What's new

LCA Tejas is far superior than Mirage-2000 and the Chinese JF-17

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . .
Only if Pakistan could do what we do :) Alas simply bolting nuts is not necessarily great science

your tejas even looks like mirage.you don't even change it's structure.as far as all the electronics and onboard sensors are concerned,they are all foreign made.do you think that we don't know who is working alongside with indian engineers inside your facilities? israel have a major role in your tejas program.you have so many israeli and russian engineers working in facilities.let me tell you everything in tejas is made by engineers not from india,but from israel or russia.india is just learning and we know it.you wanted to copy mirages from a long time.now you have it's copy named tejas.it's no hidden secret that chinese engineers are helping here in jf-17 and israel is helping you in tejas.it's not indigenous.we know your capabilities.a tank takes more than 30 years and now this! please don't call it indigenous.it's a disrespect for tejas program.
 
.
Funny how the author choose to add "Chinese" before JF-17 without adding "French" to Mirage 2000. As if that would nullify Pakistan's contribution to the program.

And here goes another typical Tejas vs Thunder thread.

Tejas Supporters repeating the same old arguments over and over again.

Composites!
Yeah we've heard it a million times, something Tejas had and Thunder don't have. Now show us how much weight did Tejas save, was the extra production time and cost worth it. As far as I know, the empty weight for both planes are similar.

FBW! JF-17 don't have it!
Dead wrong on this one. JF-17 is not Mig-17. It's a modern plane, it had FBW. What you might've been quoting is how early model (Block 1) had a inferior dual-redundant pitch axis only FBW instead of the quad-redundant all axis FBW one would expect. It might be there to save development time and cost. If reports are accurate, this issue has been solved a long time ago by the introduction of Block 2, with an avionics overhaul.

Tejas just had better performance!
You might just be right, but it's not that much better, the performance of both planes are nearly identical on paper, with Tejas doing slighty better in some fields.
For a fighter that is introduced a decade later than its competitor, being a tiny bit better is not much of an achievement.
Remember Pakistan is operating nearly 100 JF-17s, and how many Tejas is in service? Five?

This is not to say Tejas is not a great achievement for India's military industry. India military always struggled with domestic developments and meeting deadlines. To see something 30 years in the making finally having something to show for it, does mean something. And it might be an end to the bad reputation ion for domestic Indian military equipments created by the likes of INSAS and Ar-jun.
 
.
Funny how the author choose to add "Chinese" before JF-17 without adding "French" to Mirage 2000. As if that would nullify Pakistan's contribution to the program.

And here goes another typical Tejas vs Thunder thread.

Tejas Supporters repeating the same old arguments over and over again.

Composites!
Yeah we've heard it a million times, something Tejas had and Thunder don't have. Now show us how much weight did Tejas save, was the extra production time and cost worth it. As far as I know, the empty weight for both planes are similar.

FBW! JF-17 don't have it!
Dead wrong on this one. JF-17 is not Mig-17. It's a modern plane, it had FBW. What you might've been quoting is how early model (Block 1) had a inferior dual-redundant pitch axis only FBW instead of the quad-redundant all axis FBW one would expect. It might be there to save development time and cost. If reports are accurate, this issue has been solved a long time ago by the introduction of Block 2, with an avionics overhaul.

Tejas just had better performance!
You might just be right, but it's not that much better, the performance of both planes are nearly identical on paper, with Tejas doing slighty better in some fields.
For a fighter that is introduced a decade later than its competitor, being a tiny bit better is not much of an achievement.
Remember Pakistan is operating nearly 100 JF-17s, and how many Tejas is in service? Five?

This is not to say Tejas is not a great achievement for India's military industry. India military always struggled with domestic developments and meeting deadlines. To see something 30 years in the making finally having something to show for it, does mean something. And it might be an end to the bad reputation ion for domestic Indian military equipments created by the likes of INSAS and Ar-jun.
Ok jf 17 has quad redundant all axis fly by wire . Please support your claim with a authentic link . Actually flying a quad fbw plane is hand free job and flying a plane with out same is too tiring to be sustained for long duration i.e you can fly Tejas for 2 hr but jf 17 for 45 min so this is the major and very first difference between Tejas and jf 17 . And you will be surprised by the fact that adding refeuling probe in jf 17 is of no value as pilot is already exhausted. It is of cosmetic value . It is just to add spec .I am given you reason .

Empty weight more or less same ( as of now , which is going to reduced for Tejas ) because of difference in wing area .

Actually It is not us repeating same arguments , this is because of you people not able to comprehend the things in first time and not coming up with new criticisms next time .

Pakistan operating nearly 100 jf 17 with less than 70 hr flights/ plane / year which is less than one fourth of rafale , Tejas , Sukhoi and international standard . And top of this crash started to come in open media from dark secret .
 
.
Fruit hawker, ISRO scientist --our culture respects work as worship. JF 17 cannot sustain vertical flying with or without the wheels out like the Tejas. It loses steam so fast and has to level off. Every air show has restrictions for safety. I have seen several such acts in other airshows with different aircraft. They all do the vertical take off only after they pass a certain area away from spectators or other parked aircraft.

Point being I yet to see a video where the 17 can sustain vertical flight beating the tejas. If you have a video, I'm happy to see.

@Windjammer Can you respond to quoted post about vertical climb capability of JFT, video will be best response.
 
.
The tejas is so amazing that the Indian navy has refused to induct and the indian airforce will buy a alternative single engine fighter from abroad

Hmmmmo_O
 
.
Those are just taken from random Chinese forum and then post on it. See how the Indian cherry pick post that suit their agenda. They are also Chinese state post bashing LCA project as a whole is failure and LCA is not a good plane and why we don't see Indian talk abt it?
Once it is published in reputed media, it does not matter at all from where it came from because no reputed paper will pick randomly anything and publish it there unless they recognize that.

Any source claim that Chinese government believe Tejas is superior? I have seen many Indians claim that Tejas us superior to j-10 or even j-20. India should do less comparison to brag and just work harder. Even Indians here believe Indians as a whole brag to much while not working hard enough.
Before exhibiting your foolishness, you must it is not the work of any government to compare planes and give its opinion which one is better.

if you didnt get it i was being sarcastic.
you cant go from zero to hero in that short space of time. no one can do that not even the chinese or europe or even america.


the m88 is similar to the f404 in the mk1/mk1a
the mk2 are not getting spectra.
and the missiles are separate as they are from different vendors mbda for the missiles and dassault for the upgrade.
Get your fact right and do not put the words in my mouth.
 
.
*Absolute Madness*
This is the first time I saw arguments like "Tejas is less tiring" and "IFR probe is useless because the pilot is too tired".

Normally I don't reply to ridiculous arguments like these, but the shock value from your post alone is worth replying to.

Alright, what's first.
Please support your claim with a authentic link .
Literally all the news articles about what the block 2 upgrade is will tell you there is a upgrade to avionics. And it's on JF-17's wikipedia page. If it's too inauthentic to you, I'm sure plently in the JF-17 section of this forum would be willing to tell you. I'm too tired to be looking for a link from my phone at 5AM in the morning.
Also, since you asked me to support my claim. Please support your claims of "flying a quad fbw plane is hand free job and flying a plane with out same is too tiring(by the way do you even know what redundancy is for?)" and "is of no value as pilot is already exhausted". With "authentic link", of course. And the standard of the link's authenticity is ambiguous that is deemed by me.

you can fly Tejas for 2 hr but jf 17 for 45 min
What makes you think that JF-17 pilot would be tired just after 45 minutes of flying? This is not WWII, when you have to change the trim, fuel mixture, propeller pitch constantly just to maintain a level flight. Even the early JF-17 with pitch only FBW had stability control for yaw and roll. The plane would happily maintain its attitude by itself.

adding refeuling probe in jf 17 is of no value as pilot is already exhausted. It is of cosmetic value .
Assuming "Non-quad-redundant FBW makes pilot tired, so tired that they can't complete a IFR after 45 minutes." is true.(Which it isn't.)
Be sure to tell that to designers of early planes with IFR probe but not FBW, that "it is of cosmetic value". They don't even have FBW, IFR probes must be for less than cosmetic value!

Empty weight more or less same ( as of now , which is going to reduced for Tejas ) because of difference in wing area .
Alright, I accept this explaination. So they wasted their opportunity on saving weight by have a massive wing then? Okay. Hope the lower wing loading is worth it.
But I wonder where this "which is going to reduced for Tejas" comes from. If you look at pretty much ALL historical plane developments, they only get heavier.

Actually It is not us repeating same arguments
Really, find a Tejas vs Thunder argument. ANYWHERE. I guarantee that the word "composite" will be mentioned.

Pakistan operating nearly 100 jf 17 with less than 70 hr flights/ plane / year
We are comparing planes here, not budget or training. Stay on topic would ya.

And top of this crash started to come in open media from dark secret
I believe my English is not good enough to comprehend this argument.
 
.
So far as comparision with JF 17 is concerned, China itself has accepted that Tejas is superior.

So far as mirage 2000 is concern, Tejas MK1 engine has lower dry thrust. It lacks Mirage in one such area. Mk1 with low weight will match the T/W ratio of Mirage even with almost 12 15% low dry thrust engine. Mk2 shall surpass any other small plane in many parameters and certainly mirage 2000.
When did China accept it? Proof
 
.
Once it is published in reputed media, it does not matter at all from where it came from because no reputed paper will pick randomly anything and publish it there unless they recognize that.


Before exhibiting your foolishness, you must it is not the work of any government to compare planes and give its opinion which one is better.


Get your fact right and do not put the words in my mouth.
what fact would you like for me to 'correct'?
 
. .
Act

Actually jf 17 fly hour / plane / year is 70 hr on an average , much less than rafale and Tejas 250 hr / plane / year .
And please give the detail in w
Back yp your claims with authentic source or your post will be reported
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom