What's new

India's UNMANNED BOMBER Aircraft Confirmed

I agree.....too many Indians fall into the trap laid by 50 cents propaganda army solider and foolishly attempt to defend something that does not need any defence in the first place. :tup:

I guess the best punishment for them is to continue responding to 50 cents army trolls. :lol:

I like the chinese style of placing the blame on Indians thus forcing them to reply and defend and always be on the back foot :tup:

To you, India's accomplishment is base on debate skills in PDF. I'm glad most Indians don't think like you. At least the ones not on this forum.
 
.
Kaveri pehle LCA main to laga lo.. :lol:
USAV se pehle agar aik choota UCAV bana lete to kuch sense banta.:rofl:
 
.
Look at you! Putting the cart before the horse!! Laying down the keel of a ship counts as making a ship? AC needs to be sailing to be considered AC.

You are just too funny of a person! WS-10A flies jets, you wanna say it failed. India lays down a keel for AC and you wanna say India has successfully made an AC. Neither China nor India has made an AC. That's it, no way laying a keel counts as successfully designing AC. How do you know if the design is a success if the ship hasn't been tested yet? You can't test it if it hasn't been completed. No complete, no test, no AC = NO credit! Anyone can see your logic is broken.

Before you cam make AC sail, your need few things:
A) design
B) Building
C) Sail

China:
A) Question is Is China Designed AC yet? Answer is NO
B) Is China Building AC? Answer : NO


India :
A) Is India[B] Design AC?[/B] Answer is Yes
B) Is India Building AC? Answer : YES

Buddy China cant do Design /Build AC , forget about sailing.

One is already came out of Dry Dock, Here i am talking about capability of design and making of AC which china dont have which India has capability and making one.

First design has to pass many test then building starts, if design is not good then no building take place., Study like you Chinese Navy engineers first, then came with design and validate.

India already started building and will finish soon ,

WS-10 was not used; WS-10A was used because Chinese engines improve so fast that before WS-10 went into production, improved variant was made, so no point in making old variant. And I can't believe you don't see how pointless this discussion is about the ABC designation. China's turbofans power Flanker. We can call it WS-10, WS-10A, WS-10AA. WS-10AKDBSKS if we want. It powers jets and that's it. The name has no importance it all. The fact that you are so stuck on the name shows how little you have to criticize when it comes to Chinese engines.

I am talking about WS13A , your production model cant last more then 60 hours, you only power few test prototype nothing else , thats why you purchase lot of engines from russia.

For the last time, Kaveri's wet thrust is NOT simple to tune at all. You are trying to make it sound like an easy, small problem, no big deal. But everything you say is stupid. You can't just tune it, and it you can't increase it by just adding more fuel because it is a huge design problem. The proof is that India gave up and removed the afterburner altogether. If it just needed a little tuning, or just add more fuel, they would do just that and call it a success. I'm surprised you think you're smarter than these engineers. I have a tip for you. If all the engineers in India couldn't do it and gave up, but you think you have a simple solution (after 10 minutes of google and wikipedia), the most likely reason is not that you are so much smarter; the reason is that you understand so little about the problem that your solution is total horse shiiiat and you can't see why. They took out the afterburner. That is PROOF that it needs more work than India can do right now to get it right.-

Funny thing is you don't know anything at all, juts to do technical discussion write imaginary things ,
A) do you ono at all that IAF want 100 KN engine for LCA?

B) Kaveri is design till 81KN ? if it is successful also, then it wont make it to LCA , K-10 (Advance Kaveri) for 100 KN
is under development for the LCA. Therefore 81KN will be use for other planes.

IAF is not unlike Chinese /PAF which claim want 80KN engine and failed JF-17.

You know what's really funny with your logic? You want to make everything on a Chinese engine sound like a big problem. When there are no problems and it powers operational fighters, you say, "WS-10A? That name is a big problem! Why can it not be named WS-10? BIIGG PROBLEM!! BIIGG FAILURE!!!" Then, when the Indian Kaveri misses it's target thrust by over 10kN, you say, "70.4 out of 81? That is NO problem at all! Just need a little tuning and some more fuel!" And on top of that, it's not even true. This is your funny Indian double-standard.

Kaveri is equal to WS-10 and now you want to make one to equal WS-10A??? Biggest joke on the internet!

Kaveri: 49kN (49.2 rounds down to 49, not up to 50 haha) dry, 70kN wet. Future direction: remove afterburner and use as 49kN drone engine.
WS-10: ~70kN dry, 122kN wet. (not totally sure about numbers) Direction: developed into WS-10A
WS-10A: 89kN dry, 132kN wet. (Operational and in production) Future direction: developing into WS-10B and G

WS-10A has more dry thrust than Kaveri's taget for wet (which it failed to reach by over 10kN). Only in your personal "logic" could Kaveri even be close to WS-10 family.

your problem is you comparing No to No not logic, When you made good decent engine and sell to outside world for verification then came and claim you made successful engine.

LCA is not in service. FC-1 is. FC-1 is nearing block II and LCA is still not in service. What is for sure is that you can't say that because the LCA has a small thrust to weight advantage over the FC-1, it is better. That is far too much a simplification of fighter jets. FC-1 has much higher range (although I don't believe that the difference is as great as stated on wiki), same speed, and much higher service ceiling than LCA. That's what the engine is for, improving these parameters, and the design of the LCA air-frame fails to put these performance parameters in par with FC-1, despite using a better US engine than the Russian one currently in block 1. And don't forget to check the unit cost for FC-1 and LCA. FC-1 block 1 is 50-65% the price of LCA.

Well buddy ,JF-17 uses , metal body (old Technology) , LCA using Composite

F-16 Details:
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 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[1] (15,240+ m)

See , the range and combat radius depend on on Load the plane can carry,

The figures are provided by PAF /Chinese only appear keep JF-17 superior then LCA , broken all laws of physics. Thats why you find not customer of JF-17 when you told then real performance.

On papers its performance papers to more then JF-16 in terms of range etc. When LCA speed was 1.8M with 9G , at that time JF-17 also claimed to be 1.8 Match with 9G , when LCA -1 Revised parameter on test with engines , JF-17 information also came down.

the claims made by JF-17 broke all rules :)) JF-17 claim range/ combat radius and Hight with no weapon load, while LCA mention specification with full load.

AND, even though the FC-1 better than LCA, cheaper than LCA, and ready faster than the LCA, FC-1 is still not good enough for China to induct. That's how big the difference is between China's and India's standards.

Well LCA-1 is also not good enough for IAF to induct thats why LCA-MK-2 is being built.

Jf-17 is far more better in terms of range, Height , form F-16 , you can easily built and defeat Twain by now , as they deployed F-16 more ? why can't? you do? because Action on Ground speak more louder then paper/website.
 
.
Are yaar, stop replying to Chinese posters. This thread has changed on China fighters. Come back to topic.
 
.
Kaveri pehle LCA main to laga lo.. :lol:
USAV se pehle agar aik choota UCAV bana lete to kuch sense banta.:rofl:

Tum Russian engine ki jagha chines engine lagaoo uske baad kaveri ki baat kerna , India can made engine atleast which you can't.

Did you got any engine from china yet? or they can only able fly inside china.:yahoo:
 
. . .
Alfa, I don't know if you're actually this stupid or that you KNOW China's way ahead of India, but you just wanna defend India. You don't test a design and then build it, fool. Before you build it, it doesn't exist (I hope this does not escape your logic). How would you test something that does not exist? You design it, build it, test it, then call it a success. If you haven't completed all 3 steps, it's not a success. Your argument is that if they built it, then they must have had a good design. That's not good logic. Look at the Kaveri. It's design, build, test. They designed it, built it, but it failed to meet standards on tests, so the design was a failure and afterburner was removed.

WS-13A? OK, so you don't want to compare Kaveri to the engine that China has already successfully built? That's fine, just remember, then that WS-13A is China's second engine. WS-10A has already succeeded. We are comparing China's second engine to India's first. Find me a recent source (2012) that says WS-13A lasts only 60 hours and I will accept that it's not progressing as well as we'd hoped. (I'll assume it was a typo when you said the "production model" lasts 60 hours because clearly, if an engine only lasts 60 hours, it would not go into production. Your English is so bad, you probably don't know what "production model" means and meant to say "prototype".) But then again, how long does Kaveri last? As things are going, it doesn't even look like Kaveri will have afterburners. You are comparing India's 49kN non-afterburning engine to China's engine with higher dry thrust AND with afterburner?

Heh, yeah, I know India WANTS 100kN engine LOL. Heck, it may want 200kN engine heh heh. But it cannot even get the 81kN engine done so this is sounding overly ambitious for its current ability.

We have to SELL WS-10A to verify it by a third party? Now you are making pretty funny rules. F-22 engines will never be sold to any other country. You can say that is a failed engine too then. China is currently not even making enough WS-10A to keep up with its own demand. Why would we sell them?

With LCA and JF-17 figures, I see your logic. First, you take all your information off of Wikipedia, no problem. You trust everything, from that people say to how much prototype engines output. But then you read superior figures for JF-17 than LCA and suddenly, "Oh, no Wikipedia figures are not accurate. They were manipulated by Chinese people." LOLOL JF-17 figures "broke all the rules?" That's funny. What kind of aerodynamic rules do you know that these figures have broken? And that's not an invitation to start googling articles and posting them to make yourself sound smart. You don't know anything about aviation and neither do any of the people who agree with you. You all just wanna feel good about India even though it's clearly behind China. India is trying its hardest to induct LCA block 1. That is a fact; read about it. Only in your fantasy is India rejecting block I for Block II.

Why would we use JF-17 to attack Taiwan? We had J-11B, J-10A, soon to have J-20, why would we select JF-17, which is not even good enough to induct into PLAAF? The answer is 1. we prefer to integrate Taiwan naturally and economically. It will be much more beneficial than a military take-over. 2. The US is a complicating factor. If we take Taiwan by force, we must be prepared not only to defeat Taiwan's forces, but also American forces if they choose to intervene.

I'll throw your logic back at you. If you think your Indian Su-30MKI are so good, why don't you attack Pakistan and take your land back? Kashmir is partly governed by Pakistan so do something about it unless you're scared of a few F-16 and JF-17. Actions speak louder than words, right?

Look at all this unrelated garbage that you drag up! You talk about aircraft carriers, Chinese engines, and even territorial disputes! All unrelated to the topic so you don't have to admit the this one fact that this thread is about:

Kaveri can never serve as an acceptable fighter jet engine and its wet thrust is a failure, so the Indian engineers gave up and removed the wet thrust completely to use it as a drone engine.

This is what this thread is about and this is pure fact (taken directly from the original document that started the thread). Just think about that, don't try to think about other unrelated crazy things just for the purpose of talking back to me.
 
.
how about stop such cheap talks and show me something real? similar talks have been going on for this rubbish engine for decades, what happened eventually?

losers talk
winners deliver results.

Dont know what was "cheap" here ? This above mentioned post was full of facts . Perhaps the post has hurt your false pride.
 
.
the joke nation with its people and grandiose plans where they still havent figured out an AK copy

Is copying a testament of advancement ? Well there are some countries which are known for their "copying" and never creating a geniune technology . I think you guessed it now.

Indians will get back to the drawing board after,what, 4 years?

Give them 40 years beginning today。

You are preoccupied with a senseless prejudice.....Time to see and face that other countries can also work hard and not just copy .
 
.
:rofl::lol:

Everyday DRDO comes up with something new...LMAO!!!!!

bhartis are a joke. Iranians unveils a PRODUCT and THEN claim something about it. bhartis doesn't show any product..just phussss talk and talk..

now Kaveri is going to power unmanned bomber aircraft of india? :chilli::victory::rofl::rofl::lol:

indians can't even make tejas on time...and Unmanned bomber now? :lol:

Putting stupid smileys will not help....this task suits girls .......now coming to the point.....If there has been a claim then definately there has been some work.....its better that you people start accepting the facts than live in the same falsehood which you have been living since long time.
 
. .
Putting stupid smileys will not help....this task suits girls .......now coming to the point.....If there has been a claim then definately there has been some work.....its better that you people start accepting the facts than live in the same falsehood which you have been living since long time.

Probably he wouldn't have understood an iota of what you said.. they havent designed a freaking car engine till date. Imagine how stupid they can be :woot:
 
.
Alfa, I don't know if you're actually this stupid or that you KNOW China's way ahead of India, but you just wanna defend India. You don't test a design and then build it, fool. Before you build it, it doesn't exist (I hope this does not escape your logic). How would you test something that does not exist? You design it, build it, test it, then call it a success. If you haven't completed all 3 steps, it's not a success. Your argument is that if they built it, then they must have had a good design. That's not good logic. Look at the Kaveri. It's design, build, test. They designed it, built it, but it failed to meet standards on tests, so the design was a failure and afterburner was removed.

China is way ahead,Answer Few Questions:

Regarding AC:-
1) Is China designed any AC?
2) Is China build any AC?

WS-13A? OK, so you don't want to compare Kaveri to the engine that China has already successfully built? That's fine, just remember, then that WS-13A is China's second engine. WS-10A has already succeeded. We are comparing China's second engine to India's first. Find me a recent source (2012) that says WS-13A lasts only 60 hours and I will accept that it's not progressing as well as we'd hoped. (I'll assume it was a typo when you said the "production model" lasts 60 hours because clearly, if an engine only lasts 60 hours, it would not go into production. Your English is so bad, you probably don't know what "production model" means and meant to say "prototype".) But then again, how long does Kaveri last? As things are going, it doesn't even look like Kaveri will have afterburners. You are comparing India's 49kN non-afterburning engine to China's engine with higher dry thrust AND with afterburner?

WS-13 Engine:
A) Is WS-13 flying any planes? No its total failure , as per your logic , WS-13 is failed.

B) Is was 13A is good engine /capable engine? NO, not flying any aircraft till date.

WS10 Engine:
WS-10 : [B]Failed[/B] Flying no Plane,
The original WS-10 was found to lack the performance needed for modern jet-powered fighters and was never used to power an aircraft. The design was modified and an improved version, the WS-10A, was tested on a prototype Shenyang J-11 fighter in 2002NEWS DEVELOPMENTS IN RUSSIA-CHINA MILITARY RELATIONS: A REPORT ON THE AUGUST 19-23 2003 MOSCOW AEROSPACE SALON (MAKS)

WS-10A:
1) The Chinese media also reported in 2005 that the WS-10A had completed 4 months endurance testing and the engine was later certified for production in 2006.

2)According to an interview publicised in January 2007 with J-10 pilot Li Cunbao (李存宝), the J-10 had not yet been equipped with the domestic WS-10 engine, because although the WS-10 could match the performance of its Russian counterpart (the AL-31), there was a serious drawback; the WS-10 took longer to "spool up", i.e. there was a delay in reaching the same thrust output as the Russian engine.

3) On 2 April 2009, the director of AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China) Lin Zuoming (林左鸣), stated that there were problems with the quality control procedures on the WS-10A production line, meaning the Taihang turbofan was still of unsatisfactory quality. He said that solving these problems would be a key step. In addition to poor build quality, the engines suffered from poor reliability, the Chinese engines have been lasting 30 hours at a time vs 400 for the Russian originals.
Ciprofloxacin hcl 500mg side effects >>>> Lowest Prices Online Pharmacy. THE BEST PRICE!

Now can you show me a link that states that WS-10A is improved? If you not have dont use you imagination that it improved ot work done, if you have any good link which states that reliability of the engine improve ,please show the world Or else dont use imaginations or impose your imagination to the world.


Above statement proved that WS-13A : failed

Heh, yeah, I know India WANTS 100kN engine LOL. Heck, it may want 200kN engine heh heh. But it cannot even get the 81kN engine done so this is sounding overly ambitious for its current ability.

We have to SELL WS-10A to verify it by a third party? Now you are making pretty funny rules. F-22 engines will never be sold to any other country. You can say that is a failed engine too then. China is currently not even making enough WS-10A to keep up with its own demand. Why would we sell them?

Means when you sold that plane with engine to PAK then it become reliable, F-22 sold to other countries with engines. We are haring from many years that it was to be given to PAK(plane)

With LCA and JF-17 figures, I see your logic. First, you take all your information off of Wikipedia, no problem. You trust everything, from that people say to how much prototype engines output. But then you read superior figures for JF-17 than LCA and suddenly, "Oh, no Wikipedia figures are not accurate. They were manipulated by Chinese people." LOLOL JF-17 figures "broke all the rules?" That's funny. What kind of aerodynamic rules do you know that these figures have broken? And that's not an invitation to start googling articles and posting them to make yourself sound smart. You don't know anything about aviation and neither do any of the people who agree with you. You all just wanna feel good about India even though it's clearly behind China. India is trying its hardest to induct LCA block 1. That is a fact; read about it. Only in your fantasy is India rejecting block I for Block II.

buddy Wikipedia pick figures from officials PAK sites, for JF-17, Buddy on site Jf-17 claims to be superior then F-16 also, who dumb gonna buy that logic, that F-16 combat radius is small then JF-17. No one in the world other Chinese/PAK.

F-16:
Internal Fuel: 3,175 kilograms
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 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks (5443 kilograms)

JF-17:
Internal Fuel Capacity: 2,300 kg
Combat radius: 1,352 km[17] (840 mi)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (1,880 NM[9])

LCA:-
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
Combat radius: 300 km (186 miles)
Ferry range: 3,000 km[90] (1,840 mi)

Now see, only Jf-17 is the plane on above three which carries less fuel and have maxi combat radiums beating eveyone even US. Wow

This shows that PAF fudge figures.

Why would we use JF-17 to attack Taiwan? We had J-11B, J-10A, soon to have J-20, why would we select JF-17, which is not even good enough to induct into PLAAF? The answer is 1. we prefer to integrate Taiwan naturally and economically. It will be much more beneficial than a military take-over. 2. The US is a complicating factor. If we take Taiwan by force, we must be prepared not only to defeat Taiwan's forces, but also American forces if they choose to intervene.

I'll throw your logic back at you. If you think your Indian Su-30MKI are so good, why don't you attack Pakistan and take your land back? Kashmir is partly governed by Pakistan so do something about it unless you're scared of a few F-16 and JF-17. Actions speak louder than words, right?

India never wanted to take back that part kashmir , if it want it already in 1971 when it won Over, more 1,00,000 solider surrender , world largest surrender of army in history.

Look at all this unrelated garbage that you drag up! You talk about aircraft carriers, Chinese engines, and even territorial disputes! All unrelated to the topic so you don't have to admit the this one fact that this thread is about:

Kaveri can never serve as an acceptable fighter jet engine and its wet thrust is a failure, so the Indian engineers gave up and removed the wet thrust completely to use it as a drone engine.

This is what this thread is about and this is pure fact (taken directly from the original document that started the thread). Just think about that, don't try to think about other unrelated crazy things just for the purpose of talking back to me.

Well Kaveri, Engine cannot be used because IAF want 100KN thrust engine, so the present Kaveri engine will be utilised other projects because engine is made and working.

K-10 is the project with 100KN thrust is being under development.
 
.
WS-13A hasn't failed because we are still working on it. But for the Kaveri, India GAVE UP and removed the afterburner. WS-13A is in development. By your logic, then all the engines that are currently in development but haven't flown yet are considered failed. Kaveri is failed because India gave up, once again. If India said they wanted to do something with the afterburner to improve it, then ok, not failed, it is in development. WS-13A is in development.

K-10? Where is it? It's so early in development there's not even a picture of it so don't mention it. If you couldn't get Kaveri to 81kN, where's the confidence for a 100kN engine? K-10 is part of the Kaveri project. If the Kaveri prototype is being forsaken, is the K-10 even still alive? If you start talking about stuff that doesn't even have a built prototype, then I'll just say China's working on 180-185kN WS-15. At least there are pictures of the thing and rumors that it hit 165kN.

You want a quote to show you that China's WS-10A improved since 2009? OK, just read 1 sentence down from where you cut your quote off. The next sentence says, "The overall situation had steadily improved by the end of 2009, after which the WS-10A had reportedly proved mature enough to power the J-11B Block 02 aircraft." And the original source: Rupprecht, Andreas (December 2011). "China's 'Flanker' gains momentum. Shanyang J-11 update." Combat Aircraft Monthly 12 (12): 40–42.

Check this out. http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af75/w0880/izmir_2.jpg

Have a look at this pic from the 2011 Turkey airshow. It's an official poster with the combat radius quoted as such. If the combat radius were less than 25% of that as you think (since 300 is less than a fourth of 1,300) I don't think they would dare display that at an official air show or all experts would deny that. This is official, much more reliable than wikipedia. In the end, this is the situation: I show you official figures of JF-17 being better than LCA, you just don't want to believe. If something shows LCA is better, you will take it for proven fact. My source is at least as reliable as that wiki you found on the 2009 faults of the WS-10A. If you don't believe this poster, then you have no reason to believe the wiki article. Also, F-16 is with carrying 4,000lbs bombs and on specific mission rated at 550kM. JF-17 could be flying with full fuel on clean configuration or with 2-4 missiles. You can't compare these 2 figures. I don't know what LCA is flying with to get those numbers but that's a big difference when compared to the much cheaper JF-17.

And don't forget, when you compared JF-17 to LCA (an argument you brought up that is not relevant to the topic) that you are comparing a plane the China does not want against a plane that India wants, but is unable to induct into service yet. You are comparing the best work of India against a rejected small project of China's... and you're still losing (by official figures that you do not want to believe).

And forget about the AC. I said China is ahead in turbofan engines, which, for you only, I will have to explain, is a different thing than a jet engine. Why did you even mention the AC on a topic about jet engines? China and India are about even in AC.

India doesn't want Kashmir? Where the hell do you get your facts from? If India didn't want the rest of it, it wouldn't be called a territorial dispute, which it very famously is. "Kashmir? What Kashmir? We didn't want that anyway." You'll get laughed out of the room if you said that at an international conference. You just wanna change all the facts and make it look like India is on top of everything while in fact, it is NOT at all.

I'm just adding this here to make fun of you. You said:

"Means when you sold that plane with engine to PAK then it become reliable, F-22 sold to other countries with engines. We are haring from many years that it was to be given to PAK(plane)"

First of all, what the hell does this mean? Why is your English so bloody terrible? I can't make anything out, except that you seem to think F-22 was sold to other countries, which is easily not true. You are a very very ignorant man. You need to learn English, read the news, and research about aircraft before you come here. There is no way for me to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is this "unprepared" at everything relevant to this thread.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom