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

[RIP Pak LAW]

JF 17 is your NECESSITY ; not your desire

Quote of the century. Great Indian has finally spoken. Thankyou Sir for your valuable assessment.

Before I go to sleep, please do the honors by listing down PAF's desires.

 

[Bratva]

The PAF too has AWACS but they have 2 critical disadvantages as compared to the Indian scenario; 1) not all of their aircraft are data-linked with each other- the ZDK can only data-link with the Thunders and Mirage III (?) and the SAAB ERIEYEs can only link with the F-16s (via LINK-16) as such the PAF would have to be far more aware of their positioning of their assets and specific data would not be able to be seen by mixed "packages" i.e. if there was a strike package involving F-16s and Thunders/Mirages supported by a ERIEYE only those F-16s would be in possession of the targeting data with the Thunders/Mirages having to rely on their own systems for their own situational awareness meaning they would have to be emitting (and thus prone to being targeted easier) and their operational picture would be far more limited. 2) As I have outlined, the EL/W-2090 is far more potent than any other AWACS in the region meaning they can provide situational awareness are greater ranges to all linked in assets and can remain inside "safe" airspace. As an aside, there was a supposedly a fear within the PAF that their own AWACS could be "blinded" by the powerful emissions capability onboard the EL/W-2090 how real these fears are is impossible to know.

JF-17 uses that version of german R&S software defined radios which has the capability to interoperate with link-16 so with F-16 and Erieye. F-16,Mirages and JF-17 can talk with each other in encrypted voice because later two has R&S SDR.

And Frequency hopping is main feature of SDR these days. So good bye jamming. We can define 30-35 frequency channels all encrypted in SDR. How many channels you can Jam at one time ?

So your premise that JF-17 has serious deficiency in Net centric capability falls just flat. Because you failed to research what communication gear JF-17 is using.

Your post can be termed at best rehtoric and at worse containing lot of bullocks.

 

[Spy Master]

JF-17 uses that version of german R&S software defined radios which has the capability to interoperate with link-16 so with F-16 and Erieye. F-16,Mirages and JF-17 can talk with each other in encrypted voice because later two has R&S SDR.

So sour premise that JF-17 has serious deficiency in Net centric capability falls just flat. Because you failed to research what communication gear JF-17 is using.

Your post can be termed at best rehtoric and at worse containing lot of bullocks.

Sir the thing is most Indians here only visit PAC website that has not been updated since 2009 and many of them have by birth disease of being superior to Pakistanis in every field..!

 

[Abingdonboy]

And PAF will never do anything about those your "SUPPOSED" shortcomings? What a flawed argument sir..In your logic only India will upgrade LCA but PAF will not?
I don't understand is LCA some sort of DIVINE project?

Did I say this? I am only pointing to tangibles- HMDS, IFR probe, trainer/twin seat variant. All these are available on the LCA TODAY.

When will the HMDS come? No definite timeline.

IFR probe, yes this is coming on the BLOCK 2 (and that too only from the 20th production aircraft or so).

Twin seat? A lot os speculation, no proof anything is being worked upon on this front.

That said there is nothing the PAF can do about the structural composition of the Thunder.


There is no doubt the LCA today and at the time of induction will begin at a HIGHER base than the Thunder either of today or even the Thunder of the future (BLOCK 2). This is as a direct result of the different approaches the PAF and IAF have taken as I have outlined above. The PAF's haste has led to such shortcomings, the IAF's belligerent attitude has meant the LCA has had to deliver such capabilities from the outset.

As such with both aircraft being developed into the future the LCA will have inherent advantage as its base is inherently higher, there is already talk of producing LCA MK.1s with an AESA radar from 2017/18 onwards whilst the JF-17 Block.3 doesn't even promise this (as of yet).

 

[SQ8]

Probably one of the most ill informed and badly analysed comparisons ever. But what do I know.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

This entire timeline is fictitious. The LCA will gain FOC by March 2016, the IAF will begin inducting the LCA from 2016 and from 2017 onwards HAL will be proceeding 16 LCA a year.


There is some validity in saying that having significantly more time on the aircraft by frontline pilots puts the Thunder at an advantage over the LCA the IF the timeframe of the next Indo-Pak war is 2020. Long term the IAF's approach will pay off though.

Is having a high level of operational flight hours going to address the inherent shortcomings of the Thunder vis a vis the LCA? No.

You might induct lca by 2016... But by than JFT Block II and upgraded Block Is will be operational... And by 2018 block III will await you.


Again all I see in ths thread is BS future "theoratical Nonsense".. About the superiority of a jet that has yet to begin production or even has official specs released vs a jet in evolution completing probably 20K flying hours,combat tested,won an export order... Performing in multiple shows in Asia and Europe.

But again your pushing shyt .. A half arsed article with a zillion mistakes regarding JFT..

 

[Bratva]

All such examples took place out of necessity and let us not pretend this was a rosy picture. The F-35 faces a significant amount of criticism for being inducted into service devoid of many critical and promised capabilities- this is a political and financial compulsion above all else.

Now you are criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Instead of acknowledging, Not a single country in this whole world follow your approach of applying and integrating all the things from the get go.

So does it mean all the countries are wrong and India is right? Or is it other way around ?

This is, perhaps, the most valid argument one can make of where the Thunder scores over the LCA. It is true the IAF will take some time to get up to speed on maintaining and supporting the LCA (but this will also be offset to a large degree by having the LCA designed in-house) and if the LCA was to be the backbone of the IAF this would be highly troublesome HOWEVER the IAF has a large fleet of tested and proven (and highly capable) fighters in service and is inducting more (Rafale) so they have got the time to bed themselves in.


Again, many here are using a LCA vs Thunder comparison in a vacuum without contextualising the analysis so as to serve their own argument. This should be a IAF vs PAF debate otherwise this is a nonsensical conversation.

LCA maintenance would be a different beast. You have to train your technicians on servicing american engines. Then you have to train your staff on servicing all the foriegn components in LCA. Are you manufacturing Israeli radar in house ? The EW suite in LCA is still facing issues. Lets induct LCA first, then we will see if servicing LCA would be as easy as you are trying to paint.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Probably one of the most ill informed and badly analysed comparisons ever. But what do I know.

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.

 

[Abingdonboy]

JF-17 uses that version of german R&S software defined radios which has the capability to interoperate with link-16 so with F-16 and Erieye. F-16,Mirages and JF-17 can talk with each other in encrypted voice because later two has R&S SDR.

And Frequency hopping is main feature of SDR these days. So good bye jamming. We can define 30-35 frequency channels all encrypted in SDR. How many channels you can Jam at one time ?

So your premise that JF-17 has serious deficiency in Net centric capability falls just flat. Because you failed to research what communication gear JF-17 is using.

Your post can be termed at best rehtoric and at worse containing lot of bullocks.

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.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

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

Thats RD-33

 

[Spy Master]

Did I say this? I am only pointing to tangibles- HMDS, IFR probe, trainer/twin seat variant. All these are available on the LCA TODAY.

When will the HMDS come? No definite timeline.

IFR probe, yes this is coming on the BLOCK 2 (and that too only from the 20th production aircraft or so).

Twin seat? A lot os speculation, no proof anything is being worked upon on this front.

That said there is nothing the PAF can do about the structural composition of the Thunder.


There is no doubt the LCA today and at the time of induction will begin at a HIGHER base than the Thunder either of today or even the Thunder of the future (BLOCK 2). This is as a direct result of the different approaches the PAF and IAF have taken as I have outlined above. The PAF's haste has led to such shortcomings, the IAF's belligerent attitude has meant the LCA has had to deliver such capabilities from the outset.

As such with both aircraft being developed into the future the LCA will have inherent advantage as its base is inherently higher, there is already talk of producing LCA MK.1s with an AESA radar from 2017/18 onwards whilst the JF-17 Block.3 doesn't even promise this (as of yet).

Sir now I beg you to read the Latest interview of ACM that is even posted here ,,,!
1. Answer about HMDS, it will be incorporated within year..!
2. IFR PROBE,,,Done..!
3. Twin seater..ACM clearly said PAF dont need it,.. but for BUYERS it is in its development stages and will be rolled out in 2016 ..!
4.Block three will use more composites and design will be different..A team is working on it in PAC and paper work is almost done..! These are the words of ACM not mine..!
Now the thing is sir I am sorry to say, most of your delusions about Thunder is lack of knowledge and Research..!

 

[siddharth shankar]

Lets forget the scenario of the resources...we were talking about fighter to fighter..!
1. The IAF approach is to only induct Tejas when it is fully operational and it might be 2019-2020 as of now..from 2020 they will start making a serial production and from your point of view that is a true approach on the cost of pilot life of MIGs...!
2. PAF approach is to induct Thunder and make it potent with time, with the serious advantage of pilot skill on the aircraft after flying it for 100s of hours..Then you can see by 2020 PAF will nearly have 70-80 aircrafts with precious blocks that can be upgraded to latest blocks with the advantage of pilot training..!
Now look what is what and who is who and who is sane...!
3. Your all weather logic that you are proud of that Mark 1 will be equal to Block 3 is missing the key point that block 1 is rolled out in 2006 and Tejas is yet to see the light of sun in Operational mode..! If Tejas that has seen only Delays and Upgradation in his life is to be rolled out in 2020 with latest capabilities then so it the Thunder in 2018..!
4. The rest of my post with a "single line" about yourself was addressing your question about certain capabilities of thunder from the latest interview but as always you chose to ignore it..!


Read the latest ACM interview , refuel in flight has been done many times in block 2.....!

Paf certainly has the better approach. But LCA is a more modern machine but PAF pilots will have the first mver advantage for sure.So in the end it will be even stevens.

 

[Bratva]

@Bratva

Just because JF 17 has been inducted it does nt become better

Using the F 35 ANALOGY ; F 35 is struggling ; but when ready it will be
the BEST kick a$$ plane in the world

PAF had no choice but to induct JF 17

For PAF There are No more F 16 coming ; J 10 is NOT available
No Russian ; European planes available

JF 17 is your NECESSITY ; not your desire

is LCA somesort of luxury car IAF is buying because You are filthy rich guys ?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Now you are criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Instead of acknowledging, Not a single country in this whole world follow your approach of applying and integrating all the things from the get go.

So does it mean all the countries are wrong and India is right? Or is it other way around ?


[QUOTE="Abingdonboy, post: 7778601, member: 28303"This is, perhaps, the most valid argument one can make of where the Thunder scores over the LCA. It is true the IAF will take some time to get up to speed on maintaining and supporting the LCA (but this will also be offset to a large degree by having the LCA designed in-house) and if the LCA was to be the backbone of the IAF this would be highly troublesome HOWEVER the IAF has a large fleet of tested and proven (and highly capable) fighters in service and is inducting more (Rafale) so they have got the time to bed themselves in.


Again, many here are using a LCA vs Thunder comparison in a vacuum without contextualising the analysis so as to serve their own argument. This should be a IAF vs PAF debate otherwise this is a nonsensical conversation.

LCA maintenance would be a different beast. You have to train your technicians on servicing american engines. Then you have to train your staff on servicing all the foriegn components in LCA. Are you manufacturing Israeli radar in house ? The EW suite in LCA is still facing issues. Lets induct LCA first, then we will see if servicing LCA would be as easy as you are trying to paint.[/QUOTE]

Guess what the envisioned radar range of lca mkI with ELTA radar was 80km .. Which that were hassling with due to s faulty cone .. Reducing it to mere 50km.

 

[Abingdonboy]

You might induct lca by 2016... But by than JFT Block II and upgraded Block Is will be operational... And by 2018 block III will await you.

And, as I have pointed out, the LCA MK.1 entering service in 2016 will come with capabilities the Thunder will lack for the foreseeable future (Block 2 included).