What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the context of my argument it is a valid point .
IAF is divine force sir..It forecasts future and so can you..Like you always told me about 189 numbers of Rafale jets..!
Thunder is obviously an inferior plane sir because PAF inducted it early, if PAF would wait for 30 years and Induct it then it would also be lethal machine..I agree sir, I agree...!
 
. .
Is net-centric warfare/interoperability purely about SDR and secure radio communication? We both know it is not.

Is the JF-17 able to link with the F-16s/ERIEYEs so as to share radar and targeting data (vianon-voice communication)? I don't think any SDR can do this.

As we saw during Red Flag 2008, the IAF encountered a high degree of (simulated) losses initially and subsequently a high degree of blue on blue engagements as the pilots sought to overcompensate and shoot first because they lacked a situational awareness of their surroundings because they were using their own (indian) data-links with one another and the rest of the forces were using Link-16 with the E-3 AWACS. This whilst the MKIs were communicating (verbally) with the AWACS.


If you think net-centric warfare is about verbal communication (secure or not) then I am surprised. Instead you are choosing to dance around the subject.

As I said earlier. Yes Pakistan is able to develop a local solution which will help JF-17 to directly data link with Erieye and through which it can data link with F-16 while for Voice communication it will be able to talk directly with F-16.

Now the same solution and communication gear are installed on ZDK so that it can data link directly with Erieye.

There are no two two parallel data links within PAF. For last 5 years we are making entire fleet Link 16 compatible by hook and crook!
 
.
Does India has mission simulator of LCA ? No.
Of course it does. This is a key FOC requirement.

Does 2 seater is absolutely necessary for training? No. Because 70 pilots of JF-17 is converted on Mission simulators. This is testament to the fact 2 seater are luxury but not necessity.

I didn't use the twin seater variant question as a means to demean or diminish the Thunder but, I have been arguing it is foolish and nonsensical to compare two very different projects with very different aims- look back at my posts and you will see this has been my consistent argument.


In fact you rather illustrate my previous points rather well- what the PAF has sought to do through more imaginative ways (mission simulators) the IAF has insisted upon from the outset as a NECESSITY hence very different ideologies/mentalities behind the development and induction of these planes.

As the PAF has sought to get the Thunder into service as fast as possible at all costs they (and the designers) have taken a more efficient, trouble free and less holistic approach. The LCA project and its users have sought to do something very different.


If you wish to continue comparing apples and oranges by my guest but I am growing tired of it.
 
.
Play along .. Read half cooked shyt from experience Induan trolls .. Who have multiple A2A kills on Strike Fighters (video game)... High on jingoistic strain if tricolour weed.
Be it on online forums or boasting on national TV....the Indians leave no runners up in riding on top of lamp posts....the view may look good but you are going no where. :lol:
 
.
The IAF is not taking a radically different approach, their bar is simply higher and their ASQRs more stringent. As such, to them, and most contemporary air forces, HMDS, IFR probes, twin seat trainers are not luxuries in the 21st century but NECESSITIES if the IAF was holding out for AESA radars then your comment would be valid. The PAF is an anomaly here for having inducted a plane in modern age devoid of many contemporary capabilities.

Contemprary aircrafts vis a vis JF-17 had a head start of around 8 years. JF-17 faced a 3 year funding crunch as well. So it is common sense Those aircrafts had HMDS and other necessities by the time JF-17 was inducted into PAF.
 
.
IAF is divine force sir..It forecasts future and so can you..Like you always told me about 189 numbers of Rafale jets..!
Well watch that space.


Thunder is obviously an inferior plane sir because PAF inducted it early, if PAF would wait for 30 years and Induct it then it would also be lethal machine..I agree sir, I agree...!

All I have tried to illustrate if the futility in arguing that as the Thunder is in service before the LCA it is inherently superior @Bratva has made the only relevant point to support this- knowledge of operationally supporting an aircraft will favour the Thunder. But that is about it.

JF-17 faced a 3 year funding crunch as well. So it is common sense Those aircrafts had HMDS and other necessities by the time JF-17 was inducted into PAF.
Perfectly understandable but this further feeds my analysis that the very different circumstances and respective resources of the two air forces (PAF and IAF) has played a large part in the delivery and performance of the two aircraft projects. The funds crunch impacted what the PAF was able to spend on the program yet they went ahead with inductions anyway. Sanctions and other issues hit the LCA project too but the IAF insisted on their ASQRs being met and have thus held of induction till now.
 
.
Of course it does. This is a key FOC requirement.



I didn't use the twin seater variant question as a means to demean or diminish the Thunder but, I have been arguing it is foolish and nonsensical to compare two very different projects with very different aims- look back at my posts and you will see this has been my consistent argument.


In fact you rather illustrate my previous points rather well- what the PAF has sought to do through more imaginative ways (mission simulators) the IAF has insisted upon from the outset as a NECESSITY hence very different ideologies/mentalities behind the development and induction of these planes.

As the PAF has sought to get the Thunder into service as fast as possible at all costs they (and the designers) have taken a more efficient, trouble free and less holistic approach. The LCA project and its users have sought to do something very different.


If you wish to continue comparing apples and oranges by my guest but I am growing tired of it.

If you wanted to use this argument, you should not have taken part in this thread. Because this thread is comparing the capabilities of two aircrafts. Not about which one has the best holistic approch .Who learned what and who has a superior knowledge of manufacturing and design process.
 
.
Close the thread Pakistanis are correct lca is not worthy it's not operational.

In their minds....

Change it too thunder v mig 21,
 
.
I hope you don't mind me bringing up another Jet to compare to both Tejas and JF-17, but how do you think a modernized F-20 Tigershark would have faired against these two??

8644118495_f709be5cda_b.jpg




a sexy plane that was never was because of the Air National Guard not buying them.
 
.
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.
1_img1181015135002.jpg


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

It's currently not comparable to PAF JF-17s. But if India got serious and ask clear help from EU-US then it can become one.
 
.
lca will have- jft has-
and all that regular nonsensical shyt again and again-

lca 2010 vs jf17
lca2015 vs the same jf17
lca 2020 vs the same jf17
lca 2025 vs the same jf17
lca 2030 vs the same jf17

if we upgrade jf17 lca will be further delayed since it must come out better than jf17- so we keep on upgrading for real and indians keep on upgrading lca on paper- lol



stupid indian logic-
 
Last edited:
. .
Pakistani: Tejas has no DSI.
Indian: Thunderrrrr has no thrust vectoring and can't do the 'cobraaaaaaaaaaaa', or 'BILLI MANOUVER' in case of Tejas.
Pakistani: Tejas has no 'indigeouns' engine.
Indian: Thunderrrrr is a cheap Chinese knockoff.
Pakistani: Tejas is a paper plane.
.
.
.
.
Indian: Thunderrrr is fly that will be swatted by mighty MKEYE.
.
.
.
.
BLA BLA BLA . BOO BOO BOO........

In the end it will all end with prediction on stealthability of Tejaaaaa and Thunderrrrrrr.............

More bla bla boo boo and shoo shoo.....

:D
 
.
In case of JF-17, the burden was on PAF to think out of the box to deliver the results with the meagre resources at hand while
in case of Tejas the burden was on ADA/HAL to deliver the results with meagre technology at hand.
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom