JF-17 VS MIRAGE-2000

[Beta-Fighter]

Seeing your posts you only argue for the sake of of argument and cant take it when you've been proven wrong, how about you go and prove that LCA project cost going down to zero theory of yours and while your at it, use the same lens to analyze why IAF is going for rafale when fanboys like yourself are the ones making up stories about how great the MKI is ...
and just to clarify, the upgrade considerations included an AESA from Selex, weapon systems like MICA and EW systems like a miniaturized Spectra -- which indeed does improve the aircraft ... but thanks to your intervention, we have now found better alternatives -- while the very tool you used to intervene i.e the MMRCA is falling flat on its face --

A) check the post , in PDF their are various threat that saying PAF looking for Italian radars and French electronics but all refused because of Indian military deals @ engine and planes

B) Well I cant explain your about project management and company management , reason , you know how many Indian companies are now MNC and non from PAK , you understand the reason?. Project management and how cost are distributed .

C) Rafael :- this is already tell lot about your airplanes understanding , and blind can tell Rafael and SU -30 are diff planes and have diff mission requirement .

D) Even now take your point , Indian getting more -30MKI then French Rafael.

F) Well FYI , Current Tejas is testing ASEA radar ? which you think in your BK-III , all these things will be present in current Tejas ...

What ever you implementing or planning to implement in your BK-II or BL-III , will present in current tejas.

Just you clarify , whatever western you consider this time , if you didn't get it , then you will Chinese radar is best , or else western is better, lol BTW when you get it , then tell me.

 

[abdulbarijan]

But IaM correct JFT TWR is 1.09 Claimed by PAF Pilot During Paris Air Show
So,WikiPedia Source Can't be blamed they just are Open Source for Information

Here is Link for My post

Mirage-2000 has More G Load

• G limits: +9.0 g / -3.2 g (override mode: 11 g, structural limit: 12 g)

In comparison

jf-17 G Limits of

+8g,-3

Post Link to Confirm your Source

the link was the same wikipedia link that you posted, for some reason your original comparison never had a T/W ratio comparison -- I mean ofcourse cuz the JFT out performs (in that category) the M2k cant be the reason now can it -- and your correct about the G limit comparison, F-16 also has a 9 G limit, so does the SU-27 -- both of which have been defeated in mock battles against the thunder, with the pilots praising the maneuverability of the aircraft ....

A) check the post , in PDF their are various threat that saying PAF looking for Italian radars and French electronics but all refused because of Indian military deals @ engine and planes

B) Well I cant explain your about project management and company management , reason , you know how many Indian companies are now MNC and non from PAK , you understand the reason?. Project management and how cost are distributed .

C) Rafael :- this is already tell lot about your airplanes understanding , and blind can tell Rafael and SU -30 are diff planes and have diff mission requirement .

D) Even now take your point , Indian getting more -30MKI then French Rafael.

F) Well FYI , Current Tejas is testing ASEA radar ? which you think in your BK-III , all these things will be present in current Tejas ...

What ever you implementing or planning to implement in your BK-II or BL-III , will present in current tejas.

Just you clarify , whatever western you consider this time , if you didn't get it , then you will Chinese radar is best , or else western is better, lol BTW when you get it , then tell me.

A) Correct -- but those were for "upgrades" how about you check a dictionary for what that word means ..

B) Yes ofcourse, so silly of me, how can you explain the "phenomena" of project costs allocation of a project whose cost has already been incurred and somehow is being reduced owing to the possibility that part of the infrastructure developed for the project will have "other projects using those services/infrastructure as well" -- it only makes sense when you say that those projects using already developed infrastructure as a result of the lca project would benefit, not the otherway around, where LCA project costs somehow starts cutting down when other projects are using the infrastructure developed for lca ...

C & D) I guess I dont understand anything --- except you yourself said the following :-

that's what I said IAF don't take sub standard material like PAF , which after crash found faulty and strength etc . we take full baked things. BTW after that crash your AF don't believe on JFT , still relay on F-16.

thata why you ready to buy 2nd hand f-16 rather then your own plane

So when you say the same thing its a legit argument, if I say it, "I don't know sh!t -- right ??

E or as per you "F" ) and the AESA radar being tested under project utaam would be incorporated in -- finish the sentence -- thats right MK(II) of the tejas--- * correction another version of the LCA based on Mk (I) -- and that comes in which year -- finish the sentence -- post 2017 era -- which is based on the assumption that everything goes according to plan -- I mean its the LCA after all, everything is followed strictly according to the plans layed out so that there are no cost over runs or delays right??

so bottom line, atleast research your own damn aircraft before you go on making sweeping statements about others ...

Lastly, for someone whose entire argument is based on how the other person is ignorant etc. you seem to know your alphabets quite well, just refer to the red marked things in your quoted response, go back -- learn your alphabets and then try to troll on here -- and just in case you still didn't pick that up after "D" comes the alphabet "E" --- have a nice day now

 

[NKVD]

I mean ofcourse cuz the JFT out performs the M2k cant be the reason now can it

Out Performs Mirage-2000 in What Criteria Still you not
Define
Mirage-2000 out performs jf-17 in Every Criteria and Specifications Engine thrust to G Load Limits
including payload And Weapons MICA is the Best BVR with TVC with 360 Degree Cover
it Has Most Sophisticated EW Suits in World. Best IRST capability in Region at level of Rafale

- and your correct about the G limit comparison, F-16 also has a 9 G limit, so does the SU-27 -- both of which have been defeated in mock battles against the thunder, with the pilots praising the maneuverability of the aircraft ....

Source for you Claims

 

[abdulbarijan]

Out Performs Mirage-2000 in What Criteria Still you not
Define
Mirage-2000 out performs jf-17 in Every Criteria and Specifications Engine thrust to G Load Limits
including payload And Weapons MICA is the Best BVR with TVC with 360 Degree Cover
it Has Most Sophisticated EW Suits in World. Best IRST capability in Region at level of Rafale


Source for you Claims

T/W ratio --- the category that you so eloquently love to ignore in all of your responses --- which i have highlighted previously,--- and what i was referring to in my previous response --

Engine thrust means nothing, when you have an aircraft that is heavier i.e M2k -- so the real comparison would be of T/W ratio, if you compare it on loaded weight -- a loaded M2k would be roughly 30,000 lb in loaded weight and 95 Kn roughly translate in to 21,360 pounds of force -- do the calculation and it does end up in the 0.7's --

where as the loaded JFT is 20,000 lbs in loaded weight and the power that the RD-93 produces is around 85 Kn or 19000 lbs, if your Wikipedia links are to be believed -- and that ends up with a T/W ratio of 0.95 --

These are just rough estimates, but one can get an idea based off these, now these will fluctuate based on the type of loads being carried by both aircrafts -- but as it stands -- we can see a T/W ratio advantage of JFT over the M2K --

I have previously stated, go to the info pool thread, there are a huge number of links with different interviews of pilots in text as well as video -- those are are my sources --

Just an excerpt for your satisfaction --

Some of the highlights on the test pilot article. (posted by crobato / an analysis of an article in a chinese magazine quoting the views of pilots who have flown the JFT)

"The maneuverability has a profound effect on me. This is one extremely nimble plane". He says when you pull the stick on the J-7, you can only pull it gradually so you can hold the proper angle of attack. The radius of turn is wide and the maneuverability is not good. On the FC-1, if you pull the stick, you can pull all the way in and get a very big instantaneous turn rate. Due to a quad Fly-by-wire, turn rate of this fighter is just remarkable. (something we witnessed in squadron induction ceremony)
Then the Chinese pilot asked PAF pilot how JF-17's maneuverability compares with F-16? PAF pilot said jf-17 maneuvers better. Then, PAF pilot asked Chinese pilot (who flew F-16 in UK before) the same question, he said they are probably similar. Then, he also said that this maneuverability is just for when it is horizontal and that F-16 is still slightly better for vertical (climb rate) due to superior T/W ratio. Then he talked about the cockpit with the 1 HUD and 3 MFDs. He said that it's like the ones on Gripen and F-18. The MFD gives pilots a really easy interface to work with. each one has 20 buttons to select different information. This allows the pilot to keep his head on flying the aircraft. Then he talked about how China's cockpit and MFD is much further ahead than the Russian ones and the Russians were surprised.

JF-17 Thunder - Information Pool


As far as the EW suites go, again refer to the info pool thread to know the level of integration amongst different sensors, the capabilities of the SD-10A which are similar to those given by AMRAAM's with home on jam capability -- the capability of the radar of the JFT, KLJ-7 VII -- the RCS debate of who will present a smaller RCS, hence who will be detected first -- etc. the T/W ratio as mentioned above the different interviews and statements of insiders who have work for the PAF mentioning the performance of JFT in various aspects ...

Just saying the M2k is best best best is not an argument, its a statement -- just like statements you previously gave, where only M2k was mentioned with not a single reference to the aircraft which was supposedly being compared to the M2k ---- and lets not forget your usage of wiki to back your claims up only to cave out when the same wiki was quoting figures that weren't looking so good for your precious M2K ..

 

[NKVD]

T/W ratio --- the cat

As far as the EW suites go, again refer to the info pool thread to know the level of integration amongst different sensors, the capabilities of the SD-10A which are similar to those given by AMRAAM's with home on jam capability -- the capability of the radar of the JFT, KLJ-7 VII -- the RCS debate of who will present a smaller RCS, hence who will be detected first -- etc. the T/W ratio as mentioned above the different interviews and statements of insiders who have work for the PAF mentioning the performance of JFT in various aspects ..

egory that you so eloquently love to ignore in all of your responses --- which i have highlighted previously,--- and what i was referring to in my previous response --

Engine thrust means nothing, when you have an aircraft that is heavier i.e M2k -- so the real comparison would be of T/W ratio, if you compare it on loaded weight -- a loaded M2k would be roughly 30,000 lb in loaded weight and 95 Kn roughly translate in to 21,360 pounds of force -- do the calculation and it does end up in the 0.7's --

Because the New Gen Bvr Like MICA Make it pointless and Damocles Targeting Pod and HMDS Make this Points of argument Moot
MICA have limit of Pull 60g and have TVC 360 degre and Even Engage Enemy aircraft behind a MICA launched from a Rafale successfully demonstrated its over-the-shoulder capability by destroying a target behind the launch aircraft for the first time in aviation history.

Also Engine thrust will be the factor depends on Payload calculating the Factor in amount of Fuel density used in calculations

PS: Like I said the Category that you so eloquently love to ignore in all of your responses Is
G-Load Limitations of Jf-17 which will Effect its Maneuverability

 

[NKVD]

As far as the EW suites go, again refer to the info pool thread to know the level of integration amongst different sensors, the capabilities of the SD-10A which are similar to those given by AMRAAM's with home on jam capability -- the capability of the radar of the JFT, KLJ-7 VII -- the RCS debate of who will present a smaller RCS, hence who will be detected first -- etc. the T/W ratio as mentioned above the different interviews and statements of insiders who have work for the PAF mentioning the performance of JFT in various aspects ...

Only for Satisfactions factors Because you can get Western Ones

E or as per you "F" ) and the AESA radar being tested under project utaam would be incorporated in -- finish the sentence -- thats right MK(II) of the tejas

Not the up-gradation model of LCA which 1P is Integrated with Israeli AESA
..:: India Strategic ::. Top: HAL developing LCA-1P with AESA Radar

 

[abdulbarijan]

Because the New Gen Bvr Like MICA Make it and IRST Pod and HMDS Make this Points of argument Moot
MICA have limit of Pull 60g and have TVC 360 degre and Even Engage Enemy aircraft a MICA launched from a Rafale successfully demonstrated its over-the-shoulder capability by destroying a target behind the launch aircraft for the first time in aviation history.

Also Engine thrust will be the factor depends on Payload calculating the Factor in amount of Fuel density used in calculations

PS: Like I said the Category that you so eloquently love to ignore in all of your responses Is
G-Load Limitations of Jf-17 which will Effect its Maneuverability

Just so you know, JF-17 also has an option of carrying an IRST in a pod, internal IRST however were planned for future blocks, will it be a reality-- will be answered in time --

As far as 9 G is concerned, ive already known and stated that there is a difference in the stated G-limit, but lets not assume that the prime determinant of the maneuverability of an aircraft is the G-limit the structure can take and G limit alone -- if that were the case Mig-21's and F-7PG's wouldn't be legit contenders in a WVR altogether, however the fact that both these aircrafts have been praised in WVR in exercises tells you alot ...

One more thing to add in here is that, the G limit has been quoted up to +ve 8.5 G --its a thing with JFT specs, there have been quotes of 1.8 Mach when the DSI was added, and that was claimed in the Zhuhai show -- different engine thrusts and loads have been quoted by multiple sources -- same is the case with other specs -- so just putting it out there ... Nobody believed that the T/W ratio of a JFT could be any where near one, and then it started to make vertical take offs and taking up maneuvers in the paris airshow demonstrating a high t/w ratio --

However like I said, go to the info pool, the F-16 also happens to be a 9G aircraft, you'll find many posts regarding the maneuverability being similar or better in the horizontal axis -- so please read a full response before you go on putting out the same point which i have answered before ...

HMD for JFT is also available, just that PAF is waiting for something better and will integrate in blk-III subsequently integrating it with all the previous blocks of JFT -- as far as MICA goes, lets not forget -- AGAIN -- SD-10A is similar to Aim-120 C5 which is amongst the best BVR in the world like MICA -- SD-10A also has HOJ like the AMRAAM, so just stating that you have MICA doesn't mean jack cuz the other side is also fielding very capable BVR missiles ... with upgraded versions in the pipeline ...

Please go through the post before you make the same point which I have answered before ...

Not the up-gradation model of LCA which 1P is Integrated with Israeli AESA
..:: India Strategic ::. Top: HAL developing LCA-1P with AESA Radar

I was under the impressin that MK-ii was having an AESA -- however it seems that this is a new variant based on the Mk (I) -- so you have another time line of 2017 to look forward to -- good luck --

Some tidbids for you from the article that you quoted ---

-This variant will be developed on the existing LCA-MkI model, and will meet IAF’s requirements till the larger LCA Mk II is developed by 2021 with the more powerful GE 414 engine.

-AESA and EW suite will make the new LCA variant more advanced than the supersonic MiG 21s in capability, even though it will be a subsonic aircraft compared to the ageing aircraft of the Soviet vintage.

-P in the LCA-I P stands for prototype, but once accepted by IAF, it could be designated LCA-MkI-A or whatever.

 

[NKVD]

quoted up to +ve 8.5 G, its a thing with JFT specs, there have been quotes of 1.8 Mach when the DSI was added, and that was claimed in the Zhuhai show -- different engine thrusts and loads have been quoted by multiple sources -- same is the case with other specs -- so just putting it out there ...

But test pilot himself quoted its 8g,-3 the video i posted and Paris Air Show is Latest in Events
Sgr Leader Nadir Ali Confirmed My Figure

So HMD for JFT is also available, just that PAF is waiting for something better -- as far as MICA goes, lets not forget -- AGAIN -- SD-10A is similar to Aim-120 C5 which is amongst the best BVR

No its Aim-130 C5 is not Equivalent to MICa with G-load 40g and without TVC Sd-10 is to a have less G limit than MICA

only american version that is Slightly better in NEZ is Aim-130C7
MBDA Meteor and MICA rule the World of Next gen

Read this Part
, a MICA launched from a Rafale successfully demonstrated its over-the-shoulder capability by destroying a target behind the launch aircraft for the first time in aviation history.
MICA (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So Even If JF-17 is chasing Mirage-2000 during Dogfight Hypothetically JF-17 will be Still be in Traget Range of MICA with its over the Shoulder 360 degree Target Range Capability

 

[abdulbarijan]

But test pilot himself quoted its 8g,-3 the video i posted and Paris Air Show is Latest in Events
Sgr Leader Nadir Ali Confirmed My Figure

No its Aim-130 C5 is not Equivalent to MICa with G-load 40g and without TVC Sd-10 is to a have less G limit than MICA

only american version that is Slightly better in NEZ is Aim-130C7
MBDA Meteor and MICA rule the World of Next gen

Read this Part
, a MICA launched from a Rafale successfully demonstrated its over-the-shoulder capability by destroying a target behind the launch aircraft for the first time in aviation history.
MICA (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Already told you, the specs differ, the Zhuhai poster if you can get hold of it was advertised by the PAF which did say +8.5 G's similarly the figures have been varying -- is that too hard to comprehend --- Now if I take you on your word, the Hal tejas would have similar maneuverability to say a Mig-21 because both are 8G capable fighters -- its only when the "stated figures" are in your favor -- thats when they matter and are made out to be the most important factors and nothing less --

So your argument is because the G-limit is more and the MICA has TVC hence the AMRAAM and SD-10 are not even in the same league as the MICA -- okay then honestly answer this -- which aircraft do you see outmaneuvering a 40 G missile while the tops an aircraft itself can do is 9G since we're talking G limits -- ever considered that -- or is it that the super duper M2K's will be dodging the AMRAAM's or SD-10's with its 9g's outmaneuvering a missile pulling more then 40 g's at mach 4 ...and like i mentioned before read up on Home on Jamming capability that both the SD-10 and the AMRAAMS have -- before jumping on to conclusions --

the bottom line is -- the fields are alot more even then what you'd like them to be ...

There is this bias which is called "Halo effect" -- its when a person makes assumptions only based on one characteristic alone --- the same is the case with you -- your entire post starts with a specs post and you going about how great MICA is and how great the loading capabilities of the M2k are ...

Forget, the radar comparison, the maneuverability comparison (except the G-limit cuz the numerics favor you there, I wonder if mentioning the G-limit would cross your mind if we were comparing the LCA with JFT, like you ignore every parameter that you dont have any advantage in) , the comparison of EW suites, the comparison of who will detect who first , the comparison of weapons (lets just keep mentioning the alien tech MICA missile though) , the comparison of different designs cropped delta vs delta and the implications it will have on turn rates etc. lets forget the part where there are interviews of pilots saying that JFT is similar to or better then a falcon in the horizontal axis, lets simply forget that the T/W ratio of JFT is more then an M2k, lets forget that while the M2k project has stagnated and the JFT has only now started to get in the mid of growth-maturity stage,we're still adding new weapons and looking for improvements in the JFT -- lets forget the HOJ capability of the SD-10A similar to an AMRAAM -- lets forget the comparison of RDY radar on board M2K with a KLJ-7 VII -- lets forget that Mikhail Pogosyon (chairman of Migkoyan) at one time was quoted as saying that the JFT is a competitor for the Mig-29 in the exports market --- yeah lets forget all that --

Infact Ive a suggestion, how about the IAF goes out and integrates MICA with every platform it fields today giving the IAF an edge over both PAF and PLAAF because we either have AMRAAMs or the "inferior chinese missiles" ---

Bottom line -- all you can talk about is MICA or other simple parameters that the M2K might have an advantage in, your only response to parameters that JFT has advantages in is "humphh Chinese" or simply ignoring it altogether and the repercussions of it in a BVR or WVR setting -- so I'm not going to waste my time going in circles when apparently the only parameters that matter in an air battle are the ones the M2K has supposedly an advantage in ...

It's like if tomorrow the entire M2k fleet of IAF were to be painted blue, you'd go -- look more beautiful then the grey color schemes --- hence more chance of the M2k to win in an air battle ..

 

[Manticore]

Specifications of JF-17 blk1 based on Dubai Airshow 2011

Ive moved the posts from jft sales thread - keep it informative and civil otherwise the thread would be closed

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Specifications of JF-17 blk1 based on Dubai Airshow 2011

I believe these VS threads are banned and this one specially seems nothing but trolling marathon from the beginning. The arm chair generals are searching internet for sh!tty information which carries nothing but numbers this and that and trying to get in to D!ck measuring contest. Can you please take a look into it and close the thread if possible with some warning because the forum goes out of bandwidth and goes offline due to this kind of nonsense littering threads which may gain nothing but burned a$$ neighbours trolls for no good.

 

[Goenitz]

@abdulbarijan
man i miss urs youtube posts....

 

[NKVD]

Already told you, the specs differ, the Zhuhai poster if you can get hold of it was advertised by the PAF which did say +8.5 G's similarly the figures have been varying -- is that too hard to comprehend --- Now if I take you on your word, the Hal tejas would have similar maneuverability to say a Mig-21 because both are 8G capable fighters -- its only when the "stated figures" are in your favor -- thats when they matter and are made out to be the most important factors and nothing less -

So you think G-limits do nothing in Aircraft performance In aeronautics, the load factor is defined as the ratio of the lift of an aircraft to its weight and represents a global measure of the stress ("load") to which the structure of the aircraft is subjected:

Since the load factor is the ratio of two forces, it is dimensionless. However, its units are traditionally referred to as g, because of the relation between load factor and apparent acceleration of gravity felt on board the aircraft. A load factor of one, or 1 g, represents conditions in straight and level flight, where the lift is equal to the weight. Load factors greater or less than one (or even negative) are the result of maneuvers or wind gusts

Load factor (aeronautics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you Based your Facts on Media Ads All weight of your argument Lied on that Single poster

Your Even Denied that PAF Pilot Sqr Leader Nadir ALI Quoting Figure in Paris Air show which is Most Recently Instance is Wrong you are claiming you know more than Test pilot

the Load Factor depends on Aircraft design and Structure of aircraft Mirage-2000 is capable of G limits: +9.0 g / -3.2 g (override mode: 11 g, structural limit: 12 g)

In the definition of load factor, the lift is not simply that one generated by the aircraft's wing, instead it is the vector sum of the lift generated by the wing, by the fuselage and by the tailplane, or in other words it is the component perpendicular to the airflow of the sum of all aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft.

The lift in the load factor is also intended as having a sign, which is positive if the lift vector points in the same direction, or close to, as the aircraft's vertical axis, or negative if it points in the opposite direction, or close to opposite, to the vertical axis


Excessive load factors must be avoided because of the possibility of exceeding the structural strength of the aircraft.

Aviation authorities specify the load factor limits within which different classes of aircraft are required to operate without damage. For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case):

• For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)
• For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8
• For utility category airplanes, from -1.76 to +4.4
• For acrobatic category airplanes, from -3.0 to +6.0
• For helicopters, from -1 to +3.5

However, many aircraft types, in particular aerobatic airplanes, are designed so that they can tolerate load factors much higher than the minimum required. For example, the Sukhoi Su-26 family have load factors limits of -10 to +12.

The maximum load factors, both positive and negative, applicable to an aircraft are usually specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.

the bottom line is -- the fields are alot more even then what you'd like them to be ...

There is this bias which is called "Halo effect" -- its when a person makes assumptions only based on one characteristic alone --- the same is the case with you -- your entire post starts with a specs post and you going about how great MICA is and how great the loading capabilities of the M2k are ...

Its Applies to you too, your the one who Stating Fact that JF-17 is Out Maneuvering F-16 In Various Mock Battles

Variable Fact is F-16 TWR is 1.096 which More than jf-17, Uptill Now Whole Argument of yours Based on Fact that JF-17 has Slightly better TWR than Mirage-2000-5 Which Makes it More Capable.But When you are comparing it with F-16
you yourself Underrated this Factor Considering that JF-17 out maneuvered f-16 in Dogfight in Disputed Mock Battles which only you Claimed without Providing Authentic Source

you Also don't considering the Fact that Twr will Also Depend on Fuel density used in calculations
and Combat Payload So Mirage-2000-5 with reduced Payload will have different variations
Even - Harrier GR7A has TWR of 1.00 that doesn't make it Better Dog Fighter

Also the the Fact 0.7 TWR of mirage-2000 is of C version Later version Mirage-2000-5 have better thrust of 0.93 against Loaded Weight which has better thrust by 3 kn

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

Also mock battles only Not the Factor that Makes Fighter Better For instance Rafale out maneuvered f-22 in Dogfight which greater than rafale in all parameters.or Turkish f-16 against typhoon in various Exercises

 

[MastanKhan]

@GR!FF!N

Hi,

Is this a frigging weightlifting contest or what-----.

 

[NKVD]

Forget, the radar comparison, the maneuverability comparison (except the G-limit cuz the numerics favor you there, I wonder if mentioning the G-limit would cross your mind if we were comparing the LCA with JFT, like you ignore every parameter that you dont have any advantage in) , the comparison of EW suites, the comparison of who will detect who first , the comparison of weapons (lets just keep mentioning the alien tech MICA missile though) , the comparison of different designs cropped delta vs delta and the implications it will have on turn rates etc. lets forget the part where there are interviews of pilots saying that JFT is similar to or better then a falcon in the horizontal axis, lets simply forget that the T/W ratio of JFT is more then an M2k, lets forget that while the M2k project has stagnated and the JFT has only now started to get in the mid of growth-maturity stage,we're still adding new weapons and looking for improvements in the JFT -- lets forget the HOJ capability of the SD-10A similar to an AMRAAM -- lets forget the comparison of RDY radar on board M2K with a KLJ-7 VII -- lets forget that Mikhail Pogosyon (chairman of Migkoyan) at one time was quoted as saying that the JFT is a competitor for the Mig-29 in the exports market --- yeah lets forget all that

There are two MICA variants; MICA RF has an active radar homing seeker and MICA IR has an imaging infra-red homing seeker. Both seekers are designed to filter out counter-measures such as chaff and decoy flares. A thrust vector control unit fitted to the rocket motor increases the missile's agility. The missile is capable of lock-on after launch (LOAL) which means it is capable of engaging targets outside its seeker's at-launch acquisition range. Mounted on the Rafale, the MICA IR can provide IR imagery to the central data processing system, thus acting as an extra sensor.


The 'no escape zone' (NEZ) is a loaded subject. As emotionally loaded as how people are passionate about the radar cross section values of the fighters that are the focus of their adoration.

The major problem with the NEZ is that any claim cannot be verifiable and I have no problems applying that skepticism even to US. The recipients of these claims, meaning the missiles' targets, are usually already dead and cannot give testimonies to any manufacturer's claim to lethality. So unless we can get Madam Zola to channel the spirits of the victims of these missiles to tell us what happened, let us take these claims with grains of salt.

But at least there is one agreed upon qualifier about the NEZ: That the 'no escape zone' is an area of airspace where the target cannot escape by agility alone.

The NEZ is derived from:

1- Whether that airspace volume is detected by radar or infrared sensor,

2- The assumption is that as long as the sensor continues to provide the missile with credible target discrimination,

3- The missile have superior speed,

4- And the missile have the necessary flight control systems to continue to pursue the target to the end.

The higher the quality of each item, the greater the NEZ.

1- Radar is superior to infrared in many ways that it is the preferred primary sensor for target acquisition and lock. If infrared is coupled with radar with appropriate switching algorithm to compensate for countermeasures then we raise item one over a competitor that have only radar or infrared.

2- Target discrimination is not a given just because there is a sensor of any type. Target discrimination is data driven, meaning how sophisticated is the sensor package in weeding out the target from background. It is how fast does the sensor data get to the processor section and how fast does the processor section work on that data. If a missile have solid state avionics over a competitor that have majority analog electronics, then we raise this missile over its competitor.

3- Most missiles have superior speed over the target anyway, so this is a plus for all manufacturers' claims.

4- Flight controls involves more than just actuators and deflection fins. It is navigation laws sophistication that will predict the target's future spatial location and direct the missile to that estimated location. It is the granularity of that prediction, as in whether the target is calculated in meters (plural) increment, meter (singular) increment, or less. If the actuators and deflection fins cannot respond to the commands from the navigation laws, this will affect the entire NEZ calculus -- negatively.

Since missiles are obviously export controlled items, how can any manufacturer claim his product is superior to his competitor if all competitors have the same technology base ?

According to US, when the AMRAAM was under development, an F-15C fired four missiles at four QF-100 drones that were under high maneuvers and discharging countermeasures, and all four drones were hit. The public have no other information about the above four items, especially on how much the drones tried to escape via agility and countermeasures. Countermeasures falls under item 2: credible target discrimination.

Over Iraq, the AMRAAM destroyed several Iraqi MIGs. Obviously, these are 'real world' situations. But the problem is that we do not know if the Iraqi MIGs have done anything similar to what the test drones did. Was it because the Iraqi pilots did not have radar warning receivers ? Maybe they have but the RWR system was not good enough ? Maybe the RWR system was good enough but the Iraqi pilots did not know what to do, which would make this a training issue and incompetency in combat from the same. Maybe these AMRAAM kills came from a mixture of both failure of warning and human incompetency ?

Over Serbia, an AMRAAM hit a Serbian MIG flying low level using terrain as cover, this indicate the AMRAAM have high item 2: credible target discrimination. Flying low level using terrain as cover is tricky. Depending on altitude, the pilot maybe maneuvering in response to terrain features. But it also mean his maneuvers are limited, else he would crash into a hillside or a vertical cliff, this also means the target may not be able to maneuver to the extent that he stresses the AMRAAM's navigation laws and flight controls. We can even criticize that terrain would restrains the target to be well inside the AMRAAM's 'no escape zone', making verifying the manufacturer's large NEZ claim difficult. Going back to the Serbian MIG shoot down. All we know is that the AMRAAM can distinguish a target from heavy Earth clutter, not how much the AMRAAM's technology was stressed before it hit the MIG.

The fact that the American AMRAAM have been used in combat with measurable success and yet can still be criticized means that no missile is above skepticism, regardless of how a person maybe biased towards one side or the other.