J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Lion]

Fair enough, but I won't fully agree to the assumption that the indians wanted to add features to their flankers out of vanity.
My point is that lion's statement that an aircraft with canards can not have thrust vectoring engines because they render each other "redundant", is flawed at best.

Is not flawed. You have yet to answer my point with facts. All I see is you just keep trolling... You see, other already can't stand your trolling and see my point. I have so many good example for sukhoi, BAE, CAC.

Yet just one MKI from the least experience HAL and you want to rebuke my claim. You have yet to prove the beneficial of both able to intergrate together. Just admit it designer don't go for combo of TVC and canard for a practical operation fighter jet. Or else you reply is just for the sake of argument and your own ego and serve no knowledge or well being of all forumer who just want to seek real knowlege and real fact.

Let me give you another example. Why Su-34 didn't have TVC and only canard? You claim other don't go for TVC becos they may be non proficient in making TVC jet.

Load of rubbish. Russian has demonstrated they can go for TVC for SU-35BM but Su-34 didn't go for this option. Why???

 

[Blitzo]

Is not flawed. You have yet to answer my point with facts. All I see is you just keep trolling... You see, other already can't stand your trolling and see my point. I have so many good example for sukhoi, BAE, CAC.

Yet just one MKI and you want to rebuke my claim. You have yet to prove the beneficial of both able to intergrate together. Just admit it designer don't go for combo of TVC and canard for a practical operation fighter jet. Or else you reply is just for the sake of argument and your own ego and serve no knowledge or well being of all forumer who just want to seek real knowlege and real fact.

I'm trolling? I'm trying to respond to your posts... Let's not get personal alright?
The canard is just another control surface. If you're saying canard+tvc is redundant then you are effectively saying rear horizontal tails+tvc is redundant.
My argument is that you cannot make an all encompassing claim that canard+tvc is redundant without proof (the burden lies on you as well, for you make the claim) -- the fact that the Russians did not go for such a combination is not proof, only that they have different requirements to the Indians and thus went for a different cconfiguration.

Let me give you another example. Why Su-34 didn't have TVC and only canard? You claim other don't go for TVC becos they may be non proficient in making TVC jet.

Load of rubbish. Russian has demonstrated they can go for TVC for SU-35BM but Su-34 didn't go for this option. Why???

Because su-34's a dedicated striker possibly, and they needed the additional aerodynamic benefits of canards while avoiding the additional weight of tvc nozzles.

Come on let's keep the discussion civil.

 

[airsuperiority]

Is not flawed. You have yet to answer my point with facts. All I see is you just keep trolling... You see, other already can't stand your trolling and see my point. I have so many good example for sukhoi, BAE, CAC.

Yet just one MKI from the least experience HAL and you want to rebuke my claim. You have yet to prove the beneficial of both able to intergrate together. Just admit it designer don't go for combo of TVC and canard for a practical operation fighter jet. Or else you reply is just for the sake of argument and your own ego and serve no knowledge or well being of all forumer who just want to seek real knowlege and real fact.

Let me give you another example. Why Su-34 didn't have TVC and only canard? You claim other don't go for TVC becos they may be non proficient in making TVC jet.

Load of rubbish. Russian has demonstrated they can go for TVC for SU-35BM but Su-34 didn't go for this option. Why???

I actually don't see why Su-34, given it is a fighter-bomber, the need of TVC.

 

[Lion]

I'm trolling? I'm trying to respond to your posts... Let's not get personal alright?
The canard is just another control surface. If you're saying canard+tvc is redundant then you are effectively saying rear horizontal tails+tvc is redundant.
My argument is that you cannot make an all encompassing claim that canard+tvc is redundant without proof (the burden lies on you as well, for you make the claim) -- the fact that the Russians did not go for such a combination is not proof, only that they have different requirements to the Indians and thus went for a different cconfiguration.



Because su-34's a dedicated striker possibly, and they needed the additional aerodynamic benefits of canards while avoiding the additional weight of tvc nozzles.

Come on let's keep the discussion civil.

You see you keep trolling again. You have not provide facts. the burden lies in you. I have already demonstrate once with backing. All the while is your own personal assumption.

Your last few sentences even prove my point.. Prove it, not assumption.

