JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

[ersakthivel]

No aircraft is all metal.and dont believe in both DRDO and HAL.they are pathological liars..dont you remember they are giving off deadline since the past 1 decade and are not upto time in a single project..meanwhile with the funds provided and 3 decades development time..i am 100% sure even afghanistna would have now made LCA operational

It shows your pathetic understandings of the time lines of LCA compared with other fighter programs of similar class and complexity.

In 1983 they allotted 560 cr for setting up infra and do feasibility study.

Infact ADA it self was set up at 1983. So you don't expect a newly set up organisation to commence fighter design from day one. It needed may types of infra and man power.

The FSED phase -1 (first metal cut) for Tejas commenced at 1993 with 2500 cr alloted by govt.And he TDs 1 and 2 were built. And TD -1 flew with digital FCS software in 2001. Just 8 years after the first metal cut.Then other planes joined.

And in 2004 IAF asked for R-60 close combat missiles to be replaced with heavier more launching stress inducing R-73 missiles.Which led to re engineering of the wing , since the R-73 imposes more launching stress on the wing. For that FSED-2 commenced at 2004 and it was completed
with IOC in 2012.

The RAFALE and TYPHOON too have 17 to 18 years time from first metal cut to induction. Compared to that Tejas mk-1 took 20 years for FOC. You may say still it is 4 years late. But if you factor in the re engineering of wings with more strengthened frame and the relative inexperience of ADA it is comparable.

http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page01.html

Go to the above website and read the article fully before making any ill informed comment on tejas time line. There are many MADMAX guys fretting around in the net about 3 decade , 4 decade delays of tejas development. Don't join the gang.

so dont believe in DRDO and HAL words.Composites in lca is a myth and a bluff by drdo to fool off the indian or false pride.

this is the reason

*JFT weighs less or similar to LCA despite only using 8% of composites vis a vis 40% in lca
*Material and finishing quality of LCA reminds me of late 60's brand new manufacture Mig 21 even after using 95% of composites on its skin.vis a vis JFT which finishing quality is even better than Gripen and comparable to EFT

So believing your factually incorrect statements and disbelieving ADA and DRDO is a very hazardous job, I won't volunteer.
The Tejas mk-2 can carry 5 ton weapon load with more or less same weight.Can JFT mk-2 do that?
The reason Tejas mk-1 carries around 4 tons only with excess weight is , it's massive wings and far lower wing loading than the all metal JF-17.

Fighters with lower wing loading have very high instantaneous turn rate , which will lead to better nose control authority and much better kill rate with High off bore sight HMDS cued missiles like PYTHON and R-73 in close combat.

That is the reason tejas mk-1 carries has more or less same empty weight as JF-17 , even when it uses 40 percent composites in construction.

All low wing loading deltas have higher empty weight than similar load carrying high wing loading fighter like JF-17 , because their bigger wings weigh more.But this heavier wing enables excellent close combat instantaneous turn rate resulting in first kill probability High off bore sight HMDS enables WVR missile shot.

The above is the wing form of Miss February 6th gen concept unveiled by Boeing. Just compare the wing form to the wing form of JF-17 and Tejas and conclude which wing form is up to date.

If tejas mk-1 gets a higher powered engine in first engine change like the K-10 Kaveri to be developed for AMCA it will be able to carry more load, because the cumulative rating of all the pylons of it's wings are close to 5 tons. So excess capacity is built into tejas mk-1 from the design phase anticipating higher powered engines of the future and that's why Tejas mk-2 with much higher weapon load of 5 tons will still retain the same empty weight of MK-1.

Right now LSps are being made at older production line, the reason being no one will invest 1000s of crores to set up a production line for 10 LSPs. Once serial production has begun(as it is now)this production line will be modernized leading to better finish.if you have any doubt look at the picture of first SU-30 MKi which was made by HAL.

 

[sayareakd]

@farhan_9909 pathological liars is applicable to state of Pakistan, which has always taught lies to its citizen from winning all wars, to the lie of PAF won every war and most important lie how to lie about defeat, we have broken your country and made Bangladesh or else you would have taught that 1971 was your win and great glory for PAF...........

 

[ersakthivel]

Lca tejas

Miss February 6th gen concept by Boeing which too has the same cranked delta wing

All wing forms of the future have some kind of cranked or compound delta shapings or low wing loading high wing area airframe as shown above.

Jf-17 below which has older wing form

So wing form of the JF-17 is decidedly of the previous century design. That is why Chinese dumped it on PAF.These high wing loading fighters won't take off with much load in high altitude himalayan airfields, where low Wing loading high wing area fighters can carry more weapon load when taking off from high altitude himalayan airfields as well.

 

[farhan_9909]

With no evidence.

That's what I'm saying. LCA has a larger wing area than JF-17 by a wide margin of 14 square metres and yet weighs lesser when empty. How do you explain this unless LCA uses composites and JF-17 doesn't? Or maybe it's because LCA uses more composites than JF-17 as claimed by DRDO and HAL who are "pathological liars".

LCA is superior to JF-17 simply because it has much higher payload, range and thrust to weight ratio. It's as simple as that.

@p2prada sir, help me out by reading the last 3 pages since farhaan bhai claims JF-17 uses superior composites to LCA and that LCA using composites is a myth without any evidence. He also states that JF-17 RCS is lower. Any comments on this?

i told you read the last few pages..i had already posted about ths.

Wrong as usuall once again
JFT has a much higher payload(Zhuhai airshow 2012 official specs of JFT.posted again already),Range and twr.
prove me wrong..and i will prove you wrong.but if you browse the few last pages or search for the official specs of JFT and the most latest revealed in 2012 nov zhuhai airshow

which mention the 4600kg payload
range as in the past and is still now 3400km and twr or 0.97(compared to 0.85 of lca)

 

[sayareakd]

i told you read the last few pages..i had already posted about ths.

Wrong as usuall once again
JFT has a much higher payload(Zhuhai airshow 2012 official specs of JFT.posted again already),Range and twr.
prove me wrong..and i will prove you wrong.but if you browse the few last pages or search for the official specs of JFT and the most latest revealed in 2012 nov zhuhai airshow

which mention the 4600kg payload
range as in the past and is still now 3400km and twr or 0.97(compared to 0.85 of lca)

Pounds to Kilograms. 7900 Pounds (lb) = 3583.37972 kg

without changing anything you guys have achieved what you are claiming

 

[sayareakd]

Add to above they have not even made Junk fighter block II, nor it is flying with new engine, still it can carry more weight. Chine has good way for sales promotion of ts fighter to third world by putting new figures on the display board and Pakistanis are felling over one another to praise it........ even polluting our forum with non sense .............

 

[The Last Stand]

i told you read the last few pages..i had already posted about ths.

Wrong as usuall once again
JFT has a much higher payload(Zhuhai airshow 2012 official specs of JFT.posted again already),Range and twr.
prove me wrong..and i will prove you wrong.but if you browse the few last pages or search for the official specs of JFT and the most latest revealed in 2012 nov zhuhai airshow

which mention the 4600kg payload
range as in the past and is still now 3400km and twr or 0.97(compared to 0.85 of lca)

What a load of crap.

Who gave you this data?

@sayareakd has rebuffed payload.

Thrust to weight ratio of LCA is 1.07 when compared to JF-17's 0.95. Who told you that LCA has thrust to weight ratio of 0.85?

And LCA MK-II will receive an even better F-414 or GTRE engine which will raise its thrust to weight to 1.12 or more.

Give me your sources.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

It is basically the fuselage seems a straight from the Mig 21, a perfect full barrel without any area ruling a Mig 21 with side inlets, a clipped delta wing with the tail plane and elevators "kicked" out , along with LERX , all lifted from F-16 . It is basically a more evolved version of the mods that the Chinese did on the Mig21s, including ones with side inlets J-8 I think and twin R-25 engines .

So it is basically a "technology infused" Mig21 with better radar a more rudimentary FBW, areo lessons incorporated in the 70s from F-16 and a newer gen engine with better t:w ratio (the RD-93).

I think the credit should be going to the marketing deparment of the Chinese Manufacturer for doing this so bloody well. The Pakis are out there selling this as a shining example of 50/50 partnership and fast praced prototyping to production model. If I was there I would be clapping at the Aircraft demo and capabilities and my head would be in the direction of the Chinese.

Take solace in the fact that we will master the basics and the complicated facets of manufacturing an aircraft after LCA and Naval LCA are inducted and the next time around the products coming out will be fasters and better.

JF-17 is often touted as the Pakistani LCA or Indian LCA equivalent by the Pakis and we should understand why they are doing. They don't have a freckin clue about building a 4th gen fighter from scratch. So the public must be misled about the true nature of development and production and it looks like we have picked up some of that propaganda as well. If you want to understand how well they do it , ask a Paki about their space programme... apparently NASA is asking Pakis to help them go to moon.

If the JF-17 is Pakistani then rejoice at the face that the Mig-29 is Indian, cause we overhaul, change engines, install launch rails, wipe windscreen, check tire pressure and change the oil just as well as the Pakis do on their JF-17.

 

[ersakthivel]

i could be wrong please correct me

LCA use 40% composites
JFT pt-04 had 8%.

So far this is what i know about composites

*They are lighter hence decreasing the over all weight.
*They increase the airframe life
*Decrease the RCS???

Now posting the dimensions of Both LCA and JFT

LCA


JFT



JFT

*5ft lengthy
*5ft more wingspan
*1ft taller

Yes all the above 3 to a certain extent contributes to weight

LCA
*Larger wing area


Now add to JF-17 weight (158kg fuel capacity)=Total JFT weight 6788kg
LCA 6500kg

LCA use 40% composites
JFT use 8%.

THis give rise to 2 possibilities

*Either No composites are used in LCA and the officials are laying as like they are laying about the induction of LCA since 2003.
*super low quality of composites are used

Note:Remind me when JFT 2 is revealed along with official specs.that will have 30-35% use of composites.

Composites in LCA is a myth if we look into the above matter
farhan_9909 ↑

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...lca-tejas-vs-jf-17-thunder-46.html#post740585

The reason Jf-17 has no composites is the chinese had no composite tech when they were building it.

Even their J-10 was all metal fighter. Only in the newer J-10 b version they are using composites.So there is no question of them using composites in the much older design of JF-17.

Do you understand what the larger wing area means?

it mens there is more weight on the wing. And to support this higher weight wings the fuselage of tejas needs additional strength meaning even more weight. All this weight was brought down by using composites making a much larger in volume tejas having almost the same weight lower volume all metal JF-17.

So nobody is lying here. it is only you who is getting confused failing to understand this simple logic.

About your 2003 LCA induction , if funds of 2500 cr was alloted in 1983 , and if IAF didnot upgrade it's ASR later, it could have been possible to induct LCA by 2003. Both did not happen. Funds for FSED phase-1 was allotted in 1993, and once the Tds and Pvs demonstrated the basic viability of the design , IAF revised it's ASR by asking for much higher weight , much more launching stress inducing R-73 in place of the older R-60 ,it specified in 1983, according to the availability in that time.

By the way the funding for the first metal cut of Tejas was approved in 1993.

Then how it can be inducted in 2003?



None other thn MSD Woollen who was the chief of both the IAF and HAL himself has compared the timelines of Tejas along with eurofighter(17 years) and RAFALE(16 years) and GRIPPEN and said that the realistic IOC date for tejas is 2010. It got there 3 years later owing to revised ASR from IAF.

SO whom you are trying to confuse by saying ADA promised LCA induction in 2003( with the present capability)?

The original ASr of 1983 called for 12 ton MTOW, 1.5 mach top speed, 17 deg STR,

Now even with FCS restrictions of 6gs (full capacity 8Gs),
22 deg AOA (full capacity-24 to 26 deg)
and 70 percent flight envelope at IOC,

Tejas has demonstrated a top speed of mach 1.6, (design target of mach 1.8 at FOC)
STR more than 18 deg/per sec(via 20 second vertical loop in Aeroindia 2013, note this STR will increase further in FOC once 8GS and AOA of 24-26 deg is permitted by FCS),
MTOW of 13.5 tons,

So why are you saying ADA is lying/ Compare this to your super duper JF-17 , which is yet to do a vertical loop e even years after induction, then who is lying?



If IAF revised ASR for Tejas with higher launching stress inducing R-73 missile instead of R-60 in 2004 leading to FSED phase-2 commencement in 2004, then which mad man told you LCA can be inducted in 2003 with present specs?

 

[ersakthivel]

The reality is that PAF allowed the Chinese official as well as the PAC engineers to look deep into the PAF f-16..which infact is the reason of 95% similarity of JFT and f-16

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...lca-tejas-vs-jf-17-thunder-46.html#post740585
FARHAN

However deeply they look into your F-16, they cannot replicate the RSS airframe design and complex FBW just by looking it. It needs complete integral development of CLAWS for FCS and the implementation of principles of RSS airframe developed in tandem from the scratch at design phase itself.

That's why JF-17 is a useless crap belonging to the previous century, junked by the chinese on unsuspecting 3rd world airforces like PAF.

Even the trainers of future will have RSS air frame (considering the USAF tender to which Grippen proposes it's stripped down version of Grippen -c)

So JF-17 is below the tech level of future USAF trainers.So no LREX, reshaped nose cone, or DSi will save it from being an obsolete target practice for Fully Relaxed Static Stability , low wing loading ,ultra high ITR fighter like tejas in close combat


.
So other than firing long range chines BVR missiles(which will be dodged in future with modern EW counter measures), Jf-17 won't win any close combat with Tejas purely on agility, because of it's wing form giving it a far , far lower ITR , which won't allow it the quick first WVR missile shot on a high ITR(the signal spec of all cranked or compound deltas) fighter like Tejas.

Because of it's much higher RCS thanks to it's obsolete MIg-21 evolved airframe along with all metal body , a JF-17 pilot will have to deal with the reality of being targeted with a long range BVr shot from all composite skin, low RCS design fighter like Tejas, even before he sees Tejas on his radar screen.SO in fact JF-17 won't have any useful advantage over Tejas even in this count.


No corbotto post or Antibody post or Oscar the MOD of another forum are going to change this pathetic reality. This is why 3rd world bankrupt country air forces like PAF induct JF-17 as a cheap alternative for numbers,

.And another important impediment for you getting any decent fighter or avionics of for JF-17 is stated in your own post, i.e , you let chines the world's most efficient copiers to have a deep look into any thing you have.So which fool will deliver top line equipment to you and let it be copied lock stock and barrel by chinese?

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

buddy they won't listen so leave it

 

[farhan_9909]

Search about JFT official specs from Zhuhai airshow 2012.even i had posted that.which mentions the latest official figure of 4600kg payload(after the extensive stress test for the last 2 years in 2011 and 2012) on the same older platform.this was the reason the payload was later increased to upto 4600kg.

otherwise wait for me.since i am slightly busy now.and will reply later.though this has been already posted.

beside this LCA wont even have 1.07 twr with 98kn engine..a complete detail of lca,MKI and JFT twr is posted few pages back.with the calculation done by an indian
sancho if anyone know him

 

[DivineHeretic]

The entire capability of the JF-17 is based on the future. None of the 'killer' capabilities touted by the PAK fanboys as its claim to superiority are current. Every single of these capabilities "will be inducted in the future". And this pretty much includes everything expected in a modern fighter. And yet, the JF-17 is supposed to be the answer to every problem of the PAF faces.

'The JF-17 is already superior to the Mig-29. In fact the Fulcrum or even the Mirage is no match for the new and mean kid on the block'. The reality- The JF-17 has an Italian Radar and a limited ECM suite, at best, while its inferior opponents have a very good radar, an IRST and a very capable ECM suite. But hey, the JF-17 will have a AESA radar, and superior Chinese ECM suite and a future IRST. Its always 'in the future'.

The JF-17 is better than the F-16. Reality check...the JF-17 is barely even in the same generation as the falcon. The avionics, the ECM and the weapon systems for the Falcon are beyond the JFT by a comfortable margin.

But hey, the JFT will integrate the AIM-9x( despite its being clear the US will not allow access to source code). It will have an RSS design Whatever the critism, everything is wiped clean, because it will have a solution in the FUTURE. Thus the JFT is invulnerable today...

Meanwhile,The JFT does not have a IFR, despite it being one of the original requirements. The PAF is starved of funds, and is being forced to optimise what it wants given its coffers. The block 2 is a small improvement,, and will still not feature the IFR. There is no AESA radar,not even a PESA despite the fanboy declarations. There is no new ECM systems. The availability of the RD-33 engines is suspect in the event of conflict. The Chinese WS-13 is nowhere

But hey, The JFT will have a new chinese engine, a superior ECM, a stealth nose ( maybe even design) and what not in block 3. The fanboys never do give up, but then thats why they are called Fanboys.

 

[Decklander]

Search about JFT official specs from Zhuhai airshow 2012.even i had posted that.which mentions the latest official figure of 4600kg payload(after the extensive stress test for the last 2 years in 2011 and 2012) on the same older platform.this was the reason the payload was later increased to upto 4600kg.

otherwise wait for me.since i am slightly busy now.and will reply later.though this has been already posted.

beside this LCA wont even have 1.07 twr with 98kn engine..a complete detail of lca,MKI and JFT twr is posted few pages back.with the calculation done by an indian
sancho if anyone know him

I have read this thread with lot of amusement. very old saying, "wise shud keep mum when idiots rule". @Farhaan, you do not have any knowledge of how ac are built. I can create a wing with an area of 100 sqm which will be half the weight of another planform which is also 100 sqm. Pls do not compare JF-17 with LCA. How can anyone in the world compare and find commonality between a hawk and a sparrow?

 

[ersakthivel]

Search about JFT official specs from Zhuhai airshow 2012.even i had posted that.which mentions the latest official figure of 4600kg payload(after the extensive stress test for the last 2 years in 2011 and 2012) on the same older platform.this was the reason the payload was later increased to upto 4600kg.

otherwise wait for me.since i am slightly busy now.and will reply later.though this has been already posted.

beside this LCA wont even have 1.07 twr with 98kn engine..a complete detail of lca,MKI and JFT twr is posted few pages back.with the calculation done by an indian
sancho if anyone know him

I read all the bullshit and more spewed by the like of SANCHOs(think tanks!!!!!!!!!!) moaning , and whining that the one lesser pylon on Tejas mk-2 makes it useless.

Now you tell me what is the formula for calculating the TWR of a fighter?

This formula should be common for all fighters regardless of them being twin engined having any amount of fuel or empty weight

 

[ersakthivel]

beside this LCA wont even have 1.07 twr with 98kn engine..a complete detail of lca,MKI and JFT twr is posted few pages back.with the calculation done by an indian
sancho if anyone know him

many of SANCHO's claim are total BS like,

1. LCA mk-1 has not fulfilled IAF ASR and hence mk-2, the truth is the otherway around,Since Navy wanted a more powerful engine for deck operation need for mk-2 was born and IAF also saw the advantages and joined for mk-2, otherwise mk-1 fairly exceeds all the original specs set at 1983 ASR and meets all the 2004 revised ASR spec like firing R-73 missile,

2.And just having one pylon less than Grippen NG , tejas is far behind. In reality multi ejector racks are in use for a long time . Both grippen NG and Tejas mk-2 are going to use them, so this accusation is total BS,

3.Just because it has no canards it is far short of Grippen, The SU-35 does not have canards , does that mean it is inferior to SU-30?

4.Just because K-9 couldn't meet the IAF's revised ASR in 2004 leading to excess weight of Tejas , the GTRE kaveri engine is a total failure. The reality is it gives just the same amount of power as that of the Rafale engine. SO how do you call it a failure. IT just needs to be improved and perfected to the next level and it will be done.

5.Keep on claiming that because tejas is 30 years old it is obsolete.the truth is RAFALE and TYPHOON are older than tejas timeline. ANd from first metal cut to full induction all of them took close to 17 years ,Tejas took 20 years.


6.

Take Mig 29K as an example, it would be much better for IN if we can integrate an Indian AESA to replace Zhuk ME, or to integrate Kaveri K10 when RD33 MK needs replacements, than developing a fully fledged N-LCA with the same techs, but on a less capable plattform.
We would reduce the dependence on Russia, by increasing the indigenous content in the more capable Russian fighter!
That's why developing simpler modifications now is more realistic according to our capabilities, than dreaming of something that we might be able to develop in some decades.

giving witch doctor diagnosis like the one above saying that instead of developing LCA and AMCA we should be focussed on improving Russain fighters, implying , we are good enough to design an engine and subsystems , but not bright enough to make a plane!!!!!!!!!!!


7.

I am talking about the fighters we will operate for the nex 3 decades, MKI, Mig 29K, Rafale, LCA, FGFA. So since we will have these, we also have to think about how to make them more capable and less dependent. For IN I already stated that AMCA would be the most important project and not such a nonsense like N-LCA. But again, you have to listen and at least try to understand what I say.

For the next twenty years ADA should disband it's Tejas team and AMCA team . It should focus on improving the about to be obsolete Russain fighters for next two decades, and after the next two decades go to russia with a begging bowl for another new fighter!!!!!!!!


8.

Yeah, that's why Kaveri ended as a failure, LCA is still not developed, it's radar is not ready either and the only way out of it (ADMITTED BY DRDO) was and is to find foreign partners like Elta or Snecma.
On the other side, our most successful developments currently are Dhruv with Shakti engine and Brahmos, all thanks to credible help from foreign partners. Just like we got most of our knowledge in the radar and EW field from JV with Israeli companies, or why our privat companies are forming JVs, or simply taking over foreign companies to benefit from their knowledge... you can't be more wrong!

As I said, you simply have a too biased view to see even the reality of our indigenous developments and the involvement of foreign partners, which makes it not surprising that you don't want to understand facts. So lets leave it at that and don't waste more time.

LCA's radar is all ready and running in LSP=3 itself!!!!!!!!! LCA has already got IOC,and which fighter making nation does the electronics and RADAR all by itself with no foreign nation other than US and Russia?
Even in SU-30 MKI , India bought a bare bone airframe , engine, radar combo from Russia. Designed and integerated radar computer(russians are importing 64 of them from HAL!!! for their SU-30!!!!!), mission computer(locally developed for LCA), ew suit and all cockpit displays.

Does that mean russians must be declared incompetent and disband their SUKHOI design team ?



It is apparent that most of your posts here are motivated by such BS claims by SANCHO. So try to do your own analysis before
trusting some spurious source. like SANCHO.

 

[farhan_9909]

JFT block 1 payload is 4600kg

though the director of JFT from CAC presentation mentioned 4000kg payload.

JFT 2 with 700kg decrease in weight and 91.2kn thrust engine..must have a payload of 5.5tons or 6tons

official confirmation from zhuhai airshow 2012 by aero/CAC

Redirect Notice

Length: 14.0m
Height: 5.1m
Wingspan: 8.5m
Normal Take-off Weight: 9,100kg
Maximum Take-off Weight: 12,700kg
Maximum Thrust 8,700kg (afterburn)
Maximum External Stores: 4,600kg
Take-off and Landing Distance: 380/650m
Max Speed (mach): 1.6
Service ceiling: <16,700m
Ferry range: 2037km

and i pity your ignorism that china doesnt has composites tech..when even pakistan PEC has...the falco UAV manufactured in PAC is 100% made of composites..please watch the videos of PAC infra posted few pages back

comparing JFT with LCA is like comparing dream and reality

vis a vis JFT is a operational fighter and lca a demonstrator no wonder it is official now renamed as last combat aircraft or last chance aircraft or long awaited aircraft or technology demonstrator..

 

[ersakthivel]

JFT block 1 payload is 4600kg

though the director of JFT from CAC presentation mentioned 4000kg payload.

JFT 2 with 700kg decrease in weight and 91.2kn thrust engine..must have a payload of 5.5tons or 6tons

official confirmation from zhuhai airshow 2012 by aero/CAC

Redirect Notice



and i pity your ignorism that china doesnt has composites tech..when even pakistan PEC has...the falco UAV manufactured in PAC is 100% made of composites..please watch the videos of PAC infra posted few pages back

comparing JFT with LCA is like comparing dream and reality

vis a vis JFT is a operational fighter and lca a demonstrator no wonder it is official now renamed as last combat aircraft or last chance aircraft or long awaited aircraft or technology demonstrator..

we do have a very nasty nick name for the JFT, for decorum's sake, I won't write it here.The SAYRE has posted the photo of the poster itself saying that weight was in pounds. for that you gave no reply.

Even Mig-21 is an operational fighter, that doesn't mean Grippen Ng or Tejas is inferior to it because they were not operationalized.

Jf-17 has very old airframe layout with a small stub delta wing pasted on to a cigar like cylindrical fuselage , signifying it's design period of 1970s.

Tejas has cranked delta wing of the F-16 XL,
along with 40 percent composite in weight ,
RSS fly by wire tech from design phase,

and with the same empty weight of JFT, it can lift 1 ton more with 13.5 ton MTOW,

So you and your friends in your home forum like SANCHO can dream on as lca being last combat aircraft, you earned it with the kind of ignorance displayed here. But in a way it's true.

The lca will be the last combat aircraft or last chance aircraft any JFT pilot will encounter in skies, because after the duel the JFT pilot won't be in a shape to go for another combat or will get another chance at combat..

SO in a nutshell what you posted was correct.

 

[SamwiseTheBrave]

The reason Jf-17 has no composites is the chinese had no composite tech when they were building it.

Even their J-10 was all metal fighter. Only in the newer J-10 b version they are using composites.So there is no question of them using composites in the much older design of JF-17.

Do you understand what the larger wing area means?

it mens there is more weight on the wing. And to support this higher weight wings the fuselage of tejas needs additional strength meaning even more weight. All this weight was brought down by using composites making a much larger in volume tejas having almost the same weight lower volume all metal JF-17.

So nobody is lying here. it is only you who is getting confused failing to understand this simple logic.

About your 2003 LCA induction , if funds of 2500 cr was alloted in 1983 , and if IAF didnot upgrade it's ASR later, it could have been possible to induct LCA by 2003. Both did not happen. Funds for FSED phase-1 was allotted in 1993, and once the Tds and Pvs demonstrated the basic viability of the design , IAF revised it's ASR by asking for much higher weight , much more launching stress inducing R-73 in place of the older R-60 ,it specified in 1983, according to the availability in that time.

By the way the funding for the first metal cut of Tejas was approved in 1993.

Then how it can be inducted in 2003?



None other thn MSD Woollen who was the chief of both the IAF and HAL himself has compared the timelines of Tejas along with eurofighter(17 years) and RAFALE(16 years) and GRIPPEN and said that the realistic IOC date for tejas is 2010. It got there 3 years later owing to revised ASR from IAF.

SO whom you are trying to confuse by saying ADA promised LCA induction in 2003( with the present capability)?

The original ASr of 1983 called for 12 ton MTOW, 1.5 mach top speed, 17 deg STR,

Now even with FCS restrictions of 6gs (full capacity 8Gs),
22 deg AOA (full capacity-24 to 26 deg)
and 70 percent flight envelope at IOC,

Tejas has demonstrated a top speed of mach 1.6, (design target of mach 1.8 at FOC)
STR more than 18 deg/per sec(via 20 second vertical loop in Aeroindia 2013, note this STR will increase further in FOC once 8GS and AOA of 24-26 deg is permitted by FCS),
MTOW of 13.5 tons,

So why are you saying ADA is lying/ Compare this to your super duper JF-17 , which is yet to do a vertical loop e even years after induction, then who is lying?



If IAF revised ASR for Tejas with higher launching stress inducing R-73 missile instead of R-60 in 2004 leading to FSED phase-2 commencement in 2004, then which mad man told you LCA can be inducted in 2003 with present specs?

perchance that you are actually working in HAL/DRDO/ADA ?

 

[Black Blood]