chinese have taken great leaps in development of their military and not acknowledging it is foolish.

 

[SBD-3]

dont scramble the sentence.. read it as it is to understand...

I am still curious what are 4th generation avionics?.....