Professionals please analyse Tejas and JF-17 on Airshow performance

[Bossman]

Without getting into a "mine is better than yours debate" but by simply looking at the LCA's video from Bahrain and JF17s video from Paris, it is obvious that JF17 is a more nimble aircraft. Keep in mind that both aircrafts were flying under very different rules in terms of ceiling, size of the box and airspeed so it is an apples and oranges comparison. Also JF17 was being flown by very young operational pilots while the LCA was being flown by senior test pilots from the Indian testing establishment. A few other takeaways from the Bahrain Airshow. It seems that LCA needs a very large service crew whereas JF17 needs only 3. Also it was funny to see how the pilot closed the LCA canopy manually and then pushed it back to check if it was locked. Then the ground crew member came over tapped the side of cockpit to tell the pilot that he is good to go. Kinda reminded me of Pakistani mini bus conductors. This is very weird procedure because at higher RPMs the ground crew could potentially be sucked into the engine.

 

[SrNair]

Hmmmm....this is a tricky one.

On "pen and paper" i will say HAL Tejas is a better aircraft performance-wise.
But, there are three points to consider before rushing to the conclusion:
However, HAL Tejas is not yet combat-ready, and, God knows when it would be. Exclusive: Modi pushes 'obsolete' made-in-India plane on reluctant military
JF-17 is going through its Block-III development phase. Once, the development is complete, it would achieve significant improvement in terms of performance and capability. Better engines, better avionics, better radar, and so on. Just imagine a JF-17 with Saturn engine, and, Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA Radar!!!
And, finally, The "pen and paper" shortcomings of JF-17 is due to is budget constraint, not because of the lack of capability of the developers.
The JF-17 project was based on China's abandoned Super-7 project. It cannot be called a Mig-21/F-7 copy unlikehat some people here often claim. It can be, at most, described as development over Mig-21/F-7.
Designs need not be original always. If a design is successful and battle-proven, it doesn't need to be abandoned. Think of Sukoi (Flanker) and Mirage aircraft families. Su-30, 34,35, 37 were all developed from Su-27. In case of Mirage, there were as many as 11 developments over the original design. See:Mirage (aircraft). There are also IAI Nesher, IAI Kfir and Atlas Cheetahs.

If we adjust the price of the 80’s F-16 for inflation, JF-17 is much more cheaper. The price will become more cheaper with the increase in number of export sales.

F-16 is in Block-62 stage, whereas JF-17 is just in Block-2. So, it has still plenty of room to improve. There are plenty of off-the-shelf Chinese equipment available. Moreover, Pakistan's relationship with Russia is warming up. So, there is a strong possibility of import of Russian AESA Radar, avionics, and, BVR missiles in near future as yujhghg vgv gjh.

As compared to the airplanes that were directly benefited by US/Western technologies, it is a low-tech fighter. If you consider a similar air-craft, such as, HAL LCA Tejas of India, which has access to plenty of Western technologies,and, which is still to finish its test sorties, it is far more successful.
JAS Gripen project started in the early 1980s. Apart from some Swedish orders, the number of sales is not very significant.

The point people often miss is, JF-17 was custom build for PAF according to their specific needs and requirements. So, it is natural that it would not be so easy for Pakistan/China to sell it to a third country. The countries that abandoned the purchase are either not in a very good shape in terms of economies, or, do not have any urge to buy air-crafts. They were offered the aircraft by Pakistan, those were kind of pushing sales. Burma is buying 16 air-crafts. If we consider the original purpose of the aircraft, that is a lot of sales. This figure will be increased day by day.

China can buy or even copy Russian air-crafts. They don't have any financial constraint either. So, there is no need for them to buy JF-17.
Pakistan is on the course of improving its relationship with Russia. If the situation improves, Pakistan may buy Russian Su-30s. Then, JF-17 may even be pushed to the sidelines.

Pakistan is one of the poorest country in the world(no offence here though). Better that China is a friendly neighbor. Otherwise, Pakistan would have been flying some F-6 or F-7 by now.
Does Volvo Aero manufacture their own engines for JAS Gripen? No. They use modified GE F404 engine. HAl Tejas is scheduled to use numerous foreign avionics and equipment as well.

So, getting a airplane manufactured by China, trying to learn the manufacturing technique, and, trying different configurations and ordnance is not a bad thing at all. It should have been a very exciting experience for Pakistani team. The design and research phase saved a lot of money and considering the low economic performance of the country, the situation of the industry is quite encouraging.
Big-boy's Club:
However , i will confess DRDO of India has wasted millions of dollars in their HAL LCA Tejas and Kaveri Engine program. On the other hand, India has blocked several western technologies so that Pakistan cannot have access of them. Considering the size of India’s economy and its manipulation of the West, Pakistan can boast its JF-17 as a big success and is really playing with big boys.

So in Conclusion i will say finally and above all, It doesn't matter whether it is a Mig-21/F-7 copy or anything else. The matter is, as long as PAF is able to redesign, test and improve it whenever and whatever they need, that is the big advantage for them which most of the countries in the world do not have. Just my opinion though and from what i have red so far about both fighters.

You dont need to ask to God .Fact is LCA is already inducted with IOC 2 standard .And also need further performance for FoC .SOP like any other nations in the world.
Wrong .India developed and infact took a lot of years because of the western sanctions on us especially after 1998 nuke test .But still we managed first flight in 2001 .
India influence in West .I dont think so .AFAIK Pakistan still use French subs .
In that picture you can omit Israel and Russia because replacement are already on the way .
But US engine and perhaps Britian ejector will remain there in real future .Since we dont have solid replacement programs .


On topic :Technically only a professional can analyse the performance @MilSpec @Joe Shearer
At a glance LCA evolved a lot that IOC 2 .All its need is the consistent support of IAF and GoI .
That plane is a success.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I am opening this thread as a request to qualified aviation professionals only so that they can analyse and break it down for us mortals how do the two compare only and purely on the basis of their recent performances in Bahrain and Paris Airshows. We would like to hear from you what do you make of different manoeuvres and what do they indicate of aircraft's ability in your professional opinions.

For those who are not professionals in this field, you are desired to ask questions to learn and increase your knowledge. Your general comments and opinions don't mean crap. This thread is NOT about the following.

1. Which one is more indigenous than other
2. Which one stands where in its development/ upgrade path (we are discussing just how they are at the moment)
3. Which of the pilots are more daring or proficient (it's about aircraft not pilots)
4. Why JF-17 did not participate in Bahrain

In short, there are enough threads to troll. Go troll their as much as you like and leave some space for serious work in this thread.

I start with some simple questions

1) How would you compare Thrust/ Weight ratio of the two based on these two shows?
2) How do you compare ability to turn faster and/or tighter of the two?
3) Do you see a relation between choice of manoeuvres and design/ performance of aircraft? In what areas you see one fighter edging ahead of the other (based on their performance in these two Airshows)

@gambit I see no better person to start with.
@Taygibay @Frenchpilot @Vauban @Manticore @jhungary @Khafee @Mil Spec

not sure if you will get exact kind of experts you are looking for in this forum (there maybe be only one ) but maybe better informed members can contribute their alternative analysis
so tagging people like @gambit @Oscar @MastanKhan @MilSpec @Manticore etc will help. I have forgotten some really nice and solid contributions from some posters in the past but this is a start others can add or tag more people.

no one can really prevent the trolls and non serious posters with their one liners unless the thread is in a restricted section with invitation only for quality discussion.

 

[Khafee]

You dont ask to god .Fact is LCA is already inducted with IOC 2 standard .And also need further performance for FoC .SOP like any other nations in the world.
Wrong .India developed and infact took a lot of years because of the western sanctions on us especially after 1998 nuke test .But still we managed first flight in 2001 .
India influence in West .I dont think so .AFAIK Pakistan still use French subs .
In that picture you can omit Israel and Russia because replacement are already on the way .
But US engine and perhaps Britian ejector will remain there in real future .Since we dont have solid replacement programs .


On topic :Technically only a professional can analyse the performance @MilSpec @Joe Shearer
At a glance LCA evolved a lot that IOC 2 .All its need is the consistent support of IAF and GoI .
That plane is a success.

Can you re-post the above in simple English?

Thanks!!

 

[SrNair]

Can you re-post the above in simple English?

Thanks!!

Edited

 

[nwmalik]

I love both crafts.
both nations should be proud of their efforts.

 

[MastanKhan]

Without comparing both, I would like to raise few
points for both aircrafts.
1. JF-17 took long for takeoff and go on vertical flight
right away but couldn't sustained it for more than 3-4
seconds.
.

Hi,

Because of 4000 ft ceiling----. That is why the wheels were kept down to keep the speed low to keep under the maximum ceiling umbrella.

Otherwise the aircraft would have shot thru the ceiling.

Pakistani posters must remember---the JF17 did not tuck its wheels in till it reached the 4000 ft ceiling.

Hanging wheels create a massive drag.

 

[cerberus]

Hi,

Because of 4000 ft ceiling----. That is why the wheels were kept down to keep the speed low to keep under the maximum ceiling umbrella.

Otherwise the aircraft would have shot thru the ceiling.

Pakistani posters must remember---the JF17 did not tuck its wheels in till it reached the 4000 ft ceiling.

Hanging wheels create a massive drag.

What you stating is hilarious claim

What you stating is Defy pure physical Laws of Aerodynamics
LCA is Tailless compound delta wing
Aircraft it already
Gone through wind tunnel testing Certification

There reason New gen aircraft's are opted for Delta wing aircraft
Like Rafale, Eurofighter,Gripen,B-2 spirit. Etc

For that matter in fact JF-17 creaters Chendgu itself forfeited conventional wing JF-17 aircraft over
Delta wing J-10 Series which you guys dream to get

I lost my skills for comprehensive debate with guys.
Who defy pure physical dynamic's over illogical argument's

 

[MastanKhan]

What you stating is hilarious claim

What you stating is Defy pure physical Laws of Aerodynamics
LCA is Tailless compound delta wing
Aircraft it already
Gone through wind tunnel testing Certification

There reason New gen aircraft's are opted for Delta wing aircraft
Like Rafale, Eurofighter,Gripen,B-2 spirit. Etc

For that matter in fact JF-17 creaters Chendgu itself forfeited conventional wing JF-17 aircraft over
Delta wing J-10 Series which you guys dream to get

I lost my skills for comprehensive debate with guys.
Who defy pure physical dynamic's over illogical argument's

Hi,

I am not here to debate---you have a misunderstanding.

I am just stating facts of physics and engineering----.

When fighter aircrafts go into an unctrollable spin---it is a recommendation to lower the wheels---to create drag to reduce the speed----.

Similary---on take off----the aircraft tuck their wheels in as quickly as they can to reduce drag---and why they want to reduce drag---so that they can gain speed---.

From the contents of your post---it seems like you wanted to answer someone else----but clicked on my post in desperation.

Please read my post again---there is no mention of LCA or its delta wings or anything regarding the Tejas.

My comments are directed at JF17----and a certain technical aspects of that flight----.

Thank you.

 

[cerberus]

Hi,

I am not here to debate---you have a misunderstanding.

I am just stating facts of physics and engineering----.

When fighter aircrafts go into an unctrollable spin---it is a recommendation to lower the wheels---to create drag to reduce the speed----.

Similary---on take off----the aircraft tuck their wheels in as quickly as they can to reduce drag---and why they want to reduce drag---so that they can gain speed---.

From the contents of your post---it seems like you wanted to answer someone else----but clicked on my post in desperation.

Please read my post again---there is no mention of LCA or its delta wings or anything regarding the Tejas.

My comments are directed at JF17----and a certain technical aspects of that flight----.

Thank you.

Neither I'm I simply stated Fact which applies on all delta wings fighter's

Vortex lift is a form of lift generated by delta wing operating at high AoA

Vortex lift works by capturing vortices generated from the sharply swept leading edge of the wing. The vortex, formed roughly parallel to the leading edge of the wing, is trapped by the airflow and remains fixed to the upper surface of the wing. As the air flows around the leading edge, it flows over the trapped vortex and is pulled in and down to generate the lift.

I know there expert's which suggested principal including here on PDF
The main reason you don't see tailless delta wings on fighter jets is that this wing shape tends to bleed off lots of energy in a turn, and good turn performance is very important for fighter jets.

What I'm stating is
LCA is a compound delta wing aircraft
Compound Delta is used to create high-lift vortex and reduce drag. Although use of canards and control surfaces like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon can provide other variations too.

At the beginning Delta wing is experimented on high speed supersonic aircraft to achieve more stability during supersonic flight. But this causes instability in subsonic speed i.e below MacH.Generally Pure Delta configuration is preferred for designing Aircraft with supersonic Interceptor role. But as generation advanced Interceptors are no more required and what we call as Multi-role or Swing-role fighter comes into view. So pure Delta configuration idea is dropped out instead Compound delta(LCA) and Canard-delta(Rafale or Eurofighter)is used now-a-days.



The matter of Fact is tail-less delta doesn't provide enough lift and sufficient stability at lower mach or subsonic speed which is very important in dogfight. But it can be compensated by providing a compound delta configuration. The best example is HAL Tejas, which is a tail-less delta but with compound delta configuration.

Here if you want to analysis give like below

Fluid Mechanics Applications/A02: Delta Wing Aircraft Aerodynamics - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

 

[MastanKhan]

Neither I'm I simply stated Fact which applies on all delta wings fighter's

Vortex lift is a form of lift generated by delta wing operating at high AoA

Vortex lift works by capturing vortices generated from the sharply swept leading edge of the wing. The vortex, formed roughly parallel to the leading edge of the wing, is trapped by the airflow and remains fixed to the upper surface of the wing. As the air flows around the leading edge, it flows over the trapped vortex and is pulled in and down to generate the lift.

I know there expert's which suggested principal including here on PDF
The main reason you don't see tailless delta wings on fighter jets is that this wing shape tends to bleed off lots of energy in a turn, and good turn performance is very important for fighter jets.

What I'm stating is
LCA is a compound delta wing aircraft
Compound Delta is used to create high-lift vortex and reduce drag. Although use of canards and control surfaces like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon can provide other variations too.

At the beginning Delta wing is experimented on high speed supersonic aircraft to achieve more stability during supersonic flight. But this causes instability in subsonic speed i.e below MacH.Generally Pure Delta configuration is preferred for designing Aircraft with supersonic Interceptor role. But as generation advanced Interceptors are no more required and what we call as Multi-role or Swing-role fighter comes into view. So pure Delta configuration idea is dropped out instead Compound delta(LCA) and Canard-delta(Rafale or Eurofighter)is used now-a-days.



The matter of Fact is tail-less delta doesn't provide enough lift and sufficient stability at lower mach or subsonic speed which is very important in dogfight. But it can be compensated by providing a compound delta configuration. The best example is HAL Tejas, which is a tail-less delta but with compound delta configuration.

Here if you want to analysis give like below

Fluid Mechanics Applications/A02: Delta Wing Aircraft Aerodynamics - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Son,

I don't give a diddley sh-it what Tejas is or not in this current discussion---. I am not even brining it up. I am purely talking about the intricacy of wheels down and that also to pakistani poster----.

Take you bitc-hing session with someone else---.

 

[Srinivas]

Correct and i am still doubt about her nationality

JF 17 and. all Chinese aircraft come with rebranded western, Russian components with Chinese names.

 

[Fenrir]

Correct and i am still doubt about her nationality

So?

Many nations are contributing parts to the F-35, and yet even we Norwegians, who are contributing too, call her an American aircraft, as do Turks, Brits and Danes - why is Tejas any different just because it has foreign help or parts?

Parts may come from other nations, but the Tejas is Indian alone.

 

[SamantK]

Lolz, the Pakistanis when it suited them said that JF-17 is inducted and Tejas is not and now comparing minute things.

So, JF-17 cannot take off earlier than Tejas but it is still a great plane

 

[MastanKhan]

Lol. Try entering Nuclear facility on ur own home. Ur own people will shoot u.

Hi,

But why would my people shoot me----. The first time I enetered a nuc facility was in the early 70's.