LCA beats F-16 - Page 9

highsea · 04-02-2005, 18:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dima

it "eats" the radar waves, that's cool, so who's working on the radar cancellation devices?

Besides the US, France and Britain are working on it . I don't know who else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dima

10m to the exponent 3 equals 10m? wouldn't it equal 1,000 meters

1000 meters would be 10^3m. 10m^3 means 10 cubic meters. The first is a measure of length and the second is a measure of volume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dima

oh, i think i got something that mentions Russia developing AESA, but you know me, probably misinterpreted it again, lol, so i'd like you to check it and give me your thoughts, very short, a link is provided as well

If they can mass produce the elements. they can build the radar.

Dima · 04-02-2005, 23:45 PM

oh, thanks, makes sense

oh, awesome, so they "can" make an AESA radar, great

ajaybhutani · 04-03-2005, 01:34 AM

is the russian development L band or X band?

Dima · 04-03-2005, 21:29 PM

i don't know

ajaybhutani · 04-04-2005, 00:40 AM

X-band AESA is an entirely new generation of AESAs. The AESA developments first began with the L-Band ones and then imporved to X-band ones. What needs to be seen is where the Russians stand rite now.

highsea · 04-07-2005, 11:19 AM

The reason x-band AESA radars are relatively new is because it is only recently that we have been able to miniaturize the design sufficiently to fit them in the nosecone of a fighter AC.

The reason that the first AESA radars were L-band, is because they were area search and surveillance installations (and ATC), which is what L-band is good for. The short wavelength at X-band frequencies is what makes possible high-resolution imaging radars for target identification and target discrimination, something that L-band frequencies are not good at.

This is why your N011M is dual band- the long range search is done in L-band, and the targeting and SAR imaging is done in x-band. The shorter the wavelength, the greater the attenuation due to atmospheric conditions, so L-band is better at long distances.

So it's safe to say that the Russian efforts are x-band if they are intended for fighter AC. I posted on this a while back, the APAR (AESA) efforts by NIIR are not looking promising, and NIIP has taken over the development of the Pak-Fa radar with a standard passive pulse-doppler design, due to the state of the art in Russia wrt radars. (They do not have the technology to mass produce AESA elements)

killabee · 06-10-2007, 18:50 PM

any jet with true bvr capabilty is superior to early f-16a, but when u bring the aim-120c in the ecuation the LCA is just another target...

Akita · 06-15-2007, 20:28 PM

I'm wondering why it's considered a fair comparison to line the LCA up with a 25-30 year old American design. Wouldn't the pertinant comparison be LCA vs JSF?

chankya · 06-15-2007, 20:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

I'm wondering why it's considered a fair comparison to line the LCA up with a 25-30 year old American design. Wouldn't the pertinant comparison be LCA vs JSF?

Ha Ha?

Indirect Fire · 06-17-2007, 21:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

I'm wondering why it's considered a fair comparison to line the LCA up with a 25-30 year old American design. Wouldn't the pertinant comparison be LCA vs JSF?

Hmmm...

The LCA is lighter than the JSF, but the JSF has a longer range, and can carry a bigger load.

I don't think that you can compare LCAs with JSFs effectively, just like you can't compare glass with water. The LCA was built as a swarm fighter, and a replacement for the MiG 21 of the IAF, while the JSF was designed as a new more powerful workhorse for the UAF.

Both aircraft are in classes of their own.

Maybe in a couple of years we can hopefully compare the MCA (or PAK FA) vs the JSF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killabee

any jet with true bvr capabilty is superior to early f-16a, but when u bring the aim-120c in the ecuation the LCA is just another target...

The LCA is smaller, and it's composite design allows it to have a smaller RCA. You're going to have to get really, really close to fire that AMRAAM, and also, the LCA like I mentioned above, is a swarm plane. You won't just be facing one, but two or three at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chankya

Ha Ha?

Ha Ha Ha?

chankya · 06-18-2007, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indirect Fire

Ha Ha Ha?

i accept and I'll raise you...

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Do you want to see how long we can keep this up before someone calls those kindly gentleman in white suits?

joey · 06-18-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killabee

any jet with true bvr capabilty is superior to early f-16a, but when u bring the aim-120c in the ecuation the LCA is just another target...

Thats highly misleading, You cannot say that for granted as there are many things involved.

LCA is not being developed to be compared to F16 it is being developed to fit in where IAF wants it to and thats what matters here.

Indirect fire, about LCA being swarm plane your not correct, remember till today Mig 21 Bison are one of frontline interceptors of IAF.

Indirect Fire · 06-19-2007, 17:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chankya

i accept and I'll raise you...

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Do you want to see how long we can keep this up before someone calls those kindly gentleman in white suits?

I'll try to.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

I'm though expecting those kindly gentleman in black suits though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey

Thats highly misleading, You cannot say that for granted as there are many things involved.

LCA is not being developed to be compared to F16 it is being developed to fit in where IAF wants it to and thats what matters here.

Indirect fire, about LCA being swarm plane your not correct, remember till today Mig 21 Bison are one of frontline interceptors of IAF.

I thought that it was a swarm plane mainly because of it's size and range.

Thanks for clearing a few things up for me.

hammerhead2 · 06-23-2007, 00:39 AM

Mr Vatsu's comments on the LCA and F16 is a typical syyndrome in many public forums: Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

bugs · 07-20-2007, 13:53 PM

Lca could not even beat the Kfir...
After watching iron eagle i`m sure of it.

04-02-2005, 23:45 PM	#122 (permalink)
Dima Contributor Join Date: 01-27-05 Posts: 434	oh, thanks, makes sense oh, awesome, so they "can" make an AESA radar, great __________________ for MOTHER MOLDOVA

07-20-2007, 13:53 PM	#135 (permalink)
bugs Patron Join Date: 07-19-07 Location: 29°43'34.48"N 95°32'47.97"W Posts: 250 Country:	lca Lca could not even beat the Kfir... After watching iron eagle i`m sure of it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
LCA Vs FC1/JF17	bull	Military Aviation	221	Yesterday 01:20 AM
IAF to procure 126 LCA Tejas fighters by 2010: Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi	Srirangan	South Asian Defense Topics	19	11-28-2005 11:59 AM
DRDO looking for global technical partner to develop Kaveri engine	oneman28	South Asian Defense Topics	66	07-15-2005 06:38 AM
Can LCA stand up to F16/Gripen??	ajaybhutani	Military Aviation	30	01-27-2005 13:58 PM
Truman Beats Dewey, Bush Beats Kerry	Leader	Political Discussions	0	11-06-2004 23:54 PM

04-03-2005, 01:34 AM	#123 (permalink)
ajaybhutani *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-05-04 Posts: 2,100	is the russian development L band or X band?

04-03-2005, 21:29 PM	#124 (permalink)
Dima Contributor Join Date: 01-27-05 Posts: 434	i don't know

04-04-2005, 00:40 AM	#125 (permalink)
ajaybhutani *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-05-04 Posts: 2,100	X-band AESA is an entirely new generation of AESAs. The AESA developments first began with the L-Band ones and then imporved to X-band ones. What needs to be seen is where the Russians stand rite now.

04-07-2005, 11:19 AM	#126 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,535	The reason x-band AESA radars are relatively new is because it is only recently that we have been able to miniaturize the design sufficiently to fit them in the nosecone of a fighter AC. The reason that the first AESA radars were L-band, is because they were area search and surveillance installations (and ATC), which is what L-band is good for. The short wavelength at X-band frequencies is what makes possible high-resolution imaging radars for target identification and target discrimination, something that L-band frequencies are not good at. This is why your N011M is dual band- the long range search is done in L-band, and the targeting and SAR imaging is done in x-band. The shorter the wavelength, the greater the attenuation due to atmospheric conditions, so L-band is better at long distances. So it's safe to say that the Russian efforts are x-band if they are intended for fighter AC. I posted on this a while back, the APAR (AESA) efforts by NIIR are not looking promising, and NIIP has taken over the development of the Pak-Fa radar with a standard passive pulse-doppler design, due to the state of the art in Russia wrt radars. (They do not have the technology to mass produce AESA elements)

06-10-2007, 18:50 PM	#127 (permalink)
killabee Banished Join Date: 06-06-07 Posts: 50 Country:	any jet with true bvr capabilty is superior to early f-16a, but when u bring the aim-120c in the ecuation the LCA is just another target...

06-15-2007, 20:28 PM	#128 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	I'm wondering why it's considered a fair comparison to line the LCA up with a 25-30 year old American design. Wouldn't the pertinant comparison be LCA vs JSF?

06-23-2007, 00:39 AM	#134 (permalink)
hammerhead2 New Member Join Date: 12-28-06 Posts: 8	Mr Vatsu's comments on the LCA and F16 is a typical syyndrome in many public forums: Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)