Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

[Spy Master]

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect especially when it comes to defence and military capabilities of each other. In this line a very hot contested topic is the indigenous fighter jets of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and JF-17 Thunder.

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect specially when it come to defence and military capabilities of both countries. In this line a very hot contested topic is indigenous fighter of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and J/F-17 Thunder.

India has designed and developed the LCA Tejas from tip-to-toe but that is not the case with the JF-17 Thunder. The JF-17 which Pakistan claims to be a product of their own innovation is basically designed and developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China and is jointly manufactured by Pakistan and China. Hence the term JF which stands for "Joint Fighter" was given to the fighter jet.

Before starting my comparison I would like to clear a few things. Most of the data for comparison has been taken from official websites of both fighter jets and the remaining from reliable online sources. I would also like to state that I have taken only those points into consideration that actually matter in an AtoA (air-to-air) combat with other things keeping aside for this comparison.


Comparison is between the LCA Tejas MK-I and the JF-17 Block I ::

1- Location of Combat >>

The first thing that will matter a lot will be the most probable location of fight. Based on the range of Tejas, its role will be that of a primary air defence aircraft and being 2nd in line fighter jet with primary offensive roles designated to the state-of-the-art Su-30 MKI, Mig-29s and Mirages, it is very unlikely that the Tejas will ever cross the international border. On the other hand, the JF-17 along with the F-16s will form the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force and will be assigned with an offensive task. So the most obvious location of an AtoA face-off between the two jets will be in Indian Airspace.

Though this is not a deciding factor but familiarity with terrain, operating under air defence environment with ground radars, AWACS, SAM and AA guns matters a lot. This will definitely be a disadvantage for the JF-17 Thunder. Same will be the case if the LCA Tejas operates in Pakistani Airspace which is very unlikely. India has other fighter jets like the 'SEPECAT Jaguar' which are described as "deep penetrating strike aircraft".


2- BVR Combat >>

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. (I am giving advantage to J/F-17 on this and taking it based on Chinese claims).

The LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft, however it is not clear if it is for 5m2 size aircraft or not so let's put both radars on par i.e. 130 km for 5m2 size aircraft. Both have ECM suite which are on par and carry EW pods externally. Both jets RCS is classified but I am taking it on the basis of claims made by websites of respective countries. RCS of JF-17 is 3m2, this will allow Tejas to detect a JF-17 from 75 km away. Tejas being designed keeping stealth in mind, its RCS is claimed to be 1/3 of mirage 2000 by some sites which makes it around 1.6m2 while others claim it to be 1.5m2 . Ignoring both claims I take it to 2m2. So the JF-17 will only be able to detect the Tejas at around 50 km away while Tejas will see an approaching JF-17 75 km away.

LCA's primary BVR missiles will be R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 will use SD-10 which is variant of Chinese PL-12. Performance wise both missiles are at par. R-77 has range of 80 km while SD-10 has a range of 70 km. Range of the missile don't matter as the radar of both jets will only be able to detect each other within their BVR range, but with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first, it will also have the advantage to fire first i.e. from 75 km away while the JF-17 will have no clue of the Tejas for another 25km. The only warning the JF-17 will feed its pilot will be that of an approaching missile.


3- WVR Combat >>

G tolerance of both jets is same i.e. +8.5g/-3g. Both have equal speed of Mac 1.6. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. Angle of Attack of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 has 26 degree ('Doubtful and overrated' as only 1 source claim about it and no other info available, but let's accept the claim since even the Gripen and the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees so definitely the JF-17 cant have equal but can have lower than 26 degrees). Less AoA of Tejas is Nullified by its better TWR. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage here during the first few turns but if Tejas will be able to survive during this period then the JF-17 will face a disadvantage due to quicker loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has Smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive as it will have JF-17 in sight because of smoke tail left by its engine.

Now one more factor that will add to the disadvantage for the JF-17 is the Helmet Mounted System of Tejas. HMS will provide High off BoreSight shooting ability to Tejas as compared to the JF-17 which does not have a Helmet Mounted System. This further diminishes the initial turn rate advantage of the JF-17.


4- Service Ceiling >>

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. All that the JF-17 has to do is climb above the service ceiling of Tejas and it will be able to avoid a dog-fight and run away into its airspace. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas.


5- Digital Fly BY Wire >>

Tejas uses Quadruplex Digital FBW while the JF-17 has FBW in only pitch axis. This gives the Tejas an advantage of easy controls during high angle of attacks as compared to the JF-17 where the pilot has to put an extra effort to control the aircraft. This will indirectly affect pilot performance while performing high G maneuvers required in close combat.


6- Combat radius >>

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km. Combat radius matters if a fighter jet is designed for deep strike missions and gives an ability to stay in the air for long hours before being refueled, thus saving precious time.
So no doubt this round to the JF-17.


Conclusion ::

So when it comes to BVR combat, Tejas has a clear edge over its opponent with less RCS and longer range Radar. The JF-17 is on par with Tejas in close combat scenario. The JF-17 has advantage if it decides to play hide and seek with Tejas flying above the service ceiling waiting for it to loose its precious fuel and then engage.

In the end I would say that an AtoA combat depends more on Pilot skills and how a pilot understands and uses the advantages of his aircraft and how he guards its weaknesses.
So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

Defence News - Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

 

[Stephen Cohen]

JF 17 specifications like Thrust weight Ratio
Engine Power ; MTOW are nearly same

Therefore JF 17 cannot have a Combat Radius of 1350 KM
Even F 16 does not have such a combat radius of more than 550 KM

And RD 93 is a Fuel guzzler ; we know it ; we use it in Mig 29

LCA will also carry IFR probe and drop tanks for enhancing the combat radius

 

[Ankit Kumar 001]

For a constructive and troll session free discussion, please make clear that is the use of there assets like AWACS, other fighters, SAMs and network centric capabilities included or not.

@Abingdonboy Some facts like AOA for Tejas seems to be wrong. I will be thankful if you could please clarify it and go through the post and give your reviews.

 

[samlove]

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect especially when it comes to defence and military capabilities of each other. In this line a very hot contested topic is the indigenous fighter jets of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and JF-17 Thunder.

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect specially when it come to defence and military capabilities of both countries. In this line a very hot contested topic is indigenous fighter of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and J/F-17 Thunder.

India has designed and developed the LCA Tejas from tip-to-toe but that is not the case with the JF-17 Thunder. The JF-17 which Pakistan claims to be a product of their own innovation is basically designed and developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China and is jointly manufactured by Pakistan and China. Hence the term JF which stands for "Joint Fighter" was given to the fighter jet.

Before starting my comparison I would like to clear a few things. Most of the data for comparison has been taken from official websites of both fighter jets and the remaining from reliable online sources. I would also like to state that I have taken only those points into consideration that actually matter in an AtoA (air-to-air) combat with other things keeping aside for this comparison.


Comparison is between the LCA Tejas MK-I and the JF-17 Block I ::

1- Location of Combat >>

The first thing that will matter a lot will be the most probable location of fight. Based on the range of Tejas, its role will be that of a primary air defence aircraft and being 2nd in line fighter jet with primary offensive roles designated to the state-of-the-art Su-30 MKI, Mig-29s and Mirages, it is very unlikely that the Tejas will ever cross the international border. On the other hand, the JF-17 along with the F-16s will form the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force and will be assigned with an offensive task. So the most obvious location of an AtoA face-off between the two jets will be in Indian Airspace.

Though this is not a deciding factor but familiarity with terrain, operating under air defence environment with ground radars, AWACS, SAM and AA guns matters a lot. This will definitely be a disadvantage for the JF-17 Thunder. Same will be the case if the LCA Tejas operates in Pakistani Airspace which is very unlikely. India has other fighter jets like the 'SEPECAT Jaguar' which are described as "deep penetrating strike aircraft".


2- BVR Combat >>

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. (I am giving advantage to J/F-17 on this and taking it based on Chinese claims).

The LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft, however it is not clear if it is for 5m2 size aircraft or not so let's put both radars on par i.e. 130 km for 5m2 size aircraft. Both have ECM suite which are on par and carry EW pods externally. Both jets RCS is classified but I am taking it on the basis of claims made by websites of respective countries. RCS of JF-17 is 3m2, this will allow Tejas to detect a JF-17 from 75 km away. Tejas being designed keeping stealth in mind, its RCS is claimed to be 1/3 of mirage 2000 by some sites which makes it around 1.6m2 while others claim it to be 1.5m2 . Ignoring both claims I take it to 2m2. So the JF-17 will only be able to detect the Tejas at around 50 km away while Tejas will see an approaching JF-17 75 km away.

LCA's primary BVR missiles will be R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 will use SD-10 which is variant of Chinese PL-12. Performance wise both missiles are at par. R-77 has range of 80 km while SD-10 has a range of 70 km. Range of the missile don't matter as the radar of both jets will only be able to detect each other within their BVR range, but with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first, it will also have the advantage to fire first i.e. from 75 km away while the JF-17 will have no clue of the Tejas for another 25km. The only warning the JF-17 will feed its pilot will be that of an approaching missile.


3- WVR Combat >>

G tolerance of both jets is same i.e. +8.5g/-3g. Both have equal speed of Mac 1.6. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. Angle of Attack of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 has 26 degree ('Doubtful and overrated' as only 1 source claim about it and no other info available, but let's accept the claim since even the Gripen and the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees so definitely the JF-17 cant have equal but can have lower than 26 degrees). Less AoA of Tejas is Nullified by its better TWR. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage here during the first few turns but if Tejas will be able to survive during this period then the JF-17 will face a disadvantage due to quicker loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has Smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive as it will have JF-17 in sight because of smoke tail left by its engine.

Now one more factor that will add to the disadvantage for the JF-17 is the Helmet Mounted System of Tejas. HMS will provide High off BoreSight shooting ability to Tejas as compared to the JF-17 which does not have a Helmet Mounted System. This further diminishes the initial turn rate advantage of the JF-17.


4- Service Ceiling >>

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. All that the JF-17 has to do is climb above the service ceiling of Tejas and it will be able to avoid a dog-fight and run away into its airspace. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas.


5- Digital Fly BY Wire >>

Tejas uses Quadruplex Digital FBW while the JF-17 has FBW in only pitch axis. This gives the Tejas an advantage of easy controls during high angle of attacks as compared to the JF-17 where the pilot has to put an extra effort to control the aircraft. This will indirectly affect pilot performance while performing high G maneuvers required in close combat.


6- Combat radius >>

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km. Combat radius matters if a fighter jet is designed for deep strike missions and gives an ability to stay in the air for long hours before being refueled, thus saving precious time.
So no doubt this round to the JF-17.


Conclusion ::

So when it comes to BVR combat, Tejas has a clear edge over its opponent with less RCS and longer range Radar. The JF-17 is on par with Tejas in close combat scenario. The JF-17 has advantage if it decides to play hide and seek with Tejas flying above the service ceiling waiting for it to loose its precious fuel and then engage.

In the end I would say that an AtoA combat depends more on Pilot skills and how a pilot understands and uses the advantages of his aircraft and how he guards its weaknesses.
So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

Defence News - Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

India's Tejas and China's Xiaolong fighters compared


An article in Sina's Chinese-language military news web portal compared the abilities of India's HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and the FC-1 Xiaolong/JF-17 Thunder developed jointly by China and Pakistan.

The HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was named by former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The development plan was approved by the Indian government in 1983. The government's requirements for the Tejas were to develop an all-weather supersonic LCA which could replace the MiG-21. Its main mission is to fight for control of airspace and to offer short-range support. The development of the Tejas wasn't a simple process, as it included a completely new engine, avionics and weapons systems, in line with global standards. The first test plane was unveiled on Nov. 17, 1995 and made its maiden flight on Jan. 4, 2001.



The design for the PAC JF-17 Thunder, also known as the FC-1 Xiaolong, began with the "Super 7" plan launched jointly by China and US aircraft maker Grumman to develop an upgraded version of the F-7, but Grumman left the project after sanctions were placed on China by the US in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. China and Pakistan subsequently signed a memorandum of understanding to design a new fighter together in 1995. The requirements for the fighter were that it make use of advanced technology, that it be a completely new design and that it approach the combat capabilities of third-generation fighters. It also needed to be light, cheap to produce and capable of carrying a large payload. The first plane took its maiden flight in 2003 and the third aircraft made a successful test flight in April of 2004. In the same year, the state-owned China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC) and the Pakistan Air Force signed a contract for the production of the FC-1 Xiaolong/JF-17 Thunder, the new designations of what had been the Super 7. On April 28, 2006, weapons systems and avionics were installed in the fourth aircraft and it made a successful test flight. The avionics systems were developed by China. On Sept. 10, 2006, the sixth JF-17 made its maiden flight.

Aerodynamic Configuration

There are clear differences in the shape of the two planes. The Xiaolong has horizontal tail-planes and a conventional aerodynamic structure, while the Tejas has no horizontal tail-planes on its triangular structure.

The lack of a (horizontal) tail is a unique feature of the Tejas, making it similar to the Dassault Mirage series of fighters. The plane also has a delta-wing configuration, which is the reverse of normal delta-wing fighters in that the angle of the sweep of the outer wing section is larger than the angle of the sweep of the inner wing section. The reverse configuration is normally used to balance supersonic and subsonic or transonic capabilities. The Tejas has an angle of incidence from the main axis of the wing, which gives the whole plane a larger dihedral force, improving its supersonic capabilities.

The Xiaolong has a trapezoid-shaped wing configuration, with a larger wing-aspect ratio and a smaller induced drag, therefore at high-altitude subsonic speed, the entire plane has a higher lift-drag ratio. The large wings that extend to the inlets on both sides of the plane's body not only improve the aircraft's lift during high-angle-of-attack flight but also help improve the maneuverability of the plane. The eddies created during high-angle-of-attack flight are also relatively stable, which reduces the chance of sudden drops in lift and improves the balance of the plane. It also improves the directivity of the nose of the plane in close-range combat.

In summary, in conventional air warfare, at an altitude of around 8,000 meters and a speed of Mach 0.8-1.2, the Xiaolong performs better in terms of acceleration, climb, stability and other combat capabilities. The Tejas' advantage lies in its low wing aspect ratio and its relatively low wave drag, which makes it superior to the Xiaolong in supersonic conditions.

Inlet Design

Both planes have intake cowls on both sides, but the Xiaolong's design is better as it is more functional, improves the plane's stealth capabilities and reduces its weight.

The Tejas uses the V-shaped air inlets typical of light fighters, the air inlets gather together towards the rear, sheltering the blades of the engine's axial compressor, preventing the scattering of radar, and adding to the craft's stealth capabilities. The oval air intakes are similar to the F/A-18C/D Hornet, with a diverter structure around them. All in all the design is in line with convention and has not shown much innovation.

The Xiaolong's air intake design is a little more imaginative and more advanced. It uses a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI), scrapping the diverter structure used around the air intakes, as well as the air bleed and air bypass structures of most conventional supersonic aircraft. Through use of a three-dimensional compression surface to divert the boundary layer airflow at high subsonic and supersonic speeds, there is no longer a need for supplementary air inlets or bleed doors. This has the effect of lightening the structure, reducing drag and radar return. The air inlets are forward sweeping in a ramp formation, which reduces wave drag or surface interference.

Materials

As the Xiaolong was developed exclusively for export, to control costs, its body is mainly constructed with aluminum alloy as opposed to more popular composite material. The Tejas, however, has put an emphasis on reducing weight, and so it has used a lot of composite material. Forty-five percent of the plane's total weight is comprised of composite materials, including the fuselage, its vertical tailfin, the skin, the spars and the ribs of the wings, the elevons, the rudder, the air brakes and the landing gear doors. This cuts the plane's empty weight by 5.5 tons, making it almost 1 ton lighter than the Xiaolong, which means it can carry more fuel and a heavier load. The plane has a cargo-internal fuel ratio of around 30%, which improves its combat abilities.

Propulsion Systems

Although the Tejas' F414 engine is superior in terms of functionality, durability and life span to the Xiaolong's RD93 engine, it is also more expensive.

The choice of an engine has been problematic in the development of both aircraft. Those developing the Xiaolong had the choice of the commonly used F404, Pratt & Whitney's PW1216, the Turbo-Union RB199, the Snecma M88 and the Russian RD33. After considering different parameters, such as the combat radius, external storage and flexibility, they chose the RD-93 afterburning turbofan due to its low fuel uptake and its reasonable price.

The RD-93 is a variant of the RD-33 developed specifically for the Xiaolong, the main changes being the repositioning of the gearbox along the bottom of the engine casing and its mechanical turbine control. It employs a four-stage fan and nine high pressure stage compressor, with military thrust of 50 kiloNewtons (kN) and 81.3 kN thrust with afterburner, an augmented thrust ratio of 1.628, an overall pressure ratio of 21:1, a bypass ratio of 0.48:1, a normal gross takeoff weight of 9.1 tons and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1, which gives it a longer range and better flying and propulsion capabilities.



The original plan for the LCA Tejas was that it would be fitted with the GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri turbofan engine, but the development of the engine ran into a hitch, so they had to adopt the F414 instead. The engine was developed on the basis of the General Electric F404 and has an axial compressor with three fan and seven compressor stages and a turbine with one low-pressure and one high-pressure stage. Compared with the F404, the F414 has augmented thrust by 35%, pushing it to 60 kN military thrust and 98 kN with afterburner. Its thrust-weight ratio has been pushed to 9:1. India purchased the custom-made F414-GE-INS5 model, which has similar capabilities to the F414-GE-400, with a fully digital control system, more advanced than the RD-93's mechanical turbine control, making it quicker to react and more accurate.

The F414 engine has an advantage over the RD-93 engine, as its technology is more advanced; it has greater thrust and is more reliable. The RD-93 was designed in the 1970s and is a little past its best in terms of design, but it does offer more stability, a better price and a high quality-price ratio. However, the Xiaolong will likely adopt the Chinese WS-13 engine in the future. The WS-13 is an improved version of the RD-93 engine, with a better design and more attention to materials and details in its production. It also uses the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, which creates the possibility that it may be smaller than the F-414.

Avionics and Flight Control Systems

The LCA Tejas' avionics system has a top-down design and has made use of line-replaceable unit technology, ensuring smooth coordination and the minimum degree of interdependence. The Tejas' avionics system was designed by France, with three 1553B serial buses and two centralized 32-bit, high-throughput mission computers, including a communications subsystem, a mission subsystem, a self-defense system and a guidance and flight system. It uses ELTA's EL/M2032 radar system, which works in the X-band range, designed for both air-to-air and ground strike missions. It is effective within a range of 37-75 km.

The Xiaolong's avionics also have a top-down design, with an onboard computer and a 1553B serial bus at the center, integrating several systems, including the cockpit display and control system, task management systems and fire control systems. It is equipped with autonomous navigation technology and can attack land, air and sea targets, tracking while scanning. If the users can afford it, it can also be equipped with globally competitive avionics systems. It can be equipped with the KLJ-7 X-band fire and control radar, for example, which has 14 air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and can follow 10 targets while in track and scan mode. It can also unleash an attack at two targets simultaneously. Its mid-range guided missiles can also hit targets beyond visual range. For targets of 5 meters squared, its range in look-down search mode is 105 km and 85 km in look-down mode.

Chinese avionics have come a long way in recent years and even in comparison with the Western avionics system used in the LCA Tejas, it doesn't lose out in terms of capability and its search range is greater and functionality greater than that of the Tejas.

Flight Control Systems

The flight system of the Tejas has a more complicated origin. Originally the aircraft was set to be equipped with a FADEC system developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and India, however, an Indian nuclear test led to sanctions being implemented against the country, ending the US-Indian cooperative endeavor. India then looked to Russian aircraft manufacturer Mikoyan and Moscow Air Production Organization for help, until the sanctions were revoked in 2001. India then ordered actuators from London-based BAE Systems, which were handed over in 2003. Then Lockheed Martin joined the development project once again. This lengthy process slowed down the entire development of the aircraft. Overall, the core parts of the system were completed by Lockheed Martin, although this information has yet to be released to the public. The Indian media have reported that the flight control system is a match for the F-16C/D Fighting Falcon's relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system.

The Xiaolong's flight control systems make use of a longitudinal FADEC system, with two fly-by-wire back-up systems. The FADEC system improves stability across the yaw and roll axis. It has overcome a few flaws in its aerodynamics to allow for more maneuverability. It is also relatively low in price.

Combat Ability

There is no real competition between the two aircraft in terms of combat ability. The Xiaolong has already completely developed its combat capabilities, with the ability to fire radar-guided air-to-air SD-10 missiles, air-launched C-802AK anti-ship missiles and precision bombs. The LCA Tejas, on the other hand, has just entered service, so it hasn't developed its combat abilities as yet, so the only way to compare the two is to look at the weapons they will likely use and their weapon pylons.

Those behind both the Tejas and the Xiaolong demanded comprehensive combat capabilities for the two fighters, to allow them to use a diverse range of weaponry. The fixed weapon on both fighters is a double-barreled 23 mm aircraft gun. The difference between them is that the Tejas' gun is sourced from Russia, whereas the Xiaolong uses China's variant of the gun. The LCA has eight weapon pylons on the entire plane, with three under each wing, one under the central body of the plane, and one under the air inlets on the left side of the plane. This allows the plane to make use of a wide range of the weapon systems of the Indian Army. This includes mid and close-range air-to-air missiles, precision-guided weapons, air-to-surface (including anti-ship) missiles, conventional and retarded bombs, cluster bombs and unguided rockets. The pylons can carry a maximum weight of 4 tons. The Xiaolong has 7 external pylons, two at the tips of the wings, four under the wings and one on the belly of the fuselage. This allows it to carry the beyond-visual-range radar guided SD-10 missile and the PL-9 short-range, infrared-homing air-to-air missile, as well as air-to-surface missiles, such as anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, laser-guided bombs, anti-runway penetration bombs and cluster bombs. It can also carry three high-capacity subsidiary oil tanks. It can carry a total of 3.6 tons externally.

The two fighters are aimed primarily at air-to-air combat, while still maintaining ground strike and anti-ship attack capabilities. The Xiaolong will likely carry two PL-5EII air-to-air homing missiles, two SD-10 mid-range air-to-air missiles and two or three subsidiary oil tanks in its standard configuration. When engaging in beyond-visual range combat, it will likely carry four SD-10 missiles. The LCA Tejas will likely be equipped with the Israeli Python-4 air-to-air missile and the Derby medium-range active radar homing missile. The Python-4 approaches the PL-5EII in terms of its capabilities, but the range of the Derby missile is a lot shorter than that of the SD-10, so the Xiaolong has the advantage in terms of beyond visual range combat.

Overall, the LCA Tejas and the Xiaolong are matched in terms of their weapons pylons and as India's own weapon production abilities are quite limited, the LCA Tejas makes use of mainly Western and Russian advanced weapon systems, which makes for a scattered weapon set, which is more challenging for the pilot to manage. The Xiaolong's weapon systems and nacelle are all designed by China, which makes for more coordination between its weapons systems and a good price-to-quality ratio, which is a big advantage for the Xiaolong.

Conclusion

The Tejas is a light multirole fighter fit for the 21st century. It uses a lot of new technology and innovation, such as its use of large amounts of composite materials, its advanced avionics system and its unique aerodynamic configuration. In terms of functionality, the LCA Tejas has good potential to be expanded into variants. For example, at a time when the air force version is yet to be commissioned widely, a ship-based version of the aircraft has already been released. The Xiaolong is a third-generation model designed for the international market. The use of off-the-shelf materials not only cuts costs but also reduces risks in the design process and improves the reliability of the aircraft. This will not make it the best aircraft, but rather a standard, cheap and reliable model for air-to-air combat. In summation, the Xiaolong is the aircraft of today and the Tejas is the aircraft of tomorrow.

India's Tejas and China's Xiaolong fighters compared｜WCT

 

[45'22']

Nice thread but the vs threads are banned

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Nice thread but the vs threads are banned

This whole FORUM is India Versus Pakistan

That is a FACT of life

 

[knight11]

The LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft, however it is not clear if it is for 5m2 size aircraft or not so let's put both radars on par i.e. 130 km for 5m2 size aircraft. Both have ECM suite which are on par and carry EW pods externally. Both jets RCS is classified but I am taking it on the basis of claims made by websites of respective countries. RCS of JF-17 is 3m2, this will allow Tejas to detect a JF-17 from 75 km away. Tejas being designed keeping stealth in mind, its RCS is claimed to be 1/3 of mirage 2000 by some sites which makes it around 1.6m2 while others claim it to be 1.5m2 . Ignoring both claims I take it to 2m2. So the JF-17 will only be able to detect the Tejas at around 50 km away while Tejas will see an approaching JF-17 75 km away.

LOLZ

Again who will detect first Formula.

Simple question, all those formula is valid for two planes coming in opposite direction with noses in straight line. Now the chances of such is almost equal to zero

Given the fact that the JF-17 has Smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive as it will have JF-17 in sight because of smoke tail left by its engine.

That smoke is for some bracket of throttle.

G tolerance of both jets is same i.e. +8.5g/-3g. Both have equal speed of Mac 1.6. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. Angle of Attack of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 has 26 degree ('Doubtful and overrated' as only 1 source claim about it and no other info available, but let's accept the claim since even the Gripen and the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees so definitely the JF-17 cant have equal but can have lower than 26 degrees). Less AoA of Tejas is Nullified by its better TWR. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage here during the first few turns but if Tejas will be able to survive during this period then the JF-17 will face a disadvantage due to quicker loss of speed.

That should be for gun vs gun fight not with the Hobs WVR missiles.
Advantage tejas with python 5 with 360 degree coverage coupled with targo HMD, but who is stopping paf to acquire such system.

Tejas uses Quadruplex Digital FBW while the JF-17 has FBW in only pitch axis. This gives the Tejas an advantage of easy controls during high angle of attacks as compared to the JF-17 where the pilot has to put an extra effort to control the aircraft. This will indirectly affect pilot performance while performing high G maneuvers required in close combat.

TVC would turn out to more advantageous.

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km. Combat radius matters if a fighter jet is designed for deep strike missions and gives an ability to stay in the air for long hours before being refueled, thus saving precious time.
So no doubt this round to the JF-17.

This figure of 1350 km is dubious. It can only be possible with hi-hi-hi profile with 3 drop tank.

In the end I would say that an AtoA combat depends more on Pilot skills and how a pilot understands and uses the advantages of his aircraft and how he guards its weaknesses.
So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

So in the end this was copied from some indian blog praising Tejas by some Desi Bandalbaaz author.

 

[Windjammer]

So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

Ignoring all else, the discrepancy here is that rather than living up to it's highly exaggerated title, the Gnat often ended up the victim of the Sabre.

 

[Storm Force]

The Opening Poster is being fair and reasonable EVEN IF SOME PEOPLWE wont like the result.

TEJAS is a better plane but may will not arrive in nos for 5 more years or longer
BUT
Thunder is a live KICKING AND SERVING and will getr better in future blocks.

ASK THE QUESTION IN 2019 then WE SEE

 

[siddharth shankar]

Fair assessment, slight edge to Tejas, but almost neck n neck. Instead of the Wagha ceremony we should do a mock fight between our fighter jets every year, the viewership would be off the scale

 

[Pandora]

So much hype of an aircrafts which didnt even enter service yet. The whole article is based on assumption that JF thunder is offensive aircraft which is bogus as it is for defenssive role and even with fuel tanks cant perforrm deep strikes. Jf blk 3 will be an entirely new aircraft all jf thunders will be upgraded to same spec so stop comparing blk 1s with your yet unfinished failure. Come back when there is actually domething to show.

 

[Abingdonboy]

For a constructive and troll session free discussion, please make clear that is the use of there assets like AWACS, other fighters, SAMs and network centric capabilities included or not.

@Abingdonboy Some facts like AOA for Tejas seems to be wrong. I will be thankful if you could please clarify it and go through the post and give your reviews.

It's simply not worth it. As the opening to this article states- Indians and Pakistanis all too often fall into the trap of comparing like for like (i.e. artillery with artillery, light single engined fighters with light single engined fighters) without contextualising the comparison.

The simple fact of the matter is not only do Su-30MKIs (massively) outnumber both F-16s and JF-17s of the PAF they also outclass them in almost every tangible criteria. This is before we bring in the upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s who are more than a match for the Blk.52 F-16s and would make short work of the Thunder (in raw spec comparisons).

As far as the LCA vs JF-17s comparison goes- as much as Pakistanis LOVE to have this discussion one needs to remember we are not comparing like for like here either. The LCA was designed from the ground up in India with certain inherent design features in mind that prove to be superior to and congruent with a 4th generation fighter (composite structure, unstable flight dynamics) whilst the Thunder was all about getting a cheap and cheerful bird to replace the F-7s and Mirages en masse in the PAF. The ADA has approached the project in a holistic way (further insisted upon by the IAF) wherein all contemporary systems (HMDS, LDP, IFR probe etc) had to be available from day one on the very first LCA delivered to them and proven. In line with this the ADA have also developed twin seat and naval variants of the LCA, the Thunder lacks all of the above. The Thunder is all about "being good enough", the LCA is a project intended to lay a solid foundation for India's future aviation success.

The very fact that the LCA Mk.1 will come with features from the outset that are only to be found on late BLK.2 and BLK.3 JF-17s says it all. The Thunder was inducted in haste and with many shortcomings, the LCA is rather the opposite approach.

This goes to the very heart of the two nations' mentalities/dynamics- the ADA is a fully civilian run and staffed organisation and the project was spearheaded by scientific minds (for better or worse) who saw the LCA project as a scientific undertaking to further India's understanding of this technology and for future purposes. And hence the ADA have set up a vast array of laboratories and technology centres across India to develop the LCA from the ground up and certify their work in house. The JF-17 project was, naturally, conceptualised and insisted upon by the military who cared little for building a scientific base- they simply wanted a new fighter they could afford in large enough numbers. Much of the work on the JF-17 was conducted inside China by the Chinese but this follows the entire methodology behind the project so this is not a criticism of the Pakistanis.

 

[Ind4Ever]

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect especially when it comes to defence and military capabilities of each other. In this line a very hot contested topic is the indigenous fighter jets of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and JF-17 Thunder.

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect specially when it come to defence and military capabilities of both countries. In this line a very hot contested topic is indigenous fighter of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and J/F-17 Thunder.

India has designed and developed the LCA Tejas from tip-to-toe but that is not the case with the JF-17 Thunder. The JF-17 which Pakistan claims to be a product of their own innovation is basically designed and developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China and is jointly manufactured by Pakistan and China. Hence the term JF which stands for "Joint Fighter" was given to the fighter jet.

Before starting my comparison I would like to clear a few things. Most of the data for comparison has been taken from official websites of both fighter jets and the remaining from reliable online sources. I would also like to state that I have taken only those points into consideration that actually matter in an AtoA (air-to-air) combat with other things keeping aside for this comparison.


Comparison is between the LCA Tejas MK-I and the JF-17 Block I ::

1- Location of Combat >>

The first thing that will matter a lot will be the most probable location of fight. Based on the range of Tejas, its role will be that of a primary air defence aircraft and being 2nd in line fighter jet with primary offensive roles designated to the state-of-the-art Su-30 MKI, Mig-29s and Mirages, it is very unlikely that the Tejas will ever cross the international border. On the other hand, the JF-17 along with the F-16s will form the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force and will be assigned with an offensive task. So the most obvious location of an AtoA face-off between the two jets will be in Indian Airspace.

Though this is not a deciding factor but familiarity with terrain, operating under air defence environment with ground radars, AWACS, SAM and AA guns matters a lot. This will definitely be a disadvantage for the JF-17 Thunder. Same will be the case if the LCA Tejas operates in Pakistani Airspace which is very unlikely. India has other fighter jets like the 'SEPECAT Jaguar' which are described as "deep penetrating strike aircraft".

Wonder why you keep Tejas as area defence fighter. It's true that India already posses world's dangerous fighters in its fleet... but when it comes to Pakistan Tejas will be involved in multiple mission in many stages of war. Like close airsupport due to its impressive low flying capability with delta wing configuration. And so Air to ground bombing run capabilities. Cheap to operate gives it very wide range of use. Unlike JF17 which will be sent for suicide mission in early stage of war. As it's not an air superiority fighter to swing duck and lock Sukois or even veteran Mig 29upg or mirage.

2- BVR Combat >>

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. (I am giving advantage to J/F-17 on this and taking it based on Chinese claims).

The LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft, however it is not clear if it is for 5m2 size aircraft or not so let's put both radars on par i.e. 130 km for 5m2 size aircraft. Both have ECM suite which are on par and carry EW pods externally. Both jets RCS is classified but I am taking it on the basis of claims made by websites of respective countries. RCS of JF-17 is 3m2, this will allow Tejas to detect a JF-17 from 75 km away. Tejas being designed keeping stealth in mind, its RCS is claimed to be 1/3 of mirage 2000 by some sites which makes it around 1.6m2 while others claim it to be 1.5m2 . Ignoring both claims I take it to 2m2. So the JF-17 will only be able to detect the Tejas at around 50 km away while Tejas will see an approaching JF-17 75 km away.

LCA's primary BVR missiles will be R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 will use SD-10 which is variant of Chinese PL-12. Performance wise both missiles are at par. R-77 has range of 80 km while SD-10 has a range of 70 km. Range of the missile don't matter as the radar of both jets will only be able to detect each other within their BVR range, but with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first, it will also have the advantage to fire first i.e. from 75 km away while the JF-17 will have no clue of the Tejas for another 25km. The only warning the JF-17 will feed its pilot will be that of an approaching missile.

3m'2 of JF17 is completely wrong. Even if we take their words for granted it's for clean configuration. Which means with ex tanks and weapons Tejas will have clear idea of what JF17 is upto. And can implement our tactics against the same more precisely. To BVR warfare goes to Tejas. Missiles armaments of Tejas are far more superior to the Chinese ripoff even with their own data.

3- WVR Combat >>

G tolerance of both jets is same i.e. +8.5g/-3g. Both have equal speed of Mac 1.6. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. Angle of Attack of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 has 26 degree ('Doubtful and overrated' as only 1 source claim about it and no other info available, but let's accept the claim since even the Gripen and the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees so definitely the JF-17 cant have equal but can have lower than 26 degrees). Less AoA of Tejas is Nullified by its better TWR. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage here during the first few turns but if Tejas will be able to survive during this period then the JF-17 will face a disadvantage due to quicker loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has Smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive as it will have JF-17 in sight because of smoke tail left by its engine.

Now one more factor that will add to the disadvantage for the JF-17 is the Helmet Mounted System of Tejas. HMS will provide High off BoreSight shooting ability to Tejas as compared to the JF-17 which does not have a Helmet Mounted System. This further diminishes the initial turn rate advantage of the JF-17.

Well AoA here is under estimated and and 120 MK1-P planned will have even better TWR than 40 Tejas. And better turn ratio too.

[QpUOTE]
4- Service Ceiling >>

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. All that the JF-17 has to do is climb above the service ceiling of Tejas and it will be able to avoid a dog-fight and run away into its airspace. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas.
[/QUOTE]I can't comment on this without more information on Tejas ceiling

5- Digital Fly BY Wire >>

Tejas uses Quadruplex Digital FBW while the JF-17 has FBW in only pitch axis. This gives the Tejas an advantage of easy controls during high angle of attacks as compared to the JF-17 where the pilot has to put an extra effort to control the aircraft. This will indirectly affect pilot performance while performing high G maneuvers required in close combat.

6- Combat radius >>

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km. Combat radius matters if a fighter jet is designed for deep strike missions and gives an ability to stay in the air for long hours before being refueled, thus saving precious time.
So no doubt this round to the JF-17.

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km.
with 2700 km range Chinese and Pakistan beat up the Russians French US

Conclusion ::

So when it comes to BVR combat, Tejas has a clear edge over its opponent with less RCS and longer range Radar. The JF-17 is on par with Tejas in close combat scenario. The JF-17 has advantage if it decides to play hide and seek with Tejas flying above the service ceiling waiting for it to loose its precious fuel and then engage.

In the end I would say that an AtoA combat depends more on Pilot skills and how a pilot understands and uses the advantages of his aircraft and how he guards its weaknesses.
So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

Defence News - Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

LOL seriously this dude need a job!!!

 

[Pakistani till death]

Lets have a fight between the two right now! Result : Tejas destroyed on the ground. By the time tejas gets flying we would have newer blocks of jf-17

 

[haviZsultan]

Seems like a balanced and fair analysis. Good work by the writer. I am sure though as the subject of defence is, it will be countered and differing viewpoint will be put forward. There is no consensus on what is the best in defence matters. We should keep that in mind and keep a critical view of our militaries too.

The writer is an outsider hence he has a critical view of our defence. His analysis can help us plug gaps in our defence system. In fact that is how criticism should be viewed. As a means to improve our own defence.