JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

[Myth_buster_1]

lets talk about the obvious first.lets talk about the things on which the RCS of an aircraft depends...size,shape,material used
LCa is the smallest jet...it's has the maximum amount of composites in it's frame....a canard less delta airframe.now these are obvious facts aren't they?
so based on these we can argue the case of JF-17 v/s LCa in terms of RCS.

moron didnt you read mean_birds posts that were slapped all over your shameless face! and stop trolling!

NOW READ!

.
It depends more the shape and curves of the plane rather than just size. Size might be a factor, but certainly not the most important one. As an example, the Rafale is one big plane but has very LO.

Denys Overholser, when asked what makes an aircraft stealth, said: “Shape, shape, shape and materials”. And before you jump from your seat at the mention of materials...those are radar absorbing materials like dielectric polymers and ferromagnetic materials.



OK if you insist. I was referring to the specific technology on the skin of a plane like that of an F-22 which neither the LCA nor the JF-17 possesses. But I guess you can use the term loosely to refer to features that makes a plane invisible or gets close to that

Even the F-22 is not completely invisible...you can probably see it at close proximity and the only plane to have taken a virtual shot at it did actually see it...that you might never make it that close is another story.

That is why todays 4.5 gen planes have LO or stealthy (stealth-like) features but not stealth technology.


As I said, my reservations about the LCA was considering its delta wings configuration. I have explained in one of my earlier post about why JF-17 would be much more maneuverable especially in the more important pitch role (because of LERX and DSI).

Also LCA's maximum achieved 5.5g and only 19 ( or was it 22?) degree of AoA speaks for its maneuverability. Not to mention its 1.5 ton overweight.



This clearly proves the LCA has fallen short of the IAF standards.

This thread is LCA vs JF-17 and stealth is but just one feature. Remember, inlets are A MAJOR RCS REDUCING FEATURE. Exposure to compressor and blades not only is highly reflective but also compromises on the identification of the plane using modern techniques like JEM. The JF-17 clearly wins with its DSI.

Frankly, as soon as you load your weapons onto your plane...much of its so-called stealth is compromised and it can be detected by most radars in employment today.

 

[paritosh]

You guys are the ones saying LCA Mark 1 is more manoeuvrable than JF-17 even though you have no evidence for that whatsoever. We have evidence that LCA's manoeuvrability is not up to scratch because it is being redesigned specifically to improve manoeuvrability. Simple.

so the LCA developers one day got themselves a JF-17 and tested it and found that it was way better than the LCA....so they decided to go for the mark-II to beat the JF-17!
we have all the resources for hierarchical development of the LCA...and the newer version of anything is always better than the previous one.your logic is baseless in this regard.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

so the LCA developers one day got themselves a JF-17 and tested it and found that it was way better than the LCA....so they decided to go for the mark-II to beat the JF-17!
we have all the resources for hierarchical development of the LCA...and the newer version of anything is always better than the previous one.your logic is baseless in this regard.

and who told you that PAF is just going to stick to current JF-17 variant that just beat your LCA? the air force variant is going to evolve into more advance blocks and i dough LCA will be able to match the speculated JF-17 II. and yes you are right.

and the newer version of anything is always better than the previous one

 

[zombie:-)]

and who told you that PAF is just going to stick to current JF-17 variant that just beat your LCA? the air force variant is going to evolve into more advance blocks and i dough LCA will be able to match the speculated JF-17 II. and yes you are right.

GUYS CAN YOU JUST STOP IT

jf-17 and LCA are not being built to compete they are being for completely different reasons

1India needs its own fighter to get hand on experience after manufacturing some from TOT ...and for a cheap replacement to mig -21 fleet

2 Pak needs to replace its aging fighters and for number fillers and some upgraded tech too and further strengthens relationship with china

so yes jf-17 may be better than LCA or vice versa if you compare f-16s and mig-29s wich were built to counter each other then there will be some reaon to discuss

 

[Myth_buster_1]

GUYS CAN YOU JUST STOP IT

thats the whole point of this thread. JF-17 vs LCA, or are you suggesting us to stop debating?

so yes jf-17 may be better than LCA or vice versa if you compare f-16s and mig-29s wich were built to counter each other then there will be some reaon to discuss

very well said. infact did you know that when Mig-29 was introduced in combat service they did not even have FBW and the west never looked at this beast as some cheap junk.

 

[mean_bird]

lets talk about the obvious first.

Sure...Here are some obvious facts
- LCA is 1.5 ton overweight
- LCA couldn't pull more than 5.5g
- LCA has problems in its braking, landing gear
- LCA has problems with its aerodynamics they wish to 'improve'
- LCA is looking for EADS to rescue it after Boeing refused
- LCA is looking to have a customer as the IAF has refused to buy it, happy to fly the Mig 21(flying coffins) instead.
- The so hyped 45% composites used in LCA are by weight not surface area

lets talk about the things on which the RCS of an aircraft depends...size,shape,material used

Yeah, lets talk about RCS...
Would you mind telling me the RCS of LCA?

Here's what the guru is today's stealth technology has to say

Denys Overholser, when asked what makes an aircraft stealth, said: “Shape, shape, shape and materials”. And before you jump from your seat at the mention of materials...those are radar absorbing materials like dielectric polymers and ferromagnetic materials.

Sorry to blow up your bubble, but I do not see size being mentioned in there.

Now can you prove to me how much size effects RCS? And maybe tell us why F-22, F-35, B-2 are exceptionally huge planes on the contrary?

Rafale has the smallest RCS of any conventional design...and it IS A BIG PLANE....much bigger than LCA, JF-17, or Grippen.

LCa is the smallest jet...it's has the maximum amount of composites in it's frame....a canard less delta airframe.now these are obvious facts aren't they?
so based on these we can argue the case of JF-17 v/s LCa in terms of RCS.

No we can't...RCS depends on shape, shape and shape. And would you like to talk about intakes? The LCA exposes its compressor and blades that not only are highly reflective to radar waves but also allows the radar to identify the plane because of LEM.

So by the time an LCA detects that "just another plane" is flying around...the JF-17 would know that a plane is flying AND THAT IT IS AN LCA.

so the LCA developers one day got themselves a JF-17 and tested it and found that it was way better than the LCA....so they decided to go for the mark-II to beat the JF-17!
we have all the resources for hierarchical development of the LCA...and the newer version of anything is always better than the previous one.your logic is baseless in this regard.

The F-16 came out and were sold as a/b before moving to c/d. The Grippen came out and were sold as JAS-39 before going to NG. The JF-17 came out and were sold before any further development to blk II. The same however, cannot be said about LCA. The MK1 of the LCA are nothing but 20 underpowered, overweight prototypes that can at best be used for testing/training.

Please stop repeating the same stuff over and over again even after everything has been clearly and repeatedly shown wrong.

 

[paritosh]

Sure...Here are some obvious facts
- LCA is 1.5 ton overweight
- LCA couldn't pull more than 5.5g
- LCA has problems in its braking, landing gear
- LCA has problems with its aerodynamics they wish to 'improve'
- LCA is looking for EADS to rescue it after Boeing refused
- LCA is looking to have a customer as the IAF has refused to buy it, happy to fly the Mig 21(flying coffins) instead.
- The so hyped 45% composites used in LCA are by weight not surface area

call the LCa a failure when we stop working on it...or when our coffers run dry.frankly i dont know about the other points...but have a fair bit of idea when it comes to the factors which determine the RCS .for the RCS...the factor is not the surface area but the cross-sectional area.the cross-sectional area would show the effect the composites would have even with respect to their being by weight and not area.it's their reisistive property to reflect radiation that matters...it is really that simple.the Migs are a liability(except the Bisons)

Yeah, lets talk about RCS...
Would you mind telling me the RCS of LCA?

Here's what the guru is today's stealth technology has to say

Denys Overholser, when asked what makes an aircraft stealth, said: “Shape, shape, shape and materials”. And before you jump from your seat at the mention of materials...those are radar absorbing materials like dielectric polymers and ferromagnetic materials.

Sorry to blow up your bubble, but I do not see size being mentioned in there.

Now can you prove to me how much size effects RCS? And maybe tell us why F-22, F-35, B-2 are exceptionally huge planes on the contrary?

Rafale has the smallest RCS of any conventional design...and it IS A BIG PLANE....much bigger than LCA, JF-17, or Grippen.




No we can't...RCS depends on shape, shape and shape. And would you like to talk about intakes? The LCA exposes its compressor and blades that not only are highly reflective to radar waves but also allows the radar to identify the plane because of LEM.

So by the time an LCA detects that "just another plane" is flying around...the JF-17 would know that a plane is flying AND THAT IT IS AN LCA.

quite right.see...i will tell you how this works...
the RCS=k*size*shape*material
k-proportionality constant.
so if there are two planes of the same size but if the first has more RAM material than the second and has a similar shape...it would have a smaller RCS.you can work this equation out in any possible way.
in case of the bombers...the large size is a must for the payloads they are supposed to carry...so planes like the stealth bomber have worked on the other two factors....i.e the shape(basis--->corner reflection) and materials.
as far as the RCS of the LCA is concerned...if i'd have known that...my case would have been made much more simpler....that is exactly what we are arguing....do you know the RCS of JF-17?

 

[mean_bird]

call the LCa a failure when we stop working on it...or when our coffers run dry.frankly i dont know about the other points...but have a fair bit of idea when it comes to the factors which determine the RCS .for the RCS...the factor is not the surface area but the cross-sectional area.the cross-sectional area would show the effect the composites would have even with respect to their being by weight and not area.it's their reisistive property to reflect radiation that matters...it is really that simple.the Migs are a liability(except the Bisons)

Well I do know. We are comparing LCA and JF-17 and all these factors go against LCA.

quite right.see...i will tell you how this works...
the RCS=k*size*shape*material
k-proportionality constant.
so if there are two planes of the same size but if the first has more RAM material than the second and has a similar shape...it would have a smaller RCS.you can work this equation out in any possible way.
in case of the bombers...the large size is a must for the payloads they are supposed to carry...so planes like the stealth bomber have worked on the other two factors....i.e the shape(basis--->corner reflection) and materials.
as far as the RCS of the LCA is concerned...if i'd have known that...my case would have been made much more simpler....that is exactly what we are arguing....do you know the RCS of JF-17?

Did they teach you this formula in your Radar engineering classes? along with 50% composite = 50% stealth?

Please provide a reference from where you got this formula from and we will talk further.

I have categorically shown you much much bigger aircrafts having so low RCS that both LCA or JF-17 could dream of. Your argument of size means LCA has smaller RCS than JF-17 does not hold any weight. It all depends on the shape.

And you didn't talk about DSI intakes? That alone will make a significant difference in RCS as it covers the engine compressor and blades....one of the most highly reflective surface of the airplane.

Remember one thing: The three most reflective areas for RCS are: Cockpit internal elements, , engine, wing leading edges (and tail).

Btw, just for reference LCA wingspan = 8.2m vs JF-17 wingspan = 8.5m......that's just 30cm difference.

"if i'd have known that"

exactly...neither you nor I know the RCS of either yet you seem to claim LCA has lower RCS with no logical proof.

 

[Contrarian]

EADS has been contracted by ADA to aid the test flights of LCA. It is meant to quanlify LCA in the best possible and least number of sorties. It has nothing to do with design or improvement of LCA. Its for aiding the tests being conducted on LCA for IOC.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

EADS has been contracted by ADA to aid the test flights of LCA. It is meant to quanlify LCA in the best possible and least number of sorties. It has nothing to do with design or improvement of LCA. Its for aiding the tests being conducted on LCA for IOC.

we have our own band of qualified test pilots for JF-17 program, why is that you need out side help when you guys claim your pilots to be one of the best!

 

[Contrarian]

we have our own band of qualified test pilots for JF-17 program, why is that you need out side help when you guys claim your pilots to be one of the best!

Foolishness knows no bounds. The technical benchmarks against which the plane needs to be tested is different from user testing and improvement.

Pakistan will have to do these tests if and when they develop a plane themselves.

EADS has been contracted because companies like Boeing and EADS keep records of testing, they are able to significantly reduce this technical benchmarking testing period as well as be able to give suggestions on the reasons for qualifying or lack of it by the plane. This is because they have a history of developing planes and know exactly what things need to be tested to what extent and against what parameters. ADA can do it alone, but that would take a lot of time. Consultancy with a company like EADS or Boeing reduces that timeframe by half! And with LCA, time is more critical than money.

 

[zeus]

LCA is 1.5 ton overweight
- LCA couldn't pull more than 5.5g
- LCA has problems in its braking, landing gear
- LCA has problems with its aerodynamics they wish to 'improve'
- LCA is looking for EADS to rescue it after Boeing refused
- LCA is looking to have a customer as the IAF has refused to buy it, happy to fly the Mig 21(flying coffins) instead.

LCA already pulled 6G's
LCA Problems with Landing gear ?? Provide me a link
LCA does not have problem with aerodynamics only minor improvement will come in air intake to support higher trust engine on MK-II
EADS are only consulting for reducing the number of sorties
IAF have already ordered 8 LSP ,12 Trainers, 20 MK-1 =40 + 20 expected order by 2012 in first batch and 20x6=120 in MK-II and 40 Naval Tejas (MK-I/II) numbers will go up

 

[zeus]

Guys tell me what is the MTO of JF-17 ?? as per Jf-17.com it is just 12700 KG while Tejas has close to 14500 KG (6500 Empty TOW +2350 Internal Fuel + 5500kg )

 

[Arsalan]

LCA already pulled 6G's
LCA Problems with Landing gear ?? Provide me a link
LCA does not have problem with aerodynamics only minor improvement will come in air intake to support higher trust engine on MK-II
EADS are only consulting for reducing the number of sorties
IAF have already ordered 8 LSP ,12 Trainers, 20 MK-1 =40 + 20 expected order by 2012 in first batch and 20x6=120 in MK-II and 40 Naval Tejas (MK-I/II) numbers will go up

for me the point is that for a plane that has been on paper since almost ten years or so still have number of flaws that are unsolved. i mean if a proble was not fixed on paper it will never ever be fixed easily in actual. atleast when in design the system must be perfect so that even if there are some problems while transferring the design into actual platform, the number of problems that need to be fixed is mimimum. here the case is different, even in design the LCA inheritently faced number of flaws that are being taken care of now and this have caused the project decades!!!

i hope you people agree!!

 

[mundaus]

ADA can do it alone, but that would take a lot of time.

No ADA can't do it alone. ADA does not have the technical expertise and experience and that's why ADA is cotracting outside help. Yes I do agree with you that it would have take ADA a long time based on their past development history. Do I have to mention that?

Consultancy with a company like EADS or Boeing reduces that timeframe by half! And with LCA, time is more critical than money.

So what you are saying that it took ADA more than 30 years to develop a plane and now it would have taken them 10 to 15 more years to test it, but by contracting outside help would reduce the test time to half. Good luck