Featured Royal United Services Institute’s examines the JF-17 & Tejas

[Windjammer]

Albeit, a few years old article but none the less makes some interesting reading. Have edited the article so as just to focus on the respective two aircraft.

Hush-Kit
The alternative aviation magazine
JULY 24, 2016
Fighter news round-up: Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk examines the current state of fighter aircraft programmes around the world.

Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?

The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.


The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.

How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of within-visual range (WVR) and beyond-visual range (BVR) fighter capabilities?

WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.

Tejas- joke or hope?

Tejas, national pride over practicality?

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.

 

[proudindian20]

Let's see if it's a joke or not in 2023 when Mk2 comes out along with Astra Mk2

 

[In arduis fidelis]

Let's see if it's a joke or not in 2023 when Mk2 comes out along with Astra Mk2

Let's see if it's a joke or not in 2023 if Mk2 comes out along with Astra Mk2
There i fixed it

 

[chama]

Small clarification, its not KLJ7, but KLJ7A! Both having different specs.

Albeit, a few years old article but none the less makes some interesting reading. Have edited the article so as just to focus on the respective two aircraft.

Hush-Kit
The alternative aviation magazine
JULY 24, 2016
Fighter news round-up: Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk examines the current state of fighter aircraft programmes around the world.

Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?

View attachment 671041
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.


The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.

How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of within-visual range (WVR) and beyond-visual range (BVR) fighter capabilities?

WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.

Tejas- joke or hope?

View attachment 671042
Tejas, national pride over practicality?

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.

 

[Metal 0-1]

Small clarification, its not KLJ7, but KLJ7A! Both having different specs.

We are talking about Block 1 and 2 here.

 

[Metal 0-1]

In my opinion JF-17 have a capabilities like F-18C but not the weight carrying capacity, T/W ratio, good engine, kinematics...

 

[Pandora]

Only shortcoming of JF17 is non availability of an efficient engine. No western country would be willing to sell us their engines without strings attached. I really hope there is some sort of improvement in terms of engine in block 3.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Let's see if it's a joke or not in 2023 when Mk2 comes out along with Astra Mk2

What happened to Mk1? Is it already dead?

 

[dbc]

Albeit, a few years old article but none the less makes some interesting reading. Have edited the article so as just to focus on the respective two aircraft.

Hush-Kit
The alternative aviation magazine
JULY 24, 2016
Fighter news round-up: Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk examines the current state of fighter aircraft programmes around the world.

Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?

This Justin guy is a joke, so is the IAF.

Manufacturing issues is largely related to poor process discipline around carbon composites prepreg production and lack of automation. An issue that is easily solved by contract manufacturing - engage a Boeing, Dassault or LM in a JV with an Indian firm to manufacture Tejas, problem solved. In terms of flight performance, the Tejas will fly circles around the JF-17 because it was designed to be a Mig-21 replacement - making the IAF a joke for prioritizing flight performance over mission effectiveness. The LCA is only good for one thing, it is PAF centric and designed for quick reaction interception assuming a decent radar and air-to-air missile.

The JF-17 is a decent multi-role fighter a jack of all trades and much better value for Pakistan tax dollar.

 

[Clutch]

Only shortcoming of JF17 is non availability of an efficient engine. No western country would be willing to sell us their engines without strings attached. I really hope there is some sort of improvement in terms of engine in block 3.

I would agree. The JF-17 with a improved or alternative engine is perfectly suited for its area of operations (south Asian Pakistan air space).

 

[Pandora]

I would agree. The JF-17 with a improved or alternative engine is perfectly suited for its area of operations (south Asian Pakistan air space).

Unfortunately without major changes to air frame new engine cant be adopted. Just have a look at Gripen NG newer engine meant major change to its air frame design. I doubt Pakistan will opt for a newer engine at this point considering blk 3 design was finalized relatively quick meaning not major changes to base design except new radar.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Albeit, a few years old article but none the less makes some interesting reading. Have edited the article so as just to focus on the respective two aircraft.

Hush-Kit
The alternative aviation magazine
JULY 24, 2016
Fighter news round-up: Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk examines the current state of fighter aircraft programmes around the world.

Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?

View attachment 671041
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.


The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.

How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of within-visual range (WVR) and beyond-visual range (BVR) fighter capabilities?

WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.

Tejas- joke or hope?

View attachment 671042
Tejas, national pride over practicality?

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.

JF -17 is a success story which has seen other air forces showing interest in it as well and at least two additional air forces incorporating it in their air defense doctrine. for smaller countries with limited resources and limited threats and defence needs it can be their front line fighter and for medium air forces like ours this can be a workhorse and a support jet for the frontline fighters.
I agree its never meant to compete toe to toe with the heavier medium jet fighters from the premier .
fighter jets.

Tejas is a light medium jet of Indian airforce conceived and adapted according to IAF threat perceptions and defence needs. India has enjoyed the choice of options from all major western , Israeli and Russian technology to incorporate into this jet and even if the initial models may not be ground breaking its further versions can definitely silence the critics.

I despise all Vs comparisons, they are ill informed and ignorant. comparing 1 v 1 jet in isolation is utter stupidity. Tejas in its own right is a capable jet and there is no valid reason to make fun of it.

 

[StructE]

Right. The "V" that happens in aerial engagement is the only "V" matters. Every thing else is just a diatribes.

 

[ziaulislam]

Tejas, national pride over practicality?

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.

Saying this since 2012.. All india needed was to ditch LCA and rafale and put 20b $ in gripen NG to get 200+ fighters under liscene it could have gone up to 400 at fraction of cost.

The other option was under liscene f16 production (same as a rafale at 1/2 half the price)

Both would have cost same as LCA + rafale and would have actually made a difference

LCA manufacturing doesnt give india an learning opportunity ..it should have just scrapped LCA and went in to develop AMCA

But we saw money poured into naval LCA and blah blah blah

 

[SSGPA1]

Albeit, a few years old article but none the less makes some interesting reading. Have edited the article so as just to focus on the respective two aircraft.

Hush-Kit
The alternative aviation magazine
JULY 24, 2016
Fighter news round-up: Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk examines the current state of fighter aircraft programmes around the world.

Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?

View attachment 671041
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.


The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.

How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of within-visual range (WVR) and beyond-visual range (BVR) fighter capabilities?

WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.

Tejas- joke or hope?

View attachment 671042
Tejas, national pride over practicality?

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.

Thunder is a great achievement of the PAF because it will replace the obsolete platforms of the PAF.
Next step will be a 4th/5th generation jet from Project Azm.