Why dont you take a pic with your CAM/Cell phone and post? 😮

wolverine is ABSOLUTELY correct, the STR of Tejas is 21.7 degrees,

Let me give you guys a analysis by a expert “i’ll get in touch with him soon”,
he calculated things using old engine as the TSFC of the GEF404IN20 engines isnt known as of yet.

Altitude: 3,100 m (10,170′)

Gripen:
6,620 kg empty weight
1,000 kg fuel
1,000 kg stores
engine: GE F404/RM12

Tejas
5,500 kg empty
1,000 kg fuel
1,000 kg stores
engine: GE F404/F2J3

Gripen/Tejas
Combat Radius (km): 1,200/1,258

Turn rate (deg/sec): 19.5/21.7
Turn Radius (m): 759 /612

Stall velocity (kph): 442 / 397
Corner velocity(kph): 929 /834

robban, having spoken with peoples in aero india, the Canards are used for high aoa attacks, the flight envelope with its long composite tail helps LCA to do that in the altitude same as planes with canards does,

naval lca will use LEVCONS for controlled landing on carrier..thats it.

They have clearly told me the design is unique and in its flight envelope we didnt needed any canards to achieve what we wanted. :dev2:

ok guys back from aero india many thigns to say but regarding this Gripen-LCA controversy here i’ll only say one thing,

There was this guy demostrating Gripen – i asked him the diff between Gripen and LCA he didnt seemed to find one.

Gripen by no means can be MRCA but Gripens E/F versions can be if the range/payload is more and it offers the M-AESA.

Gripen c/d is “too” similar with LCA and LCA being better in some respect like turn rates etc etc.

what are the specs of Gripen E/F?

A nice french :diablo: gave me a beautiful rafale pendent :diablo: too.

more later.

sealord there is no doubt about that!
Tejas is evolving so much or has evolved from TD-2 to PV-3 its completely 4th gen and even better than Gripen in some aspects like Turn Rate etc etc.

now just waiting to know what radar it got.

I had no doubt, had the empty weight a bit more it would have been the MRCA.

but Tejas will definitely see numbers – we gotta maintain 39.5 quadron strength. [800 birds] with mig 21’s retiring all by 2015.

The unit cost is quite though >20million dollar around (i think 24) anyoe can confirm?

The N-LCA will be a quite a machine too.

you can check how it has evolved from this article,
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/Aircraft/Tejas-Radiance.pdf :diablo:

^^ well since this is a IAF forum lets not discuss related to Army, but if Sens is interested i can send it to him via PM.

Arjun anyday anytime beats anything 125mm 6 wheelled 45 ton pos tanks hands down.
Its a MBT in class of Leopard/challenger/Merkava ah and Black Eagle that project was supposed to be a breakthrough from traditional russian tank designs, unfortunately never came to fruit.

The LPD 20000 can accomodate 750 Marines and 4 EH101 helicopter. The docking well can accomodate 4 x 70 tons LCM. The garage have a capacity of 1500 linear meters.

Nice, anything for Self Defence? though its not of utmost important to put self defence in LPD’s but still anything thrown is better than nothing 😮

Dont know the Exact Spec for the 071 Chinese LPD though.

One more thing do you have any information about the size of indias own ADS?
Is it going to be as per 38k Tonnes or something diff (larger)?
I’m asking this because a defence report said the work to be reviewd for its size or whatever – god knows.

Deterrance is a suicidal strategy for both India and Pakistan. The only reason deterrance worked during the Cold War is because the Capitalist-Communist conflict was primary ideological, and there had never been direct conflict between the primary combatants of the Cold War.

The conflict between India and Pakistan has historical, ethnic and sectarian elements. This is not a rational conflict, but a highly emotional one. In truth, the only solution is a negotiated settlement to the territorial dispute and the complete nuclear disarmament of both India and Pakistan.

Get back on that when China disarms, if China does Russia have to, if Russia does US has to.

Your forgetting the basic differences of Indias nuclear programme – we are nuclear power from 70’s with research in the field from long ago.

If not for Nehru P5 would have been P6.

We are all for Global diarmament,
our nukes are not “country specific”
We have no first use policy.
We have no use policy against non-nuke countries.

Its quite fairplay here, atleast its not tied with some ideology.

Peace,

An ASAT and an ATBM are still very different. Of course all orbits are known, they are already pretracked by radar. But so will ballistic missiles. In ballistic misisles, they are already coming towards you, which is not true with orbital vehicles. So good you have a glorified SAM. You have a test that sounds basically like two missiles on a collision path. An SRBM or an IRBM is still a big thing, and better yet, you have a warhead, which means proximity fuse, and proximity blast.

I still dont get you there was reports that thing is NOT warhead but HTK vehicle means it uses a terminal plumb with vectored thrust control and it hits to kill not proximity thats what i’m telling you.

In the ASAT case, you’re dealing with hitting an orbiting object 3×3 or 4×4 meter in size, 7 to 8km/s, over 850km from the earth surface, with another object of the same speed, velocity combined >14km/sec. I mean hit as in direct contact, not proximity fuse, not with proximity explosive. Hit as in direct contact, metal on metal, no explosive, destruction by sheer crash. Even if you have the orbits are known, the slightest chance of error would completely screw things up. You need a very very high level of precision—and that’s what friggin shocks everyone. Your circular error of probability have to be zeroes below the decimal point. That’s like hitting a bullet with another bullet three kilometers away.

Precision of what launch vehicle?
The recent launch of ISRO’s PSLV has a azimuth precision of 0.01 degrees.
If you only have seen the video you would have known.
And a orbital perigee/apogee deviation of 1 km while releasing the payload.
After that isro chief said “I’m welcoming anyone who can do a better job than this”.
Check the video, it shows the precision on radar screen.

Again i’m telling our ABM used HTK not proximity.
You sould see te picture harry posted or read a bit about the use of cold thrusters for controlling the HTK.

It means a technology level no one expected the PRC ever had, not even with its most dreamy and optimistic supporters. It means completely revamping what we know about the PRC missile systems, guidance, accuracy from top to bottom, at least with all its latest systems, and that means revamping overall capability. This one just rewrote all the books.

Well I’m not talking about guidance/correction but i’m impressed on only the kill vehicle, nothing else is so high significant to me.
the Kill vehicle is cool.

What I was trying to say even spacedaily article wrote on that Countries with HTK+Succesful Space program can do it provided the will.

dont think i’m undermining anything, congratulations for the test more congratulations to chinese govt for having balls to do the test which many lacks :wacko: