Race between Jf17 block 3 v Tejas mark1a,

[onlinpunit]

They too are junk. Only few electronics are changed. Substandard AESA (Air cooled), Substandard Targeting pod cum IFRTS etc. and substandard over hyped Chinese missile.

Demeaning JF 17 won't do us any good..
Thing is they got 150 Jets capable of launching BVR and SAW.
While we are stuck at 20 ( 6 with HAL) odd LCA of IOC variety.

 

[Bleh]

With all due respect a LSP is still LSP. Can any one confirm that there won't be any structural changes in LSP and upcoming MK1A.
If not then why they need 3 year time for development ?

LSP is ahead of a prototype, man!

No.. It hasn't been seen in a while. We know design changes in fuselage were tested & simulated, but no one actually knows what Mark1A will look like.

And mostly tech development & certification time. Lots of work to do on each & every aspect.

 

[onlinpunit]

LSP is ahead of a prototype, man!

No.. It hasn't been seen in a while. We know design changes in fuselage were tested & simulated, but no one actually knows what Mark1A will look like.

And mostly tech development & certification time. Lots of work to do on each & every aspect.

That's exactly the point.. even after signing the Deal for 83 MK1A we don't have a clue about MK1A structure and other aspects.
So won't t it be better if HAL come up with a brand new PT ?

 

[Lonewolf]

Truth is this , Chinese gave them value for money according to their potential .

Block 2 have a wide variety of weapons but radar and AVIONICS are shit , Design is okay not too bad , ( IT IS but better than what we say in slang ) , fbw are second grade ,no doubt , engine life is short , missile are okay not best , older Design of python not capability of latest one .

Block 3 ,is somewhat better ,new cockpit , maws , irst , targeting pod (not confirm ) , better thrust , newer missile but aerodynamic is compromised a bit , airframe is new ,so better than before ,but ew capability are not specified , maybe present , no obogs still , radar can't be used at full potential , shorter legs , combat radius .

It's basically can be between mk1a and mk2 based on poster specs , with some mk1a CAPABILITY missing in it ,only extra CAPABILITY is irst to keep it ahead of mk1a .


Mk2 us basically it's sugar Daddy ,who will wat it down .

Block 3 is still not inducted , what i want us a single big mfd in mk1a taken from mk2 , and a irst or irst pod if possible ,or on a extra hardpoint if space is available .

That will put it far ahead of blunder

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Flying hours 2000 bumped to 3000 with RD 93 MA. Engine upgrade is being reported and we will know that once Aircraft goes to production or near. Schrodinger's cat.

As per wiki, 4000 hours of life reduced to 2200 hours due to upgrade. Even if it does 93 kn, it will just be 4 kn higher than GE 404. So Tejas can easily have better T/W ratio. Till last year, engine was under development . There is mo confifmation whether it eill be used in JF 17 and if yes when. People declare JF 17 bette than Tejas.

Composites can have lighter weight, better strength, more sustenance to heat etc. Aerodynamic performance can be impacted by all three other than design too. It won't be a F-22 but was answering on improvements.

Please explain jow aerodynamic performance improves with the use of composite?

 

[Ghost hale]

As per wiki, 4000 hours of life reduced to 2200 hours due to upgrade. Even if it does 93 kn, it will just be 4 kn higher than GE 404. So Tejas can easily have better T/W ratio. Till last year, engine was under development . There is mo confifmation whether it eill be used in JF 17 and if yes when. People declare JF 17 bette than Tejas.







Please explain jow aerodynamic performance improves with the use of composite?

1 - Try reading Post and stop making assumptions.
2 - RD 93M was claimed 3000 hours but gave 2000-2200. RD 93MA claim 4000 hours. Expected value 3000 hours.
3 - Composite effect on jet. ok. Kindly google what happens If weight goes down for fighter jet or surface strengthening is achieved for fighter jet surface. I m done with explaining.

Lastly, who said anything about tejas T/W ration. I haven't calculated wrt to weight increase because of surface and canopy hardening in MK1a. Discussion was about current BVRs. Go back and read.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Flying hours 2000 bumped to 3000 with RD 93 MA. Engine upgrade is being reported and we will know that once Aircraft goes to production or near. Schrodinger's cat.

Composites can have lighter weight, better strength, more sustenance to heat etc. Aerodynamic performance can be impacted by all three other than design too. It won't be a F-22 but was answering on improvements.

Max range AAM tejas - Astra mk2 160KM.(in development)
Max range AAM JF 17- PL 15 250KM reduce it but it would be greater than 160.(developed)
Both have effective range much less. Astra should be 60-70 at max. PL 15 maybe a bit higher.
Radar range is helpful in missile guidance and enemy aircraft detection and a shot from 150 KM or 120 KM doesn't make much difference for all practical purposes.
Its always good to have better range radar to have first sight and better airspace planning. But its not end all be all.

U won't be throwing those comments to a fighter jet pilot. U will give them available info and these are data. U can have opinions but data speaks better.

They clain range more than 350 km as well but what is the weight of missile? India too have a 400 km range AAM bought from russia. They too have mach 4 speed. However, these missiles at the most be used as AWACS killer. They can not be used against fighter plane. China has made many such claims in past as well. When we tested Brahmis, they said that they have made a etter missile than Brahmos called Cx 01. That missile has remIned on paper till date.

We are developing SFDR with remjet and that too has a 280 kg weight. METEOR with rdmjet has 180 kg weight. Imagine the weight of a 350 kg missile with rocket ptopulsion. It will not be less than 350 kg. It can not be used as BVR against fighter plane.
Now imagine that it can hit fighter plane as well from 350 kilometre. However, Chinese radar in JF 17 block 3 has a range of 170 kilometres against V square metre target. Tejas has a RCS of point three square meter to at the most be e 0.5 square metre. So theoretically, JF 17 block 3 cannot detect Tejas before it come at least 60 kilometre closer. While Tejas can detect JF 17 with one square metre RCS at least 100 plus kilometre away. So longer range missile integrated with KJL 7 type of radar is useless. Tejas can see JF 17 from 110 to 120 kilometres away while KJL will have to wait till Tdjas comes closer to 60 kilometres.JF 17 will have gone by then.

Now you say that Data should speak. I gave data. The other data says that Su 30 detected J20 300 km away. The other data said thatb 9 J10 crashed in a very short period of time. Data says that Pakistan sent F16 on 27th February 2019 to fight against Indian sukhoi 30 and other Indian planes but didn't send JF 17 which has crashed in good number in accident till date. So data proves the unreliability of Chinese fighters as I had claimed.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

1 - Try reading Post and stop making assumptions.
2 - RD 93M was claimed 3000 hours but gave 2000-2200. RD 93MA claim 4000 hours. Expected value 3000 hours.
3 - Composite effect on jet. ok. Kindly google what happens If weight goes down for fighter jet or surface strengthening is achieved for fighter jet surface. I m done with explaining.

Lastly, who said anything about tejas T/W ration. I haven't calculated wrt to weight increase because of surface and canopy hardening in MK1a. Discussion was about current BVRs. Go back and read.

Don't dodge the question. Give just a single reference that use of composite improves areodynamics. Dont escape by saying that google it. I have googled it and find nowhere that use of composite use improves aerodynamic. Tejas uses maximum composite so it should have best aerodynamics as per your logic. The aerodynamic study and work to make it more aerodynamic was useless. Please give the reference that use of composite material makes plane more aerodynamic. I am asking you again.

 

[Ghost hale]

Only because u tried to give points i m engaging. Don't let me regret this.

They clain range more than 350 km as well but what is the weight of missile? India too have a 400 km range AAM bought from russia. They too have mach 4 speed. However, these missiles at the most be used as AWACS killer. They can not be used against fighter plane. China has made many such claims in past as well. When we tested Brahmis, they said that they have made a etter missile than Brahmos called Cx 01. That missile has remIned on paper till date.

Anyone can claim anything. We discussed derby vs sd 10/pl 12. These are currently integrated. That is y I said read the post.

We are developing SFDR with remjet and that too has a 280 kg weight. METEOR with rdmjet has 180 kg weight. Imagine the weight of a 350 kg missile with rocket ptopulsion. It will not be less than 350 kg. It can not be used as BVR against fighter plane.
Now imagine that it can hit fighter plane as well from 350 kilometre. However, Chinese radar in JF 17 block 3 has a range of 170 kilometres against V square metre target. Tejas has a RCS of point three square meter to at the most be e 0.5 square metre. So theoretically, JF 17 block 3 cannot detect Tejas before it come at least 60 kilometre closer. While Tejas can detect JF 17 with one square metre RCS at least 100 plus kilometre away. So longer range missile integrated with KJL 7 type of radar is useless. Tejas can see JF 17 from 110 to 120 kilometres away while KJL will have to wait till Tdjas comes closer to 60 kilometres.JF 17 will have gone by then.

Tejas RCS quoted 0.5 is without load so ignore it for this point u made. The missile ranges also won't work even if I consider astra mk1 and 2 integrated because those are quoted ranges. U never fire missile at those ranges as it can be avoided easily. As per open source, 60-70KM is the NEZ of meteor which is considered the most for any current missile. So Radar range very much is fine for both as beyond 100-110 KM missile fire is deterrent hit not kill hit normally.

Now you say that Data should speak. I gave data. The other data says that Su 30 detected J20 300 km away. The other data said thatb 9 J10 crashed in a very short period of time. Data says that Pakistan sent F16 on 27th February 2019 to fight against Indian sukhoi 30 and other Indian planes but didn't send JF 17 which has crashed in good number in accident till date. So data proves the unreliability of Chinese fighters as I had claimed.

Anecdotes are not facts. Crashes are facts which u mentioned and there can be n number of reasons like illiterate PAF pilots(Joke ... don't take it seriously or else u start submitting their qualification for facts). Chinese jet crashes so they have below par avionics is not correct inference. Both are mutually exclusive statements.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

1 - Try reading Post and stop making assumptions.
2 - RD 93M was claimed 3000 hours but gave 2000-2200. RD 93MA claim 4000 hours. Expected value 3000 hours.
3 - Composite effect on jet. ok. Kindly google what happens If weight goes down for fighter jet or surface strengthening is achieved for fighter jet surface. I m done with explaining.

Lastly, who said anything about tejas T/W ration. I haven't calculated wrt to weight increase because of surface and canopy hardening in MK1a. Discussion was about current BVRs. Go back and read.

You just go back and read from whre had discussion had begun? You entered inbetween.

Here is the specifications of RD 93 which shows the life 1400 hours and ovrrhouling at 700 jours. Now, please post the reference of RD93 ma life is 4000 jours. I checkec wiki as well. It says RD 93 has a life of 2200 hours. So please post the reference in support of your claim.

United Engine Corporation - RD-93

ОДК

www.uecrus.com

 

[Ghost hale]

Don't dodge the question. Give just a single reference that use of composite improves areodynamics. Dont escape by saying that google it. I have googled it and find nowhere that use of composite use improves aerodynamic. Tejas uses maximum composite so it should have best aerodynamics as per your logic. The aerodynamic study and work to make it more aerodynamic was useless. Please give the reference that use of composite material makes plane more aerodynamic. I am asking you again.

Let us go step by step. Basic understandings.
1 - A low weight fighter with same or higher thrust engine should have better maneuverability or a high weight fighter?
2 - A strengthened lower wing would help pull better Gs or weaker?

Note : How much improvement is there between JF17 block II and block III cant be said so don't ask.
In which post who claimed JF 17 has more composite than tejas or is more maneuverable. Post it back.

Lastly.... Read what we were discussing and saying. I think patriot in u saw JF 17 better Tejas and forgot to read. See context we were talking about. Now discussion is happening on points no one claimed.

 

[Ghost hale]

You just go back and read from whre had discussion had begun? You entered inbetween.

Here is the specifications of RD 93 which shows the life 1400 hours and ovrrhouling at 700 jours. Now, please post the reference of RD93 ma life is 4000 jours. I checkec wiki as well. It says RD 93 has a life of 2200 hours. So please post the reference in support of your claim.

1 - I didn't quoted anyone. My discussion was contained in itself. check.

2 - Its RD 93 spec page not RD93MA. Check defence decode video. He said 4000 claimed. Can be less upto 2500(his assumption).
"
UEC was reportedly developing the RD-93MA since at least 2012, if not earlier.[2] In fact, UEC stated that it had gotten a request to develop the RD-93MA from a “foreign customer.” The RD-93MA was intended to offer a thrust of 9,300 kgf, a noticeable improvement over the RD-93’s 8,600 kgf.[3]

In addition, one could assume that the RD-93MA will also contain improvements from the RD-33MK (i.e., the improved variant of the RD-33), such as a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, longer time-between-overhaul (TBO), and a longer engine lifespan.

"

Is the New Klimov RD-93MA Engine an Option for the JF-17?

On 08 July 2020, United Engine Corporation (UEC) announced that one of its companies, Klimov, started testing its newly developed turbofan engine, the RD-93MA.[1] The RD-93MA is an improved variant of...

quwa.org

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Anyone can claim anything. We discussed derby vs sd 10/pl 12. These are currently integrated. That is y I said read the post.

And I explained why it is not true by gibing an example of Russian missile with 400 k. range with India and why India doesn't claim that India has 400 km bvr. You have not paid no attrntion to that.

Only because u tried to give points i m engaging. Don't let me regret this.

Anyone can claim anything. We discussed derby vs sd 10/pl 12. These are currently integrated. That is y I said read the post.

Tejas RCS quoted 0.5 is without load so ignore it for this point u made. The missile ranges also won't work even if I consider astra mk1 and 2 integrated because those are quoted ranges. U never fire missile at those ranges as it can be avoided easily. As per open source, 60-70KM is the NEZ of meteor which is considered the most for any current missile. So Radar range very much is fine for both as beyond 100-110 KM missile fire is deterrent hit not kill hit normally.

Anecdotes are not facts. Crashes are facts which u mentioned and there can be n number of reasons like illiterate PAF pilots(Joke ... don't take it seriously or else u start submitting their qualification for facts). Chinese jet crashes so they have below par avionics is not correct inference. Both are mutually exclusive statements.

Where did I say that because, avionics, plane crashes. They have bellow par avionics? Infact show me where did I even used word avionics?

Fine that you agree with the quality of chinese plane.

Tejas had 0.5 Sq meter rcs without liad is true bus same is true foe JF 17 as well. so if Tejas' RCS increases, so as that of Jf 17 that knocks off. What zi said that Tejas can see JF 17 from almost double distance still remain valid.

You are dodging my question of composite improving aerodynamics once again. I don't want to embarrass more so I let you go.

 

[Ghost hale]

And I explained why it is not true by gibing an example of Russian missile with 400 k. range with India and why India doesn't claim that India has 400 km bvr. You have not paid no attrntion to that.


Where did I say that because, cjinese plane crashes they have bellow par avionics? Infact show me where did I even used word aviomics?

Fine that you agree with the quality of Vhinese plane.

Tejas had 0.5 Sq meter rcs without liad is true bus same is true foe JF 17 as well. so if Tejas' RCS increases, so as that of Jf 17 that knocks off. What zi said that Tejas can see JF 17 from almost double distance still remain calid.

You are dodging my question of composite improving aerodynamics once again. I don't want to embarras
embarrass more so I let you go.

LAST POST FOR U.
U r funny man. Already replied. read posts in order.
NONE OF WHAT U SAID IS CLAIMED BY ANYONE.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Its RD 93 spec page not RD93MA. Check defence decode video. He said 4000 claimed. Can be less upto 2500(his assumption).

So this is what I say. You kept on repeating 4000 hours and now say that it can actually be less than 2500 hours.

Second thing: The reference you posted doesn't say anything about 4000 hours life. More over , it says that RD93 MA is not ready for integration and even testing. This is what I said but you guys declared JF 17 a potent plane on the basis of an engine which is not even in testing.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Let us go step by step. Basic understandings.
1 - A low weight fighter with same or higher thrust engine should have better maneuverability or a high weight fighter?
2 - A strengthened lower wing would help pull better Gs or weaker?

Note : How much improvement is there between JF17 block II and block III cant be said so don't ask.
In which post who claimed JF 17 has more composite than tejas or is more maneuverable. Post it back.

Lastly.... Read what we were discussing and saying. I think patriot in u saw JF 17 better Tejas and forgot to read. See context we were talking about. Now discussion is happening on points no one claimed.

Petrot in me see JF 17 better than Tejas? Are you all right Bro?

 

[omaebakabaka]

So this is what I say. You kept on repeating 4000 hours and now say that it can actually be less than 2500 hours.

Second thing: The reference you posted doesn't say anything about 4000 hours life. More over , it says that RD93 MA is not ready for integration and even testing. This is what I said but you guys declared JF 17 a potent plane on the basis of an engine which is not even in testing.

Normally engines can't boost that much in flying hours enhancement from an upgrade, if its 1400 hours then upgrade is unlikely to get to 2500 hours without reducing other params like not pushing the plane into stress envelopes? Also unless its a 2 front war, PAF will be grounded in first 3 days of war and Pak can't keep with us going forward unless congis or TMC traitors take over again....we are getting into 5T economy

 

[FalconSlayers]

It's not... Block1 is essentially equivalent to Tejas IOC standard, but Block 2 & 3 are definitely not as "junky" as Indians like to tell themselves.

JFT Block-3 is much advanced than LCA Mk1A, true. But Block-1 is useless and Block-2 is trash.

 

[Lonewolf]

JFT Block-3 is much advanced than LCA Mk1A, true. But Block-1 is useless and Block-2 is trash.

Not much advanced , define much advanced

 

[HariPrasad-1]

1 - Try reading Post and stop making assumptions.
2 - RD 93M was claimed 3000 hours but gave 2000-2200. RD 93MA claim 4000 hours. Expected value 3000 hours.
3 - Composite effect on jet. ok. Kindly google what happens If weight goes down for fighter jet or surface strengthening is achieved for fighter jet surface. I m done with explaining.

Lastly, who said anything about tejas T/W ration. I haven't calculated wrt to weight increase because of surface and canopy hardening in MK1a. Discussion was about current BVRs. Go back and read.

First you said that it has 4000 hours of life than you said that 4000 hours is claimed life but actually it xan be 2500 jours. Now you say It could be 3000 hours. Are bhai koi ek figure bolo na. Rahul gandhi kyu hote ho?

Once again google it. Are bhai if performance improves because of weight reduction is not aerodynamic improvement bro. I don't know jow many time will you keep repeating this to justify it? Why don't you leave it. I will mot ask you to.provide reference again.

It started with declaring JF 17 a better plane because of RD 93MA eith 9300 kn thrust. I ssid still Tejas eill have better T/W ratio because of lower weight.

where did I used word weight increased because of canopy hardning or anything similar? Why do you put words into my mouth?