LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[AbRaj]

This is what you have said

"LOL, Obviously Python with those large physical control surfaces , is slower than than TVC equipped Chinese, Russian and western counterparts during the endgame. But obviously you can’t understand that. and ECCM are not divine thing given to “Israel”. Almost all modern SRAAMs are equipped with ECM and ECCM capability including AIM 9X, IRIST and PL10."

Now are you going back to compare control surfaces vs TVC, instead of missiles? And don't claim things about Aster which you don't know about.

No im not. I’m still saying that what I said is true(AFAIK). And what’s the confusion here ?
Speed at Endgame is not Max speed but much lower than that due to high Gs pulled during the manoeuvre.

And TVC is more efficient than Physical Control Surfaces. It’s a fact. Even @hellbent posted many DRDO research articles relating to that here in DRDO thread.

I have no reply to this, but just to laugh that PAF shared data of JF-17 with Eagle Dynamics.

PAC ? But they did share the Data. Otherwise why would they lie about that.
It maybe not completely accurate but still.

 

[Arpit]

No im not. I’m still saying that what I said is true(AFAIK). And what’s the confusion here ?
Speed at Endgame is not Max speed but much lower than that due to high Gs pulled during the manoeuvre.

Can you show us the data to back up your claim? I don't know tomorrow you might claim XR-SAM will be slower. :/

PAC ? But they did share the Data. Otherwise why would they lie about that.
It maybe not completely accurate but still.

So, what are we talking about? Otherwise, PAF just adopt DSC as an initial flight simulator for JF-17, which they crying for.

 

[AbRaj]

Can you show us the data to back up your claim? I don't know tomorrow you might claim XR-SAM will be slower. :/

Data for what? Control mechanism of missiles ? Even Wikipedia has an article on that. And Check our missile development thread. AFAIK all our newer gen missiles are TVC based including ballistic missiles and MRSAM/XRSAM etc.
It’s a fact that Physical control surfaces like Canards/levcons/ailerons etc works good only in dense air and as you ascend at higher altitudes, the benefits of TVC is even more pronounced.

So, what are we talking about? Otherwise, PAF just adopt DSC as an initial flight simulator for JF-17, which they crying for.

Its a good educational tool to understand pros and cons of various aspects of fighter plane design and tactics employed by pilots in dogfights and BVR engagements

 

[Arpit]

Data for what? Control mechanism of missiles ? Even Wikipedia has an article on that. And Check our missile development thread. AFAIK all our newer gen missiles are TVC based including ballistic missiles and MRSAM/XRSAM etc.
It’s a fact that Physical control surfaces like Canards/levcons/ailerons etc works good only in dense air and as you ascend at higher altitudes, the benefits of TVC is even more pronounced.

I already know physics very well. Thank you. Just I am asking for the data for your claim that Python 5 is slower than the Chinese one.

It is simple as that, if you don't, then else is hunky-dory.

 

[AbRaj]

I already know physics very well. Thank you. Just I am asking for the data for your claim that Python 5 is slower than the Chinese one.

Research papers? Or Hushkit article mentioning that(keywords; TVC, Endgame speed) will be ok to you?

 

[Arpit]

Research papers? Or Hushkit article mentioning that will be ok to you?

Sure, please,,, I don't know how the research paper got data of python 5 and of Chinese missiles. But whatever you can provide of missiles you comparing.

 

[AbRaj]

Sure, please,,, I don't know how the research paper got data of python 5 and of Chinese missiles. But whatever you can provide of missiles you comparing.

Ok, I’ll try it in free time. Meanwhile here is the reference of what I’m saying in Hushkit article regarding AAMs.
Read the paragraph about Python V.

Ten best air-to-to-air missiles (short range)

Modern heat-seeking missiles are particularly nasty weapons. Long-ranged, fast, accurate and hard to fool – facing them is a sobering prospect for the modern fighter pilot. As the age of stea…

hushkit.net

 

[Arpit]

Ok, I’ll try it in free time. Meanwhile here is the reference of what I’m saying in Hushkit article regarding AAMs.
Read the paragraph about Python V.

Ten best air-to-to-air missiles (short range)

Modern heat-seeking missiles are particularly nasty weapons. Long-ranged, fast, accurate and hard to fool – facing them is a sobering prospect for the modern fighter pilot. As the age of stea…

hushkit.net

But Python 5 is at number 3 and PL-10 at number 7. And it nowhere mention Python 5 is slower than PL-10 :/

Furthur , As for drag here are control surfaces on PL-10 , only ASRAAMs dont have high number of control surfaces.

 

[AbRaj]

But Python 5 is at number 3 and PL-10 at number 7. And it nowhere mention Python 5 is slower than PL-10 :/

Number game is Irrelevant for something nobody knows about the official performance figures. Only basic inference can be drawn based on verifiable characteristics.

For a Rocket, Energy ∝ Speed (similar dimensions and warhead size)

Furthur , As for drag here are control surfaces on PL-10 , only ASRAAMs dont have high number of control surfaces.
View attachment 21921

Re-read the para again. It specially says for P5 that this configuration has huge drag penalties but it also provides better manoeuvring characteristics at low altitudes.

Also for more clarity on that, you should read about the characteristics of different types of control surfaces like Canards, wing Canards, ailerons etc as the drag is different for different types of CSs and their Size.

 

[Arpit]

Number game is Irrelevant for something nobody knows about the official performance figures. Only basic inference can be drawn based on verifiable characteristics.

For a Rocket, Energy ∝ Speed (similar dimensions and warhead size)


Re-read the para again. It specially says for P5 that this configuration has huge drag penalties but it also provides better manoeuvring characteristics at low altitudes.

You posted an article, now wants to cherry-pick things?

And I have read it several times nowhere it says it has "HUGE" drag and is slower than PL-10.

Also for more clarity on that, you should read about the characteristics of different types of control surfaces like Canards, wing Canards, ailerons etc as the drag is different for different types of CSs and their Size.

And please I suggest you not teach physics to others, while you are not able to back up your claims. Its a cheapshot.

 

[AbRaj]

You posted an article, now wants to cherry-pick things?

And I have read it several times nowhere it says it has "HUGE" drag and is slower than PL-10.

Not cherrypicking anything. It’s what I concluded based on reading various articles on those two control methods.

Anyway I’m not an expert in Rockets and ballistics and my comments are based on my reading of various different sources including posts of different members of this same forum.

And please I suggest you not teach physics to others, while you are not able to back up your claims. Its a cheapshot.

Man, don’t take it personally. I just recommend that as I don’t know your background. This discussion is already stretching too far for me, both in terms of time wasted and my knowledge on this subject.

Rest assured, I’ll post relevant data to backup my claim. And there are members who have much more understanding about it, so I’m leaving it here for them to explain. Have some patience.

 

[AbRaj]

And don't claim things about Aster which you don't know about.

BTW Aster 30 too is TVC based system. So the whole comparison was moot.
And it has lateral thrusters too in second stage.

Still I believe it has higher drag that B8 owning to larger control surfaces.

 

[Arpit]

BTW Aster 30 too is TVC based system. So the whole comparison was moot.
And it has lateral thrusters too in second stage.
View attachment 21922
Still I believe it has higher drag that B8 owning to larger control surfaces.

Firstly TVC has nothing to do with velocity,,,, it is to provide higher maneuverability.

In the first part, you claim the argument is moot, while in the other part claiming Aster still hold higher drag. And still not accounting for the factor of high energy fuel. For god sake, stick to one point.

You are making lots of counterintuitive statements, so I am out. I am incapable to explain everything.

 

[AbRaj]

Firstly TVC has nothing to do with velocity,,,, it is to provide higher maneuverability.

higher maneuverability at less drag. So more efficient.

In the first part, you claim the argument is moot, while in the other part claiming Aster still hold higher drag.

I thought that you brought Aster as some 1st/2nd gen missile without TVC for comparison of two types.

P5 has 18 large and different types of CS so obviously it should have high drag than those with sleeker body and less CSs.

And still not accounting for the factor of high energy fuel. For god sake, stick to one point.

High energy fuel and size of motor are two things I don’t like to talk as no one knows anything about them on Chinese missile.

You are making lots of counterintuitive statements, so I am out. I am incapable to explain everything.

Fair enough. You have every right to hold your opinion.

 

[Arpit]

higher maneuverability at less drag. So more efficient.

Still, TVC has nothing to do with speed.

I thought that you brought Aster as some 1st/2nd gen missile without TVC for comparison of two types.

Because it has more control surfaces than B8, that's why I brought it. Again TVC has nothing to do with velocity.

P5 has 18 large and different types of CS so obviously it should have high drag than those with sleeker body and less CSs.

High energy fuel and size of motor are two things I don’t like to talk as no one knows anything about them on Chinese missile.

That's why I had stated, claiming Python 5 as inferior is foolishness.

 

[AbRaj]

Still, TVC has nothing to do with speed.

I

Because it has more control surfaces than B8, that's why I brought it. Again TVC has nothing to do with velocity.

I think we are going in circles. Let’s leave at that.

That's why I had stated, claiming Python 5 as inferior is foolishness.

It was to counter the argument that since SD 10 is Chinese or in possession of Pakistan, it’s bad. My point was that we must analyse every system rationally and based on verifiable data or credibile information.
Python is an excellent SRAAM . There’s no doubt about that.

 

[HariPrasad]

LOL, Obviously Python with those large physical control surfaces , is slower than than TVC equipped Chinese, Russian and western counterparts during the endgame. But obviously you can’t understand that. and ECCM are not divine thing given to “Israel”. Almost all modern SRAAMs are equipped with ECM and ECCM capability including AIM 9X, IRIST and PL10.
Best according to whom ? It’s hilarious claim nonetheless. Reminds me of that famous “ISI is Lumber Ooone” claim.

PS: If you can’t digest the data tabulated in simplest possible way, I don’t expect you to understand basic physics too.
Keep comparing AMCA mark XXX with F22, J20, Su57 etc and beat the shit out of all thease fighter jets that actually exist with your Superior future AMCA/TEDBF/MWF designs.

Well you are such a guy who claims that OEM data is not available. Open source information is not reliable and therefore your claim without any referance should be believed. You have not talked anything about physics and yet you claim that I do not understand physics. Parheps your wholistic hollow ego is physics for you.

so far as plane comparison is concern, GT itself has prsised Tejas by saying that JF 17 is a plane of present while Tejas is a plane of future. In an excercise against 3 rd generation plane in China, J 20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has it over 100:1. When You put it in the catagory of J20 which was detected on lhasa from Near Tejpur air base by MKI which even fo not have AESA radar , you infact expose your knowledge.

Chinese Z10 is unable to fly in Ladakh. J15 is unable to take off from A/C with more than 2 tons of payload. Chinese aircraft carriers are unfit to go in high sea. This is the quality of Chinese weapons. Ofcourse, with the knowledge you have, I am not surprised that you are very impressed with Chinese weapons.

LOL, Obviously Python with those large physical control surfaces , is slower than than TVC equipped Chinese, Russian and western counterparts during the endgame. But obviously you can’t understand that. and ECCM are not divine thing given to “Israel”. Almost all modern SRAAMs are equipped with ECM and ECCM capability including AIM 9X, IRIST and PL10.
Best according to whom ? It’s hilarious claim nonetheless. Reminds me of that famous “ISI is Lumber Ooone” claim.

PS: If you can’t digest the data tabulated in simplest possible way, I don’t expect you to understand basic physics too.
Keep comparing AMCA mark XXX with F22, J20, Su57 etc and beat the shit out of all thease fighter jets that actually exist with your Superior future AMCA/TEDBF/MWF designs.

Your factually incorrect bluff does not require any argument as it is factually incorrect. Python 5 has is faster (Mach 4+) , lighter, has higher range and can pull higher g loading. It is superior to Chinese missile in any count of performance. So check the facts before making wild claims.

Ok, I’ll try it in free time. Meanwhile here is the reference of what I’m saying in Hushkit article regarding AAMs.
Read the paragraph about Python V.

Ten best air-to-to-air missiles (short range)

Modern heat-seeking missiles are particularly nasty weapons. Long-ranged, fast, accurate and hard to fool – facing them is a sobering prospect for the modern fighter pilot. As the age of stea…

hushkit.net

I went through whole article. There is nothing in the article which supports your claim. Infact, there is a lots of material which is contorrary to your claim and supports my claim such as Python is as maneuverable as any other missile. Nowhere in the article, it is claimed that any of the TVC missile has higher maneuverability than Python 5. Please post the reference in support of your claim from the article.

 

[AbRaj]

First thing first, I didn’t responded to your previous posts as all things you said are discussed with @Arpit already in previous few pages.

Python is as maneuverable as any other missile. Nowhere in the article, it is claimed that any of the TVC missile has higher maneuverability than Python 5.

I never said that Python is less manoeuvrable than it’s rivals including SD10. Infact, it’s the opposite. P5 emphasise more on manoeuvrability at the cost of higher drag and thus loosing more energy and speed. But then it also has Large (Larger ?) TVC enabled motor that compensates for this loss.

What the articles says that P5 looses more energy/speed owning to larger and more control surfaces ( compared to say AIM 9X, IRIST, ASRAAM and I believe SD10 too)

 

[HariPrasad]

First thing first, I didn’t responded to your previous posts as all things you said are discussed with @Arpit already in previous few pages.

I never said that Python is less manoeuvrable than it’s rivals including SD10. Infact, it’s the opposite. P5 emphasise more on manoeuvrability at the cost of higher drag and thus loosing more energy and speed. But then it also has Large (Larger ?) TVC enabled motor that compensates for this loss.

What the articles says that P5 looses more energy/speed owning to larger and more control surfaces ( compared to say AIM 9X, IRIST, ASRAAM and I believe SD10 too)

Yet it is faster than Chinese missile you know that?

 

[AbRaj]

Yet it is faster than Chinese missile you know that?

No, I don’t. And I don’t think it has higher terminal speed higher than SD10 (unless proved otherwise)
Please note that Max speed is not the Terminal/Endgame speed, which is much less that Max speed.