Can someone explain why the f-35 JSF is listed as having a lower than 1:1 thust to weight ratio, when it is a VTOL craft. Im not an aeronotical engeneer by this does seem suspect. —The article reaks of russian nationialism, "news from russia .com" is hardly a reliable source. This really doesn't deserve a b grade because it lacks athorative sources, there are plenty of athorative sources in the world of aviation, It also contains numerious factual errors, the idf didn't loose f15's in their air to air engagements with the syrians. This article needs to be re written by a person who knows what they are talking about. unsigned comment was added by Androm ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Who added that the J-10 has a 1.0:1 kill ratio against the Su-35?
PAK-FA will have Indian involvement : Source 1, Source 2. This was decleared during the visit of Russian Defence minister to India, Sergei Ivanov in Jan 2007.
I've nominated this article for deletion. It is, and looks to remain, unencyclopedic, original research, and conjecture. The other military comparison articles merely compare specs in tabular format, leaving the reader to interpret. This article, however, interprets for the reader, and belongs in a magazine or blog. Sorry if this winds up ruining your pet project. ericg ✈ 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dunno that I'd delete the page but re "In the 1982 Lebanon War Syrian Air Force MiG-29s downed a number of Israeli F15s" WTF?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, consensus on the AfD was that this page seriously needed editing, so no more defense of the status quo. Have moved it and rewritten the intro; will proceed to cull through the article as necessary. -- Mmx1 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed:
All the reports I've found ( this is typical) say that the Isrealis shot down dozens of Syrian aircraft and lost none of their own. -- Robert Merkel 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite is actually pretty good, but you have removed such sourcing as was actually present (I know it wasn't great, but it was the best I could find). Are you intending to add sources back in? -- Robert Merkel 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The only source I can think of that I removed was the F-22 hit piece (not trying to be biased, but how else do you call something title "DESCRIPTION OF OUR FAILING DEFENSE ACQUSITION SYSTEM ...A NATIONAL TRAGEDY — MILITARY AND ECONOMIC", which is widely referenced on the F-22 page. I'll throw it in on the links at the bottom; it needs some footer material. -- Mmx1 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
One thing that's often claimed about the new-generation American planes is that their superior electronics information will reduce the workload on pilots, for instance by more sophisticated sensor data processing doing the work of identifying targets for the pilot, and a much simpler "user interface" meaning pilots only need to concentrate on relevant information. -- Robert Merkel 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is also counter-claims to this. The increase in the overall amount of systems available to pilots can increase their workload and often require more training. For example going from a primitive radar with a small amount of modes to a radar that can track 20+ targets and operate in numerous modes individually within its coverage is a fairly large jump in potential workload. The difference now is that the computers can assist the pilot priorities its targets. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com 22 June 2006]
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute did a report on the upcoming fighter replacement; it's free, it's online, they seem to know what they're talking about, it's quite comprehensive. http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html have a look].
Awesome. -- Mmx1 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That report is fairly comprehensive but makes a number of mistakes. For example it confuses the different models of Sukhois, referring to the Su-30 and Su-32 as side by side seated aircraft. These models are the Su-32 and the Su-34. Meanwhile it refers to the Su-30 repeatedly in this section without correcting the mistake. The Su-30 has 2 crew in back and front positions. This indicates as is common in articles in Australia on air combat, a relative lack of knowledge on Russian aircraft and the threats and capabilities they represent. It also makes a significant point about the different generations of aircraft which is relevant to this article. It points out that the teen series of US aircraft are 3rd generation and the Mig-29, Su-27, Eurofighter etc. are 4th generation. This is still the most common form of thinking on this subject and while people tend to group the US teen series with the 4th generation Russian and Europian aircraft due to the large amounts of upgrades made in the US it is important to note that these aircraft are still technologically behind.[j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]
The link supporting the claims of combat losses in the Afghanistan conflict is actually a link to another Wikipedia article, which isn't itself sourced. I've asked on that article's talk page for a source to be provided. -- Robert Merkel 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In the rewriting, the contention that the new-generation WVR missiles make dogfighting obsolete has disappeared. I actually managed to source this. It may not have been true when the 4th generation fighters appeared, but there's some people who think it's true now. So why was it removed? -- Robert Merkel 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The Rafale is already equiped with an IRST that is call OSF ( http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale) An other article in french: http://www.avions-militaires.net/rafale/radar-osf.php
Please review your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.230.94 ( talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Article mentions its use in F-22 and F-35. However fails to mention the PIRATE system on the Typhoon.
See
[5]
82.36.216.147
18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The PIRATE system isn't fitted to currently extant Typhoons, though; it's not going to be fielded until the Tranche 3 advanced variant of the Typhoon around 2010. -- JaceCady 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The PIRATE IRST sensor will be available from Tranche 1 Block 5 aircraft onwards.
See:
Fliegerrevue Extra No.5
Program overview from Andrew Brookes International Institute for Strategic Studies [6]
Thales Press Release, 200 PIRATE units for Tranche 2 aircraft in addition to 116 Tranche 1 Pirate's. [7]
Aviation International News online [8]-- 213.157.1.129 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The entire article makes no mention of the different generations in radar referring only to the US designed AESA radar. This is quite a flawed approach to an article on 4th generation fighter aircraft as no 4th generation fighter aircraft is equipped with an AESA radar. The most significant types of radars in the fourth generation are mechanically steered arrays, notably equipped in most US and European fighters and the more advanced Phased Array Radars equipped on many Russian aircraft. Phased Array radars differ only slightly from AESA radars and were first put on a fighter aircraft in 1975 with the deployment of the Mig-31. This article needs a major re-write, with a lot less emphasis on 5th generation systems such as AESA and the F-22A / F-35. It should explain both schools of though on fighter aircraft generations. Then it should go on to explain the developments exclusive or central to the 3rd and 4th generation. Examples would be BVR missiles, high off boresight WVR missiles, mechanically steered radar, phased array radar, thrust vectoring, helmet mounted sights, IRST and multi-role aircraft. Mention of 5th generation aircraft should be limited to explaining if one of the previously mentioned systems was considered central to the development of the next generation of fighter aircraft. For example; 'As part of its extensive program of enhancements to its 4th generation aircraft Russia developed engines with 'thrust vectoring' nozzles on the end. These nozzles can be turned in order to direct the energy of the engine, enabling the aircraft to maneouvre more effectively as well as perform maneouvres not possible beforehand. The traditional control surfaces of aircraft can only help an aircraft maneouvre when it is aimed roughly in the direction it is travelling. Thrust vectoring allows the pilot to change the direction the plane is facing more rapidly then the direction the plane is travelling, while still retaining some control. The Russians have since put these engines on a number of technology demonstrators and export aircraft including 2-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-37 and 3-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM. Due to this development and the changes it has made to air to air combat it will be considered an important part of 5th generation aircraft and as such the F-22A has been equipped with 2-dimensional thrust vectoring. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]
I have appropriated moved the Tejas to 4th generation from 4.5. The Tejas is a Light Combat Aircraft, designed primarily to replace the aging MiG21. According to the Strategy Page [11] this aircraft is smaller and lighter than the F-16 and Swedish Gripen and "has less capable electronics". By comparison the Chinese FC-1 beats the Tejas in every avionics and weapons systems comparison. So unless it can be proven that the Tejas, which has been in development since 1983, has some other unknown capabilities that put it in the 4.5 Generation fighter line-up, it should be listed along with the FC-1, if not dropped from the 4th generation list altogether. -- H2d2 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, tejas was supposed to be on par with FC-1, i am moving it back to 4 from 4.5
I agree as well therefore, I'm moving Tejas from 4.5
Now regarding JF-17, it has an all-metal body, is not statically unstable, and if I'm not wrong, it has digital flight control in one axis. So it is a 4th generation fighter. IAF
IAF, as discussed by our editors and by you the JF-17 Thunder if not better(Although I believe it is better), is perhaps equal to that of HAL Tejas if you add LCA to the 4.5th generation list you would also have to accept the JF-17 Thunder in the same list.
And your argument 2 days ago was (And I quote from)
All in all, the Tejas is comparable to the JF-17, and this comparison will go down in the history of military aviation as being one of the most interesting ones, alongside the ranks of MiG-19--F-86, MiG-29--F-16, Spitfire--Messerschmitt Bf109, and the F-15--Su-30. IAF
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JF-17_Thunder"
Therefore I believe JF-17 Thunder belongs to the 4.5th Generation list as well. And please cite your sources as people above have taken actions with citable sources please read this before editing. Faraz
"India's Tejas aircraft is being designed by HAL and is compared to the best light multirole combat aircrafts in fhe world[neutrality disputed][citations needed]" .
According to my research HAL Tejas by far cannot be compared with F-22 Raptor. Therefore, this sentence needs citations and is disputed. I will be removing this sentence. Please refrain from expressing your views on the subject in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faraz ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
The LCA is THE smallest lightweight fighter in the world, which is true, However, adjectives like "the best" and "the foremost" must be avoided in the article. IAF
IAF, this sentence was removed from the paragraph which compares F-22 with other rumored 5th generation aircrafts.
Faraz
OK, my mistake. I do not mean to be rude; I personally think JF-17 is a fine 4G fighter. But regarding JF-17's grouping, I still think that it comes under 4G but LCA is 4.5G although JF-17 & LCA are both matched in terms of weapons, specifications and most avionics. However what differentiates them can be found in the opening 2 paras of the article. It says that 4.5 generation fighters are those which also have features to incorporate some stealth like : Use of high % of composites, and a slightly modified shape to reduce radar signature. LCA has very high composites, and is the smallest and lightest in its class (but carries as much load as Gripen) to reduce radar signature. It has cranked and double-delta wing. Static unstability & Quadruplex FBW are already there.
So from the article's definition itself, LCA is a 4.5G aircraft.
In comparison, JF-17 is not known to have composites, is statically stable, and moreover it is a derivative of the 3.5G MiG-21's design. AVionics-wise, it has standard stuff. So I think 4G is appropriate for JF-17.
Now this DOES NOT mean that LCA can beat JF-17. What matters in the end is specifications, specifications and only specifications like a) Top speed b) Range c) max. altitude d) G-limit e) Maximum external war-load f) Avionics like radar range, IRST, HMS, HOTAS, night-vision, EW suite g) BVR weapons & A2G weapons. In all these respects, the JF-17 and LCA are matched neck to neck. IAF
Alright, now lets compare the two:
JF-17:
HAL Tejas / LCA
It is pretty easy to determine which project had more success and which did not, and which aircraft is better. All in all, both fighters as agreed, are matched neck to neck but, I disagree with LCA being 4.5 generation Faraz
LCA's avionics are NOT 5 years behind that of the JF-17. LCA has the Israeli Litening targeting pod. Besides this, it will have :
From this list, it should be clear that the JF-17 has nothing in its avionics, that the LCA does not have.
Also, the JF-17 was completed in 4 years because it was already based on a tried-and-tested design--the MiG-21. The JF-17 also has had its share of design problems too that led to delays : Source
We can compare specs between JF-17 and LCA :
The official website of PAC KAMRA does not say anything about DSI. It only says "Bifurcated side air inlet". Is it necessarily DSI ? Even LCA has got a conventional bifurcated Y-duct inlet (according to the official site) but nobody claims it as DSI-like something special.
According to the opening para of this article itself, composites increase stealth, which the LCA has plenty (more than Gripen & Eurofighter). Since the opening para says that composites are a feature of a 4.5G fighter, and if Gripen can find a place in the 4.5G section, why not LCA ? IAF
IAF, the DSI was installed in the 4th prototype of the JF-17 edition which had several upgrades and new avionics installed in to it, as I have provided many sources which confirm DSI status of JF-17 (refer back). I do believe that JF-17 with DSI is more stealthier than that of HAL Tejas. Regarding the avionics, as mentioned on JF-17 Thunder it has been regarded as 4.5th generation in most of the articles, sources mentioned above and on the article itself.
Avionics include:
These avionics listed above stand firm against any other 4.5 generation aircraft. Therefore, the JF-17 thunder also qualifies as 4.5 generation
And if you add HAL Tejas in the 4.5th generation list, I believe that JF-17 stands firm as a 4.5 generation jet fighter as well. ( Faraz 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
LRU stands for Line-replaceable Units, which is not one particular component, but a general class of components that can be replaced easily as they are highly modular. ECCM is the set of Electronic Counter Measures like RWR, MAWs and jammers. These and LCD displays, night vision, RWRs, jammers are present even in the MiG-21s of the IAF.
Now regarding DSI, it definitely is not present in ordinary 4th generation planes. But that's just one feature. JF-17 with DSI is like a small town having Wall Street or London Bridge. So overall the JF-17 is a 4th generation plane, but only this one feature might be an exception.
This is because, in so many other characteristics it is still in the 20th century 1980s :- single FBW, basic MiG-21-derived frame, no composites, no instability, 8G maximum limit, T/W ratio less than 1.
Pakistani media even calls it a 3.5G fighter. China calls it a 3G fighter, because the Chinese designation is 1G behind the west (so in China, F-22 would be a 4G fighter). So even Chinese call the JF-17 as a 4G fighter. So its upto you ultimately.
Please do not be worried about placing the JF-17 as a match to the LCA in each & every department. Like I said earlier, their fighting capabilities are matched : its their PHYSICAL structurals that differentiates the JF-17 and LCA. IAF
OK. I'll go with that one. Maybe someone has to convince Mr. Subramanyam
that too much humility will hamper the LCA's prospects in the export market ! Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
i think faraz and IAF views are biased(and anyways wikipedia isnt supposed to be biased), they both come from the 2 countries that were pratically mutual enemies from the start. i think you should allow a person that is neutral to move the aircrafts jc-17 and HAL
tejas to there approiate spots. (
69.237.105.58
18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
It seems clear that the fifth generation info should be in a separate article. Profhobby 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WHAT?? Why Israel? Flayer 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel assisted Russia in avionics with the Su-30MKI that was delivered to India. The reasons for this are numerous but first and foremost is Israel feels the need to have a military balance with Muslim countries and cannot hope to sustain this in the future if none (including Pakistan) have other rivals to contend with. Helping India develop the second best fighter aircraft in the world helps Israel.
second best.... where did u get that info from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.150.138 ( talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why the f-35 JSF is listed as having a lower than 1:1 thust to weight ratio, when it is a VTOL craft. Im not an aeronotical engeneer by this does seem suspect. —The article reaks of russian nationialism, "news from russia .com" is hardly a reliable source. This really doesn't deserve a b grade because it lacks athorative sources, there are plenty of athorative sources in the world of aviation, It also contains numerious factual errors, the idf didn't loose f15's in their air to air engagements with the syrians. This article needs to be re written by a person who knows what they are talking about. unsigned comment was added by Androm ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Who added that the J-10 has a 1.0:1 kill ratio against the Su-35?
PAK-FA will have Indian involvement : Source 1, Source 2. This was decleared during the visit of Russian Defence minister to India, Sergei Ivanov in Jan 2007.
I've nominated this article for deletion. It is, and looks to remain, unencyclopedic, original research, and conjecture. The other military comparison articles merely compare specs in tabular format, leaving the reader to interpret. This article, however, interprets for the reader, and belongs in a magazine or blog. Sorry if this winds up ruining your pet project. ericg ✈ 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dunno that I'd delete the page but re "In the 1982 Lebanon War Syrian Air Force MiG-29s downed a number of Israeli F15s" WTF?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, consensus on the AfD was that this page seriously needed editing, so no more defense of the status quo. Have moved it and rewritten the intro; will proceed to cull through the article as necessary. -- Mmx1 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed:
All the reports I've found ( this is typical) say that the Isrealis shot down dozens of Syrian aircraft and lost none of their own. -- Robert Merkel 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite is actually pretty good, but you have removed such sourcing as was actually present (I know it wasn't great, but it was the best I could find). Are you intending to add sources back in? -- Robert Merkel 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The only source I can think of that I removed was the F-22 hit piece (not trying to be biased, but how else do you call something title "DESCRIPTION OF OUR FAILING DEFENSE ACQUSITION SYSTEM ...A NATIONAL TRAGEDY — MILITARY AND ECONOMIC", which is widely referenced on the F-22 page. I'll throw it in on the links at the bottom; it needs some footer material. -- Mmx1 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
One thing that's often claimed about the new-generation American planes is that their superior electronics information will reduce the workload on pilots, for instance by more sophisticated sensor data processing doing the work of identifying targets for the pilot, and a much simpler "user interface" meaning pilots only need to concentrate on relevant information. -- Robert Merkel 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is also counter-claims to this. The increase in the overall amount of systems available to pilots can increase their workload and often require more training. For example going from a primitive radar with a small amount of modes to a radar that can track 20+ targets and operate in numerous modes individually within its coverage is a fairly large jump in potential workload. The difference now is that the computers can assist the pilot priorities its targets. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com 22 June 2006]
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute did a report on the upcoming fighter replacement; it's free, it's online, they seem to know what they're talking about, it's quite comprehensive. http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html have a look].
Awesome. -- Mmx1 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That report is fairly comprehensive but makes a number of mistakes. For example it confuses the different models of Sukhois, referring to the Su-30 and Su-32 as side by side seated aircraft. These models are the Su-32 and the Su-34. Meanwhile it refers to the Su-30 repeatedly in this section without correcting the mistake. The Su-30 has 2 crew in back and front positions. This indicates as is common in articles in Australia on air combat, a relative lack of knowledge on Russian aircraft and the threats and capabilities they represent. It also makes a significant point about the different generations of aircraft which is relevant to this article. It points out that the teen series of US aircraft are 3rd generation and the Mig-29, Su-27, Eurofighter etc. are 4th generation. This is still the most common form of thinking on this subject and while people tend to group the US teen series with the 4th generation Russian and Europian aircraft due to the large amounts of upgrades made in the US it is important to note that these aircraft are still technologically behind.[j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]
The link supporting the claims of combat losses in the Afghanistan conflict is actually a link to another Wikipedia article, which isn't itself sourced. I've asked on that article's talk page for a source to be provided. -- Robert Merkel 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In the rewriting, the contention that the new-generation WVR missiles make dogfighting obsolete has disappeared. I actually managed to source this. It may not have been true when the 4th generation fighters appeared, but there's some people who think it's true now. So why was it removed? -- Robert Merkel 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The Rafale is already equiped with an IRST that is call OSF ( http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale) An other article in french: http://www.avions-militaires.net/rafale/radar-osf.php
Please review your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.230.94 ( talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Article mentions its use in F-22 and F-35. However fails to mention the PIRATE system on the Typhoon.
See
[5]
82.36.216.147
18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The PIRATE system isn't fitted to currently extant Typhoons, though; it's not going to be fielded until the Tranche 3 advanced variant of the Typhoon around 2010. -- JaceCady 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The PIRATE IRST sensor will be available from Tranche 1 Block 5 aircraft onwards.
See:
Fliegerrevue Extra No.5
Program overview from Andrew Brookes International Institute for Strategic Studies [6]
Thales Press Release, 200 PIRATE units for Tranche 2 aircraft in addition to 116 Tranche 1 Pirate's. [7]
Aviation International News online [8]-- 213.157.1.129 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The entire article makes no mention of the different generations in radar referring only to the US designed AESA radar. This is quite a flawed approach to an article on 4th generation fighter aircraft as no 4th generation fighter aircraft is equipped with an AESA radar. The most significant types of radars in the fourth generation are mechanically steered arrays, notably equipped in most US and European fighters and the more advanced Phased Array Radars equipped on many Russian aircraft. Phased Array radars differ only slightly from AESA radars and were first put on a fighter aircraft in 1975 with the deployment of the Mig-31. This article needs a major re-write, with a lot less emphasis on 5th generation systems such as AESA and the F-22A / F-35. It should explain both schools of though on fighter aircraft generations. Then it should go on to explain the developments exclusive or central to the 3rd and 4th generation. Examples would be BVR missiles, high off boresight WVR missiles, mechanically steered radar, phased array radar, thrust vectoring, helmet mounted sights, IRST and multi-role aircraft. Mention of 5th generation aircraft should be limited to explaining if one of the previously mentioned systems was considered central to the development of the next generation of fighter aircraft. For example; 'As part of its extensive program of enhancements to its 4th generation aircraft Russia developed engines with 'thrust vectoring' nozzles on the end. These nozzles can be turned in order to direct the energy of the engine, enabling the aircraft to maneouvre more effectively as well as perform maneouvres not possible beforehand. The traditional control surfaces of aircraft can only help an aircraft maneouvre when it is aimed roughly in the direction it is travelling. Thrust vectoring allows the pilot to change the direction the plane is facing more rapidly then the direction the plane is travelling, while still retaining some control. The Russians have since put these engines on a number of technology demonstrators and export aircraft including 2-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-37 and 3-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM. Due to this development and the changes it has made to air to air combat it will be considered an important part of 5th generation aircraft and as such the F-22A has been equipped with 2-dimensional thrust vectoring. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]
I have appropriated moved the Tejas to 4th generation from 4.5. The Tejas is a Light Combat Aircraft, designed primarily to replace the aging MiG21. According to the Strategy Page [11] this aircraft is smaller and lighter than the F-16 and Swedish Gripen and "has less capable electronics". By comparison the Chinese FC-1 beats the Tejas in every avionics and weapons systems comparison. So unless it can be proven that the Tejas, which has been in development since 1983, has some other unknown capabilities that put it in the 4.5 Generation fighter line-up, it should be listed along with the FC-1, if not dropped from the 4th generation list altogether. -- H2d2 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, tejas was supposed to be on par with FC-1, i am moving it back to 4 from 4.5
I agree as well therefore, I'm moving Tejas from 4.5
Now regarding JF-17, it has an all-metal body, is not statically unstable, and if I'm not wrong, it has digital flight control in one axis. So it is a 4th generation fighter. IAF
IAF, as discussed by our editors and by you the JF-17 Thunder if not better(Although I believe it is better), is perhaps equal to that of HAL Tejas if you add LCA to the 4.5th generation list you would also have to accept the JF-17 Thunder in the same list.
And your argument 2 days ago was (And I quote from)
All in all, the Tejas is comparable to the JF-17, and this comparison will go down in the history of military aviation as being one of the most interesting ones, alongside the ranks of MiG-19--F-86, MiG-29--F-16, Spitfire--Messerschmitt Bf109, and the F-15--Su-30. IAF
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JF-17_Thunder"
Therefore I believe JF-17 Thunder belongs to the 4.5th Generation list as well. And please cite your sources as people above have taken actions with citable sources please read this before editing. Faraz
"India's Tejas aircraft is being designed by HAL and is compared to the best light multirole combat aircrafts in fhe world[neutrality disputed][citations needed]" .
According to my research HAL Tejas by far cannot be compared with F-22 Raptor. Therefore, this sentence needs citations and is disputed. I will be removing this sentence. Please refrain from expressing your views on the subject in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faraz ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
The LCA is THE smallest lightweight fighter in the world, which is true, However, adjectives like "the best" and "the foremost" must be avoided in the article. IAF
IAF, this sentence was removed from the paragraph which compares F-22 with other rumored 5th generation aircrafts.
Faraz
OK, my mistake. I do not mean to be rude; I personally think JF-17 is a fine 4G fighter. But regarding JF-17's grouping, I still think that it comes under 4G but LCA is 4.5G although JF-17 & LCA are both matched in terms of weapons, specifications and most avionics. However what differentiates them can be found in the opening 2 paras of the article. It says that 4.5 generation fighters are those which also have features to incorporate some stealth like : Use of high % of composites, and a slightly modified shape to reduce radar signature. LCA has very high composites, and is the smallest and lightest in its class (but carries as much load as Gripen) to reduce radar signature. It has cranked and double-delta wing. Static unstability & Quadruplex FBW are already there.
So from the article's definition itself, LCA is a 4.5G aircraft.
In comparison, JF-17 is not known to have composites, is statically stable, and moreover it is a derivative of the 3.5G MiG-21's design. AVionics-wise, it has standard stuff. So I think 4G is appropriate for JF-17.
Now this DOES NOT mean that LCA can beat JF-17. What matters in the end is specifications, specifications and only specifications like a) Top speed b) Range c) max. altitude d) G-limit e) Maximum external war-load f) Avionics like radar range, IRST, HMS, HOTAS, night-vision, EW suite g) BVR weapons & A2G weapons. In all these respects, the JF-17 and LCA are matched neck to neck. IAF
Alright, now lets compare the two:
JF-17:
HAL Tejas / LCA
It is pretty easy to determine which project had more success and which did not, and which aircraft is better. All in all, both fighters as agreed, are matched neck to neck but, I disagree with LCA being 4.5 generation Faraz
LCA's avionics are NOT 5 years behind that of the JF-17. LCA has the Israeli Litening targeting pod. Besides this, it will have :
From this list, it should be clear that the JF-17 has nothing in its avionics, that the LCA does not have.
Also, the JF-17 was completed in 4 years because it was already based on a tried-and-tested design--the MiG-21. The JF-17 also has had its share of design problems too that led to delays : Source
We can compare specs between JF-17 and LCA :
The official website of PAC KAMRA does not say anything about DSI. It only says "Bifurcated side air inlet". Is it necessarily DSI ? Even LCA has got a conventional bifurcated Y-duct inlet (according to the official site) but nobody claims it as DSI-like something special.
According to the opening para of this article itself, composites increase stealth, which the LCA has plenty (more than Gripen & Eurofighter). Since the opening para says that composites are a feature of a 4.5G fighter, and if Gripen can find a place in the 4.5G section, why not LCA ? IAF
IAF, the DSI was installed in the 4th prototype of the JF-17 edition which had several upgrades and new avionics installed in to it, as I have provided many sources which confirm DSI status of JF-17 (refer back). I do believe that JF-17 with DSI is more stealthier than that of HAL Tejas. Regarding the avionics, as mentioned on JF-17 Thunder it has been regarded as 4.5th generation in most of the articles, sources mentioned above and on the article itself.
Avionics include:
These avionics listed above stand firm against any other 4.5 generation aircraft. Therefore, the JF-17 thunder also qualifies as 4.5 generation
And if you add HAL Tejas in the 4.5th generation list, I believe that JF-17 stands firm as a 4.5 generation jet fighter as well. ( Faraz 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
LRU stands for Line-replaceable Units, which is not one particular component, but a general class of components that can be replaced easily as they are highly modular. ECCM is the set of Electronic Counter Measures like RWR, MAWs and jammers. These and LCD displays, night vision, RWRs, jammers are present even in the MiG-21s of the IAF.
Now regarding DSI, it definitely is not present in ordinary 4th generation planes. But that's just one feature. JF-17 with DSI is like a small town having Wall Street or London Bridge. So overall the JF-17 is a 4th generation plane, but only this one feature might be an exception.
This is because, in so many other characteristics it is still in the 20th century 1980s :- single FBW, basic MiG-21-derived frame, no composites, no instability, 8G maximum limit, T/W ratio less than 1.
Pakistani media even calls it a 3.5G fighter. China calls it a 3G fighter, because the Chinese designation is 1G behind the west (so in China, F-22 would be a 4G fighter). So even Chinese call the JF-17 as a 4G fighter. So its upto you ultimately.
Please do not be worried about placing the JF-17 as a match to the LCA in each & every department. Like I said earlier, their fighting capabilities are matched : its their PHYSICAL structurals that differentiates the JF-17 and LCA. IAF
OK. I'll go with that one. Maybe someone has to convince Mr. Subramanyam
that too much humility will hamper the LCA's prospects in the export market ! Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
i think faraz and IAF views are biased(and anyways wikipedia isnt supposed to be biased), they both come from the 2 countries that were pratically mutual enemies from the start. i think you should allow a person that is neutral to move the aircrafts jc-17 and HAL
tejas to there approiate spots. (
69.237.105.58
18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
It seems clear that the fifth generation info should be in a separate article. Profhobby 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WHAT?? Why Israel? Flayer 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel assisted Russia in avionics with the Su-30MKI that was delivered to India. The reasons for this are numerous but first and foremost is Israel feels the need to have a military balance with Muslim countries and cannot hope to sustain this in the future if none (including Pakistan) have other rivals to contend with. Helping India develop the second best fighter aircraft in the world helps Israel.
second best.... where did u get that info from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.150.138 ( talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)