- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
Well before arguing about ranges of various fighters,
people should use the same criteria for all fighters like,
their range on full combat load at full internal fuel only, at the same altitude
there is no point in adding drop tank fuels in basic range calculations.
because the efficiency of a fighter will become known when only they are compared against common yardstick,
There is no point in saying that I have a chines hand book that lists the defined in china military standard range of X and Y at A and B configuration while we are comparing other fighters on the condition of full weapon load with internal fuel only configuration.
If a range was not given for full combat loads at internal fuels only for a certain altitude there is no point in taking it a measure of efficiency of a fighter. Because simply there is no purpose in knowing how long your fighter flies empty with internal fuels only without knowing how long it will fly for sea level altitude with full weapon load on internal fuels only config.
There is no way in the world for the ,"only for export - not used by PLAF fighter like JF-17" to beat the ranges of experienced fighter makers who have churned out thousands of fighters that fly all over the globe, even more suspect when chinese have no engines of their own for all metal JF-17 which weighs around 6 tons.
It is to be expected that that the JF-17 which has a far lesser wing surface area than the Tejas to weigh considerably less than the tejas. the fact it does not means it can hold no edge over any other fighter in range. since it has no optimized engine for it either. And it was inducted into PAF with no IOC or FOC trials by PAF , also gives no clarity on it's full weapon load -internal fuels only combat range.
Also the new canard or cranked or compound deltas employ vortice generation to maximize the lift to drag ratio as has been explained on the F-16 XL design and are well suited for the high sub sonic cruise speed.
So simply saying that the due to delta design the Tejas has high sub sonic drag and , since clinging on to basic chinese range figures without giving the figures for full combat load , internal fuel only range will only confuse the matter further,
people complain after watching Tejas for a decade different figures are bandied out in different sources,
Then why can't they give a B]combat range on full combat load at full internal fuel only, at a particular altitude[/B] for the "well proven export only fighter" called JF-17?
Leaving aside the glorious LCA ,surely the chinese makers should have tested JF-17's combat range with full weapon load in internal fuel only condition before exporting them. Because without this buyer can not measure the effectiveness of the fighter and whether it will suit it's operational needs.
If they did what are the figures?
people should use the same criteria for all fighters like,
their range on full combat load at full internal fuel only, at the same altitude
there is no point in adding drop tank fuels in basic range calculations.
because the efficiency of a fighter will become known when only they are compared against common yardstick,
There is no point in saying that I have a chines hand book that lists the defined in china military standard range of X and Y at A and B configuration while we are comparing other fighters on the condition of full weapon load with internal fuel only configuration.
If a range was not given for full combat loads at internal fuels only for a certain altitude there is no point in taking it a measure of efficiency of a fighter. Because simply there is no purpose in knowing how long your fighter flies empty with internal fuels only without knowing how long it will fly for sea level altitude with full weapon load on internal fuels only config.
There is no way in the world for the ,"only for export - not used by PLAF fighter like JF-17" to beat the ranges of experienced fighter makers who have churned out thousands of fighters that fly all over the globe, even more suspect when chinese have no engines of their own for all metal JF-17 which weighs around 6 tons.
It is to be expected that that the JF-17 which has a far lesser wing surface area than the Tejas to weigh considerably less than the tejas. the fact it does not means it can hold no edge over any other fighter in range. since it has no optimized engine for it either. And it was inducted into PAF with no IOC or FOC trials by PAF , also gives no clarity on it's full weapon load -internal fuels only combat range.
Also the new canard or cranked or compound deltas employ vortice generation to maximize the lift to drag ratio as has been explained on the F-16 XL design and are well suited for the high sub sonic cruise speed.
So simply saying that the due to delta design the Tejas has high sub sonic drag and , since clinging on to basic chinese range figures without giving the figures for full combat load , internal fuel only range will only confuse the matter further,
people complain after watching Tejas for a decade different figures are bandied out in different sources,
Then why can't they give a B]combat range on full combat load at full internal fuel only, at a particular altitude[/B] for the "well proven export only fighter" called JF-17?
Leaving aside the glorious LCA ,surely the chinese makers should have tested JF-17's combat range with full weapon load in internal fuel only condition before exporting them. Because without this buyer can not measure the effectiveness of the fighter and whether it will suit it's operational needs.
If they did what are the figures?
If this is true then the same can be argued in the case for tejas Vs Mirage-2000 or tejas vs F-16 can it be?and 3000Km is the ferry range with the max external tanks. the FC-1's long range ability is a proved one and the design and test flight team claimed that this little bird has longer ferry range than another product from the same team with the Delta wing--J10
Last edited: