Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[KENT]

Man, I have never seen a person lie with straight face, than you.

Was that lie? now I am completely assure myself, as whatever not in line with your thinking, you view them as a lie.

Why should anything written by some obscure fellow,

Was he obscure? so now we will need someone like you who will validate the percentile of Composites in MKI? Oh my goodness......

The person who is running the Vayu-sena tripod is sounding obscure to Titanum, now I am 1000% sure that the things that doesn't suite to the sensitivity of Tiatnium, he call them obsure.

should be my line of thinking. I am merely looking for facts, is MKI has "extensive" composite or not.

I had provided you with three links which are more then enough to validate the extensive proporation of composite in MKI, even I had quoted former PAF air commerade, now Titanium you want to tell me all those sources and former PAF air commerade are untruthfull. One can clearly see the level of your emotions

That person who has written is not sure of it either.........."rumoured to be 6%" . Is that fact for you???

Yes, but at the same time he also acknowledge the fact that extensive use of composites. His skeptics was in terms of percentile. According to him it could be that 6% of composite are more then enough to term it as extensive. The Percentage figure could be anything, or rather you want to tell me provide me the souce which quote Extensive use of composite in airframe = 100% composite usage in airframe.

When you are not sure, what is the purpose of mentioning ..........???

You should asked this question to yourself. I had provided 4 sources including former fame PAF personnel to validate my claim. Now its upto wheather they are more then enough to suite your sensitivity or not.

One more hedge........

Just because it doesn't suiting to your percentile equations.

When we talk of percentage..........1% is not extensive.

So what it should be? you mean extensive usage of composites = 100% usage of composites

If, on the other hand we are talking of absolute weightage.............yes considering the total weight of SU-30.

When your line of thinking find it hard to parallel itself with what my provided sources then now you came and asking me regarding weight reduction.

Man, move yourself 180 degree vertically and go and read my previous posting, I had quoted use of alongwith weight reduction, I had claim extensive composites to validate my claim of reduction in RCS.

Lo and behold...........Former PAF guy will provide evidence regarding the composite usage in SU-30MKI

Yes, since even he didn't have any problem in digesting the theory of extensive use of composite that he has admitted in his article.

How lame can you get.........the guy would have most probably looked at the same source that you provided to base his article.

So this means that whatever the sources that I had provided are correct and authentic which even prompted former PAF air commerade to admit in his article that there is really an extensive usage of composite in Su-30MKI.

Now Titanium, even you can't prove my sources as baseless or fun with this particuler statment, but from now on for a god sake don't come and tell me that whatever PAF air commerde admitted is untruthful.





Yes, afterall you have admitted.

 

[Titanium]

Was that lie? now I am completely assure myself, as whatever not in line with your thinking, you view them as a lie.

My line of thinking will not alter the fact"whether SU-30MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites or not". There are hundreds of article on SU-30MKI, i have not come across any composite usage except some loony written in his site.

Was he obscure? so now we will need someone like you who will validate the percentile of Composites in MKI? Oh my goodness......

When you write something you give refrence ......MKI has refrence for MFD, Litening pod...sources et el from sukhoi, PAC, etc...

Where is the composite sources???

I

had provided you with three links which are more then enough to validate the extensive proporation of composite in MKI

They corraborate each, not from the source.....


When you use words extensive and proportion.........do you know that you are referring to "rumoured 6%???

Yes, but at the same time he also acknowledge the fact that extensive use of composites. His skeptics was in terms of percentile. According to him it could be that 6% of composite are more then enough to term it as extensive

.

Who is that loony.......that decides 6% is enough to define extensive?? Is he part of the design team??

C'mon man you can do better than that can anyone relate 6% to extensive with anything?? particularly when proportion and percantage thrown in???

The Percentage figure could be anything, or rather you want to tell me provide me the souce which quote Extensive use of composite in airframe = 100% composite usage in airframe.

What a gem of an statement. If 100% than it is called maximum extent.

If less than 10% it is called negligible

Just because it doesn't suiting to your percentile equations.

MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites

It does not suit the sentance also -when 6% is accounted.

So what it should be? you mean extensive usage of composites = 100% usage of composites

More than 75%. Extensive is not thrown with 6% .it is called negligible or marginal.

Now Titanium, even you can't prove my sources as baseless or fun

.

Maritan from another galaxy visited and told that MKI has become stealth using "rumoured to be 6% composites . Can I disagree now???

Yes, afterall you have admitted.

If that can give you any consolation for peddling lies MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites

 

[KENT]

My line of thinking will not alter the fact"whether SU-30MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites or not".

So far these idential notion is being appearing from your response, since the person who don't ready to belive the extensive proporation of composites in spite of provided sources, but rather choose shun them to suits his own sensitivity, then it would not be foolish for me view his thaught not in line with what is being provided in those sources. Since person who even choose not to believe former PAF air commerade, then one can understand his delibrate deniel about those sources.

There are hundreds of article on SU-30MKI, i have not come across any composite usage except some loony written in his site.

