JF-17 and LCA development comparison

[mjnaushad]

DSI doesn't help in maneuvering, and also I was talking about comparable maneuverability between LCA and JF-17 where LCA is better.

how did you reach that conclusion?

 

[trident2010]

That is the most idiotic question ever... because if you are expecting cinematic proof of a design phase within the chengdu offices which is one of the most sensitive areas around China(where PAF test pilots have had to display the greatest care) then you can continue to keep your doubts(since these are fuelled by your disdain of Pakistan than anythng else).

This was not a field trip where somebody would keep a camera to document "Hey Buddy, we are-a Paakistanis working heara"..
Simply ridiculous.

I asked a simple question and even senior members/moderators giving off-topic answers. If I take your answer as a general consensus among the learned group of Pakistanis, then it says that all the R&D work was done in China tailoring the need of PAF. Now with this understanding, there is no comparison between the LCA and JF-17 in terms of R&D and development. Yes, Chinese member can compare their R&D in Thunder with Indian R&D in Tejas, from where Pakistan comes in the picture?

What I can't understand that why Pakistani members mock the development of Tejas when they didn't even designed a nut/bolt of Thunder? Yes there are many delays in LCA development and still we are good 5 years behind the operational LCA however it doesn't makes the effort itself any lesser. Many ambitious developments have been tried during LCA development some were successful some were not.

If there is not a single proof that Pakistan was involved in any kind of R&D for Thunder and joint effort is just symbolic then there is nothing to argue for. PAF told China their requirements and Chinese gave you JF-17 on time. On the other hand, IAF told Indian scientists/Engineers their requirements and they gave them LCA-Tejas albeit still not finished.

As per my question I asked before, I know the answer now.

 

[SQ8]

I asked a simple question and even senior members/moderators giving off-topic answers. If I take your answer as a general consensus among the learned group of Pakistanis, then it says that all the R&D work was done in China tailoring the need of PAF. Now with this understanding, there is no comparison between the LCA and JF-17 in terms of R&D and development. Yes, Chinese member can compare their R&D in Thunder with Indian R&D in Tejas, from where Pakistan comes in the picture?

What I can't understand that why Pakistani members mock the development of Tejas when they didn't even designed a nut/bolt of Thunder? Yes there are many delays in LCA development and still we are good 5 years behind the operational LCA however it doesn't makes the effort itself any lesser. Many ambitious developments have been tried during LCA development some were successful some were not.

If there is not a single proof that Pakistan was involved in any kind of R&D for Thunder and joint effort is just symbolic then there is nothing to argue for. PAF told China their requirements and Chinese gave you JF-17 on time. On the other hand, IAF told Indian scientists/Engineers their requirements and they gave them LCA-Tejas albeit still not finished.

As per my question I asked before, I know the answer now.

If you believe what you wish to then do it. Stop asking us to believe your narrative.

 

[trident2010]

Stop asking us to believe your narrative.

When did I asked any one to believe in what I am saying?

I got my answer and all the other members who followed this thread also got theirs.

 

[Secur]

If you believe what you wish to then do it. Stop asking us to believe your narrative.

No , some one sneak inside the highly secretive design facility at Chengdu and get him a video just because he needs it to believe that Pakistani engineers were involved in design phase of a project which was undertaken by PAC and CAC on a project for a fighter that was to become the workhouse of the nation's airforce for next 20-30 years !

 

[Anony]

Anony, When your DODO chief claim something you all go mad on this but when some Pakistani Official talk you say show us the csula proof, You people talk so dearly about Shaurya, so show me the proof it exists in reality rather than in your delusional minds?

P.S I qouted what the JF-17 director said not what i said. you better keep yourself updated about changing happening around you

Dude, that's the reason I accepted your claim because the claim has got every reason to believe.

 

[SEAL]

I asked a simple question and even senior members/moderators giving off-topic answers. If I take your answer as a general consensus among the learned group of Pakistanis, then it says that all the R&D work was done in China tailoring the need of PAF. Now with this understanding, there is no comparison between the LCA and JF-17 in terms of R&D and development. Yes, Chinese member can compare their R&D in Thunder with Indian R&D in Tejas, from where Pakistan comes in the picture?

What I can't understand that why Pakistani members mock the development of Tejas when they didn't even designed a nut/bolt of Thunder? Yes there are many delays in LCA development and still we are good 5 years behind the operational LCA however it doesn't makes the effort itself any lesser. Many ambitious developments have been tried during LCA development some were successful some were not.

If there is not a single proof that Pakistan was involved in any kind of R&D for Thunder and joint effort is just symbolic then there is nothing to argue for. PAF told China their requirements and Chinese gave you JF-17 on time. On the other hand, IAF told Indian scientists/Engineers their requirements and they gave them LCA-Tejas albeit still not finished.

As per my question I asked before, I know the answer now.

These things hardly matter now a days.

You can give thousand excuses but in the end people will ask one question is it a success or failure? JF-17 is success by all means and shortcomings can be improved in future blocks and the most important things its serving the PAF.

LCA Tojas yet to qualify for IOC-II and FOC its time to concentrate and invest in AMCA not LCA.

 

[trident2010]

No , some one sneak inside the highly secretive design facility at Chengdu and get him a video just because he needs it to believe that Pakistani engineers were involved in design phase of a project which was undertaken by PAC and CAC on a project for a fighter that was to become the workhouse of the nation's airforce for next 20-30 years !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieIfEcumZPY

 

[Anony]

So how long did it take you to figure out the difference by searching google immensely and finally talking like if you knew it all along ? ... and now that you finally have a crude idea , read your post again and find me the maximum detection range for KlJ7 , did you post it ? ... So what the hell were you comparing ? ... Do you understand what " approximately " means ? ... Go on !

I have already posted the link for this.

It's given Klj-7 has 75km detection range for 3m2 RCS object, thus U can find out what could be for 5m2 RCS object and U will find that it is coming close to 105km. But one of the member here claim that to 135km and I still accepted that taking that to be quite a realistic figure since klj-7 works at 80-85 degree azimuth, thus spreading it's power on narrower area generally should have figure close to 130km.

 

[Windjammer]

I asked a simple question and even senior members/moderators giving off-topic answers. If I take your answer as a general consensus among the learned group of Pakistanis, then it says that all the R&D work was done in China tailoring the need of PAF. Now with this understanding, there is no comparison between the LCA and JF-17 in terms of R&D and development. Yes, Chinese member can compare their R&D in Thunder with Indian R&D in Tejas, from where Pakistan comes in the picture?

What I can't understand that why Pakistani members mock the development of Tejas when they didn't even designed a nut/bolt of Thunder? Yes there are many delays in LCA development and still we are good 5 years behind the operational LCA however it doesn't makes the effort itself any lesser. Many ambitious developments have been tried during LCA development some were successful some were not.

If there is not a single proof that Pakistan was involved in any kind of R&D for Thunder and joint effort is just symbolic then there is nothing to argue for. PAF told China their requirements and Chinese gave you JF-17 on time. On the other hand, IAF told Indian scientists/Engineers their requirements and they gave them LCA-Tejas albeit still not finished.

As per my question I asked before, I know the answer now.

The R&D for the JF-17 was conducted to whatever length between China and Pakistan and is bearing fruit of this joint venture to fulfil PAF's requirements, OTOH, the LCA, which has had help and inputs by several major aircraft manufacturers...in your own words is several years away from being inducted....more over, we never hear the end of how indigenous the LCA is.
Rather than pointing fingers at others, some introspection for the fan boys will not go a miss.

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft

 

[trident2010]

These things hardly matter now a days.

You can give thousand excuses but in the end people will ask one question is it a success or failure? JF-17 is success by all means and shortcomings can be improved in future blocks and the most important things its serving the PAF.

LCA Tojas yet to qualify for IOC-II and FOC its time to concentrate and invest in AMCA not LCA.

Indeed !! What is more important is quick deployment and JF-17 is already operational and LCA is not. However, my initial query was what R&D exactly Pakistan did in JF-Thunda of course along with the proof, as here we only believe in logical answers and proofs.

 

[trident2010]

The R&D for the JF-17 was conducted to whatever length between China and Pakistan and is bearing fruit of this joint venture to fulfil PAF's requirements, OTOH, the LCA, which has had help and inputs by several major aircraft manufacturers...in your own words is several years away from being inducted....more over, we never hear the end of how indigenous the LCA is.
Rather than pointing fingers at others, some introspection for the fan boys will not go a miss.

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft

Yes, you are correct in saying that LCA is still far away from being inducted, however what I am saying is by what right you guys can mock Tejas development if you don't even know how it is like to make a 4th gen aircraft from scratch?

However, if you say that Pakistan has done more R&D in JF-17 than India in LCA then show us some proof of it not only tall claims.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Livefist: "JF-17 Not As Advanced As LCA, But It Can Drop Bombs": Nawaz Sharif

 

[sancho]

Radar: LCA mk1 currently has Elta-2032 radar which is superior than Klj-7 radar.

True, from manufacturer data available in public.

RCS: LCA's RCS is far lesser than JF-17

True, because of the small sice, less reflecting surfaces, use of RAM coatings and at last point, high use of composites materials.

EW suite: LCA has been integrated with indigenous designed EW

Not true, certain parts of the whole EW system are indigenous, like the RWR which are used in MKI or Mig 27 too. However, that doesn't related in any superiority. Infact, from what we know so far, JF 17 should have at least advantages in terms of EW sensors, since it already uses MAWS as part of the EW, while LCA doesn't so far.

Maneuverability:

Low wingloading and high dry TWR are good, AoA not bad yet, but will be improved before final FOC. No reliable data available for JF 17 in this field.

Airframe&Avionics:

Besides the dvantages mentioned above, the airframe has also the advantage of a dedicated pod station, so no limitations of weaponstations during LGB strikes, or carrying other pods. Avionics are pretty comparable and propper 4th gen standard. One could only find advantages for each fighter in certain fields, Dash HMS and Litening LDPs for LCA, or better MDFs for JF 17, but overal they are equal here.


There are some points that you didn't mentioned:

Engine - advantage LCA, more power, more life, more cost-effective to operate, less maintenance

Weapon package: advantage for JF 17, more weapons integrated or on offer, while LCA only has LGBs and WVR missiles integrated yet. The only other weapon that is known to be added yet is Derby, so we have to wait and see.

Costs: lower unit cost of JF 17 on the one side, lower operational cost of LCA on the other (less airframe parts, less movable parts, more fuel efficient engine)


Both are light class, low end fighters and will be good additions to the air forces with their multi role capablities and without much dependence on foreign restrictions. LCA was developed with a higher standard in mind and the addition of foreign techs just increased this, which gives it advantages in in air combat, operational terms, or future potential.
JF 17 mainly benefits from it's low cost, the early induction into PAF and the maturity it now gets through operational service, just like the addition of more and more weapons to make it versatile especially in the strike role.

 

[Secur]

Livefist: "JF-17 Not As Advanced As LCA, But It Can Drop Bombs": Nawaz Sharif

Well , thats Nawaz Sharif for you !