21AnkushBTW………….How old are you and what is your background that makes you such a expert? :confused:
I know this guy and he IS related to the field he’s talking about. there’s stuff he knows about Indian defence that most of us here on this forum don’t. your doubting it won’t change that.
21AnkushI think its time the “Moderators” removed “Members”. That continue to use Insults, Name Calling, and Sarcasm. As a tool to provoke and intimidate others……….
Just a thought………:rolleyes:
Respectfully.
Scooter
if mods started to remove members who consistently trolled on threads that were all non-US related, you’d be on the top of the hitlist. its not a coincidence that all non-US threads, from the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and Tejas threads, serious posters consider you to be troll.
21AnkushI read things on forums and resources that come to me and that is that. I don’t care what you think i have written, if you think it is non sense then continue believing so. I am not going to change the way i do things for you or anyone. If i get into trouble or get banned i simply make another id from another email or another ip range if people are playing hardball.
the very definition of a troll !
Then i will reply to that. I can be here all day or till a mod bans either one of us/ locks thread etc.
the benefits of not holding a job and wasting University grants. jobless !
insults and excalamations aside a vast array of threads in this forum deals with disputing the biased statements of manufacturers and developers of fighters.
excepting your favourite LM and its F-16IN and Boeing’s F-18IN of course !
But i refuse to believe these people who were closely associated with the program and paid to do so on every word they say.
yet, you DO believe some internet Pakistani fanboy who claims to be able to give the exact STR based on edited youtube videos ! 😀 simply amazing ! do you read textbooks and do any practical work or do you simply go by what internet posters write about archeological excavations ? I guess you go by the latter.
As for the aviation fuel jibe. Well i expect to see a lot more of dirt ancient coins, and artefacts than they would ever do in their lifetime.
do they claim to know more about dirt, ancient coins or artefacts ? no.
you claim that they’re liars, incompetents, and based on some internet posts and articles, claim to have more knowledge in their fields ! where do you get such an ego !!?
21AnkushOn Indian elections.
Jobs held none. Have Joint Research Fellowship (JRF) from the University Grants Commission. Experience in several excavations the recent being in Pataliputra.
If my posts are Junk, Kindly ignore them.
My education serves me right, I get University grant which is pretty decent I also get paid for participation in field works.
ALL of which has zilch, zero to do with engineering, product development, defence, aviation or any of the fields you’re acting like you understand so deeply. talking out of your backside about something you so obviously don’t understand is totally derailing this thread. if you had the slightest idea of how different research in a field like archeology is from the field of engineering, you’d keep quiet and not write the stuff you do, such as “trash written by people associated with the Tejas”.
21AnkushYou don’t fool anyone by saying all the LCA variants from the TDs to LSPs have all this tosh installed. And all of them are overweight. Since MK1 vanilla is overweight and above the limit, and under powered. Not becuase of added IAF requirements and fancy new stuff as you put it.
😀
why bother to fool fools. stick to your line of research. you’re way above your head in this field. by the way, even the 787 is overweight and so is the 747-8..all aviation engineers are fools onlee. you’re the only smart guy. happy now ?
21AnkushFunny, you are defending a much troubled aircraft that has failed to meet basic IAF Requirements. Which, is to be followed by a redesigned LCA MK2. That as of this moment is a purely “paper tiger” without even a engine. So, I would be careful before you cut down others. Regarding there knowledge of the subject at hand…………….:rolleyes:
the fact is that the “other” has NO knowledge of the subject matter. and you’re defending him because you send personal messages to each other. I know because he used to send them to me as well, with you cc’ed. 😉
Also, do you have a problem providing a counterpoint. Without name calling and sarcasm………….let alone trying to belittle the other poster.:confused::confused::confused:
you’re another certified troll, and there are other threads where other posters also have called you that. trust you to come to the defence of another troll. :rolleyes:
that guy Ante, provides no counterpoints worth talking of from a technical viewpoint primarily because he has no background of aviation engineering.
21AnkushI think this is a good point.
We know that LCA was designed keeping in mind the original requirements of IAF. We know, according to the original ASR, its empty weight was meant to be 5,500kg. Some would say that its is overweight due to modified requirements and some would argue that it is because of extra safety margins. So any idea what extra stuff has gone into LCA compared to its original requirements?
ask yourself the opposite. the JF-17 is designed to 8Gs, thats 1 full G less than the LCA, and has almost the same dimensions, payload and fuel specs and in fact has 1 less pylon (the port pylon that carries the Litening LDP on the LCA). why is it weighing 6500 kgs ? if it had been designed to 9G design limits, it would’ve weighed hundreds of kgs more. I’d say the original requirements were too stringent for the LCA – to have a fighter weigh almost the same as a F-7 (5500 kgs empty) and yet be able to carry nearly 4 tons more in its max take off configuration.
21AnkushThe F 16 Block 52+ r Block 60 has a lot more capability than the baseline F 16
and what is the difference in the weights, airframe and engine between the baseline F-16A/B and the Block 52 ? it didn’t overnight zoom from A/B to C/D and then E/F. as for your nonsense about composites, check out HOW much composites are now used on the F-16.
of course, what do engineers know about composites. we should’ve listened to internet fanboys who during the day work on totally unrelated subjects and then give gyaan to others during their spare time on technical subjects they don’t understand at all. :rolleyes:
For me they made the wrong deisgn choice in going for composites. A normal fighter may have been in service by now.
for you ? 😀 and you’re an expert in the field of aircraft design of course, with credentials to boot ? oh I guess you forgot what your field of speciality really is.
I repeat I don’t care what you or anyone else here think about me or the way i operate.
thats rather plain for everyone to see.
21AnkushTell me what Rifle did the average Indian solider use in the front lines before the INSAS ? And there are claims by the AK licencers that the INSAS is an unlicensed copy of it. Some chinese user posted it here, I do not believe it is true but searching INSAS will show you its pretty similar to the AK series other than the fact that it sues NATO type ammo.
the average Indian soldier used the license manufactured FN-FAL, not the AK-47 as their primary infantry weapon. the AK-47 was in widespread use in the Valley as a good CQB weapon. its accuracy is hopeless at long ranges. everyone with even a little knowledge of fire-arms knows that. :rolleyes:
as for the OFB produced copy of the Kalashnikov, it was a copy of the AK-47 to the exact and that never went into production or anything. the INSAS is not a copy. its uses some of the basic elements of the design from the AK-47
21AnkushI don’t think that is any of your bussiness. I simply refuse to answer such comments.
I can answer that for you. he’s an archeology student. no experience or exposure to product development, far less to the aerospace industry.
This was quoted by Ankush in some Brochure. Go to the JF 17 The New Rafale thread in this very forum if you want to see.
About the STR i read that on Pak Def based on some analysis some users made on videos of JF 17 LCA and F 16 seemed pretty convincing.
why quote me when you flagrantly lie about how many Gs the picture that I posted said the JF-17 could pull ? it clearly said 8Gs and yet you come up with BS about it pulling 8.5Gs.
and you are making all your claims based on some users comments on videos of the JF-17 and LCA from youtube !! ..:rolleyes: what a joke !! some Pakistani fanboy can guess how many Gs the fighter is pulling based on some edited clips of fighters, and you’ll swallow it hook line and sinker..
Btw, i have a wonderful bridge that i can sell to you..I can show you pictures and videos of it and just how wonderful its paint is..as it is, since you won’t get into any more details, that should suffice for you, shouldn’t it ?
I don’t need your or anybodys certificate. I post what I think and what i read sometimes I cannot remember the sources, sometimes I won’t be in the mood to search for them. Well thats how I operate.
well thats how all trolls operate. post BS, and when asked to back up their BS, simply resort to the kind of stuff you’re resorting to now.
soon we’ll see you go back to flag waving and how you want the F-16IN to win primarily because you like how it looks. thats about as technical as you’ll ever get.
21AnkushWhy do you always hang out for offical stuff ? I know a believable claim when i see one. As for the trash talk in Pak Def, there is more trash in BR. Even if you go by the offical line 8 G vs 6 G is rather impressive.
because there is a LOT of BS that originates in rumours from Chinese and Pakistani posters, with no official sources or backing. and you of course, are one of the non-engineering specialists who can tell what is believable and what is not just by reading on internet fora ? 😀 what a joke !
and how much more effort is it going to take to get it into your thick head that the LCA is DESIGNED for 9Gs but only flown to 6Gs as yet because its full flight envelope has not yet been opened, and the high AoA tests/spin/stall tests are yet to be done. when they’re done, the Tejas’ FBW will ALLOW its pilots to pull 9Gs. till then, it will not allow them to pull any maneuver that exceeds what the software has been validated for- and that is currently 6Gs.
by the way, if I start making claims about it reaching 9Gs already, what makes you think that my claim is any less believable than som Pakistani fanboy claiming the JF-17 has reached 8Gs ? have you seen any spin tests of the JF-17 ? have you seen any video showing high AoA testing ?
trolling around here on the internet is one thing that won’t change the realities of aircraft programs. believe what you will, but it won’t change the facts.
See above I don’t have official reports. But there are no reports offical or not about Tejas doing more than 6G or the promised AoA i think it is one or two degrees short.
where are the official reports about the JF-17 doing 8Gs in testing ? and meeting its design goal of AoA ? show those. obviously you cannot. :rolleyes:
Now I am no fan of the Chinese but I don’t think the J 10 was not more than a concept when the deisgn was sold to China.
I don’t think ?? who do you think you are? some international defence analyst ? get off your high horse dude..there are think-tanks dedicated to this sort of work who accept that the Lavi design was sold to the Chinese and formd the basis for the jump they made from F-7 and JF-17 type designs to the J-10 design.
If the Israelis thought they could build it then they would have built it. They may be regretting not doing that now. Especially if Tehran is engaged in a dialogue with washington. Imagine how much independence of aciton a LAVI with Russian/European engine would have given Israel.
irrelevant. you claimed they couldn’t make a fighter. well, they did. and flew it. they couldn’t complete its development because the US withdrew funds and gifted F-16s at subsidised costs, and the Israelis were short sighted enough to take that.
21AnkushI am not doing your research for you atleast google. The JF 17 has achieved 8.5 G and better AoA than what the LCA has achieved so far. The LCA however remains a better aircraft on paper.
provide proof. I don’t want some posts by Pakistanis on their ultra nationalist PakDef forums. Show brochures or an official news item that says the above. I’ve actually posted a brochure by PAC Kamra from the recent most IDEAS. it CLEARLY states that the JF-17 is designed to get to a max. of 8/-3Gs. any claims of 8.5Gs are just BS and made by Pakistani fanboys. even PAC Kamra doesn’t make that claim !
as for AoA, show us the evidence, again through OFFICIAL reports. since you’re making claims that its available on google, you should back up your claims.
LCA is about building a plane, and the benefits to the Aerospace industry is the by product. You are confusing it and saying the LCA is building the Auerospace industry and the plane is the by product, that is exactly what is wrong with the programme. India may gain a lot but the fighter may never see light. We could may well be like the ISRAELIS good at avionics and all but not that successful in building planes,
For people who do not take risks the rewards are less.
Israelis not successful at building planes ? what do you think that J-10 is derived from ? the LAVI. and had it not been for the US not wanting the Lavi to be a competitor to the F-16, Israel would’ve had one of the better fighters flying around today.
21AnkushHaving said that the JF 17 do not suffer from overweight and has already taken more Gs and better AoA and sustained turn rate than the LCA.
its the SAME weight as the LCA, at 6500 kgs. so how is the LCA overweight as compared to the JF-17 then ? because the LCA was designed to take 1 more G in dynamic loads (+9Gs as compared to +8Gs) and yet be only 5500 kgs in empty weight as per original design specs. and its becoming rather obvious to me that there are lot of non-engineers floating on this forum who don’t really understand what designing to a higher maximum dynamic load means at all. it means MORE pounds per square inch of aerodynamic loads at the envelope. for instance, when I work on panel analysis, the difference between a 2.5G envelope load (for a civvie plane panel) and 1G cruise load is more than 3-4 psi in some areas (like the wing body fairing, fixed trailing edge,etc.) and in some cases, as high as 5 psi (like the leading edge). that means that at just 1.5Gs of additional dynamic load, the actual load on the panels (which are secondary structures) goes up very significantly.
the fact is that the IAF is making noise over its engine and weight because the requirements were very stringent. the PAF on the other hand is happy to recieve its fighters because even with the fact that its not as good as the LCA, its actually a LOT better than the F-7s and A-5s that its got to retire. and even then, the IAF is going to induct the LCA and that too in significant numbers.
If I had the power to tell the ADA what to do, I would have said get on with the tests show us that you can achieve the promised performance, if you lose a few prototypes then so be it we will fund you for more.
lose a few prototypes ? you’re sooo far from the reality of it, that I don’t think any explanations will make a difference to you.
21AnkushAll I said was the expense and complexity of the composites outweight their advantages. Especially for a country like India who aimed too high with the LCA a more practical design with less composites may have been better.
The UPA is coming back to power. I guess that means American jets for MRCA.
you obviously know nothing about how much advances have been made in India in the field of composites. which fields do you think India is going to contribute in for the FGFA (PAK-FA) ? advanced composites and avionics. those are 2 fields where the most development has been possible thanks to the LCA program.
and if the LCA was all alloy-metallic, the IAF and people like you (who basically crib about indigenous equipment) would say that because of that, it would need to be upgraded and wasn’t comparable to other aircraft being inducted in the 2010s.
do you even think that the IAF would accept a fighter at the technology level of the JF-17 when it had the choice of fighters like the MRCA candidates ??
21AnkushComposites are just expensive trash and not worth the money you invest in them in my opinion. Mostly composites are LCA is still over weight. While the metal JF 17 is doing allright.
your lack of engineering knowledge is showing up big time !!:rolleyes: stick to your own subject of expertise (archeology?) and leave things you don’t understand to those who do understand it.
btw, did you even happen to know that airplanes dating back to even 1960s (like the original B-747) had composite panels ? we’re using newer and better classes and types of materials, but composites were in widespread use by then itself. and Boeing’s composite materials analysis methods to a great degree were derived from the analytical analysis methods they developed for plywood (which is ALSO a composite and not “expensive trash”) based airplanes for WW-2.
Sign In
