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

[#hydra#]

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

I think neither India nor Pakistan will use tejas & jf17 for bvr engagement,that's the job of mig29/mirage,su30 & f16. So in reality there is fairly less chance of facing both each other. It my opinion I may be wrong also. By the way good analysis but sadly this thread going to be filed off by troll legends from both side.

 

[sathya]

It's quiet obvious the combat range is mentioned at contrasting extremes of altitude and weapons load..

I have a doubt why tejas altitude is less , while having large wings ..?

Tejas wing area = 38.4m2
Thunder wing area = 24.4 m2

@gambit

 

[#hydra#]

Can somebody compare the rate of climb of tejas and jf17…

 

[Spy Master]

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.

As much as I would love to reply you and Almost every over-confident Analysis of you has been discussed to death times here and sure I accept that SU 30 is a God's machine and not a man made machine but the fact about LCA is when you compare it to JF 17 you always use WILL and not IS, ignoring the fact that JF 17 is currently in service and obviously you are a Keyboard ACM but fact is PAF'S ACMs are very well satisfied with its performance and PAF is not some rag tag Cuban or African AF who will indut a Junk..This Air Force is exercising with all World class AF's ...So before you giving comments on JF 17 on behalf of PAF , do remember that JF 17 is "IS" while TejaS Is "WILL"....!

 

[anant_s]

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.

can you please do a scenario analysis with AWACS resources at disposal of each nation's airforce.
i believe Phalcon outperforms anything in the region so coupled with this, Tejas can actually be more potent.

 

[siddharth shankar]

As much as I would love to reply you and Almost every over-confident Analysis of you has been discussed to death times here and sure I accept that SU 30 is a God's machine and not a man made machine but the fact about LCA is when you compare it to JF 17 you always use WILL and not IS, ignoring the fact that JF 17 is currently in service and obviously you are a Keyboard ACM but fact is PAF'S ACMs are very well satisfied with its performance and PAF is not some rag tag Cuban or African AF who will indut a Junk..This Air Force is exercising with all World class AF's ...So before you giving comments on JF 17 on behalf of PAF , do remember that JF 17 is "IS" while TejaS Is "WILL"....!

Both you and the guy you replied to are right.

 

[My-Analogous]

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

Now please make it operational, enable us to know what is the final product.

 

[sathya]

Now please make it operational, enable us to know what is the final product.

Ok thanks.. I ll tag you when we induct a tejas squadron ..

Like wise please tag me when thunders get IOC/FOC.

 

[SR-91]

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.

I hope, for the sake of people of both nations, that these birds don't ever see each other.

Your last paragraph is what really matters the most to India. LCA project, in the end, will create a new high end infrastructure n tech base in the country. Not to mention thousands of jobs. This project is the foundation of high tech manufacturing base in India.

 

[My-Analogous]

Ok thanks.. I ll tag you when we induct a tejas squadron ..

Like wise please tag me when thunders get IOC/FOC.

Sorry mate you are late for almost eight year for Thunder IOC / FOC news and now we have more than 70+ operational example of that. Sorry again for that

 

[Abingdonboy]

As much as I would love to reply you and Almost every over-confident Analysis of you has been discussed to death times here and sure I accept that SU 30 is a God's machine and not a man made machine but the fact about LCA is when you compare it to JF 17 you always use WILL and not IS, ignoring the fact that JF 17 is currently in service and obviously you are a Keyboard ACM but fact is PAF'S ACMs are very well satisfied with its performance and PAF is not some rag tag Cuban or African AF who will indut a Junk..This Air Force is exercising with all World class AF's ...So before you giving comments on JF 17 on behalf of PAF , do remember that JF 17 is "IS" while TejaS Is "WILL"....!

I'm not saying the PAF is a Cuban or African AF but then it is not the USAF or FrAF either. The fact is the PAF was FORCED to adopt the Thunder in the state it was because it was simply the only option available to you, in the last decade what other fighter have you inducted (the F-16s withstanding)? Had it not been for the Thunder the majority of your AF would be Mirages and F-7s- this is undeniable. Can you deny that the JF-17 was inducted in haste with many capabilities not included (and still to this day not included)? Professional is one thing but that doesn't change the reality of the resources the PAF has available to it. The PAF cannot match the vast resources the IAF enjoys and it is this compulsion that led to the JF-17 being inducted with certain shortcomings and why the IAF has refused to induct the LCA until it is exactly what they wanted. This is pragmatism, this does not demand the PAF or its professionalism.


And all this "WILL" and "IS" lexicon you use to demean the LCA is funny because the LCA HAS all of the above features TODAY (LDP, HMDS, IFR probe, twin seat variant, naval variant etc etc) that the JF-17 has NOT and in some cases NEVER will have.

 

[imran rashid]

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

Now please make it operational, enable us to know what is the final product.

Source: Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario | Page 2

I'm not saying the PAF is a Cuban or African AF but then it is not the USAF or FrAF either. The fact is the PAF was FORCED to adopt the Thunder in the state it was because it was simply the only option available to you, in the last decade what other fighter have you inducted (the F-16s withstanding)? Had it not been for the Thunder the majority of your AF would be Mirages and F-7s- this is undeniable. Can you deny that the JF-17 was inducted in haste with many capabilities not included (and still to this day not included)? Professional is one thing but that doesn't change the reality of the resources the PAF has available to it. The PAF cannot match the vast resources the IAF enjoys and it is this compulsion that led to the JF-17 being inducted with certain shortcomings and why the IAF has refused to induct the LCA until it is exactly what they wanted. This is pragmatism, this does not demand the PAF or its professionalism.


And all this "WILL" and "IS" lexicon you use to demean the LCA is funny because the LCA HAS all of the above features TODAY (LDP, HMDS, IFR probe, twin seat variant, naval variant etc etc) that the JF-17 has NOT and in some cases NEVER will have.

Now please make it operational, enable us to know what is the final product.

Source: Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario | Page 2

 

[Abingdonboy]

I hope, for the sake of people of both nations, that these birds don't ever see each other.

Your last paragraph is what really matters the most to India. LCA project, in the end, will create a new high end infrastructure n tech base in the country. Not to mention thousands of jobs. This project is the foundation of high tech manufacturing base in India.

Well said.

 

[majid mehmood]

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

who told u that jf 17 has rcs 3m2
it has somewhere reported ( in 2011) when i was reading an article
it was stated that hf 17 has lower rcs than the latest f16 pakistan has IT means f16c which has an rcs of 1.2m2
even if u take f16 b it has an rcs of 3m2
when jf 17 was in only in prototypes it was written that dsi had been added to even more reduce the rcs of jf 17
dont think jf 17 has no composite it has only around 5-10% ( more will be there in blk 2)
it has ram coating on nose and vey less on the wing which incorporates ony 10-5%
so in a bvr fight it is unlikely to say who have the upper hand as tejas has 45% composites.
also not enough public info is available

 

[silent hawk]

Even when LCA becomes operational it is unlikely to engage JF-17 over India.

The F-16s escorting the JF-17 would engage the Tejas