abdulbarijan
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,251
- Reaction score
- 31
If you dont know something this is your fault sir, by not beliving or accepting reality does not going to help you. Composites indeed have huge effect on maneuverability. A box madeup of tin plates joined through lakhs of rivets indeed affects structure maneuverability. Composites lead to light weight , more strength, rivet free and provide freedom from metal cracks and high maintence, made it more capable and maneuverable. There are even lots of other benefits as well, thats why new age boeing civilian aircrafts are fully made up of composits even they didnt need radar stealth and maneuverability so in future think 2 times before questioning others.
-Due to small range of JFT radar then Su30 it capablity to guide missile to its target also gets limited. So nothing complicate which you are falling to understand.
-Mirage is 4th gen, so I am also mentioning 4th gen slealth features like Terrain Hugging and others which are still capable to easily suppress **** air defence.
- Ofcourse LCA an indigenous platform, no need to feel bad about it.
- "radar cross section being denoted as RAC" means my message well understood to you, I dont require spelling marks from you so dont search spel mistakes.
- Sir, plz read it again. There I meant that if su 30 can guide a bramos to 300 km means its ablity is 300 or 300+. Far higher then JFT can even dream about. Bramos is not built for mosquitoes.
By the way you people should stop discussing abt the defence weapons and only discuss abt Nuclear bombs. when ever time come to face enemy your army and politicians run behind Nuclear Bomb. And when last time they faced enemy even having the best weaponry of that time Patton Tank and sabre still they preffered to putting down weapons without fighting.
Okay -- I replied to this message before but deleted it .. now that your commenting around on my profile .. let me just give you an appropriate response..
BVR Scenario (radar/missiles etc.)
-You claim that the radar on the JFT is a small radar .. well compared to the PESA onboard MKI it is .. But your wrong on the numbers ... radars aren't ballistic missiles in which you have a max range and you assume everything in this range is a goner ....
Coming back to KLJ-7 onboard JFT .. the basic KLJ-7 reported by Janes had a 75 Km range for 3m2 RCS. Then the claim by the manufacturer (NIRET) surfaced in a brochure which stated the range at 105 KM for 5m2 (almost the same range as the early APG-68) models .. Lastly in Kanwa an interview of the project director of JFT Mr.Javaid Ahmed quoted the range at 130 Km for 5m2 for KLJ-7 V2 which is onboard JFT now. For SU-30 MKI the usual claim is 140 KM for 5m2 which is a very good range and certainly is better than KLJ-7 V1/V2. Nobody would deny that nor even doubt it ..
Now as I stated, radar ranges aren't like ballistic missile ranges in which (well missile ranges also depend on the payload but lets assume the max ranges) you have a set range and everything in that range you can strike ... Radar more or less functions like a scope on top your regular firearm ...Looking through that scope you can easily see a deer from 1 odd KM ... But when your hunting rabbits you'll need to get closer to have a chance of finding it in your scope and targeting it accurately ...
In this case SU-30 MKI has a bigger radar (scope) but the JF-17 comparatively to the MKI is a very small target when it comes to RCS .. the same or even less then the F-16 C (quoted at 1.2m2 clean) ... The SU-30 MKI is a very big target .. infact the most of the Sukhoi series that were exported includes 27/30 etc. have massive RCS's quoted above atleast 10m2 clean. With the MKI you have canards in the front ... which the traditional sukhois didn't have and it increases the RCS even further.
Therefore, the advantage the SU-30 MKI gets with the PESA radar is more or less neutralized with its own huge RCS. The BVR engagement would happen at similar ranges and by the way I've already told you that JFT had kills over SU-27 .. you can now guess how that happened ...
Secondly, Your claim of how SU-30 MKI firing Brahmos shows how good its radar is, just shows how much knowledge you actually possess regarding the subject .... the ALCM's have independent guidance mechanisms like TERCOM, satellite guidance, INS, GPS etc. They are Stand off weapons to begin with, whose entire purpose is to not let the launching platform get in harms way ... These are not semi active radar homing missiles that would require the radar to illumine the target all the way through .. Therefore, they don't necessarily show how good your radar is .. a prime example being, the Mirage III Rose of PAF has been used time and again to test the RAAD cruise missile having a range of over 350 Km's -- does that mean that the Grifo onboard Mirage is superior to the PESA onboard MKI ?? Hell NO... infact Grifo is inferior even when compared to the basic KLJ-7, much less the improved version which is already in service.
Lastly, do consider the close proximity of India and Pakistan -- the fact that both airforces employ latest ground radars and have force multipliers in the sky in the shape of AWACS etc. that "advantage" of radar is negated .. and if you count in the EW capabilities of both the jets, the conversation becomes even more complex ...
Maneuverability ( tin box JFT etc.)
If JF-17 is a "tin box" .. then so is the SU-30 MKI with only 6-8% composite usage. In case of maneuverability composites will only help you in weight reduction, and that too only happens when you use them extensively. JF-17 does use a limited percentage of composites ... however when it comes to the "maneuverability" advantages the composites provide.. that is a little increase in the T/W ratio -- As of right now the empty weights of both LCA and JFT are in the same class 6.5 tonnes ... As far as a better T/W ratio is concerned .. you either don't know how to do your maths or your once again quoting figures without knowing them only to be embarrassed when actual figures are brought up ...
I suppose you got the idea from wikipedia which quoted LCA T/W as 1.07 + .. well if thats the case how come ... the same CAG report touts the aircraft as overweight and underpowered...
Coming to the wiki claims ... even by their claims of loaded weight and max thrust ... the T/W ratio turns out to be 0.96 more or less if calculated (20 thousand 200 pounds of force and 20 thousand 900+ pounds of weight) it is still nowhere near to the claimed 1.07. Now Here is another kicker, the actual Pound force figure of the GE f404 In20 onboard LCA tejas is stated to be 19,000 lbf by GE ITSELF ... When you calculate based on that figure, the T/W is reduced to 0.90..
The F404 Engine | Engines | Military | GE Aviation
While the claims of the RD-93 have ranged from the reported 86 KN up to 90+ KN .. to the point in the Paris airshow 2015 a PAF pilot claimed a 1+ T/W of the JFT ... and that claim isn't without any proof .. Check out the take off of the JFT .. It's a vertical take off ... then try to find a similar take off of any LCA tejas ... who supposedly has a better T/W.
4th Generation Stealth
Like I claimed there is no such thing as a stealth 4th generation aircraft. You might say there are some LO 4th gens which use RAMS and their designs to minimize the RCS and delay their detection. JFT itself being an example. The original stealth designs were around an in testing as far back as the WW-II . However, you can't call a LO 4th/4.5 gen jet a stealth aircraft. You just cant... with external loads and weapons their RCS is increased to a healthy 2-3m2 easily which modern AWACS and ground radars can detect from miles away... The concept of stealth was to minimize detection to a range in which even if detected the opponent wouldn't have any time to respond. That is why you have internal weapon bays for stealth fighters and their RCS is especially low..
Coming to your earlier claims of J-31 being a copy of F-35 -- The US said the same thing about J-20 being mirroring the F-22/35 .. but when you actually look at the difference in both the designs of J-20 and F-22 ... the difference is obvious ..
Lawmaker: Chinese J-31, J-20 'Mirror' American F-35, F-22 | Defense Tech
Similarly claims can definitely be made about how the J-31 looks like a F-35, but the J-31 is a twin engined fighter .. It does not employ the SVTOL technology .. as the F-35 does .. even the designs are different to an extent .. here is a quotation from the deputy general director & the head of the engineering of Migkoyan known as Artyem Mikoyan (do remember Migkoyan is the same company producing your migs fighter jets ) --- stating that
“It looks like a good machine, and although it obviously has some design solutions already tried on the U.S. fifth-generation fighters, it is not a copy but a well done indigenous design”
Russian Officials Reveal J-31 Engine and Describe Sales to China | Defense News: Aviation International News
By the way it is hilarious, that your still touting LCA as an indigenous aircraft when your pointing at the Chinese and saying they don't produce indigenous stuff ...
Bottom line is ... Your original point of JFT not being a threat to the IAF is bonkers .. It's actually a huge threat because now every time your trying to cross in to the airspace of Pakistan, your more likely to face a 4th generation aircraft which is generally on the same playing field as the aggressor aircrafts ... I've already given you a generic comparison of the M2k and Mig-29 with the JFT so I don't even need to say anything further on this ..
Your obsession with how LCA is indigenous, when you say Chinese equipment is not and you quote a report pointing the indigenous content at 35% is beyond funny ... then you say how JFT not being selected by Argentina means Kfir is better .. but yet LCA is not even able to replace the post WW-II mig-21 ... so Mig-21 being better then LCA logic doesn't work because LCA is Indian right ??? -- but sure you mention the ASR which you say even the F-16's failed which is funny on another level itself because that would mean that the requirements set for the MMRCA tender are the requirements set for LCA project ... then you resort back to how China is not taking the JFT, while I say this time and again on how an entire prototype is in China (PT-06) being tested with the domestic engine, being integrated with new weapons etc. However while making this point you forget the SU-30 that Russia took nearly two decades to induct after the project was underway ... You cite economic reasons for that ... yet can't accept the reasoning of 4-5 different projects underway for PLAAF/PLAN at the time ...
Bottom line is .. your obsessive ... and your arguments speak for themselves where everything Indian has to be superior then anything Pakistan or China field ... everything Indian will be more indigenous then anything China or Pakistan field ... and just to put in to perspective ... your LCA project is a good 5-7 years behind the JFT whose already gone through the integration process, already has FOC, already has conducted air raids, already has participated in exercises, already has an export order and already has an improved version in production ...
Last edited:
You use the graphical representations by Dr. Carlo Kopp as a source to justify your claims ... and the argument that the version used on IAF MKI's is more powerful ...
