JF-17 & Su-30 - Which will track & fire first?

[abdulbarijan]

If you dont know something this is your fault sir, by not beliving or accepting reality does not going to help you. Composites indeed have huge effect on maneuverability. A box madeup of tin plates joined through lakhs of rivets indeed affects structure maneuverability. Composites lead to light weight , more strength, rivet free and provide freedom from metal cracks and high maintence, made it more capable and maneuverable. There are even lots of other benefits as well, thats why new age boeing civilian aircrafts are fully made up of composits even they didnt need radar stealth and maneuverability so in future think 2 times before questioning others.
-Due to small range of JFT radar then Su30 it capablity to guide missile to its target also gets limited. So nothing complicate which you are falling to understand.
-Mirage is 4th gen, so I am also mentioning 4th gen slealth features like Terrain Hugging and others which are still capable to easily suppress **** air defence.
- Ofcourse LCA an indigenous platform, no need to feel bad about it.
- "radar cross section being denoted as RAC" means my message well understood to you, I dont require spelling marks from you so dont search spel mistakes.
- Sir, plz read it again. There I meant that if su 30 can guide a bramos to 300 km means its ablity is 300 or 300+. Far higher then JFT can even dream about. Bramos is not built for mosquitoes.
By the way you people should stop discussing abt the defence weapons and only discuss abt Nuclear bombs. when ever time come to face enemy your army and politicians run behind Nuclear Bomb. And when last time they faced enemy even having the best weaponry of that time Patton Tank and sabre still they preffered to putting down weapons without fighting.

Okay -- I replied to this message before but deleted it .. now that your commenting around on my profile .. let me just give you an appropriate response..

BVR Scenario (radar/missiles etc.)

-You claim that the radar on the JFT is a small radar .. well compared to the PESA onboard MKI it is .. But your wrong on the numbers ... radars aren't ballistic missiles in which you have a max range and you assume everything in this range is a goner ....

Coming back to KLJ-7 onboard JFT .. the basic KLJ-7 reported by Janes had a 75 Km range for 3m2 RCS. Then the claim by the manufacturer (NIRET) surfaced in a brochure which stated the range at 105 KM for 5m2 (almost the same range as the early APG-68) models .. Lastly in Kanwa an interview of the project director of JFT Mr.Javaid Ahmed quoted the range at 130 Km for 5m2 for KLJ-7 V2 which is onboard JFT now. For SU-30 MKI the usual claim is 140 KM for 5m2 which is a very good range and certainly is better than KLJ-7 V1/V2. Nobody would deny that nor even doubt it ..

Now as I stated, radar ranges aren't like ballistic missile ranges in which (well missile ranges also depend on the payload but lets assume the max ranges) you have a set range and everything in that range you can strike ... Radar more or less functions like a scope on top your regular firearm ...Looking through that scope you can easily see a deer from 1 odd KM ... But when your hunting rabbits you'll need to get closer to have a chance of finding it in your scope and targeting it accurately ...

In this case SU-30 MKI has a bigger radar (scope) but the JF-17 comparatively to the MKI is a very small target when it comes to RCS .. the same or even less then the F-16 C (quoted at 1.2m2 clean) ... The SU-30 MKI is a very big target .. infact the most of the Sukhoi series that were exported includes 27/30 etc. have massive RCS's quoted above atleast 10m2 clean. With the MKI you have canards in the front ... which the traditional sukhois didn't have and it increases the RCS even further.

Therefore, the advantage the SU-30 MKI gets with the PESA radar is more or less neutralized with its own huge RCS. The BVR engagement would happen at similar ranges and by the way I've already told you that JFT had kills over SU-27 .. you can now guess how that happened ...

Secondly, Your claim of how SU-30 MKI firing Brahmos shows how good its radar is, just shows how much knowledge you actually possess regarding the subject .... the ALCM's have independent guidance mechanisms like TERCOM, satellite guidance, INS, GPS etc. They are Stand off weapons to begin with, whose entire purpose is to not let the launching platform get in harms way ... These are not semi active radar homing missiles that would require the radar to illumine the target all the way through .. Therefore, they don't necessarily show how good your radar is .. a prime example being, the Mirage III Rose of PAF has been used time and again to test the RAAD cruise missile having a range of over 350 Km's -- does that mean that the Grifo onboard Mirage is superior to the PESA onboard MKI ?? Hell NO... infact Grifo is inferior even when compared to the basic KLJ-7, much less the improved version which is already in service.

Lastly, do consider the close proximity of India and Pakistan -- the fact that both airforces employ latest ground radars and have force multipliers in the sky in the shape of AWACS etc. that "advantage" of radar is negated .. and if you count in the EW capabilities of both the jets, the conversation becomes even more complex ...

Maneuverability ( tin box JFT etc.)

If JF-17 is a "tin box" .. then so is the SU-30 MKI with only 6-8% composite usage. In case of maneuverability composites will only help you in weight reduction, and that too only happens when you use them extensively. JF-17 does use a limited percentage of composites ... however when it comes to the "maneuverability" advantages the composites provide.. that is a little increase in the T/W ratio -- As of right now the empty weights of both LCA and JFT are in the same class 6.5 tonnes ... As far as a better T/W ratio is concerned .. you either don't know how to do your maths or your once again quoting figures without knowing them only to be embarrassed when actual figures are brought up ...
I suppose you got the idea from wikipedia which quoted LCA T/W as 1.07 + .. well if thats the case how come ... the same CAG report touts the aircraft as overweight and underpowered...
Coming to the wiki claims ... even by their claims of loaded weight and max thrust ... the T/W ratio turns out to be 0.96 more or less if calculated (20 thousand 200 pounds of force and 20 thousand 900+ pounds of weight) it is still nowhere near to the claimed 1.07. Now Here is another kicker, the actual Pound force figure of the GE f404 In20 onboard LCA tejas is stated to be 19,000 lbf by GE ITSELF ... When you calculate based on that figure, the T/W is reduced to 0.90..
The F404 Engine | Engines | Military | GE Aviation

While the claims of the RD-93 have ranged from the reported 86 KN up to 90+ KN .. to the point in the Paris airshow 2015 a PAF pilot claimed a 1+ T/W of the JFT ... and that claim isn't without any proof .. Check out the take off of the JFT .. It's a vertical take off ... then try to find a similar take off of any LCA tejas ... who supposedly has a better T/W.

4th Generation Stealth

Like I claimed there is no such thing as a stealth 4th generation aircraft. You might say there are some LO 4th gens which use RAMS and their designs to minimize the RCS and delay their detection. JFT itself being an example. The original stealth designs were around an in testing as far back as the WW-II . However, you can't call a LO 4th/4.5 gen jet a stealth aircraft. You just cant... with external loads and weapons their RCS is increased to a healthy 2-3m2 easily which modern AWACS and ground radars can detect from miles away... The concept of stealth was to minimize detection to a range in which even if detected the opponent wouldn't have any time to respond. That is why you have internal weapon bays for stealth fighters and their RCS is especially low..

Coming to your earlier claims of J-31 being a copy of F-35 -- The US said the same thing about J-20 being mirroring the F-22/35 .. but when you actually look at the difference in both the designs of J-20 and F-22 ... the difference is obvious ..

Lawmaker: Chinese J-31, J-20 'Mirror' American F-35, F-22 | Defense Tech

Similarly claims can definitely be made about how the J-31 looks like a F-35, but the J-31 is a twin engined fighter .. It does not employ the SVTOL technology .. as the F-35 does .. even the designs are different to an extent .. here is a quotation from the deputy general director & the head of the engineering of Migkoyan known as Artyem Mikoyan (do remember Migkoyan is the same company producing your migs fighter jets ) --- stating that

“It looks like a good machine, and although it obviously has some design solutions already tried on the U.S. fifth-generation fighters, it is not a copy but a well done indigenous design”

Russian Officials Reveal J-31 Engine and Describe Sales to China | Defense News: Aviation International News

By the way it is hilarious, that your still touting LCA as an indigenous aircraft when your pointing at the Chinese and saying they don't produce indigenous stuff ...

Bottom line is ... Your original point of JFT not being a threat to the IAF is bonkers .. It's actually a huge threat because now every time your trying to cross in to the airspace of Pakistan, your more likely to face a 4th generation aircraft which is generally on the same playing field as the aggressor aircrafts ... I've already given you a generic comparison of the M2k and Mig-29 with the JFT so I don't even need to say anything further on this ..

Your obsession with how LCA is indigenous, when you say Chinese equipment is not and you quote a report pointing the indigenous content at 35% is beyond funny ... then you say how JFT not being selected by Argentina means Kfir is better .. but yet LCA is not even able to replace the post WW-II mig-21 ... so Mig-21 being better then LCA logic doesn't work because LCA is Indian right ??? -- but sure you mention the ASR which you say even the F-16's failed which is funny on another level itself because that would mean that the requirements set for the MMRCA tender are the requirements set for LCA project ... then you resort back to how China is not taking the JFT, while I say this time and again on how an entire prototype is in China (PT-06) being tested with the domestic engine, being integrated with new weapons etc. However while making this point you forget the SU-30 that Russia took nearly two decades to induct after the project was underway ... You cite economic reasons for that ... yet can't accept the reasoning of 4-5 different projects underway for PLAAF/PLAN at the time ...

Bottom line is .. your obsessive ... and your arguments speak for themselves where everything Indian has to be superior then anything Pakistan or China field ... everything Indian will be more indigenous then anything China or Pakistan field ... and just to put in to perspective ... your LCA project is a good 5-7 years behind the JFT whose already gone through the integration process, already has FOC, already has conducted air raids, already has participated in exercises, already has an export order and already has an improved version in production ...

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Okay -- I replied to this message before but deleted it .. now that your commenting around on my profile .. let me just give you an appropriate response..

BVR Scenario (radar/missiles etc.)

-You claim that the radar on the JFT is a small radar .. well compared to the PESA onboard MKI it is .. But your wrong on the numbers ... radars aren't ballistic missiles in which you have a max range and you assume everything in this range is a goner ....

Coming back to KLJ-7 onboard JFT .. the basic KLJ-7 reported by Janes had a 75 Km range for 3m2 RCS. Then the claim by the manufacturer (NIRET) surfaced in a brochure which stated the range at 105 KM for 5m2 (almost the same range as the early APG-68) models .. Lastly in Kanwa an interview of the project director of JFT Mr.Javaid Ahmed quoted the range at 130 Km for 5m2 for KLJ-7 V2 which is onboard JFT now. For SU-30 MKI the usual claim is 140 KM for 5m2 which is a very good range and certainly is better than KLJ-7 V1/V2. Nobody would deny that nor even doubt it ..

Now as I stated, radar ranges aren't like ballistic missile ranges in which (well missile ranges also depend on the payload but lets assume the max ranges) you have a set range and everything in that range you can strike ... Radar more or less functions like a scope on top your regular firearm ...Looking through that scope you can easily see a deer from 1 odd KM ... But when your hunting rabbits you'll need to get closer to have a chance of finding it in your scope and targeting it accurately ...

In this case SU-30 MKI has a bigger radar (scope) but the JF-17 comparatively to the MKI is a very small target when it comes to RCS .. the same or even less then the F-16 C (quoted at 1.2m2 clean) ... The SU-30 MKI is a very big target .. infact the most of the Sukhoi series that were exported includes 27/30 etc. have massive RCS's quoted above atleast 10m2 clean. With the MKI you have canards in the front ... which the traditional sukhois didn't have and it increases the RCS even further.

Therefore, the advantage the SU-30 MKI gets with the PESA radar is more or less neutralized with its own huge RCS. The BVR engagement would happen at similar ranges and by the way I've already told you that JFT had kills over SU-27 .. you can now guess how that happened ...

Secondly, Your claim of how SU-30 MKI firing Brahmos shows how good its radar is, just shows how much knowledge you actually possess regarding the subject .... the ALCM's have independent guidance mechanisms like TERCOM, satellite guidance, INS, GPS etc. They are Stand off weapons to begin with, whose entire purpose is to not let the launching platform get in harms way ... These are not semi active radar homing missiles that would require the radar to illumine the target all the way through .. Therefore, they don't necessarily show how good your radar is .. a prime example being, the Mirage III Rose of PAF has been used time and again to test the RAAD cruise missile having a range of over 350 Km's -- does that mean that the Grifo onboard Mirage is superior to the PESA onboard MKI ?? Hell NO... infact Grifo is inferior even when compared to the basic KLJ-7, much less the improved version which is already in service.

Lastly, do consider the close proximity of India and Pakistan -- the fact that both airforces employ latest ground radars and have force multipliers in the sky in the shape of AWACS etc. that "advantage" of radar is negated .. and if you count in the EW capabilities of both the jets, the conversation becomes even more complex ...

Maneuverability ( tin box JFT etc.)

If JF-17 is a "tin box" .. then so is the SU-30 MKI with only 6-8% composite usage. In case of maneuverability composites will only help you in weight reduction, and that too only happens when you use them extensively. JF-17 does use a limited percentage of composites ... however when it comes to the "maneuverability" advantages the composites provide.. that is a little increase in the T/W ratio -- As of right now the empty weights of both LCA and JFT are in the same class 6.5 tonnes ... As far as a better T/W ratio is concerned .. you either don't know how to do your maths or your once again quoting figures without knowing them only to be embarrassed when actual figures are brought up ...
I suppose you got the idea from wikipedia which quoted LCA T/W as 1.07 + .. well if thats the case how come ... the same CAG report touts the aircraft as overweight and underpowered...
Coming to the wiki claims ... even by their claims of loaded weight and max thrust ... the T/W ratio turns out to be 0.96 more or less if calculated (20 thousand 200 pounds of force and 20 thousand 900+ pounds of weight) it is still nowhere near to the claimed 1.07. Now Here is another kicker, the actual Pound force figure of the GE f404 In20 onboard LCA tejas is stated to be 19,000 lbf by GE ITSELF ... When you calculate based on that figure, the T/W is reduced to 0.90..
The F404 Engine | Engines | Military | GE Aviation

While the claims of the RD-93 have ranged from the reported 86 KN up to 90+ KN .. to the point in the Paris airshow 2015 a PAF pilot claimed a 1+ T/W of the JFT ... and that claim isn't without any proof .. Check out the take off of the JFT .. It's a vertical take off ... then try to find a similar take off of any LCA tejas ... who supposedly has a better T/W.

4th Generation Stealth

Like I claimed there is no such thing as a stealth 4th generation aircraft. You might say there are some LO 4th gens which use RAMS and their designs to minimize the RCS and delay their detection. JFT itself being an example. The original stealth designs were around an in testing as far back as the WW-II . However, you can't call a LO 4th/4.5 gen jet a stealth aircraft. You just cant... with external loads and weapons their RCS is increased to a healthy 2-3m2 easily which modern AWACS and ground radars can detect from miles away... The concept of stealth was to minimize detection to a range in which even if detected the opponent wouldn't have any time to respond. That is why you have internal weapon bays for stealth fighters and their RCS is especially low..

Coming to your earlier claims of J-31 being a copy of F-35 -- The US said the same thing about J-20 being mirroring the F-22/35 .. but when you actually look at the difference in both the designs of J-20 and F-22 ... the difference is obvious ..

Lawmaker: Chinese J-31, J-20 'Mirror' American F-35, F-22 | Defense Tech

Similarly claims can definitely be made about how the J-31 looks like a F-35, but the J-31 is a twin engined fighter .. It does not employ the SVTOL technology .. as the F-35 does .. even the designs are different to an extent .. here is a quotation from the deputy general director & the head of the engineering of Migkoyan known as Artyem Mikoyan (do remember Migkoyan is the same company producing your migs fighter jets ) --- stating that

“It looks like a good machine, and although it obviously has some design solutions already tried on the U.S. fifth-generation fighters, it is not a copy but a well done indigenous design”

Russian Officials Reveal J-31 Engine and Describe Sales to China | Defense News: Aviation International News

By the way it is hilarious, that your still touting LCA as an indigenous aircraft when your pointing at the Chinese and saying they don't produce indigenous stuff ...

Bottom line is ... Your original point of JFT not being a threat to the IAF is bonkers .. It's actually a huge threat because now every time your trying to cross in to the airspace of Pakistan, your more likely to face a 4th generation aircraft which is generally on the same playing field as the aggressor aircrafts ... I've already given you a generic comparison of the M2k and Mig-29 with the JFT so I don't even need to say anything further on this ..

Your obsession with how LCA is indigenous, when you say Chinese equipment is not and you quote a report pointing the indigenous content at 35% is beyond funny ... then you say how JFT not being selected by Argentina means Kfir is better .. but yet LCA is not even able to replace the post WW-II mig-21 ... so Mig-21 being better then LCA logic doesn't work because LCA is Indian right ??? -- but sure you mention the ASR which you say even the F-16's failed which is funny on another level itself because that would mean that the requirements set for the MMRCA tender are the requirements set for LCA project ... then you resort back to how China is not taking the JFT, while I say this time and again on how an entire prototype is in China (PT-06) being tested with the domestic engine, being integrated with new weapons etc. However while making this point you forget the SU-30 that Russia took nearly two decades to induct after the project was underway ... You cite economic reasons for that ... yet can't accept the reasoning of 4-5 different projects underway for PLAAF/PLAN at the time ...

Bottom line is .. your obsessive ... and your arguments speak for themselves where everything Indian has to be superior then anything Pakistan or China field ... everything Indian will be more indigenous then anything China or Pakistan field ... and just to put in to perspective ... your LCA project is a good 5-7 years behind the JFT whose already gone through the integration process, already has FOC, already has conducted air raids, already has participated in exercises, already has an export order and already has an improved version in production ...

Loved your analysis, and please always keep it coming. However, maybe its not worth getting worked up by pedestrian analysis of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Anyway, thank you for a valuable contribution.

 

[Saurabh jindals]

Okay -- I replied to this message before but deleted it .. now that your commenting around on my profile .. let me just give you an appropriate response..

BVR Scenario (radar/missiles etc.)

-You claim that the radar on the JFT is a small radar .. well compared to the PESA onboard MKI it is .. But your wrong on the numbers ... radars aren't ballistic missiles in which you have a max range and you assume everything in this range is a goner ....

Coming back to KLJ-7 onboard JFT .. the basic KLJ-7 reported by Janes had a 75 Km range for 3m2 RCS. Then the claim by the manufacturer (NIRET) surfaced in a brochure which stated the range at 105 KM for 5m2 (almost the same range as the early APG-68) models .. Lastly in Kanwa an interview of the project director of JFT Mr.Javaid Ahmed quoted the range at 130 Km for 5m2 for KLJ-7 V2 which is onboard JFT now. For SU-30 MKI the usual claim is 140 KM for 5m2 which is a very good range and certainly is better than KLJ-7 V1/V2. Nobody would deny that nor even doubt it ..

Now as I stated, radar ranges aren't like ballistic missile ranges in which (well missile ranges also depend on the payload but lets assume the max ranges) you have a set range and everything in that range you can strike ... Radar more or less functions like a scope on top your regular firearm ...Looking through that scope you can easily see a deer from 1 odd KM ... But when your hunting rabbits you'll need to get closer to have a chance of finding it in your scope and targeting it accurately ...

In this case SU-30 MKI has a bigger radar (scope) but the JF-17 comparatively to the MKI is a very small target when it comes to RCS .. the same or even less then the F-16 C (quoted at 1.2m2 clean) ... The SU-30 MKI is a very big target .. infact the most of the Sukhoi series that were exported includes 27/30 etc. have massive RCS's quoted above atleast 10m2 clean. With the MKI you have canards in the front ... which the traditional sukhois didn't have and it increases the RCS even further.

Therefore, the advantage the SU-30 MKI gets with the PESA radar is more or less neutralized with its own huge RCS. The BVR engagement would happen at similar ranges and by the way I've already told you that JFT had kills over SU-27 .. you can now guess how that happened ...

Secondly, Your claim of how SU-30 MKI firing Brahmos shows how good its radar is, just shows how much knowledge you actually possess regarding the subject .... the ALCM's have independent guidance mechanisms like TERCOM, satellite guidance, INS, GPS etc. They are Stand off weapons to begin with, whose entire purpose is to not let the launching platform get in harms way ... These are not semi active radar homing missiles that would require the radar to illumine the target all the way through .. Therefore, they don't necessarily show how good your radar is .. a prime example being, the Mirage III Rose of PAF has been used time and again to test the RAAD cruise missile having a range of over 350 Km's -- does that mean that the Grifo onboard Mirage is superior to the PESA onboard MKI ?? Hell NO... infact Grifo is inferior even when compared to the basic KLJ-7, much less the improved version which is already in service.

Lastly, do consider the close proximity of India and Pakistan -- the fact that both airforces employ latest ground radars and have force multipliers in the sky in the shape of AWACS etc. that "advantage" of radar is negated .. and if you count in the EW capabilities of both the jets, the conversation becomes even more complex ...

Maneuverability ( tin box JFT etc.)

If JF-17 is a "tin box" .. then so is the SU-30 MKI with only 6-8% composite usage. In case of maneuverability composites will only help you in weight reduction, and that too only happens when you use them extensively. JF-17 does use a limited percentage of composites ... however when it comes to the "maneuverability" advantages the composites provide.. that is a little increase in the T/W ratio -- As of right now the empty weights of both LCA and JFT are in the same class 6.5 tonnes ... As far as a better T/W ratio is concerned .. you either don't know how to do your maths or your once again quoting figures without knowing them only to be embarrassed when actual figures are brought up ...
I suppose you got the idea from wikipedia which quoted LCA T/W as 1.07 + .. well if thats the case how come ... the same CAG report touts the aircraft as overweight and underpowered...
Coming to the wiki claims ... even by their claims of loaded weight and max thrust ... the T/W ratio turns out to be 0.96 more or less if calculated (20 thousand 200 pounds of force and 20 thousand 900+ pounds of weight) it is still nowhere near to the claimed 1.07. Now Here is another kicker, the actual Pound force figure of the GE f404 In20 onboard LCA tejas is stated to be 19,000 lbf by GE ITSELF ... When you calculate based on that figure, the T/W is reduced to 0.90..

While the claims of the RD-93 have ranged from the reported 86 KN up to 90+ KN .. to the point in the Paris airshow 2015 a PAF pilot claimed a 1+ T/W of the JFT ... and that claim isn't without any proof .. Check out the take off of the JFT .. It's a vertical take off ... then try to find a similar take off of any LCA tejas ... who supposedly has a better T/W.

Like I claimed there is no such thing as a stealth 4th generation aircraft. You might say there are some LO 4th gens which use RAMS and their designs to minimize the RCS and delay their detection. JFT itself being an example. The original stealth designs were around an in testing as far back as the WW-II . However, you can't call a LO 4th/4.5 gen jet a stealth aircraft. You just cant... with external loads and weapons their RCS is increased to a healthy 2-3m2 easily which modern AWACS and ground radars can detect from miles away... The concept of stealth was to minimize detection to a range in which even if detected the opponent wouldn't have any time to respond. That is why you have internal weapon bays for stealth fighters and their RCS is especially low..

Coming to your earlier claims of J-31 being a copy of F-35 -- The US said the same thing about J-20 being mirroring the F-22/35 .. but when you actually look at the difference in both the designs of J-20 and F-22 ... the difference is obvious ..

Similarly claims can definitely be made about how the J-31 looks like a F-35, but the J-31 is a twin engined fighter .. It does not employ the SVTOL technology .. as the F-35 does .. even the designs are different to an extent .. here is a quotation from the deputy general director & the head of the engineering of Migkoyan known as Artyem Mikoyan (do remember Migkoyan is the same company producing your migs fighter jets ) --- stating that

“It looks like a good machine, and although it obviously has some design solutions already tried on the U.S. fifth-generation fighters, it is not a copy but a well done indigenous design”


By the way it is hilarious, that your still touting LCA as an indigenous aircraft when your pointing at the Chinese and saying they don't produce indigenous stuff ...

Bottom line is ... Your original point of JFT not being a threat to the IAF is bonkers .. It's actually a huge threat because now every time your trying to cross in to the airspace of Pakistan, your more likely to face a 4th generation aircraft which is generally on the same playing field as the aggressor aircrafts ... I've already given you a generic comparison of the M2k and Mig-29 with the JFT so I don't even need to say anything further on this ..

Your obsession with how LCA is indigenous, when you say Chinese equipment is not and you quote a report pointing the indigenous content at 35% is beyond funny ... then you say how JFT not being selected by Argentina means Kfir is better .. but yet LCA is not even able to replace the post WW-II mig-21 ... so Mig-21 being better then LCA logic doesn't work because LCA is Indian right ??? -- but sure you mention the ASR which you say even the F-16's failed which is funny on another level itself because that would mean that the requirements set for the MMRCA tender are the requirements set for LCA project ... then you resort back to how China is not taking the JFT, while I say this time and again on how an entire prototype is in China (PT-06) being tested with the domestic engine, being integrated with new weapons etc. However while making this point you forget the SU-30 that Russia took nearly two decades to induct after the project was underway ... You cite economic reasons for that ... yet can't accept the reasoning of 4-5 different projects underway for PLAAF/PLAN at the time ...

Bottom line is .. your obsessive ... and your arguments speak for themselves where everything Indian has to be superior then anything Pakistan or China field ... everything Indian will be more indigenous then anything China or Pakistan field ... and just to put in to perspective ... your LCA project is a good 5-7 years behind the JFT whose already gone through the integration process, already has FOC, already has conducted air raids, already has participated in exercises, already has an export order and already has an improved version in production ...

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

I hope you asked Carlo Kopp for permission before posting his Skolink based assumptions.

 

[Saurabh jindals]

again look on graph carefully

I don't know what to say anymore ... your supposedly in here to argue with me ... yet the posts that you present on here support my narrative ...

Do I have to infact tell you how to read a graph ??? ...

Go right in the mid between the area representing the RCS (from 1m2 to 10 m2) ... construct an imaginary line right in between the area representing 1-10m2 ( this imaginary line represents 5m2) go up from there and look at the lines on the graph that represent the ranges at certain RCS's for the radars in question (NO11M Bars) ..

The line representing the range at a certain RCS and the imaginary line (representing 5m2) would intersect at somewhat below 150 Kmfor NO11 M Bars onboard MKI ... which would be around 140 KM for 5m2 which is exactly what I stated in the first place ... For the Bars with the increased output, the intersection happens a little over 150Km which would dictate that its ranged a little over 150 probably around 155 Km for 5m2 ...

So instead of making a mockery out of yourself ... go and read a little before and then try to discuss stuff .... instead of going straight in to arguments ... without even the knowledge of how to read a graphical presentation ...

I don't know what to say anymore ... your supposedly in here to argue with me ... yet the posts that you present on here support my narrative ...

Do I have to infact tell you how to read a graph ??? ...

Go right in the mid between the area representing the RCS (from 1m2 to 10 m2) ... construct an imaginary line right in between the area representing 1-10m2 ( this imaginary line represents 5m2) go up from there and look at the lines on the graph that represent the ranges at certain RCS's for the radars in question (NO11M Bars) ..

The line representing the range at a certain RCS and the imaginary line (representing 5m2) would intersect at somewhat below 150 Kmfor NO11 M Bars onboard MKI ... which would be around 140 KM for 5m2 which is exactly what I stated in the first place ... For the Bars with the increased output, the intersection happens a little over 150Km which would dictate that its ranged a little over 150 probably around 155 Km for 5m2 ...

So instead of making a mockery out of yourself ... go and read a little before and then try to discuss stuff .... instead of going straight in to arguments ... without even the knowledge of how to read a graphical presentation ...

Its Clear showing 3sq m 140 not 5sq m Sky Blue Line Graph.

 

[abdulbarijan]

again look on graph carefully

Its Clear showing 3sq m 140 not 5sq m Sky Blue Line Graph.

"clearly" .. "look again" The fact of the matter is this, if you actually look at the graph and then divide the 1-10m2 area in 2, and then from the center point which represents 5m2...

But since your clearly not satisfied by that ... let me quote you the man that created that graphical representation that you've quoted i.e Dr. Carlo Kopp ..

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.

Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power

1 NMI (nautical miles) = 1.85 KM

Therefore, 76 NMI = 76 multiplied by 1.85 which equals EXACTLY 140.6 KM ...

 

[Saurabh jindals]

"clearly" .. "look again" The fact of the matter is this, if you actually look at the graph and then divide the 1-10m2 area in 2, and then from the center point which represent 5m2 go up and look at where they would intersect ... the point turns out to be 140 Km for the basic NO11 M bars onboard MKI ... and for the other version it turns out to be 155 Km and that is for 5m2 ...

But since your clearly not satisfied by that ... let me quote you the man that created that graphical representation that you've quoted i.e Dr. Carlo Kopp ..



1 NMI (nautical miles) = 1.85 KM

Therefore, 76 NMI = 76 multiplied by 1.85 which equals EXACTLY 140.6 KM ...

You've just proven yourself wrong ... once again ..

as a good person again and again gave you chance to correct you yourself, but now I see you do not going to change your habbit and keep on twisting facts and figures. Here I showed you graph of searching range where clearly showing 140 Miles means 260km against 3sq m and again you bring in front me graph which is showing tracking range that to not of su 30mki but of its lower verson which is not present in IAF.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

"clearly" .. "look again" The fact of the matter is this, if you actually look at the graph and then divide the 1-10m2 area in 2, and then from the center point which represent 5m2 go up and look at where they would intersect ... the point turns out to be 140 Km for the basic NO11 M bars onboard MKI ...

But since your clearly not satisfied by that ... let me quote you the man that created that graphical representation that you've quoted i.e Dr. Carlo Kopp ..



1 NMI (nautical miles) = 1.85 KM

Therefore, 76 NMI = 76 multiplied by 1.85 which equals EXACTLY 140.6 KM ...

You can give whatever justification to the blind, it won't matter. All indian fighter aircraft have 3000NM range, radars have 1000KM range, and AAMs have 400 KM range, and engines and airframes are not life limited. They can fire on Pakistani aircraft without taking off from their tarmacs. They are parked started 24/7/365. They are all serviceable. They have 3:1 pilot aircraft ratio, and of course they are the best trained in the world. All LCAs will absorb hydrocarbons form the environment and won't need refuelling once taken off. All IAF pilots wear self cleaning pampers and don't need food for days.

Pakistan AF should packup and leave, and leave their ready rooms and hard tarmac painted with the Indian tricolor to welcome the superior IAF. You must believe all this as I am telling you...

Checkout KH-31 IAF playing wth it since last 15 yrs

BTW, not that this thread has anything to do with it, KF-31 is junk.

again look on graph carefully




Its Clear showing 3sq m 140 not 5sq m Sky Blue Line Graph.

The graph, is based on "assumptions" based on Skolink. If Carlo Kopp found out what you are suggesting, you may just get a bitch slap...

 

[abdulbarijan]

again look on graph carefully

Its Clear showing 3sq m 140 not 5sq m Sky Blue Line Graph.

You irritated moron I as a good person again and again gave you chance to correct you yourself, but now I see you do not going to change your habbit and keep on twisting facts and figures. Here I showed you graph of searching range where clearly showing 140 Miles means 260km against 3sq m and again you bring in front me graph which is showing tracking range that to not of su 30mki but of its lower verson which is not present in IAF.

Your argument in clear terms is that therange for the radar onboard the SU-30 MKI for the version in operation with the IAF has a range of 140 miles for 3m2 ... that is 260 Km against a 3m2 target which would translate in to a 295 Km range for a 5m2 target. You use the graphical representations by Dr. Carlo Kopp as a source to justify your claims ... and the argument that the version used on IAF MKI's is more powerful ...

So let me just break it down ... I said that the graphical representation that you quoted supported me as it gives 140 Km for 5m2,but the scale given was NMI. That was a mistake of mine and I withdraw the claim altogether .. as I delete/edit my older post ...

However, I maintain that the radar range of N-011M Bars is 140 Km for 5m2 RCS .... Following is the proof

Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI.
Dr Carlo Kopp
Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.
Dr. Carlo Kopp
Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power

76 NMI for a fighter sized target = 140 Km for a fighter sized target usually taken as 5m2

For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km.
The Su-30MKI Info Page - Vayu Sena

-A mig-21 as per "Advanced Array Systems, Applications and RF Technologies" by Nicholas Fourikis has a RCS of 4m2. So 135 Km for 4m2 ... If you calculate the estimated range for 5m2 it comes out to be 142.7 Km. (again confirming the claim made)

-F-16(A/B) versions before they had RCS reduction measures applied to them had a RCS that was comparable to that of a standard fighter i.e 5m2. Therefore again the claim is confirmed of 140 Km for 5m2. (although it goes up to 160 Km which may account for the versions with different outputs .)

Detection range for a MiG-29 type fighter
- at head-on courses - up to 140 km;
- at trailing courses - up to 60 km.

(Claims of the capability of the radar by the manufacturer)
Radar control system "BARS" for Su-30MKI, Su-30MKA, Su-30MKM fighters

A mig-29, like the older F-16 had a RCS of approx 5m2, until it was reduced in the latter Mig-29 K/SMT versions .. Therefore again, the claim of 140 Km for 5m2 RCS is confirmed... this time by the manufacturer itself ...

Bottom line ... all of the reported ranges of N011M bars onboard the IAF SU-30 MKI from the manufacturer, to Vayu Sena Tripod all the way up to the very source you put forth to counter the claims ... state that the radar range for N011M bars is around 140 Km for a 5m2 RCS.

 

[Saurabh jindals]

You can give whatever justification to the blind, it won't matter. All indian fighter aircraft have 3000NM range, radars have 1000KM range, and AAMs have 400 KM range, and engines and airframes are not life limited. They can fire on Pakistani aircraft without taking off from their tarmacs. They are parked started 24/7/365. They are all serviceable. They have 3:1 pilot aircraft ratio, and of course they are the best trained in the world. All LCAs will absorb hydrocarbons form the environment and won't need refuelling once taken off. All IAF pilots wear self cleaning pampers and don't need food for days.

Pakistan AF should packup and leave, and leave their ready rooms and hard tarmac painted with the Indian tricolor to welcome the superior IAF. You must believe all this as I am telling you...



BTW, not that this thread has anything to do with it, KF-31 is junk.



The graph, my son, is based on "assumptions" based on Skolink. If Carlo Kopp found out what you are suggesting, you may just get a bitch slap...

Just cool down here no war going on. I could have also used the same language like yours but I believe this is the difference in a Pakistani and an Indian (I am still giving you respect even after your bad behivour). Before giving comments you should have gone our conversation. Now again plz go through it you will realize yourself. I know they are assumptions but I choose it because it is neutral source otherwise someone could say I cant belive Indian source. Still this is not the matter. Matter was he is continuously manipulating the figures only just to prove himself correct. I am not here for unnecessary arguments or bad air I want meaningful debate and discussion, I like to gain correct information thats y I am here talking and dont come here just to lisnt music for your ears, Be realistic.
Also If you are not trolling then prove how KH-31 is junk ?

Your argument in clear terms is that therange for the radar onboard the SU-30 MKI for the version in operation with the IAF has a range of 140 miles for 3m2 ... that is 260 Km against a 3m2 target which would translate in to a 295 Km range for a 5m2 target. You use the graphical representations by Dr. Carlo Kopp as a source to justify your claims ... and the argument that the version used on IAF MKI's is more powerful ...

So let me just break it down ... I said that the graphical representation that you quoted supported me as it gives 140 Km for 5m2,but the scale given was NMI. That was a mistake of mine and I withdraw the claim altogether .. as I delete/edit my older post ...

However, I maintain that the radar range of N-011M Bars is 140 Km for 5m2 RCS .... Following is the proof





76 NMI for a fighter sized target = 140 Km for a fighter sized target usually taken as 5m2



-A mig-21 as per "Advanced Array Systems, Applications and RF Technologies" by Nicholas Fourikis has a RCS of 4m2. So 135 Km for 4m2 ... If you calculate the estimated range for 5m2 it comes out to be 142.7 Km. (again confirming the claim made)

-F-16(A/B) versions before they had RCS reduction measures applied to them had a RCS that was comparable to that of a standard fighter i.e 5m2. Therefore again the claim is confirmed of 140 Km for 5m2. (although it goes up to 160 Km which may account for the versions with different outputs .)



A mig-29, like the older F-16 had a RCS of approx 5m2, until it was reduced in the latter Mig-29 K/SMT versions .. Therefore again, the claim of 140 Km for 5m2 RCS is confirmed... this time by the manufacturer itself ...

Bottom line ... all of the reported ranges of N011M bars onboard the IAF SU-30 MKI from the manufacturer, to Vayu Sena Tripod all the way up to the very source you put forth to counter the claims ... state that the radar range for N011M bars is around 140 Km for a 5m2 RCS.

You are now with your point confusing me, Post the links which you are referring and I only made my claim based on the graph I posted, plz check it carefully. There clearly shown a mark representing 3sqm (there is no mark in graph of 5sqm) from there you find interception somewhere 140 (Skyblu line for su 30 mki radar N011M bars ). Also radar range is always calculated against 3sq m . jf 75 km is also against 3sq m. You can check all other radar ranges 3sq m is the common reference.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Just cool down here no war going on. I could have also used the same language like yours but I believe this is the difference in a Pakistani and an Indian (I am still giving you respect even after your bad behivour). Before giving comments you should have gone our conversation. Now again plz go through it you will realize yourself. I know they are assumptions but I choose it because it is neutral source otherwise someone could say I cant belive Indian source. Still this is not the matter. Matter was he is continuously manipulating the figures only just to prove himself correct. I am not here for unnecessary arguments or bad air I want meaningful debate and discussion, I like to gain correct information thats y I am here talking and dont come here just to lisnt music for your ears, Be realistic.
Also If you are not trolling then prove how KH-31 is junk ?


You are now with your point confusing me, Post the links which you are referring and I only made my claim based on the graph I posted, plz check it carefully. There clearly shown a mark representing 3sqm (there is no mark in graph of 5sqm) from there you find interception somewhere 140 (Skyblu line for su 30 mki radar N011M bars ). Also radar range is always calculated against 3sq m . jf 75 km is also against 3sq m. You can check all other radar ranges 3sq m is the common reference.

Every link is posted in the quoted statement ... you can click (on the dark green text present at the bottom of each quotation) to get to the page on which the claim was made ...

-Standard RCS is 5m2 ... the claims involving 3m2 are usually written as "XYZ amount of range for 3m2" .. However the standard fighter aircraft RCS is taken by default as 5m2.

-Regarding JF-17's I've already made this clear ...

1. Niret KLJ-7 has a range of 75 Km for 3m2 ( claimed by IHS Janes)
2. Niret KLJ-7 has a range of 105 Km for 5m2 (claimed by CETEC, the manufacturer of the radar)
3. Niret KLJ-7 V-II (upgraded version) onboard the JFT's has a range of 130 Km for 5m2 (claimed by the AM Javaid Ahmed, Chief Project Director of JF-17)

-Coming to the range of the radar onboard SU-30 MKI .. You claim that I've been manipulating the figures to prove myself right ... okay so here goes ... I've maintained from the start that the MKI has a 140 Km range for 5m2...Following is what I base it on ..

1. N011M bars quoted at 76 NMI (140 Km) for a fighter sized target (By Dr. Carlo Kopp, the same "neutral source" )
2. N011 M Bars quoted at 140 Km for a Mig-29 sized target (5m2) (Claimed by NIIP, the manufacturer of the radar)
3. N011 M Bars quoted at 135 Km for a Mig-21 sized target (4m2), which if converted for a 5m2 yields 142.7 Km ( claimed by Vayu Sena tripod, an Indian based website)
4. No11M Bars quoted at 140-160 Km for a F-16 sized target taken at 5m2 (for earlier A/B version of the falcons) (The range claimed by Vay Sena tripod, an Indian based defense website) ...

There is a constant here, and it is the fact that the published data beyond a doubt states that the N011 M bars range is around the 140 Km mark for a standard fighter radar cross section i.e 5m2. You can rely on charts which btw as @Bilal Khan 777 said are based on assumptions .. however the published data from 3 different sources including your own (Dr. Kopp), plus the manufacturer and an Indian defense site supports my narrative whether you like it or not ..

Radar control system "BARS" for Su-30MKI, Su-30MKA, Su-30MKM fighters
Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power
Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat
The Su-30MKI Info Page - Vayu Sena

 

[Saurabh jindals]

Every link is posted in the quoted statement ... you can click (on the dark green text present at the bottom of each quotation) to get to the page on which the claim was made ...

-Standard RCS is 5m2 ... the claims involving 3m2 are usually written as "XYZ amount of range for 3m2" .. However the standard fighter aircraft RCS is taken by default as 5m2.

-Regarding JF-17's I've already made this clear ...

Niret KLJ-7 has a range of 75 Km for 3m2 ( claimed by IHS Janes)
Niret KLJ-7 has a range of 105 Km for 5m2 (claimed by CETEC, the manufacturer of the radar)
Niret KLJ-7 V-II (upgraded version) onboard the JFT's has a range of 130 Km for 5m2 (claimed by the AM Javaid Ahmed, Chief Project Director of JF-17)

-Coming to the range of the radar onboard SU-30 MKI .. You claim that I've been manipulating the figures to prove myself right ... okay so here goes ... I say that the MKI has a 140 Km range for 5m2...

-N011M bars quoted at 76 NMI (140 Km) for a fighter sized target (By Dr. Carlo Kopp, the same "neutral source" )

-N011 M Bars quoted at 140 Km for a Mig-29 sized target (5m2) (Claimed by NIIP, the manufacturer of the radar)

-N011 M Bars quoted at 135 Km for a Mig-21 sized target (4m2), which if converted for a 5m2 yields 142.7 Km ( claimed by Vayu Sena tripod, an Indian based website)

-No11M Bars quoted at 140-160 Km for a F-16 sized target taken at 5m2 (for earlier A/B version of the falcons) (The range claimed by Vay Sena tripod, an Indian based defense website) ...

There is a constant here, and it is the fact that the published data beyond a doubt states that the N011 M bars range is around the 140 Km mark for a standard fighter radar cross section i.e 5m2. You can rely on charts which btw as @Bilal Khan 777 said are based on assumptions .. however the published data from 3 different sources including your own (Dr. Kopp), plus the manufacturer and an Indian defense site supports my narrative whether you like it or not ..


Radar control system "BARS" for Su-30MKI, Su-30MKA, Su-30MKM fighters
Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power
Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat
The Su-30MKI Info Page - Vayu Sena

What is your source for RAC of Mig 29 is 5 ?
what is the searching and tracking range of KJL - 7 V1 ?

 

[abdulbarijan]

What is your source for RAC of Mig 29 is 5 ?
what is the searching and tracking range of KJL - 7 V1 ?

-The V-2 is the only upgrade that I know of, so the V1 would be the basic KLJ-7 which as per PAF was better than APG-66 and as effective as western counter parts (the radar involved in the french upgrade) and the "operation range" as quoted by the manufacturer is 105 Km for a 5m2 RCS ...


-As for the RCS of Mig-29, look at the following excerpt ...

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2

Dr. David C. Jenn
Professor, Naval Postgraduate School
PhD, University of Southern California

 

[Saurabh jindals]

-The V-2 is the only upgrade that I know of, so the V1 would be the basic KLJ-7 which as per PAF was better than APG-66 and as effective as western counter parts (the radar involved in the french upgrade) and the "operation range" as quoted by the manufacturer is 105 Km for a 5m2 RCS ...

As for the RCS of Mig-29, look at the following excerpt ...


Dr. David C. Jenn
Professor, Naval Postgraduate School
PhD, University of Southern California

I found KLJ -7V2 will be a future upgrade, there is no mention about its specifications on company website.

 

[abdulbarijan]

I found KLJ -7V2 will be a future upgrade, there is no mention about its specifications on company website.

The upgraded version is already in service. Production of 10 aircrafts has already been completed (block II) --

Regarding the basic KLJ-7, I checked and there was indeed a mention of an upgrade back in 2008 ( a range upgrade was not mentioned), which could be termed V1, but that upgraded model is still what usually is considered as the basic version (as the first PAC JFT's were handed in late 09) which has a 105 Km for 5m2 RCS as it was the model that went in to service with the JFT blk-1...

However standard JF-17 for PAF would be the block II, meaning the remaining 50 JF-17's will be brought up to the block II standard ...If you want to know about KLJ-7 and how it's range was reported over the years ... you can look at the following ...

1.In 2008 Janes reported an upgrade in KLJ-7 ( i.e the radar could detect 40 targets, track around 10 and engage 2 at the same time)

China's NRIET outlines fighter radar improvements - Jane's Defence Weekly

2.Around 2009 official claims of range that were quoted in Jane's did indeed say 75 Km for 3m2 ..​

KLJ-7/10 Fire Control Radar (FCR) (China) - Jane's Avionics

3.Then the brochure of the manufacturer surfaced which said 105 for 5m2 RCS ..

4.Then the Kanwa interview with Javaid Ahmad (project director of JFT) mentioned 130 Km for 5m2 with the tracking capability increased to 16 aircrafts compared to 10 as reported by janes ... ( I think this was reported in the May of 2013)

5.Lastly, while there hasn't been another claim regarding the range of KLJ-7, lets not forget that there was a slide in the presentation of the chief designer (Dubai, Nov of 2013) which was putting an F-16 C/D model at 120 Km range ...

If we take the 130 Km for 5m2 RCS claim, and substitute the values, for the F-16C with a clean config RCS is reported around 1.2m2 and a loaded F-16C will probably be around an RCS of 3.5 m2 ... with this 3.5m2 consideration,the Approx range does indeed come out to be 118 odd Km's if we put the values in the formula ...


Bottom line ... The manufacturer claim for the basic KLJ-7 is 105 Km for 5m2, For KLJ-7 V2, the claim is 130 Km for 5m2 ..