What's new

JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prove that WS-10 and WS-13 are copied from foreign engines.

How can China not produce engines when they have been building their WP-series turbojets and WS-series turbofans for years, indigenous as well as foreign designs?
That these engines are copied needs no proof. They are freely available through open sources. Else you are also free to talk to senior members on many boards.

China has not installed their own engine on absolutely any plane. There lies the crux of the matter. The engines they have installed are license produced.

Which tech. developments have Pakistan gained and not gained from the JF-17 project? Prove Pakistan has "little tech. developments if anything" and that the JF-17 project only has short term benefits for Pakistan.
What Pakistan will gain from JF-17 is what India has already done for over a decade by way of manufacturing Jaguar, Su-30MKI, etc.

India's attempt in LCA is something way out of level compared to what Pakistan is doing for JF-17. The approach to Pakistan has taken, is what India had done a while back. This is a different kind of attempt. The level of technology and research India has had to perform and invest in for plans like LCA and Arjun are mind boggling. There are no shortcuts in this. Pakistan does not have the economy or the infrastructure right now or the industrial base or the research base to start a its own similar project. When Pakistan does have all that-make no mistake, Pakistan will ALSO go through the same grind of developing the entire cycle right at home.

This has also been dicussed on this very board-feel free to search the old threads.
 
And Raja Kavuru, we do not allow posts or links from BR here.
There is also the policy of not allowing people to bash other forums or denigrate them. You seem to have forgotten that in your admirable haste to ensure the rules of this forum are upheld.
 
It is a shame that some posters have no clue what they write ot just copy paste fromhighly questionable and wrong posts from other forums...

>>>Now LCA vs JF-17
Lca- designed and being developed in India
JF-17-designed and being developed in china

Wrong. JF17 is partly Pakistani. If Mushaf ali Mir decided to decouple the engine and use certain improvements (plug and play plane) then how come it is not Pakistani? How come we are one year testflying? How come western parts are integrated? I bet China is not allowed to do it. So even in the worse case... JF17 is managed by PAF (read AFM about the first plane being designed by an airforce!) is improved by PAF and will be exported by PAF. China is a major suplier of manpower and technology but they were never going to buy the plane.... Isn't that waht ou guys keep posting?


Now, Abou LCA being Indian. Well, it is the plane that took decades and bollions but even with major foreign assistance not going to be more then a test case.


>>>Avionics(LCA)- most are local now will reach close to 90% when production begins.
Avionics(JF-17)- Mix of western and Chines (non of them is pakistani)

Indian firms getting western or Russian parts and co-producing some doesn't mean it is Indian. It is like Tata doing buss now with Saab concerning Gripen. You might say then that Gripen is Indian... Hardly. It is purely to get market penetration and options to buy votes.


>>>Radar(LCA)- rest of the radar coupled with Israeli phase array antenna
Radar(JF-17)- chines or Italian

So? Like so many things you need Israeli assistance. But instead of Israeli engineers putting their engine in "your" LCA it is our engineers putting western engine in our plane...


>>>Engine(LCA)- Kaveri (technical assistance of France)
Engine(JF-17)- Russian or Chines(developed with Russian assistance)
F.C.S(LCA)-Fly-By-Wire, Quadriplex from first flight developed by A.D.A.
F.C.S(JF-17)-Fly-By-Wire but for only ruder till now developed by china.


Kaveri is decoupled from LCA. The first 7 squadrons will get western engine... Here goed Kaveri. Even after Russian help, Israeli help, US help, French help... It is not what I say but your own ACM.

>>>Air Frame(LCA)- 45% composite developed in India for better speed, low maintenance, long life(low fatigue), better RCS and hi ‘g’ performance.
Air Frame(JF-17)- Its has a mig-21 class aluminium air frame which will have Vice -Versa of above features.

Just checked composites... It is not 45%. And composites does not make you more steatlhy. It will make your maintenance much more complex. It will be replaced more often. And it costs a lot more. So why going for those extra's if you can do it without or add it later?

">>>Radar(LCA)- rest of the radar coupled with Israeli phase array antenna
Radar(JF-17)- chines or Italian

So? Like so many things you need Israeli assistance. But instead of Israeli engineers putting their engine in "your" LCA it is our engineers putting western engine in our plane..."

What u mean??
Come again....

Lets not fool ourselves,u see pakistan just does not have the required Infrastructure ,technical experience or finalcial prowess to build a modern fighter on its own.Even india who have multiple time capability of what pakistan has is struggling with LCA.

Now thats nothing to be ashamed of.It doesnt mean pakistani ppl dont have the brain or say intellectual capability to build an fighter aircraft since thats never the case.We have scientists,doctors ,engineers from the best universities of sub continent crowding western labs and creating world class products for the west.But they cant replicate the same here in india or pakistan because we are yet to develop sophisticated industrial base to support a fighter aircraft project.
 
">>>Radar(LCA)- rest of the radar coupled with Israeli phase array antenna
Radar(JF-17)- chines or Italian

So? Like so many things you need Israeli assistance. But instead of Israeli engineers putting their engine in "your" LCA it is our engineers putting western engine in our plane..."

What u mean??
Come again....

Lets not fool ourselves,u see pakistan just does not have the required Infrastructure ,technical experience or finalcial prowess to build a modern fighter on its own.Even india who have multiple time capability of what pakistan has is struggling with LCA.
Now thats nothing to be ashamed of.It doesnt mean pakistani ppl dont have the brain or say intellectual capability to build an fighter aircraft since thats never the case.We have scientists,doctors ,engineers from the best universities of sub continent crowding western labs and creating world class products for the west.But they cant replicate the same here in india or pakistan because we are yet to develop sophisticated industrial base to support a fighter aircraft project.



HMMMM i like the sarcastic tone my friend....and can you please tell me what capabilty and technological prowess india has that pakistan lacks...last i checked was that our HATF series was inducted and india only had AGNI inducted....so i guess we are light years ahead in missle technology...now fighter jet technology well...we have JF-17 nearly inducted and ready to build a squadron...while indias GREAT MIGHTY POWERFUL LCA...is being worked on... like malaymishra said to everything mean_bird threw at him....we r working on reducing the weight we r working on reducing the cost...bla bla bla bla....so u keep working and we keep INDUCTING sorry for being so sarcastic but u bring out the worse in me and thank you for that....:pakistan:
 
So by your logic, the K-8 should be better than the LCA.

not only by my logic but common sense. $10 > $8 by everyone's logic not just mine.

I am not saying LCA is overall worse than a trainer like K-8. But in terms of pulling g's currently, yes it is and that is an important measure. Ofcourse LCA is a fighter and K-8, a trainer....they belong to different classes.
I never said K-8 is better than LCA.....I said K-8 currently pulls more g's than LCA. I believe if they work hard they can improve it a bit, but no way will the LCA pull its designed 9 g's until the engine is replaced and its weight reduced; that is not happening until the second batch.

That is conjecture. And it would be wise if you stay away from it. The amount of work or refinement needed on the plane is not privy to you. It is stated US policy, it doesnt depend on the amount of work, it depends on whether the work is done at all-little or a lot is irrelevant.

No that is not conjuncture...I have provided proof of that.

Maybe so? How does it matter? They are working on it. Whether or not it yields results, remains to be seen. And i told you, the batch config will change before it enters operational service.


Batch configuration will in all likelihood change. Therefore i said, wait for it to enter the first sqdrn, then we can start comparing.

And all posts are your opinions or rather your wish...I am yet to see a single credible proof of that. Please provide a proof that the AoA is now better, or that they have reduced the weight.

They might be working on it, but if you want 40 planes by end of 2010...production must have already started or about to start.

Things have moved beyond what the article has said.They are working on it. What they ideally initially wanted has not been delivered, but they are just shy of what is the requirement in the ASQR.

without a credible proof, its nothing more than opinion/wish. I have provided a proof for everything I have claimed so far in this thread.
.

This is precisely what im saying. You only need 4-5 prototypes for testing. They are going for 2 operational sqdrns. It is not just for testing. Its a heck of a lot more.

IAF already has been given an AJT-Hawk. They dont need another advanced trainer. The IJT is also in its final stages of development. At max what the LCA can be is a LIFT, that too only for the LCA fighter. There is no need, nor requirement for a trainer apart from LIFT-which again is a moot point. Its not meant to be a trainer. You can choose to believe what you want to.

yes...that's what I have said....its a heck of a lot more...its face saving.

Let's see what proof you can provided that it has improved its AoA or pull high enough g's or carry enough weapon load. Because without that, participating in a combat would be nothing more than a suicide mission.

I am waiting for your proof :coffee:
 
That these engines are copied needs no proof. They are freely available through open sources. Else you are also free to talk to senior members on many boards.

China has not installed their own engine on absolutely any plane. There lies the crux of the matter. The engines they have installed are license produced.
Nope. They have produced foreign turbojet engines under license, then significantly improved them and installed them on many J-7s, J-8s. Doesn't that make the improved models Chinese engines?

If WS-10 and WS-10A are copied from Al-31 but performance and reliability are improved, how can they be mere copies of Russian engines? BTW WS-10 and WS-10A are in use according to Chinese forums, being fitted to J-11.
EDIT: I have just been reading that the design of Al-31 and WS-10 is completely different, they can't be copies of each other. Something about number of compressor stages, twin-spool/single-spool, etc. Going by what people like Crobato and Tphuang post, your claim that "China has not installed their own engine on absolutely any plane" is nothing but bullsh!t.

What Pakistan will gain from JF-17 is what India has already done for over a decade by way of manufacturing Jaguar, Su-30MKI, etc.

India's attempt in LCA is something way out of level compared to what Pakistan is doing for JF-17.
I never said it wasn't.
I wrote "prove Pakistan has "little tech. developments if anything" and that the JF-17 project only has short term benefits for Pakistan."
In the words of Mr macintosh, Pakistan has little tech developments and only short term benefits from JF-17. I asked him to prove it.
 
Last edited:
22 AOA of Tejas has been confirmed by Mr Kanchan Biswas Associate Director, CEMILAC at Aero India 2009 But the Target AOA of 25 is still to be achieved , My Bike Bajaj Pulsar 220CC has a top speed of 145kmph but i have only clocked 110 it not that my machine cannot reach 145 its that i have not yet tested it for that speed ,so in case of Tejas has pulled 6gs but the airframe was designed to pull 9gs and will do it before it get IOC its that is yet to be tested ,IJT is also designed to pull 7Gs just like that K8 Trainer ,coming back to JF-17 according to the details provided by PAC at the IDEAS 2008 JF-17 has 8 G-limit ( )so how much has JF-17 has pulled till now ?? i could not find a single article on Gs pulled by JF-17 i bet it has not pulled 8 Gs yet so why so much hala gula over Tejas G limit ??
 
To prove my point further on AOA of Tejas here is a article which was published on Deccan Chronicle, 29 May 2008 which clearly states that 20 AOA was achieved has early has May 2008 and now we are in End of Feb 2009, and i take word of Mr Kanchan Biswas Associate Director, CEMILAC who has confirmed 22 AOA has been reached while it is Dr Subramahyam from drdo who claimed 20 AOA in the Article dated May 2008. i will take the word of Dr Subramahyam and Kanchan Biswas over some article which has a unnamed source from MOD, i clearly state that Targeted AOA of Tejas is 25 AOA is yet to be achieved while 20/22 AOA has been achieved ,i rest my case here

India has never failed


Bangalore, May 28: The Light Combat Aircraft Tejas is set to undergo hot weather trials in Nagpur. This is a significant step for those involved with the project, which has to obtain Initial Operational Clearance in mid-2010. Speaking to this correspondent, Dr. P.S. Subramanyam, the LCA project director, explained the importance of the projects and the difficulties it faced.

Now, with the finish line in sight, Dr Subramanyam exulted: "This country has never failed in anything, be it nuclear weapons, missiles, supercomputers." Speaking about the hot weather trials which are expected to be held before the month-end or early June, Dr Subramanyam said, "The Nagpur trials are to see how the aircraft and its subsystems work in hot weather conditions. We expect to experience an ambient temperature of 45º Centigrade and characterise the aircraft."

In August-September, the aircraft will be taken to Jaisalmer for weapon trials. The cold weather trials will be done next year. Answering questions about delays and cost overruns, Dr Subramanyam charted the course of the project. "It was first proposed in 1983, but the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) itself came into existence only in 1985. And, we had three people then. Initial activity started in 1986 when ADA was given a small corner in the National Aeronautical Laboratory," he said.

In 1987-88, Dassault of France was commissioned to do preliminary feasibility studies. "It was only in 1989 that we came to understand what the project entailed." "We gave our report to the government, and said we would need to produce seven aircraft to complete the programme. The government said just build two technology demonstrators," he said. "It was then considered nothing more than an engineering project. Even money for phase one of the full-scale engineering project was given in 1993."

The technology development included development of a fly-by-wire system, real-time embedded controllers and other sub-systems. "We completed that programme in 2004. The real kick-off for operational fighter aircraft was given only in 2001, after the first flight test that year." "If you consider this timeline, the progress of the LCA project is comparable to any other fighter jet project around the world," Dr Subramahyam said.

When the project started, "our technology was stencil drawings, while other countries had advanced technology. We did not even have computers to work on, let alone CAD/CAM software," he said. "We did not have the human resources, we did not have the design tools, and we did not have the test facilities. All of them had to be evolved." Today, six aircraft have done 870 flights. There is still painstaking work to be done on the ‘angle of attack’. The LCA has reached 20 degrees against 22 degrees required for highest performance.

"The flying machine is ready. We are building the fighting machine," Dr Subramahyam said. "We are doing the sensor-weapon integration, and we are 80 per cent through.
 
Last edited:
22 AOA of Tejas has been confirmed by Mr Kanchan Biswas Associate Director, CEMILAC at Aero India 2009 But the Target AOA of 25 is still to be achieved ,

Can you please post a reliable link or video where he says that?

If it has reached 22 AoA, good for the LCA. Not enough but shows some progress...congrats to them ... but let me see a proof of that first.

My Bike Bajaj Pulsar 220CC has a top speed of 145kmph but i have only clocked 110 it not that my machine cannot reach 145 its that i have not yet tested it for that speed ,so in case of Tejas has pulled 6gs but the airframe was designed to pull 9gs and will do it before it get IOC its that is yet to be tested ,IJT is also designed to pull 7Gs just like that K8 Trainer

Your Bike can go upto 145kmph....but if you add 1.5 tons of weight on it and reduce the engine power, do you think it can still do that speed? even if the its body was designed for that.



coming back to JF-17 according to the details provided by PAC at the IDEAS 2008 JF-17 has 8 G-limit ()so how much has JF-17 has pulled till now ?? i could not find a single article on Gs pulled by JF-17 i bet it has not pulled 8 Gs yet so why so much hala gula over Tejas G limit ??

That 8g is what it has pulled so far and thats why you see it there. This is a brochure that is marketing the JF-17 as it is...not future models.

It was designed for 8.5g

To prove my point further on AOA of Tejas here is a article which was published on Deccan Chronicle, 29 May 2008 which clearly states that 20 AOA was achieved has early has May 2008 and now we are in End of Feb 2009, and i take word of Mr Kanchan Biswas Associate Director, CEMILAC who has confirmed 22 AOA has been reached while it is Dr Subramahyam from drdo who claimed 20 AOA in the Article dated May 2008. i will take the word of Dr Subramahyam and Kanchan Biswas over some article which has a unnamed source from MOD, i clearly state that Targeted AOA of Tejas is 25 AOA is yet to be achieved while 20/22 AOA has been achieved ,i rest my case here

To prove your point, you need to put a source, a link, a video. Mere text is not enough if we cannot even verify where it is from.

What's the proof this is from Deccan Chronicle and how reliable is it?

You post a "supposed" article from May 2008, well here's a far more credible newspaper, not one but two of them and from JUNE 2008


"The home-grown Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which is set to be inducted in 2011, will not be able to fly with a full-weapon load and will also need a new engine—instead of the Kaveri engine—to meet the minimum requirements for fighter aircraft drawn up by the Indian Air Force (IAF). To accommodate these modifications, the planes will also need to be redesigned.

In what could be a deathblow to the indigenous fighter programme, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has conceded that the first lot of planes to enter service will not only carry a limited load of weapons but will also have a restricted ‘angle of attack’, making them unsuitable for aerial combat.

The primary reason for the problem is the lower thrust provided by the GE 404 engine powering the aircraft. While plans to develop a newer engine are under discussion, there is no scope for improvement at least for the first lot of 40 aircraft, of which 20 have already been ordered by the IAF.
“There is no way that the first 40 aircraft will have any other engine than the GE 404. The engine gives a power of 80-85 Kilo Newton while the IAF requires them to have a capability of 95-100 Kilo Newton,” a top MoD source said, adding that the current thrust provided by the engine limits the angle of attack — a measure of the maneouverability of the aircraft—to 17 degrees against the IAF’s minimum requirement of 21 degrees

This makes the fighter unsuitable for aerial combat, especially given that neighbouring countries already possess more agile fighter planes.
"

LCA needs new engine to be worthy of combat
The Hindu : National : LCA dogged by engine power limitations

:azn::azn:


I feel my proves are landing on blind eyes...you don't even read the posts and keep repeating the same thing.

This is a credible proof, with links , from a later date, not just one but two proofs. On top of that it clearly says the current thrust "limits the angle of attack". Are you telling me they have changed the engines?


Please go through and read what has already been proved and established.
 
^ not to forget, at the moment we are using a engine which is even underpowered then the current onces used in LCA and still we have a product that performs well. so if we switch the two engines what do we get?
 
Why so much anger about 8g or 8.5g or 9+g? In the air arena it is about stealth, good AAM, good radar and the best ECM. Nobody cares about whether you can pull a little but more. And the G's are not a constant factor. Dutch F16's are limited. Belgians are not. So in a2a one would think that it will make a lot of difference. It doens't. If BVR fails then you better start using your super agile WVR otherwise you might not see another day. Besides that. The lower G's are often related to maintenance rather the fact thatplanes cannot handle it. Goes for F16 and F15... Surely the same goes for JF17.

We have to wait and see whether LCA meets the operational level. When we have to accept stories of DRDO then the plane would have been better then Block52...
 
Here some info... If you understand the paper then you will understand that the impact on the rudder will be not positive. I do not blaim others for not understanding this but in aviation engineering this is pretty basic knowledge.

>>>Unsteady flow phenomena associated with leading-edge vortices


C. Breitsamter, a,

aInstitute of Aerodynamics, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstraße 15, 85748 Garching, Germany


Available online 11 January 2008.
Abstract

This paper presents selected results from extensive experimental investigations on turbulent flow fields and unsteady surface pressures caused by leading-edge vortices, in particular, for vortex breakdown flow. Such turbulent flows may cause severe dynamic aeroelastic problems like wing and/or fin buffeting on fighter-type aircraft. The wind tunnel models used include a generic delta wing as well as a detailed aircraft configuration of canard-delta wing type. The turbulent flow structures are analyzed by root-mean-square and spectral distributions of velocity and pressure fluctuations. Downstream of bursting local maxima of velocity fluctuations occur in a limited radial range around the vortex center. The corresponding spectra exhibit significant peaks indicating that turbulent kinetic energy is channeled into a narrow band. These quasi-periodic velocity oscillations arise from a helical mode instability of the breakdown flow. Due to vortex bursting there is a characteristic increase in surface pressure fluctuations with increasing angle of attack, especially when the burst location moves closer to the apex. The pressure fluctuations also show dominant frequencies corresponding to those of the velocity fluctuations. Using the measured flow field data, scaling parameters are derived for design purposes. It is shown that a frequency parameter based on the local semi-span and the sinus of angle of attack can be used to estimate the frequencies of dynamic loads evoked by vortex bursting.
 
Picture does not say that this are the achieved objectives of JF-17 and link, proof to read on about the 8Gs achieved by JF-17 ,Again the Hindu article is full based on TOP UNNAMED MOD SOURCES but i have given you the names and people who actual work on the Tejas .you should have seen defence journalist luking around Aero India 2009 when i was talking to Cdr Maolankar for some time (TEJAS TEST PILOT) he is a NAVAL HARRIER Pilot deputed to ADA for Tejas program and very senior pilot and since we had Goa connection (Harrier is based and me to) journalist could come and ask him question actually some weired questions ,none i have seen asking a technical questions ,level of Defence Journalism is really falling has wannabe Journos are writing this days ,but i did find lot of youngsters who knew what they were talking and asked the right questions
 
i agree with Munir here ,more Gs often the aircrafts pulls more wear and tear the airframe gets has more stress on airframe is put, which reduces life of the airframe ,even modern AAM and ASM cannot operate under just high Gs .can any one put what AOA has JF-17 achieved yet ??
 
One point here-it is not about whether JF-17 or LCA has a greater AoA.
Its about whether their respective airforces think it is sufficient for the role in which they will be employed!

If IAF thinks an AoA of 10 degrees is sufficient, then it is. Same for PAF, if they want a plane with atleast an AoA of 10, then it doesnt matter if it pulls a greater AoA than LCA by giving 9 degrees instead of 8 of LCA. What matters is that it gives what is wanted by PAF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom