JF-17 has edge over LCA: Pak officials

[paritosh]

About Su-30MKI Red Flag
Aviation Week, Nov5, 2008

Against the much larger RCS Su-30MKI, the F-16s and F-15s won consistently during the first three days of air-to-air combat, he continues. However, that was the result of trying to immediately go into a post-stall, thrust-vectored turn when attacked. The turn then creates massive drag and the aircraft starts sinking and losing altitude. "It starts dropping so fast you don't have to go vertical [first]. The low-speed tail slide allowed the U.S. aircraft to dive from above and "get one chance to come down to shoot," the pilot says. "You go to guns and drill his brains out." The Su-30 is jamming your missiles so...you go to guns and drill his brains out."

SU-30 mki is a killer in the hands of someone who knows it's short-falls.period.
the pilot also said that as soon as the indians would get a hang of it...they'd start scoring easy wins over the f-16s and f-15s.you missed that part.

 

[Munir]

Sofar pilots don't design planes and hardly know how to improve electronics. So I do not care what some pilots say cause as an engineer it is my job to think beyond. Not like some (or better said almost all western) pilots that repeat the sentence that their plane is the best.

MKI is not s superb weapon. Just the rcs already is killing. And personally I do not think the Indians are master it cause most of the times they send engines to Russia or wait for spare tires.

 

[iceman2009]

It is being produced by Pak, modified/upgraded by Pak, sold by Pak, Pakistan is profiting from it. You find me ONE bad thing in that list?

" Somebody thinks CHENGDU who build the JF17 is pakistani comany

Profiting wat exactly ??
wAT UPGRADES ??

lets walk before we start running !!!

The last i herd the mighty Bangladesh Air force said no thanks will wait for J10 THANK YOU...

 

[Munir]

Maybe you should try to sell lca...

 

[mean_bird]

Maybe you should try to sell lca...

that was just hilarious

 

[mean_bird]

50% of carbon composites even if contribute to 10% of stealth would benefit the plane.

and at the other 'critical' points they wouldn't?
the LCA uses much more composite material than the JF-17...that is the whole point!
the more the radar absorbent material is loaded in the plane the stealthier it is...the material is one of the most important factors in providing stealth...resistive carbon coating(any resistive coating would do...but as you'd know that an insulator's resistivity> a conductor's resistivity) is beneficial in reducing the RCS everywhere on the plane's body.
read this instead of the incorrect articles on the wiki...


i quote from this article....
"One area where composites have a significant advantage over most metallic structures is in radar cross-section reduction. Composites generally reflect less radar energy than metallic structures and advanced composite materials offer this benefit with structural, heat-resistance and configuration advantages. Aircraft can be formed with smoother lines, fewer areas where different materials merge and in complex shapes required for reduced signature requirements. The F/A-22, B-2, F/A-18E/F and unmanned aerospace vehicles such as the X-45 UCAV include a significant amount of composite materials."



quite right...counter-measures can provide only pseudo-stealth...even the best stealth techs tend to have loop-holes....as an example any stealth plane employing today's stealth tech would be detected the moment it fires any weapon.the radar has to receive the radar pulse fired in the direction of an incoming aircraft....now the puls has to be reflected back by the aircraft and this reflected beam is received by the radar and the RCs is calculated on the basis of the energy of the received beam wrt the incident beam on the aircraft.so all that matters is the nature of reflection occuring at the plane's surface(or absorption for that matter)....the radar jammer...helps to distort the incoming radar beam and renders it unusable(is intended to).

exactly...now the smallest supersonic jet in the world consisting of the maximum amount of carbon composite matrial which even supersedes the amount in the JSF....if equipped with a potent israeli jammer(none other)....would count for a reduced RCS.

so?