 

[Blitzo]

You see you keep trolling again. You have not provide facts. the burden lies in you. I have already demonstrate once. All the while is your own personal assumption.

Your last few sentences even prove my point.. Prove it, not assumption.

You are the one making the all encompassing claim, not me.
How is your example of su-35, su-30mki, su-34 proof of your universal claim? All it shows is that the Russians had different requirements than the Indians, you've not shown one piece of proof that Russian flankers do not have canards+tvc because they two together are redundant.

In fact, I've noticed other posters are rather quiet on the matter. I'm not sure I'd it's because they disapprove of my "trolling" (if so I apologize), but I would like to hear your views on lion's claim? Am I missing out on something which would otherwise make his claim make much more sense?

 

[Lion]

You are the one making the all encompassing claim, not me.
How is your example of su-35, su-30mki, su-34 proof of your universal claim? All it shows is that the Russians had different requirements than the Indians,

Different requirement is a claim by you with no backing(assumption). Prove it!

Can I say Russia says canard and TVC combo is a flaw and add not much benefit. The Su-35BM article i quote is a great example. As for MKI, Engineer already point out very nicely.

you've not shown one piece of proof that Russian flankers do not have canards+tvc because they two together are redundant.

This sentence is even more trolling.. I can't point out because Russian don't have a single operation plane that go for TVC plus canard. So its you who need to rebuke my point.. Do you have a understanding problem. You keep trolling is not a solution.

In fact, I've noticed other posters are rather quiet on the matter. I'm not sure I'd it's because they disapprove of my "trolling" (if so I apologize), but I would like to hear your views on lion's claim? Am I missing out on something which would otherwise make his claim make much more sense?

All the whihle you keep using different requirement as an excuse to claim MKI want TVC plus canard. While the more experience Russian has demonstrated only TVC on SU-35BM and Canard only SU-34. It's an assumption by you without backup.

Both MKI and Su-35BM has same military purpose of air superiority and multi-role. Different requirement will mainly due to geographical condition which is metallurgy problem. Don't tell me adding the canard will start to make the MKI suit hot weather conditon better? Different requirement problem will lay in radar configuration and weapon load. Not in aerodynamic requirement. A proven aerodyamic platform will be the universal standard. If you talk about carrier ops, that will be different case. But MKI and SU-35BM are both non carrier option.

 

[Engineer]

Fair enough, but I won't fully agree to the assumption that the indians wanted to add features to their flankers out of vanity.

May be not vanity, but India isn't strong enough in aeronautics to see through b.s. India itself could have asked Sukhoi to make the aircraft more maneuverable, and Sukhoi could have responded by blowing off dust from some old blueprints. Sukhoi could have also told India that it is good to add certain features. In either case, India wouldn't know better.

My point is that lion's statement that an aircraft with canards can not have thrust vectoring engines because they render each other "redundant", is flawed at best.

Why would it be flawed? Like I have pointed out in an earlier example, if you can achieve 9G's maneuverbility with one, there would be little point in retaining the other, since the pilot wouldn't survive it. Of course, you would need to retain both if you couldn't reach 9G's with either one, or if the pilot is out of the equation.

 

[Blitzo]

India isn't strong in aeronautics to see through b.s. Sukhoi could have told the Indians that it is good to add certain features and India wouldn't know better.

That... Is a dangerous Underestimation.

Why would it be flawed? Like I have pointed out in an earlier example, if you can achieve 9G's maneuverbility with one, there would be little point in retaining the other, since the pilot wouldn't survive it. Of course, you would need to retain both if you couldn't reach 9G's with either one, or if the pilot is out of the equation.

Let me put it another way: this is my interpretation of lion's statement:

Effect of canards or tvc = Effect of canards and tv

If that interpretation of your claim is incorrect then please do say, lion.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Lion and Blitizo: Leave one another alone and end the childish accusations. It is ok to have different point of view. Discuss civilly!

 

[Engineer]

You see you keep trolling again. You have not provide facts. the burden lies in you. I have already demonstrate once with backing. All the while is your own personal assumption.

Your last few sentences even prove my point.. Prove it, not assumption.

Just so you know, you are not allowed to accuse others of trolling on this board.