Check out the new MiG-29 Simulator Read our New Articles in the articles section The never ending saga of LCA Tejas The never ending saga of the Third Generation LCA Tejas Pop open the Champagne, its time to celebrate? When the world was moving over to 5th Generation, a certain large country was celebrating something else. A fighter designed by the country which even its Airforce is hesitant to induct in decent numbers. The fighter which was supposed to replace the good ol' Mig-21, but strangely still in development. Yup, we are talking about the infamous LCA Tejas. When the Project first came into existence in 1983, the IAF(Indian Air Force) was full of optimism about LCA which vaguely resembled one of their most favorite fighter, the french origin Mirage-2000. But after almost 30 years, the reality is this fighter had to be forced down the IAF's throat by the Ministry of Defence. After numerous prototypes & cost-overruns, the Light Combat Aircraft(LCA) has now finally progressed to IOC(Initial Operational Clearance). But the IAF feels the specs of this fighter is not something to write home about. And they are not wrong. LCA's G tolerance is only 6Gs. When compared its rivals, Pakistan's JF-17/FC-1's is 8Gs, and Mig-21's(which it is supposed to replace) is 8.5Gs. Its empty weight is a staggering 6540kgs. This betrays the very name of this fighter, "Light Combat Aircraft". Also this is a fighter which is said to have composites extensively. Just leaves one wondering what's the point of composites if it got to weigh this heavy in the end. The JF-17(similar in size to the LCA), eventhough it has a metal body, weighs only 6586kgs. The Mig-21 weighs 5460kgs. It has a Maximum angle of attack of only 22, compared to the Mig-21's Max AoA of 28 Degrees(recoverable). Its radar is still under perpetual development. The Israelis were supposed to give their radar, but new news reports suggests they have pulled the plug. So LCA currently has no working radar. Tejas' new IN20 engine has a thrust of 19100lbf or 8660kgf. It is also a superior engine to RD-93 on the JF-17 which has a thrust of only 18300lbf. But the Mig-21's Tumansky engine can throw out a jaw dropping 21829lbf during interception, and 15654lbf during dogfighting, but it is an old Turbojet model. Hence the MTBO(Mean Time Between Overhaul), SFC(Specific Fuel Consumption) and other parameters favor the LCA's engine. So India has atleast one feather in its cap. Or does it? When all the parameters are below average and this one alone stands out, it's pretty obvious the engine is imported. The IN20 engine which the LCA owes its life to came straight out of the General-Electric's factory in the US. Its max speed is unknown. While JF-17's is Mach 1.6, and Mig-21's Mach 2.2. Its price is a staggering 1.9 billion Rupees or $41-42 million at the current 2011 exchange rate(fly away cost, not the cost with development taken into account). When compared, JF-17's cost is somewhere between $20-25 million, and Mig-21's < $2 million. Aeronautical Development Agency(ADA) has promised these poor specs will be improved to 8Gs, 24 Degrees, Mach 1.8, with an indigenous engine in 3-4 years. But it is highly unlikely they will be able to achieve that given their track record. When it took ADA almost 3 decades to get to these below-average specs, its only logical to assume they need a miracle to improve their specs in such a short amount of time. The Indian Airforce Chief PV.Naik came out with the truth that Tejas isn't a 4th Generation plane but rather only a Third Generation fighter. Perhaps he should have compared the specs first before classifying it as a MiG-21 on steroids("MiG-21++"). But then again the Foreign engine and a forthcoming foreign Radar, is and will be state of the art. Mr.Naik must have kept these 2 components in mind when he said that. And not just the IAF chief, a good friend of mine suggested after witnessing the highly uninspiring characteristics of LCA first hand in Bangalore, in the Aero India held back in 2003, that the LCA program should be scrapped and India should go for Mirage-2000 ASAP. He even predicted the perpetual development schedule of the project if India doesn't abandon this fighter. Looking back, its frightening how accurate his words were, made way back in 2003. With such extremely poor specs my heart goes out to the brave souls who'll be flying this junk. It really lives up to its critic's name - Least Capable Aircraft! References & Related Articles: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/lcatejas.html Which is the best BVR Fighter Aircraft in South Asia ? Which Fighter Plane is the No:1 in the Indian Subcontinent in the BVR(Beyond Visual Range) arena? Updated 17th April 2012 *Article written before Rafale and Super-Sukhoi acquisition by the IAF* Official Specs says Zhuk-ME on board Mig-29K & Mig-29SMT upgrade has a detection range of 120km for a 5m2 target. Using the Radar-Range-RCS equation which states that the detection range varies with the fourth root of the RCS((New RCS/Old RCS)^0.25 * Radar Range for Old RCS), it becomes possible to calculate the range of the radar for different RCS values. For 20m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 170km For 15m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 158km For 12.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 151km For 10m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 143km For 8.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 137km For 3m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 106km For 1m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 80km Official Specs says N-011M BARS onboard Su-30MKI has a detection range of 140km against a clean MiG-29, whose unofficial RCS is 5m2. Further the Radar Manufacturer(NIIP) is offering a BARS radar with a higher power output or a higher power transmitter, if the export client is interested. The basic version which offers a detection range of 140km for clean MiG-29 has a peak power output of 4-5kw, and hence has an 1.2kw average power output. NIIP is offering as high as 5kw average power output, 4 times the power output of the basic version, if the export customer wishes for it. This lead to some speculations that some N-011M BARS radar variants have a high power output, and hence a higher range than the 140km given above. The precise range for this version is not known. Whether this radar is in-service with the Indian Air force is also not known. And even if it is with the IAF, how many of these high powered N-011M BARS radar equipped Su-30MKI there are is also impossible to determine. Hence under these circumstances, only confirmed news and data can be taken into account. 140km detection range for 5m2 target. Hence: For 8.5m2, BARS detection range is 160km For 3m2, BARS detection range is 123km For 1.5m2, BARS detection range is 104km For 1m2, BARS detection range is 94km An internet blog of some individual, posted a pic claiming to be the official brochure from CETC. It claims that the KLJ-7 onboard JF-17 has a detection range of 105km for a 5m2 target. However, PAF isn't too fond of this radar eventhough it has the same range as the APG-68(V)9 on F-16block52 & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000-5/-9(both radar's range according to official specs), & more range than RC-400 radar. Even in its most powerful form(meaning the version with the largest antenna, which the JF-17 cannot house due to its relatively small nose), the RC400 has 20% less range than the RDY-2 radar. RC-400 is the radar which the PAF is planning to equip their second block of JF-17 according to current reports. The APG-68(V)9 has a bigger antenna(bigger radar-dish/bigger antenna gives more range) than the KLJ-7, plus it is manufactured by Northrop Grumman, a more mature and advanced Military-Industrial complex than CETC by a large margin. And APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 are THE best & latest mechanically scanned array type radars on F-16s(Both APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 have the same range[Reference 17]). Like the APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10, KLJ-7 is also a mechanically scanned array type radar. So the claim that the KLJ-7 has the same range as APG-68(V)9 seems more unlikely. Also is the fact that the PAF preferred a far lesser ranged RC-400 over the KLJ-7 radar. All this is fueling speculation that KLJ-7's true specs is lower than publicized by the closed-to-scrutiny Chinese Defence Establishments. This speculation turned out to be true when Janes Defence Weekly published that the Radar Range of KLJ-7 is actually 75km for a 3m2 Target.[Reference/Source 8] KLJ-7 has a 75km detection range for 3m2 Target. Hence: For 20m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 121km For 15m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 112km For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 107km For 10m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 101km For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 97km For 5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 85km For 1m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 57km APG-68(V)9 has a 105km detection range for 5m2 Target. Hence: For 20m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 149km For 15m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 138km For 12.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 132km For 10m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 125km For 8.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 120km For 3m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 92km For 1m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 70km RCS figures are confidential. However unofficially there are some figures available on the internet. They are: Clean(meaning payload/ammunition not loaded) F-16 after Block 30, which includes block 52 - 1.2m2 Clean Mig-29B & Mig-29SMT - 5m2 Clean Su-30MKI - 10m2 to 15m2 JF-17 without RAM, its RCS would be more than a Clean F-16 block 52 which has RAM & is planform. F-16 block25 & the previous variants, which are planform in construction but without RAM, were said to have an RCS of 3m2-5m2, when clean. JF-17's TWR isn't very high, and adding RAM would mean increasing the weight. So we can expect little or no RAM on JF-17. Also, JF-17 isn't very planform in construction but has DSI and is a smaller aircraft. So lets consider a favorable assumption that the RCS of a clean JF-17 is as low as 2.5m2.[Reference 1] Su-30MKI's RCS when carrying full 8000kgs AG load is said to be 20m2.[Reference 2] Lets take Su-30MKI's clean RCS as 11.5m2, higher than a standard Su-27, due to canards & the extra seat. Mig-29K's RCS is officially confirmed to be 4-5 times less than a old Mig-29, due to composites & RAM. So taking an average value between 4 & 5 = 4.5. When the unofficial RCS of 5 is divided by 4.5 we get an RCS of 1.11. "Considerable increase of flight range is also gained due to increased capacity of drop fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability (with the possibility to refuel from the aircraft of the same type). Due to special coatings Mig-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29."[Reference 3] It's well known that RCS increases with external payload. JF-17 cannot carry larger payloads. Its load carrying capacity is only 7900lbs or less than 3600kgs. This compared to Su-30MKIs 8000kgs, Mig-29K's 5500kgs, & F-16's 7500kgs. So only a nominal increase of 2.5m2 RCS is taken into consideration for the JF-17. Eventhough Mig-29K carries less payload than a F-16 or Su-30, a RCS increase more than F-16's is considered for calculations, in order to get a uniform RCS. This is done purely for the ease of comparison, but as a result of this the MiG-29K's RCS figure is much more than what it would be been. In the end: Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29SMT as 8.5m2, 3.5m2 more. Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29K as 5m2, 3.9m2 more. Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded F-16 Block 52 as 5m2, 3.8m2 more. Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded JF-17 as 5m2, 2.5m2 more. Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Su-30MKI as 15m2, 3.5m2 more. With these RCS values and the above radar ranges, you can now see which fighters will be detecting their opponent fighters first... and first tracking which almost linearly follows detection. Mig-29K will detect: Su-30MKI at 158km Mig-29SMT at 137km F-16 Block 52 at 120km JF-17 at 120km F-16 Block 52 will detect: Su-30MKI at 138km Mig-29SMT at 120km JF-17 at 105km Mig-29K at 105km Su-30MKI will detect: Mig-29SMT at 160km F-16 Block 52 at 140km JF-17 at 140km Mig-29K at 140km Mig-29SMT will detect: Su-30MKI at 158km F-16 Block 52 at 120km JF-17 at 120km Mig-29K at 120km JF-17 will detect: Su-30MKI at 112km Mig-29SMT at 97km F-16 Block52 at 85km Mig-29K at 85km Mig-29K comes out as the clear winner. If provided with a long range BVR weapon which could match its powerful radar, Mig-29K navalised version will come out as the BVR winner. Su-30MKI follows the Mig-29K Naval Fulcrum. Mig-29SMT & F-16 Block-52 are tied at third, followed by the JF-17. Related News Article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/25navy.htm References: Radars & their Ranges on their respective Fighters Zhuk-ME (on Mig-29 Upgrade & Mig-29K) Can Track- 10 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 120 km http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_99-102.pdf N-011 BARS (Su-30MKI) Can Track- 15 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 140 km http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_99-102.pdf http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM PICTURES & DOCS/Overscan's guide to Russian Military Avionics.htm Kopyo-21I Can Track- 8 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 57 km http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_99-102.pdf Kopyo-M Can Track- 10 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_99-102.pdf (Mig-21 Bison has Kopyo radar. Some bisons are equipped with Kopyo-21I and some with Kopyo-M.) Grifo-S Can Track- 10 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 93 km http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/GRIFO_S.pdf KLJ-7 Can Track- 10 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets Max Detection for 3 sqm RCS - 75 km http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8879/klj7st5.jpg BARS-29 (Same MKI radar but antenna adapted to Mig-29's smaller nose) Can Track- 15 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 120 km http://img279.imageshack.us/img279/2092/niipbars29back2wp.jpg http://img279.imageshack.us/img279/8760/niipbars29front9zl.jpg Irbis-E (Su-35S) Can Track - 30 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 8 Targets Max Detection for 3 sqm RCS - 400 km Max Detection for 0.01 sqm RCS - 90 km http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/Irbis_a001800001.aspx http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html http://www.niip.ru/modules/Downloads/docs/2006/2006_5.pdf APG-77 (F-22A) Max Track for 1 sqm RCS - 200 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5039-start-30.html APG-81 (F-35) Max Track for 1 sqm RCS - 160 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5039-start-30.html Captor-M (EF-2000) Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 185 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5039-start-30.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html Zaslon-M (Mig-31) Max Detection for 10 ~ 15 sqm RCS - 400 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html RBE-2 (Rafale) Can Track - 40 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Track for 3 sqm RCS - 100 km Max Detection for 3 sqm RCS - 130-140 km http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=942.0 RDY-2 (mirage 2000-5/-9) Can Track - 24 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5039-start-30.html RC-400 (smaller radar based on RDY-2) Can Track - 24 Targets Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 70 km APG-68 (V)9 (on F-16 Block 52) Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 105 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-195.html Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5039-start-30.html APG-66(V)2 (on F-16 MLU) Max Detection for 6 sqm RCS - 74 km http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1819.0 Additional References & Related Articles: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/bestfighter.html Fulcrum - 1 | Chinese Copies - 0 China's J-10 suffered its first overseas defeat to the Mig-29 Fulcrum Fulcrum - 1 | Chinese Copies - 0 On 23rd December 2009 a significant event took place which sadly went under reported. When inane drivel were making its way to the news, the event which established the superiority of a fighter over another went largely unnoticed. It was on that very day the first news regarding results of a competition came out in the open. The Myanmar Air force(Tatmadaw Lei) chose the MiG-29SMT Fulcrum over the much hyped China's J-10, and its smaller cousin which was rejected by China itself- the JF-17 Thunder. This competition was like no other. On one hand the fulcrum was facing setbacks everywhere. First it was in Malaysia where due to endemic corruption and the interference of Middle men, the spares for the MiG-29s were ridiculously over priced by the time it reached the end user. This prompted Malaysia to retire its MiG-29s prematurely. The second setback was on the Algerian front, where another corruption involving Russian middle men lead to sourcing inferior parts for upgrading the MiG-29s. This lead Algeria to cancel the order, which left the Russians in deep soul searching. Just recently the middle men were arrested and criminal cases initiated against them. There were also wild rumors of Myanmar's MiG-29s being grounded due to poor after sales service(which got proved wrong). Plus SMT Fulcrums are basically mothballed MiG-29S fresh out of factory(during the 1990s but never got inducted into the Russian Air Force because of the poor economic condition of Russia) and is re-sold with SMT upgrades to various countries. The Chinese fighters on the other hand had no such setbacks. In addition to the fact that Myanmar is in China's backyard, the Chinese fighters, especially the J-10 was marketed as "ultra modern" and was even offered highly advantageous price and payment conditions. However the results of that tender was dramatic. The J-10 is a product of widespread assistance by the western powers during the years of the Cold war. During the cold war, the U.S encouraged Israel to help the Chinese boost their capabilities against what they considered as the "Evil Empire" which was giving the whole western world & China quite a challenge. China and the Soviet Union were at each other throats after the Soviets refused to bow down to china's demands to return "their" land. After many bloody skirmishes, where the Chinese suffered enormous causalities on the hands of the vastly superior Red Army, there was much bad blood between them. The western powers capitalized on this and began to rub shoulders with the Chinese. The Chinese too sold them J-7s to be used on the U.S DACT(Dissimilar Air Combat Training) simulating Soviet fighters. In the midst of this Honey moon, Israel starting sharing their technology with the blessings of Washington. And on top of that list(and a prime candidate since that project was stopped and was not in active service), was the Israeli Lavi. Israeli Lavi Protoype: http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7333/lavi.jpg J-10 Production Model: http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3239/medium/J-10_10107R.jpg However before Israel can offer full assistance, the Tienanmen massacre led to an abrupt halt to the help. However the Chinese still retained all the blueprints and even a Lavi mock-up. It was only natural for the Chinese Aerospace having done nothing but copying and reverse engineering fighters for the past 4 decades, to continue reverse engineering the Lavi. The cold war ended and China found itself partnering with its former enemy to ask for help. The Russian engineers who came out in the open reported several blueprints of Lavi in Hebrew! Russians who were cash strapped at this point agreed to help and also offered their engine. After a lot of reverse engineering and a few prototype crashes, J-10 finally flew. The Chinese fan boys were instantly captivated by the "beautiful" Israeli fighter and began over hyping its performance. The fighter was so secretive that only recently did china accept its existence. The first battle for this fighter was against the JF-17 which was a cheap project built on the Super-7(Super J-7) project. The J-10 clearly came out winning on the specs, which lead the PLAAF putting all its money on J-10 and ditching the JF-17, which at this point was referred as Junk Fighter -17 by the aviation community. After the triumphant domestic win, J-10's first real competition outside its motherland was in its neighborhood, Myanmar. There it was pitted against the MiG-29, Soviet Union's First Fourth Generation Fighter. Inspite of the other advantages heaped on the Chinese fighters, the result is that only the superior fighter wins. J-10 with its single engine was more risky compared to the twin engined MiG-29. It looses out on Thrust to Weight ratio to the MiG-29SMT. Its G-limits are unknown, as is its range, while Mig-29SMTs data is well known(9Gs and 1800kms without drop tanks). It shares 95% commonality with MiG-29UPG & can share or have a constant flow of spares & after sales support with the Indian Air Force's spare parts vendor. Its stall performance and recovery is unknown, while MiG-29 is known for breath taking stall maneuvers... hence getting out of a stall for a MiG-29 is a piece of cake. It has 7 hardpoints which can be increased to 11 with multi locks and can carry atleast 6 BVR missiles, while J-10 has 7 Weapon Hardpoints(and few pod station hardpoints which can only be used for pods, and less-than 100kg dumb bombs). Out of the 7, it can carry BVR missiles on only 2 hardpoints with dual racks, so a total of only 4 BVR missiles. It can carry 5 tonnes in weapon tonnage while J10's unknown. However some Chinese fan boys claim 4.5 tonnes and some even 6 tonnes. In avionics, there is the clear Russian superiority over Chinese copies. Taking all these facts into consideration, it's no wonder that the MiG-29SMT fulcrum was chosen over a Chinese plane. Apart from the desperate and poor PAF, which has no reliable & cheap suppliers, it seems there is no one else who is willing to take this Chinese fighter yet. There is little doubt now that the Chinese J-10 has suffered a blow to its prestige with its very first overseas defeat to the MiG-29SMT Fulcrum. References: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6246/specialreportj10c.jpg http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_M_M2_e.htm http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_20-24.pdf http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4431181 http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20091223_chinese_fighters.html Related Articles: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/mig29vsj10.html Is the JF-17 a Thunder or Blunder ? Is Pakistan's JF-17 a Thunder or a Blunder ? 26th December 2009 02:25PM Pakistan has witnessed new defense acquisitions in this decade than any other, and in the center of it all is the new fighter which was designed by China with partial funding from Pakistan. It is formally known as JF-17 Thunder. When the fighter was in development, Pakistani online communities were jumping with excitement comparing it with its arch rival India’s modern combatants Su-30MKI, MiG-29B & Mirage-2000H. There were claims of it featuring western Radars and long range missiles, & Chinese ordering some due to its superior capabilities. But the reality is far from it. China having spent significant amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to use, most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely. Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its spine, & wings bearing resemblance(in wing twist & wing area) to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed. It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. When its arch rival, the Indian Air Force(IAF), was overtly critical of Tejas for having a low Thrust to Weight ratio, maybe they should have compared it with JF-17 which has even less, even with Emergency Thrust. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3(or series 2?), whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from PAC's “Combat thrust” claim. Why this is being stated is because, the engines(bought by the Chinese after pressurizing the Russians) are the only non-Chinese & non-Pakistani component, and even there they have lied about its capabilities. Hence the true, lower than published, specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one’s guesses. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best. The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered MiG-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder. So why is Pakistan still inducting more and more of this fighter, which its critics increasingly call it Junk Fighter – 17 ? The answer may lie with Pakistan’s recent trauma & its psyche. Having sanctioned by the U.S, the star of their airforce, the F-16s were severally hit by lack of spares and most of the time grounded. The other 2 sources to procure modern Aircraft- Russia, have been sealed off due to the legacy of Soviet era friendship, current market in India & India’s pressure- and the other source, the European Union, for their extremely high costs. The third source, the Chinese, at that time were still flying their reverse engineered MiG-21s. In those circumstances, “Never again” was the motto of PAF and it instantly jumped into the project of further reversing the reverse engineered MiG-21, known as Super-7(a.k.a Super F-7) to obtain self reliance. The result of that project is the JF-17. So the decision was appropriate at that time, in those situations. However now with China having developed the J-10, and going by the recent reports of offering ToT(Transfer of Technology) to Pakistan, one wonders why are the Pakistanis still ordering 250 planes. Is the trauma of F-16 sanctions so high that they don’t even trust the Chinese? This can't be the case because they still need the Chinese to procure the RD-93 engines for them, even after the Chinese transfer all their associated JF-17 tech to PAC. So why...? The answer lies with their ego/psyche rather than the trauma. Unlike J-10, Pakistan shares copyright to JF-17 and that, for some weird reason, gives them something to celebrate about. This is strange for the reason, war machines are for fighting wars and achieving tactical & strategic objectives, not for gloating about who holds the copyrights. When JF-17 comes face to face with MKI or SMT, there won’t be much to celebrate about it, or the few millions if at all it earns though exports. In the end, it’s all about defending ones homeland from the enemy, and not copyrights. JF-17 would have been the best fighter and a sensible decision in the absence of J-10, but now its reason for existence is as obsolete as the fighter itself. This writer would rather have an upgraded MiG-23MLD than a JF-17 anyday. Reference: Official IDEAS 2008 JF-17 Placard: http://i31.tinypic.com/34xgswi.jpg Official Farnborough 2010 JF-17 Infoboard: http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4262/jf17.jpg Engine Data from Klimov: http://klimov.ru/f/download/press-kit/2100054687/2100054340/ Recently Updated Official PAC Website: http://www.pac.org.pk/jf17.html#spec Additional References and Related Articles: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/jf-17.html Thrust to Weight Ratios (TWR) of all Fighters Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine[s] / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel))) 1.30 - Su-35S 1.29 - F-15K 1.26 - Su-27S 1.25 - Eurofighter 1.24 - Mig-35 (T/W = 1.45 during Emergency Thrust*) 1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A 1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 (T/W = 1.39 during Emergency Thrust*) 1.19 - F-15C 1.18 - F-22A (T/W = 1.37 with Round nozzles?) 1.16 - Su-30MKK 1.16 - Rafale C 1.16 - F-35A 1.15 - Mig-29B (9-12) 1.14 - Su-30MKI (T/W = 1.21 during Emergency Thrust@) 1.13 - Mig-29 (9-13), S, SD, SE & SM 1.11 - F/A-18E (F/A-18F: 1.09) 1.10 - Rafale M 1.10 - Mig-29 BM & SMT (T/W = 1.15 during Emergency Thrust*) 1.09 - F-16E Block 60 1.09 - Mig-29K (T/W = 1.28 during Emergency Thrust*) 1.09 - F-18C 1.09 - J-8III(or J-8C) 1.08 - F-35B 1.08 - F-14 B & D 1.06 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: T/W = 1.055) 1.05 - J-8IIm 1.04 - AV-8B+ Harrier II 1.03 - F-2A (F-2B: 1.02) 1.03 - JH-7 1.02 - F-16A Block 10 1.01 - F-35C 1.01 - J-8II & J-8IIb & J-8IId 1.00 - J-10A 1.00 - Harrier GR7A 0.99 - Su-34 & Su-32FN & Su-27IB 0.99 - Sea Harrier FA2 & FRS51 0.99 - F-16A Block 20 0.97 - Su-15T 0.95 - MiG-23 P, ML, MLA & MLD 0.94 - Gripen NG 0.94 - F-4E 0.94 - J-8 0.93 - Mirage 2000-5 0.93 - Su-15TM 0.93 - F-101B 0.92 - Harrier GR7 0.92 - E E Lightning F6 0.91 - F-16C Block 25 0.91 - Yak-28 I & P 0.91 - F-111F 0.91 - Su-24 0.90 - Su-15 0.88 - Mirage-2000 C & H 0.87 - F-14A 0.87 - Mig-23 MF & MS 0.87 - Su-24 M, MK & M2 0.86 - F-CK-1 0.86 - LCA (T/W = 0.91 during Emergency Thrust****) 0.86 - Su-9 0.84 - Su-11 0.84 - Su-17M 0.83 - Tornado F3 Air Defence Variant 0.83 - Tornado GR1 0.83 - Su-20 0.82 - JF-17 (T/W = 0.86 during Emergency Thrust*) 0.82 - Su-22 0.81 - Gripen A 0.81 - Su-7B 0.81 - F-20 0.80 - Gripen C 0.80 - Mig-27K 0.80 - Su-7BM 0.79 - Mig-21 Bis (T/W = 1.11 in Emergency Thrust mode**) 0.79 - JA-37 Viggen 0.79 - Mig-27 0.79 - Su-17M2 0.78 - Mig-23BN 0.78 - Su-7 BKL & BMK 0.78 - Javelin FAW MK9 0.77 - Mig-23S 0.77 - J-7IIIa 0.76 - Mig-27 D & ML 0.76 - Mig-23M(E) 0.76 - F-106A 0.76 - F-7MG & F-7BG & F-7PG & J-7E & J-7G (WP-7N: T/W = 0.69) 0.76 - Q-5D 0.75 - Kfir C.7 0.75 - Kfir C.2 0.75 - AJ-37 Viggen 0.75 - J-7III 0.74 - Mig-21SM 0.73 - Su-17 0.73 - Mig-21MF 0.73 - Su-17M3 0.73 - Mig-19S*** (MTOW T/W = 0.86) 0.72 - Yak-27K 0.72 - Su-17M4 0.72 - F-104G 0.71 - Mig-19P*** (MTOW T/W = 0.84) 0.71 - Mig-21PF 0.71 - Supermarine Scimitar F.1 0.71 - Cheetah C 0.70 - Mig-21M 0.70 - Su-25SM 0.69 - Jaguar GR1 0.69 - J-35F Draken 0.69 - Mig-21F 0.69 - Mig-21 F-13 0.69 - J-7II 0.69 - Su-25 or Su-25T 0.68 - F-105F/G 0.68 - Mirage 50 0.68 - F-7M(or F-7MP or F-7MB) & F-7P 0.67 - F-1 0.67 - F4D-1/F-6 Skyray 0.66 - Mirage F-1 0.66 - F-8P 0.64 - F-102A 0.63 - Sea Vixen FAW.2 0.63 - Su-25TM or Su-39 0.62 - Yak-27 0.61 - Yak-38M (TWR during STOVL/VTOL takeoff: 1.20) 0.61 - Mirage-5A 0.61 - J-32B Lansen 0.60 - A-4S1 0.59 - Mirage-III E & D 0.58 - Yak-38 (T/W during STOVL/VTOL takeoff: 1.16) 0.58 - IAI Nesher 0.58 - F-5E Tiger-II 0.56 - F-100D 0.56 - A-6E 0.55 - A-7E 0.51 - Super Étendard 0.50 - F3H-2 Demon 0.49 - A-10A 0.49 - F-11A 0.49 - AMX 0.47 - Étendard-IV M 0.46 - F-89D 0.46 - Super Mystère B.2 0.46 - Hunter F 6 0.45 - Marut Mk.1 0.43 - Yak-25 0.43 - F-94C/F-97A 0.43 - F9F-8/F-9J Cougar 0.41 - A-37B 0.37 - Mystère IVA 0.37 - FJ-4 Fury 0.36 - F7U-3M 0.34 - F-84F 0.33 - J-29F Tunnan 0.33 - P-80C 0.32 - Supermarine Attacker F.1 0.31 - F2H-3 Banshee 0.30 - Ouragan M.D.450B 0.30 - F3D-2 Sky Night 0.29 - Venom FB.1 0.29 - F-84G Pure Interceptors 1.30 - Mig-31M 1.30 - Mig-31BM 1.28 - Mig-31B 1.27 - Mig-31FE 1.27 - Mig-31E 1.22 - Mig-31 1.21 - Mig-25M 1.00 - Mig-25 P & PD 0.93 - Mig-25BM 0.74 - Tu-128 Empty Weight - Thrust - Aircraft 41,447 - 31,967 X 2 - Su-35S 37,500 - 29,160 X 2 - F-15K 36,111 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-27S 24,251 - 20,000 X 2 - Eurofighter 24,251 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-35 (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*) 37,192 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-27SK & J-11A 25,573 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-29M/M2 (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*) 31,700 - 23,450 X 2 - F-15C 43,340 - 30,100 X 2 - F-22A(35,000lbf - Thrust with round nozzle) 39,903 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-30MKK 20,948 - 16,620 X 2 - Rafale C 29,300 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35A 24,030 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29B (9-12) 40,565 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-30MKI (29,321lbf - Emergency Thrust@) 24,692 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29 (9-13), S, SD, SE & SM 32,082 - 22,000 X 2 - F/A-18E (F/A-18F: 32,795lb) 22,478 - 16,620 X 2 - Rafale M 25,573 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29 BM & SMT (19,180lbf - Emergency Thrust*) 22,000 - 32,500 X 1 - F-16E Block 60 28,550 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-29K (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*) 24,700 - 17,700 X 2 - F-18C 22,509 - 16,535 X 2 - J-8III(or J-8C) 32,000 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35B 43,600 - 27,800 X 2 - F-14 B & D 19,700 - 29,160 X 1 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: 420lb & 240lbf more) 21,671 - 15,422 X 2 - J-8IIm 14,865 - 23,400 X 1 - AV-8B+ Harrier II 21,000 - 29,600 X 1 - F-2A (F-2B: 21,235lb) 31,967 - 20,515 X 2 - JH-7 15,600 - 23,830 X 1 - F-16A Block 10 34,800 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35C 21,671 - 14,815 X 2 - J-8II & J-8IIb & J-8IId 20,394 - 28,000 X 1 - J-10A 15,708 - 23,400 X 1 - Harrier GR7A 49,163 - 28,219 X 2 - Su-34 & Su-32FN & Su-27IB 14,052 - 21,450 X 1 - Sea Harrier FA2 & FRS51 16,285 - 23,830 X 1 - F-16A Block 20 22,818 - 14,770 X 2 - Su-15T 22,553 - 28,660 X 1 - MiG-23 P, ML, MLA & MLD 15,653 - 22,000 X 1 - Gripen NG 30,328 - 17,845 X 2 - F-4E 20,470 - 13,219 X 2 - J-8 16,000 - 22,045 X 1 - Mirage 2000-5 23,970 - 14,770 X 2 - Su-15TM 28,495 - 16,900 X 2 - F-101B 15,708 - 21,450 X 1 - Harrier GR7 28,042 - 16,360 X 2 - E E Lightning F6 18,238 - 23,770 X 1 - F-16C Block 25 21,980 - 13,448 X 2 - Yak-28 I & P 47,481 - 25,100 X 2 - F-111F 46,738 - 24,692 X 2 - Su-24 22,531 - 13,669 X 2 - Su-15 16,538 - 21,384 X 1 - Mirage 2000 C & H 40,104 - 20,900 X 2 - F-14A 24,008 - 27,558 X 1 - Mig-23 MF & MS 49,163 - 24,801 X 2 - Su-24 M, MK & M2 14,300 - 09,500 X 2 - F-CK-1 14,462 - 19,100 X 1 - LCA (20,200lbf - Emergency Thrust****) 16,920 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-9 18,876 - 22,267 X 1 - Su-11 21,605 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M 31,970 - 16,410 X 2 - Tornado F3 Air Defence Variant 31,065 - 16,005 X 2 - Tornado GR1 21,936 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-20 14,520 - 18,300 X 1 - JF-17 (19,180lbf - Emergency Thrust*) 23,027 - 25,353 X 1 - Su-22 14,595 - 18,097 X 1 - Gripen A 18,453 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7B 13,150 - 17,000 X 1 - F-20 14,991 - 18,097 X 1 - Gripen C 26,252 - 27,558 X 1 - Mig-27K 18,629 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7BM 12,037 - 15,654 X 1 - Mig-21 Bis (21,829lbf - Emergency Thrust**) 27,866 - 28,100 X 1 - JA-37 Viggen 24,317 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-27 23,369 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M2 24,692 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-23BN 19,599 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7 BKL & BMK 23,955 - 12,300 X 2 - Javelin FAW MK9 21,583 - 22,487 X 1 - Mig-23S 11,629 - 14,815 X 1 - J-7IIIa 25,573 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-27 D & ML 22,046 - 22,487 X 1 - Mig-23M(E) 24,420 - 24,500 X 1 - F-106A 11,667 - 14,650 X 1 - F-7MG & F-7BG & F-7PG & J-7E & J-7G (WP-7N: 13,450lbf) 14,054 - 08,269 X 2 - Q-5D 17,130 - 18,750 X 1 - Kfir C.7 16,061 - 17,901 X 1 - Kfir C.2 27,006 - 25,970 X 1 - AJ-37 Viggen 11,861 - 14,650 X 1 - J-7III 11,574 - 14,308 X 1 - Mig-21SM 21,164 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-17 11,795 - 14,308 X 1 - Mig-21MF 26,014 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M3 12,009 - 07,165 X 2 - Mig-19S*** (MTOW: 16,667lb) 15,443 - 08,318 X 2 - Yak-27K 26,810 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M4 14,082 - 15,600 X 1 - F-104G 12,507 - 07,165 X 2 - Mig-19P*** (MTOW: 17,042lb) 11,354 - 13,492 X 1 - Mig-21PF 23,962 - 11,250 X 2 - Supermarine Scimitar F.1 14,550 - 15,900 X 1 - Cheetah C 11,795 - 13,613 X 1 - Mig-21M 20,723 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25SM 15,432 - 08,040 X 2 - Jaguar GR1 17,339 - 17,262 X 1 - J-35F Draken 10,624 - 12,654 X 1 - Mig-21F 10,739 - 12,654 X 1 - Mig-21 F-13 11,850 - 13,219 X 1 - J-7II 20,944 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25 or Su-25T 28,393 - 24,500 X 1 - F-105F/G 15,763 - 15,870 X 1 - Mirage 50 11,629 - 13,219 X 1 - F-7M(or F-7MP or F-7MB) & F-7P 14,017 - 07,305 X 2 - F-1 16,024 - 16,000 X 1 - F4D-1/F-6 Skyray 16,314 - 15,873 X 1 - Mirage F-1 19,700 - 18,000 X 1 - F-8P 19,350 - 17,200 X 1 - F-102A 27,954 - 11,240 X 2 - Sea Vixen FAW.2 23,677 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25TM or Su-39 15,395 - 07,165 X 2 - Yak-27 16,535 - 14,770 X 1 - Yak-38M (Lift Engines: 07,165lbf X 2) 14,550 - 13,669 X 1 - Mirage-5A 16,535 - 14,680 X 1 - J-32B Lansen 10,250 - 10,800 X 1 - A-4S1 15,540 - 13,669 X 1 - Mirage-III E & D 15,476 - 13,448 X 1 - Yak-38 (Lift Engines: 06,724lbf X 2) 16,061 - 13,669 X 1 - IAI Nesher 09,558 - 05,000 X 2 - F-5E Tiger-II 20,638 - 16,000 X 1 - F-100D 25,630 - 09,300 X 2 - A-6E 19,781 - 15,000 X 1 - A-7E 14,220 - 11,265 X 1 - Super Étendard 21,287 - 14,400 X 1 - F3H-2 Demon 29,000 - 09,065 X 2 - A-10A 13,810 - 10,500 X 1 - F-11A 14,837 - 11,030 X 1 - AMX 13,007 - 09,703 X 1 - Étendard-IV M 24,200 - 07,400 X 2 - F-89D 14,087 - 09,920 X 1 - Super Mystère B.2 14,121 - 10,146 X 1 - Hunter F 6 13,658 - 04,856 X 2 - Marut Mk.1 12,610 - 04,409 X 2 - Yak-25 12,708 - 08,750 X 1 - F-94C/F-97A 11,866 - 08,500 X 1 - F9F-8/F-9J Cougar 06,211 - 02,850 X 2 - A-37B 12,941 - 07,734 X 1 - Mystère IVA 13,210 - 07,700 X 1 - FJ-4 Fury 18,210 - 04,600 X 2 - F7U-3M 13,830 - 07,220 X 1 - F-84F 10,681 - 06,070 X 1 - J-29F Tunnan 08,420 - 05,400 X 1 - P-80C 08,426 - 05,100 X 1 - Supermarine Attacker F.1 13,183 - 03,250 X 2 - F2H-3 Banshee 09,132 - 04,991 X 1 - Ouragan M.D.450B 14,989 - 03,400 X 2 - F3D-2 Sky Night 09,200 - 04,856 X 1 - Venom FB.1 11,470 - 05,560 X 1 - F-84G Pure Interceptors 48,281 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31M 48,115 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31BM 45,569 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31B 49,383 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31FE 46,297 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31E 48,104 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31 41,667 - 29,762 X 2 - Mig-25M 41,447 - 24,684 X 2 - Mig-25 P & PD 45,415 - 24,684 X 2 - Mig-25BM 54,013 - 22,706 X 2 - Tu-128 # Data from Official Company & Military sites, Aerospaceweb.org, Airwar.ru, Globalsecurity.org, Fas.org, Warfare.ru, Wikipedia.org & its References, and Other Sources. # Weight in lb, and Thrust in lbf. # 3505 kg = 7727 lb # Not all of them are Fighter Planes. # Some of the Fighters' data couldn't be obtained, and hence could not be included in the above list. # Individual engines' SFC(Specific Fuel Consumption) & Individual aircrafts' standard Air-Air payload weight, based TWR cannot be determined due to unavaliability of SFC data for Older Engines. Even in the case of some Newer Engines, SFC data is not avaliable. # It's unclear whether the 35,000lbf thrust for F119(F-22's engine) is the actual thrust output. It's known that a Flat nozzle reduces the thrust of an engine anywhere between 14% to 17%. Further it's mentioned in official sources that the engine is of 35,000lbf Class, meaning the 35,000lbf number is not the precise engine output, and the actual output is somewhere around it. Generally, in official publications, when an engine output is mentioned in the form of 'Class', the actual output is less than the number given. It could be that the engine can very well produce 35,000lbf with normal nozzles during testing, but the mating of Flat Nozzle(instead of the normal Round one) reduces the thrust, hence the 'Class' designation for the engine's output. For an engine thrust decrease of 14%, F-22's TWR would drop down to 1.18. Given the fact that the F-35's engine, which is a derivative of the F-22's engine, but newer & bigger than the F119 engine, has a thrust of 39,900lbf with round nozzles, it's likely the 35,000lbf fig for F119 is also for round nozzles. F-35's engine F-135, just recently got its thrust upgraded to 43,000lbf. To further illustrate the data sheet's/brochure's failure of mentioning the loss of thrust for Flat Nozzles, the F-117's F404-GE-F1D2 engine which is a non-afterburning, flat nozzle engine[1], is mentioned as having the same 10,600lbf[2] non-afterburning thrust as the F404-GE-400 engine[3]. F404-GE-F1D2 is basically a non-afterburning F404-GE-400 engine with a flat nozzle.[4] * Klimov States that Thrust as "Take-off emergency mode" ** The conditions for 21,829lbf Emergency Thrust are limited to 3 Minutes and Altitude less than 4000m. *** Empty weight + 7727 lb exceeds max takeoff weight. Except Mig-19 all other less MTOW(Maximum Take-Off Weight) fighter planes are omitted. **** Official tejas.gov.in Website claims the Thrust of F404-GE-IN20 as 20,200lbf which contradicts with the manufacturers' claim of 19,100lbf. Most likely the 20,200lbf figure is for Emergency Thrust. Also Tejas has gotten heavier by about 60kgs thus bringing its TWR to 0.86 from 0.87 . @ Normally, Emergency Thrust is carried out at Take-off near the sea level where the air is denser. It is normally employed for scramble missions, OR/and to reduce the Take-off distance if the Aircraft is heavily loaded with fuel and munitions, OR/and if the runway is shorter. It may or may not be employed during dog-fighting, but it heavily depends upon the altitude and is time constrained(for example see **). ______________________________ Comparison of TWRs using variable weights(Full Fuel) Updated 11 Feb 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio#Fighter_Aircraft Old Data: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/images/articles/thrustweightratio.jpg Related Articles: https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html Download Indo-Pak naval battle simulation (for Demo Version of Dangerous Waters) Download DANGEROUS WATERS - Demo Download Indo-Pak Naval Battle Simulation War Simulation between Indian and Pakistani Fleets Here you will find the simulation of war involving the entire Pakistani surface fleet and the Indian patrol fleet. The scenarios are extremely well documented and the battle events are just simply superb. Download it and enjoy the Simulation! _____________________________ Requirements- You need to have Sonalysts Dangerous Waters installed on your Computer to run the Simulation. If you do not have the Full version then download the Demo version from the Second Link labeled: Download DANGEROUS WATERS - Demo _______________________________ The Simulation File for Demo version of Dangerous waters is the first link labeled: Download Indo-Pak naval battle simulation(for Demo Version of Dangerous Waters) If you already have the Full version of Dangerous Waters, then download the Simulation File from the third link labeled: Download Indo-Pak Naval Battle Simulation First download the file from either Link 1 or Link 3(depending on whether you have the demo version of Dangerous Waters ,or the full version of Dangerous Waters). After that, extract the downloaded .zip file. After extraction, in it you will find Instructions. Read and follow those simple instructions, and enjoy the Naval War simulation. Agni-5 to be Test Fired 5,000-km range Agni-5 to be test fired in February 2012 Nov 16, 2011, 03.49pm IST NEW DELHI: Buoyed by the successful test- firing of the Agni-4, DRDO will launch the 5,000-km version of the nuclear capable missile after three months as part of strengthening India's deterrence capabilities. "Agni-V is presently undergoing integration and we may test fire it by the end of February next year. It is right on schedule and the successful test of Agni-4 will prove to be a building block in development of this missile," DRDO Chief V K Saraswat said here today. Addressing a press conference here, Saraswat talked about India's missiles programme and developing effective deterrence capability against adversaries. Yesterday, DRDO had successful test fired nuclear capable Agni-4 missile from a test range in Wheeler Island off Odisha coast. "Agni-4 belongs to DRDO's flagship programme to make the country self-reliant in missile technology. We have now graduated to a higher level of missile technology with more capable versions of the earlier missiles such as Agni-1 and Agni-2," he said. Talking about Agni-4's capabilities, he said, "Earlier missiles were based on rail mobile launchers which needed an exhaustive infrastructure support. But Agni-4 is based on road mobile launchers. It gives a much higher level of flexibility and is a maintenance free system. It is better in terms of accuracy and performance as well." This missile is better than previous ones in various parameters such as terminal accuracy, payload delivery capability and also in terms of maintenance and flexible operational deployment, he said. Chinese Invasion Of Taiwan Article- One of the Most Outstanding Articles Ever.... It's a must read!

hit counter html code

Website best viewed with Internet Explorer versions 6 & 7
Recommended Resolution - 1024 by 768