So whatever that I had provided aren't qualify as an article and hence you choose to veiw them as loony. I had provided streight away 4 articles other then wikipedia, if still you don't want to believe them then that is your problem.

When you write something you give refrence ......MKI has refrence for MFD, Litening pod...sources et el from sukhoi, PAC, etc...

Hey I had given all in all four reference including Vayu-sena tripod which has extensive information over all the technical details of MKI including extensive proporation of composites.

Where is the composite sources???

Ha Ha Ha Ha........

Titanium, how delibrate you are to deny the truht of those sources, even you want deny to the admission of former PAF air commerde.

They corraborate each, not from the source.....

so you want to tell me now your authencity will define the validity of my provided sources.

When you use words extensive and proportion.........do you know that you are referring to "rumoured 6%???

Men, how insane you are? I had known you would definetly try to jumped on those 6% rumours sentence then only I provided that article. If you don't want believe it then that is your problem, but I had even provided all other three neutral articles which are more then enough to substantiate my claim.
.

Who is that loony.......that decides 6% is enough to define extensive?? Is he part of the design team??

May be he could be part of design team? but who know what is the truth! since his articles has maxium privilage of acknowldegement to get an maximum information about Indian version of MKI.

C'mon man you can do better than that can anyone relate 6% to extensive with anything?? particularly when proportion and percantage thrown in???

So go and ask the author of that website regading the authencity of your claim regarding the proporation of 6% and its correlation with extensive use of composites, since now there is one and only creature on earth like you that can show error in his website, since nobody other then you have any problem any quoting his information about proporation of extensive composite. Now don't come and tell me whatever provided on that site regarding technical details of MKI are untruth.

Titanium when you had first began viewing his article as a fan, it clearly shows that your delibrate denial, but I have no problem with it afterall it is a part of your personality.

What a gem of an statement. If 100% than it is called maximum extent.

But so far you are sounding like accordingly as extensive use of composite=100% usage of composites

If less than 10% it is called negligible

It's upto you to decide how do you view the percentage figure and corrosponding usage of the same in the airframe,since you were the one who consistently denying the proporation of 6% composites usage as low usage versus extensive usage.

It does not suit the sentance also -when 6% is accounted.

Whatever!

More than 75%. Extensive is not thrown with 6% .it is called negligible or marginal.

Oh so you will decide the percentile of comosite usage in MKI airframe, and deliberatly trying the define the validity of Vayu-sena tripod as untruthful.

Should I repeat your own question, were you among those designer who defined the proporation composite usage in MKI?

.
Maritan from another galaxy visited and told that MKI has become stealth using "rumoured to be 6% composites . Can I disagree now???

HA HA HA HA HA, I thing your mouth is going wayward, since first you came and tell me proporation of usage of composites versus weight of the airplane and now stealth. Man go and read my previous responses regarding reduction in MKI RCS on account of extensive usage of composites.

.
If that can give you any consolation for peddling lies

Peddling lies of whom you or me? since your responses are highly correlating itself with peddling lies which deliberatily denying the validity of my provided sources.

.
MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites

That's 100% true according to my provided sources.

 

[Titanium]

Keeping aside your bile.....

Just, if you could understand the meaning of Maximum extent , when you talk of percentage!!

When you are asked to fill a glass to maximum extent ....

Would you fill to 6% and pass it as maximum extent???

 

[KENT]

Keeping aside your bile.....

What an increadible sixth sense! how did you know I was furious?

Just, if you could understand the meaning of Maximum extent , when you talk of percentage!!

Yes, mate I know the meaning of both, but this is not my view, I was complled to think accordingly by those four articles as well as wikipedia. And from now on don't come and tell me they are untruthful and bias and yours ethical.

When you are asked to fill a glass to maximum extent ....

Yes, but it could be that extent to which percentage of usage of composites in MKI can be viewed as maximum according to its airframe.

Would you fill to 6% and pass it as maximum extent???

But according to the size of the airframe of MKI, 6% may be viewed as a maximum in proporation of composites usage versus metalic usage in MKI, the usage of composites may have cause a some sort of reduction in MKI's RCS and hence usage of composites may have been terms has "Maximum extent".

 

[Titanium]

But according to the size of the airframe of MKI, 6% may be viewed as a maximum in proporation of composites usage versus metalic usage in MKI, the usage of composites may have cause a some sort of reduction in MKI's RCS and hence usage of composites may have been terms has "Maximum extent".

No need for further hypothesis..........

 

[Owais]

pls let me know about its accuracy since I have 100% faith in its accuracy other IAF would ordered them in large number.

it is not their primary Bvr weapon also, missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it

 

[KENT]

No need for further hypothesis..........

Definetly, I think afterall you have suggest yourself a very wise thinking.

 

[KENT]

it is not their primary Bvr weapon also,

Did anything sound like that from my previous post?

missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it

Yes, definetly it does, I am not denying. Did you see anything denial from my post?

But my point was regarding your response of range and not speed.

 

[su-47]

it is not their primary Bvr weapon also, missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it

R-27 does have a speed of mach 4. Reason IAF chose R-77 as primary BVR weapon is coz R-77 has a more advanced seeker and is lighter than R-27 (175kg vs 253 kg)

R-27 also has a speed of mach 4

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 梟龍

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

BARS Airborne Radar Control System​

The BARS airborne radar control system together with the airborne equipment of the aircraft ensures:

Provision of information on tactical environment in the aircraft front-line hemisphere while tracking-down both ground- and water-based targets;
Simultaneuous firing of several targets (depending on the missile type) in the long-range combat mode;
Missiles firing of a separate target in the short-range combat mode;
Use of weapons of the "air-to-surface" type together with the other aircraft of the system;
Control over the aircraft flight while conducting military operations at air, marine and ground-based targets;
Comprehensive processing of data received from various aircraft systems and other aircraft in order to enhance the efficiency of the aircraft military use;
Informational support for aircraft airborne systems;
Identification of inter-related air targets types;
Evaluation of equipment and weapons condition at all stages of ground-based preparation and during flights.


Key Technical Specifications of the Units:
Antenna type: phased
array with fluid drive
Maximum deviation angles while
tracking down a single target, deg.:
- by azymuth +70
- by the site angle +40
Scanning area during simultaneous 5.500
tracking down of targets, sq. deg.
Scanning area while searching for and locking in a target
in close maneuver combat, deg.:
- by azymuth +3; +10
- by the site angle -15...+40; +7.5
Receiver

Channels number 3
Noise rate, db 3

Transmitter
capacity, kwt, not less than
- impulse 4-5
- medium 1.2
- illuminative(radiocorrection) 1
Programmed signel processor
Data input speed, mHz 28
Peak productivity rate while conducting
"butterfly"-type operations, mln. oper/sec 75
Radar control processor
Number of processors 3
Flash-memory size of the processor, mb 16
Static memory size of the processor, mb 16
"Air-to-air" mode
The fighter's lock-in range of at least, km:
- at opposite courses 120-140
- at overtaking courses 60
"Air-to-surface" mode
Detection range of at least, km:
- railway bridge 80-120
- tanks 40-50
- torpedo-boat destroyer 120-150
Max resolution capacity, m circa 10


KEY MODES OF THE AIRBORNE RADARS OPERATIONS:


"AIR-TO-AIR"
Speed search;
Seach with distance gauging;
Search and lock-in in the short-range combat mode;
Tracking down up to 15 targets in order to evaluate the tactical situation and conduct aircraft team operations without search suspension;
Accurate tracking down of up to 4 targets to ensure weapons application without search suspension;
Targets illumination and transmission of orders on radiocorrection while guiding missiles;
Identification of target type by its spectral characteristics;
Identification of multiple target characteristics without visibility distortion.


"AIR-TO-SURFACE"
Terrain mapping in the real beam mode;
Terrain mapping with the Dopler beam narrowing;
Terrain mapping with antenna synthetic aperture;
Selection of ground-based moving targets;
Gauging coordinates down to the ground-based target;
Tracking down of up to 2 ground-based targets.

"AIR-TO-SEA"
Marine search;
Far-out marine search;
Selection of moving marine targets;
Gauging coordinates down to moving or immobile marine targets.

Link: ---- The Manufacturer!
V.Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP)

N11-01M Antenna System​

A dual-band antenna system with electronic beam control for airborne radio-electronic systems.
The antenna system (AS) comprises two phased arrays with the X and L frequency bands.
Scope of application:
fighters, fighters-interceptors, bombers and attack aircraft.


Key specifications:
1. Aperture diameter, m ~1
2. Frequency belt within X- and L-bands, % 6
3. AS xharacteristics within the X-band:
multiplication rate, db 36
beam movement timeline, mcsec 400
number of formed beam types 12
level of the first side lobes, db -25
medium level of the far-out side lobes, db - 48
width of the main beam, deg. 2,4
4. Weight, kg 100

It is possible to install the antenna system at electromechanical and fluid drives.

Link: ---- The Manufacturer!
V.Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP)


India has a Bars N11 01M Antenna onboard Su-30MKI........

 

[z9-ec]

Folks, I've said it before and I will say it again.

PLAAF and MAF (Malaysia) already use Su-30 (MKK and MKM) which means the tech is pretty much exposed to Pakistan. JF-17 thunder's capabilities can easily be evaluated in combat exercises along with Su-30s.

Considering that Malaysia has shown keen interest in purchasing JF-17 Thunder suggests it is, if not equal but is relatively similiar.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Now donot dis-respect SU-30 MKI.

It is by far One of the best of the best. It has an edge in nearly all aspects of Avionics and Aerodynamics but it is not Invincible.

Nothing IS.

 

[Owais]

This is kind of stupid comparison. JF-17 is like upgraded Mig-21 with RD-33 series of engines...speed, power, radar,manouvaribility, weapon load etc... in all respect, it is inferior to LCA. Forget about Su30-MKI...

your comments shows how much you know about these Jets