So a jammer, that is carried on a pod on one of the hardpoints is NOT a part of an aircraft. Its just an add-on that can be added to ANY( and is added to almost every) fighter jet. A jamming pod is an off-the-shelf component. We are comparing LCA and JF-17 not jammers.

yes i think so too...but technology is ever-changing...for AESA and whatever follows..there'd be jammers to counter...and besides AESA would take some decades to become common-place.

you are part right.we are not talking of full-fledged stealth here...both the thunder and the tejas are incapable of that...by design.we are talking of semi-stealth which the 4-5 gen fighter are very much capable of achieving.jamming would reduce the RCS...a bomber with an able jammer would give the RCS of a flock of birds(albeit depending on another variable which is the strength of the radar in question)

true.

just like active and passive radars...the jammers are also active and passive.the jammers or the counter-measurs you are talking about are passive(as they are employed as counter-measures!)
while an active jammer would constantly cut-out the incoming radar energy thus contributing in the reduced RCS.

absorbing(surface coating/material)+deflecting(basic shape of the plane and it's cross-sectional area and not it's surface area...read about corner reflection in this regard)+destroying(jammers)

i have made corrections where i thought necessary.

So you have agreed with everything I said except that you very carelessly interchange the words stealth and LO. Stealth, when used for fighters, is what F-22 raptor has...LO or VLO is what all other generation fighters have and are trying to improve. You should get your terminology right.

So much for the smallest fighter, here's some news for you.

"The LCA Mark 2 will have a bigger and more powerful engine, the fuselage will be changed, it will have bigger wings, and the aircraft will be more aerodynamic," says Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Baweja

This also confirms my earlier analysis of its aerodynamics with a tail less delta wing and no canards especially in the pitch role.

Btw, now they need to work on the brakes, wheels and tyres, the fuselage, the wings , its aerodynamics features, reduce the weight, do something about its huge overweight undercarriage.....no wonder Boeing was asking precluding India from sale of LCA without permission....hopefully EADS would be willing to do it for them.

 

[mean_bird]

It is being produced by Pak, modified/upgraded by Pak, sold by Pak, Pakistan is profiting from it. You find me ONE bad thing in that list?

" Somebody thinks CHENGDU who build the JF17 is pakistani comany

Somebody doesn't know of the existence of PAC.

Profiting wat exactly ??

Profiting in money. For every aircraft sold, in addition to money earned by the respective part suppliers ( PAC will build 60% body and 80% avionics), the profit would be shared on a 50-50 basis.

wAT UPGRADES ??

upgrades to the plane...upgrades in integrating different(western avionics) , upgrades in terms of carrying non-conventional weapons, upgrades in terms of air-to-air refuelling, PAC has been doing so on our existing fleet.

lets walk before we start running !!!

Talks about 'walking' and 'running' brings some memories of a project that's been 'tottering' for the past 26 years

The last i herd the mighty Bangladesh Air force said no thanks will wait for J10 THANK YOU...

Last I heard the mighty IAF said..no thanks, we will continue flying the Mig 21 (aka flying coffins).

 

[mundaus]

Maybe you should try to sell lca...

Very funny, how about giving it free if they can't sell?

 

[zombie:-)]

Sofar pilots don't design planes and hardly know how to improve electronics. So I do not care what some pilots say cause as an engineer it is my job to think beyond. Not like some (or better said almost all western) pilots that repeat the sentence that their plane is the best.

MKI is not s superb weapon. Just the rcs already is killing. And personally I do not think the Indians are master it cause most of the times they send engines to Russia or wait for spare tires.

a post from a different thread and please think before making fun
SIR he has done an extremely good job in just TYPING what that col. of USAF said in that informal video

Last but not the least, the man behind the weapon really matters. In some of the recent air exercises held by Indian and US Airforces together like Red Flag 2008. It was found that pilots of SU-30MKIs had less then 100 flying hours, altogether. Whereas PAF Shaheen are far more superior in terms of flying hours and quality of awareness towards the practicality of technology during the war. However, its not far when SU-30MKI pilots would enhance there flying hours, excavate the true potential of this aircraft and use it for there advantage.

the sentence in bold .... let me explain that

the squad sent to the red flag was half oldies and half young guys ....so that the young could keep their experience in the fighting force for a longer time than what white hairs could do and THAT does not mean guysdo not have more than 100 flying hours on the MKI there are pilots who have flown 9 yes nine hours straight in a single sortie with multiple areal refueling of course .

AND

SU-30MKI aircraft implies two Saturn Al-31FP turbofans, which gives good thrust to the aircraft. Yet, the quality of these engines due to Russian origin still remain highly susceptible as compare to RD-93(Advance version of Russian RD-33), Pratt & Whitney or even Rolls Royce. In case of any disruption of the engines, Indians Airforce has no other choice but to send the engines back to Russia to be fixed, rather repairing them at home.

ATO Russia & CIS Observer - Archive - ¹ 2 (6), July 2004 - DEFENSE - India Prefers Russian Engine to Power HJT-36 Trainer -

see the link above it says HAL started license manufacturing of AL-31FP in 2004 so it is logical that when we are building them here from scratch what is the need for sending it to russia for fixing it

 

[paritosh]

So a jammer, that is carried on a pod on one of the hardpoints is NOT a part of an aircraft. Its just an add-on that can be added to ANY( and is added to almost every) fighter jet. A jamming pod is an off-the-shelf component. We are comparing LCA and JF-17 not jammers.

well the same jammer on different planes would produce a different end-result in temrs of the RCS...think about it.

So you have agreed with everything I said except that you very carelessly interchange the words stealth and LO. Stealth, when used for fighters, is what F-22 raptor has...LO or VLO is what all other generation fighters have and are trying to improve. You should get your terminology right.

low observable...very low observable...stealth....all the same...dont you agree?you are a tad bit confused when it comes to the definition of stealth...it does not mean that the aircraft is supposed to be totally invisible to the radar...though ideally it should be...total invisibility is impossible with todays 4-5 gen fighters...what is achievable is causing the radar to misinterpret what it is tracking...F-22 and the russian fifth gen fighter are/would prolly employ a full stealth tech.

So much for the smallest fighter, here's some news for you.

well then the mark 2 fighter would have a bigger RCS....as far as the aircraft Xsection factor is concerned.

This also confirms my earlier analysis of its aerodynamics with a tail less delta wing and no canards especially in the pitch role.

are you comparing LCA markI to LCA markII or LCA to JF-17?
if LCA markII would have a better maneuverability than the markI..it doesnt mean that the mark I had lesser maneuverability than the JF-17 thunder does it?

Btw, now they need to work on the brakes, wheels and tyres, the fuselage, the wings , its aerodynamics features, reduce the weight, do something about its huge overweight undercarriage.....no wonder Boeing was asking precluding India from sale of LCA without permission....hopefully EADS would be willing to do it for them.

as i've said earlier...the standards of any airforce are of paramount importance....there's no compromise in that.the end result shoud be good.i am concerned with discussing stealth here.

 

[mean_bird]

well the same jammer on different planes would produce a different end-result in temrs of the RCS...think about it.

.
It depends more the shape and curves of the plane rather than just size. Size might be a factor, but certainly not the most important one. As an example, the Rafale is one big plane but has very LO.

Denys Overholser, when asked what makes an aircraft stealth, said: “Shape, shape, shape and materials”. And before you jump from your seat at the mention of materials...those are radar absorbing materials like dielectric polymers and ferromagnetic materials.

low observable...very low observable...stealth....all the same...dont you agree? you are a tad bit confused when it comes to the definition of stealth...it does not mean that the aircraft is supposed to be totally invisible to the radar...though ideally it should be...total invisibility is impossible with todays 4-5 gen fighters...what is achievable is causing the radar to misinterpret what it is tracking...F-22 and the russian fifth gen fighter are/would prolly employ a full stealth tech.

OK if you insist. I was referring to the specific technology on the skin of a plane like that of an F-22 which neither the LCA nor the JF-17 possesses. But I guess you can use the term loosely to refer to features that makes a plane invisible or gets close to that

Even the F-22 is not completely invisible...you can probably see it at close proximity and the only plane to have taken a virtual shot at it did actually see it...that you might never make it that close is another story.

That is why todays 4.5 gen planes have LO or stealthy (stealth-like) features but not stealth technology.

well then the mark 2 fighter would have a bigger RCS....as far as the aircraft Xsection factor is concerned.
are you comparing LCA markI to LCA markII or LCA to JF-17?
if LCA markII would have a better maneuverability than the markI..it doesnt mean that the mark I had lesser maneuverability than the JF-17 thunder does it?

As I said, my reservations about the LCA was considering its delta wings configuration. I have explained in one of my earlier post about why JF-17 would be much more maneuverable especially in the more important pitch role (because of LERX and DSI).

Also LCA's maximum achieved 5.5g and only 19 ( or was it 22?) degree of AoA speaks for its maneuverability. Not to mention its 1.5 ton overweight.

as i've said earlier...the standards of any airforce are of paramount importance....there's no compromise in that.the end result shoud be good.i am concerned with discussing stealth here.

This clearly proves the LCA has fallen short of the IAF standards.

This thread is LCA vs JF-17 and stealth is but just one feature. Remember, inlets are A MAJOR RCS REDUCING FEATURE. Exposure to compressor and blades not only is highly reflective but also compromises on the identification of the plane using modern techniques like JEM. The JF-17 clearly wins with its DSI.

Frankly, as soon as you load your weapons onto your plane...much of its so-called stealth is compromised and it can be detected by most radars in employment today.

 

[Bull]

Yes, you forgot to tell that the devine plane still fails to meet IAF's requirements and no further orders are made sofar despite all the greatness it possess.

Its a not a out of the world fighter jet, a lot of sympathy and expectations are laid on it bcoa its made in India, a domestic effort. Its suppose to be a cheap and agile fighter to match and better the Mig 21s its replacing.

So why should IAF come and hug this plane up, its not divine. And most of the things that we sya it will have are already with us and the progress ha been steady ever since it first flew in 2001.

I dont care if took a '00 years to buiolt it as the next time we try something we definitly would save a lot of time and thats good enough for me.

JF 17 is , might be a capable fighter. I dont know as most of the things it would have wil be replaced by western items likes radar, missiles etc.

 

[ALi Rizwan]

just check this out.


360 degree turn

F-16 took 18 sec
JF-17 20 sec
&
LCA took 30 sec

From 00:38 to 01:08

 

[wangrong]

1、PLAAF has not spent 1 dollar on JF17.

2、PLAAF wants to reduce JF17's price.

3、CAC and PLAAF have the difference in the price.

4、I think that PLAAF will order JF17s.

 

[hj786]

are you comparing LCA markI to LCA markII or LCA to JF-17?
if LCA markII would have a better maneuverability than the markI..it doesnt mean that the mark I had lesser maneuverability than the JF-17 thunder does it?

You guys are the ones saying LCA Mark 1 is more manoeuvrable than JF-17 even though you have no evidence for that whatsoever. We have evidence that LCA's manoeuvrability is not up to scratch because it is being redesigned specifically to improve manoeuvrability. Simple.

as i've said earlier...the standards of any airforce are of paramount importance....there's no compromise in that.the end result shoud be good.i am concerned with discussing stealth here.

Why are you discussing stealth when LCA is not stealthy? Just because the designers may have took measures to reduce RCS, it doesn't become a stealth fighter. In any case, you have absolutely no figures to prove that LCA's RCS is lower than that of a damn airliner, you're just here shouting "LCA has 50% composites and jammers so it's a 50% stealthy fighter" (the stuff claimed by the manufacturer than exaggerated on places like BR) even though articles from neutral and reliable sources have proved otherwise.
Boeing 787 Composite Fuselage
By your argument, the 787 is stealthy too! LOL.

JF 17 is , might be a capable fighter. I dont know as most of the things it would have wil be replaced by western items likes radar, missiles etc.

I disagree. It IS a capable fighter or PAF wouldn't have developed it. They could have went for an all J-10 and F-16 fleet, but they developed JF instead and are buying 275 of them, increased from 250 we had been hearing last year.

Also, what proof do you have that "most of the things it would have wil be replaced by western items"?