Tejas is superior than JF-17 - Parrikar

[Abingdonboy]

Why would JF-17 would need a retractable IFR probe? JF-17 would start getting its fixed IFR probe from next year because they are in the process of integrating them in Block 2 and Block 1 simultaneously

Does this look like an optimal solution considering drag, RCS, cockpit observation etc? Do not most aircraft have integrated, hydraulically actuated, IFR probes these days? Could there not be a reason for this?

2. You pretty conviently ignored my question. How does JF-17 avionics are inferior to LCA ? JF-17 has been integrated with Spanish EW and Brazilian MAR-1 ARM. We are in the process of getting other contemporary systems. