LCA-Tejas inherits ” Stealth features ” due to its small size : Chinese media

[Penguin]

Then why LCA is having way poor range over jf17

Good question. Besides actual difference (DOES LCA actually have poor range relative to JF17?), two possibilities: JF17 range is over reported, LCA range is underreported (i.e. reporting error) OR underspecification (combat radius, with what under the wings, with what flight profile and reserve)

WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas#Specifications_.28HAL_Tejas_Mk.1.29
HAL Tejas Mk.1

• Combat radius: 500 km (270 nmi, 311 mi)
• Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,056 mi)
• Range: 3,000 km (1,620 nmi, 1,864 mi)

WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder#Specifications_.28Block_1.29
JF-17 Block 1

• Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi[9])[dubious – discuss]
• Ferry range: 3,482 km (1,880 NM)

By comparison (all WIKI)
F-16C Block 50

• Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
• Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
• Internal fuel: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)
• carrying capacity: 7,700 kg of stores on 11 hardpoints

Mig 21-93 The MiG-21s are planned to be replaced by the indigenously built HAL Tejas
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)

• 2 x R-27R1 or R-27T or 4x Vympel R-77 or 4 x R-73E or
• 2x 500 kg (1,102 lbs) bombs or
  
• S-5, S-8 rocket pods

Sepecat Jaguar

• Combat radius: 908 km (490 nmi, 564 mi) (lo-lo-lo, external fuel)
• Ferry range: 3,524 km (1,902 nmi, 2,190 mi)
• 5 hardpoints with a capacity of 4,500 kg

Mig 27K

• Combat radius: 780 km (480 mi) ()
  • 540 km (290 nmi; 340 mi) (with two Kh-29 ASMs and three drop tanks lo-lo-lo)
  • 225 km (120 nmi; 140 mi) (with two Kh-29 ASMs and no external fuel)
• Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,550 mi)
• One centerline, four fuselage, and two wing glove pylons with a capacity of 4,000 kg

Mig 29

• Range: 1,430 km (772 nmi, 888 mi) with maximum internal fuel
• Ferry range: 2,100 km (1,300 mi) with external drop tanks
• Fuel capacity: 3,500 kg. (7,716 lbs.) internal
• Carrying capacity: Up to 3,500 kg on 7 hardpoints

Mirage 2000

• Range: 1,550 km (837 nmi, 963 mi) with drop tanks
• Ferry range: 3,335 km (1,800 nmi, 2,073 mi) with auxiliary fuel
• 9 hardpoints with a capacity of 6,300 kg (13,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance

Mirage IIIE

• Combat range: 1,200 km (746 mi; 648 nmi)
• Ferry range: 3,335 km (2,072 mi; 1,801 nmi)
• 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) of payload on five external hardpoints

Mirage VF

• Combat radius: 1,250 km (675 nmi, 777 mi) hi-lo-hi profile, payload two 400 kg bomb and max external fuel
• Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,158 nmi, 2,485 mi)
• 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) of payload on five external hardpoints

Personally, I think there is confusion of terms. Above you see that what is listed are range with Tejas is close to ferry range JF-17. Ferry range of Tejas is in the same order of magnitude as what is given as combat radius jf-17. Note that combat radius jf-17 is not only much great than that of Tejas, but also much greater than that of F-16C Block 50, which has more internal fuel and can carry more external weight . So, I'm inclined to agree that the above JF-17 combat radius (for unspecified mission, flight profile and reserve) of 1352km is overstated, or at least involved carriage of external fuel (whereas that for Tejas likely doesn't). Ferry range seems correct (http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17)

• Combat radius > on what kind of mission > different flight profiles and external loadings (can include fuel external tanks), with or without some combat reserve.
• Maximum range (how far do you get on internal fuel, no external load).
• Ferry range (with max. external fuel in addition to internal fuel)

I came accross this for FC-1:

The aircraft has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8, a service ceiling of 16,000 m (52,495 ft), a maximum range on internal fuel of 1,800 km (1,118 miles) and a combat radius of 1,200 km (745 miles) in counter-air configuration and 700 km (435 miles) in strike configuration.
Read more http://www.aviatia.net/fc-1-fighter/

This actually compares believably to LCA and F-16C

Max range on internal fuel 1700km LCA and 1800km FC-1
Combat radius on strike mission also much closer to e.g. F16 (still undefined for Tajes though)

LIkewise here: http://pakdef.org/cac-pac-fc-1-jf-17/

• Combat radius (attack) 378 n miles (700 km; 435 miles)
• Combat radius (fighter) 648 n miles (1,200 km; 745 miles)
• Max range on internal fuel 864 n miles (1,600 km; 994 miles)
• Max ferry range 1,200 n miles (2,220 km; 1380 miles)

 

[The Accountant]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...-contracts-for-gripen-ew-suite-(dec.-10).html

Ericsson Saab Avionics has received an order from Saab AB in Linköping for an electronic warfare suite, EWS 39, for the Swedish Air Force JAS 39 Gripen. The order is valued at 1.2 billion kronor (142 MUSD).

The system represents the second generation of EW suites for Gripen and is basically the same version as the one offered to the overseas market.

The EWS 39 plays a decisive role in the aircraft's ability to operate in areas with hostile aircraft and AAA units. Accordingly, the system includes means to discover threats from radar, analyze the signals, validate them against known data, present the threats to the pilot and take proper counteractions. These counteractions include, for instance, electronic jamming against radar and radar-guided missiles, flares against IR-guided missiles and chaff against radar and radar-guided missiles.

Ericsson Saab Avionics is responsible for the overall system design and the electronic jammer. CelsiusTech Electronics is responsible for the Radar Warning Receiver, RWR. In addition, CelsiusTech Electronics delivers the chaff and flare dispenser.

Saab is responsible for the system integration in the aircraft.

Ericsson Saab Avionics AB is owned jointly by Ericsson Microwave Systems AB and Saab AB. It is the principal supplier of electronic systems for the JAS 39 Gripen, for instance the Cockpit Display System. (ends)

This is electronic warfare and not rcs

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

This is electronic warfare and not rcs

You better change the Wiki on RCS then, because it says:

"With active cancellation, the target generates a radar signal equal in intensity but opposite in phase to the predicted reflection of an incident radar signal (similarly to noise canceling ear phones). This creates destructive interference between the reflected and generated signals, resulting in reduced RCS"

Note that it is not clear how the Rafale and Gripen EW suites reduce RCS.
That is Top Secret.

 

[The Accountant]

You better change the Wiki on RCS then, because it says:

"With active cancellation, the target generates a radar signal equal in intensity but opposite in phase to the predicted reflection of an incident radar signal (similarly to noise canceling ear phones). This creates destructive interference between the reflected and generated signals, resulting in reduced RCS"

Note that it is not clear how the Rafale and Gripen EW suites reduce RCS.
That is Top Secret.

Ohhh bhai isi ly khty han neem hakeem khatra.e.jaan

Bro this radar jaming and ew ... f16 is much better in these tactics ... read account for enhagements of f16 with your planes diring kargil ... f16 manages to get off the radar ... so f16 rcs is zero ...

Bhai in computation of rcs rada jaming is not inclueded ... for example is su30 faces some aircraft low in tech like f7 and manage to jamnits radar completely ... so as per your definition tcs of mki is 0 ?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Ohhh bhai isi ly khty han neem hakeem khatra.e.jaan

Bro this radar jaming and ew ... f16 is much better in these tactics ... read account for enhagements of f16 with your planes diring kargil ... f16 manages to get off the radar ... so f16 rcs is zero ...

Bhai in computation of rcs rada jaming is not inclueded ... for example is su30 faces some aircraft low in tech like f7 and manage to jamnits radar completely ... so as per your definition tcs of mki is 0 ?

I am sorry, but Swedish Air Force never participated in India - Pakistan wars.

At a certain range, a plane can only detect planes with RCS > X.
If the enemy planes reduce their RCS below X, then they are not detected.
X does not have to be zero.

Jamming certainly explains why two aircraft of similar size can exhibit vastly different
properties when trying to detect them by radar, and that is what the discussion is about.
If You like to call it something else, the so be it.
I choose then to use a new term, effective RCS, where jamming is included...

Gripen has lower effective RCS than JF-17"

 

[assassin123]

@A.P. Richelieu is right
The main reason companies spent millions of dollars developing an AESA radar is to make use of the multitude of features it provides
An AESA is called a 'low probability of intercept radar' which means that you can see without being seen because the pencil beams produced by an AESA array are difficulty to intercept over a normal MSA. At any given day I would put my money on a AESA based aircraft than any other that's why iaf is so keen on getting the uttam AESA on the tejas

 

[The Accountant]

So what make you claim that jf17 do not having jamming capabilities ? jf17 has its own EW suite ...
Anyways its useless to debate with you when you are inventing your own term just to prove your point

I am sorry, but Swedish Air Force never participated in India - Pakistan wars.

At a certain range, a plane can only detect planes with RCS > X.
If the enemy planes reduce their RCS below X, then they are not detected.
X does not have to be zero.

Jamming certainly explains why two aircraft of similar size can exhibit vastly different
properties when trying to detect them by radar, and that is what the discussion is about.
If You like to call it something else, the so be it.
I choose then to use a new term, effective RCS, where jamming is included...

Gripen has lower effective RCS than JF-17"

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So what make you claim that jf17 do not having jamming capabilities ? jf17 has its own EW suite ...
Anyways its useless to debate with you when you are inventing your own term just to prove your point

No, the figure I have seen here on PDF for the JF-17 RCS is 1,5 sq meters,
and this is considerably more than the figure of 0,1 sq meters, claimed for Gripen.
I have not seen any information that JF-17 has any jamming, but I do not claim that it hasn't.

When I visited SAAB a month ago, and listen to their product presentation,
they claimed that their new EW suite was much better than Spectra on the Rafale,
which is considered one of the best on the market.

The point is that it is very difficult to detect the Gripen, and the EW is a major reason.
To discuss whether it should be part of the RCS definition or not is what is uninteresting.

 

[Storm Force]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=HoXom_4ftbw&v=Z109FJ_hIQ8


SOME GREAT TEJAS PICTUTRES

 

[The Accountant]

No, the figure I have seen here on PDF for the JF-17 RCS is 1,5 sq meters,
and this is considerably more than the figure of 0,1 sq meters, claimed for Gripen.
I have not seen any information that JF-17 has any jamming, but I do not claim that it hasn't.

When I visited SAAB a month ago, and listen to their product presentation,
they claimed that their new EW suite was much better than Spectra on the Rafale,
which is considered one of the best on the market.

The point is that it is very difficult to detect the Gripen, and the EW is a major reason.
To discuss whether it should be part of the RCS definition or not is what is uninteresting.

Ok so we are in agreement that ew has effects on detection but not in actual reduction of rcs ...

I still have some reservations but want to end this doscussion ... so lets end here ...

 

[Surya 1]

JF-17?? tejas is better than F-16 according to indians "lol at parameters of F-16 in the article"
http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/lca-tejas-versus-f-16-in-combat-part-i.html

JF-17?? tejas is even better than Rafales according to indians
https://defence.pk/threads/scrap-rafale-viva-tejas.245111/

tejas does have a small rcs but carrying external payloads will increases it hence it can be detected

It can be detected but from how long distance? It will fire a BVR on enemy before it can be detected.

LCA tejas maximum range is 1700km. it means that after a short fight the pilot will be thinking of disengaging and returning back.

Every small planes have range in this area only. A big huge MKI has 3000 KM rage with fuel. Its range can be extended with external fuel tank.

it's wings are small which means it can't take many weapons.

Absolutely wrong. It has a big wing area , low wing loading so it can carry weapons in big numbers unlike JF 17.

it's design don't help in making turns in small radius.

It has already demonstrated its loop timing. It is very good in horizantal looping and excellent in vertical looping.

it takes more vertical take off time.

What is this?

it is stealth visually but the world is also ahead of visual air fighting.

Visually it does not appear stealth. Detection of plane is all about engaging it. If stealth is not all about, why all countries are engaged in stealth?

On other aircrafts questions were raised about any particular technology and system issues but the question about tejas are about it's whole design.

Which questions are about designs? it uses contemporary design with RSS and coumpound delta wing. These all are contemporary technologies.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

From the Super Hornet Wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

The F/A-18E/F's radar cross-section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear.[5] The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross-section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.[64]

The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to direct reflected waves away from the aircraft in uniformly narrow angles.

That apparently reduces the RCS by an order of magnitude, and I would be surprised
if that and similar tricks are not used by Gripen.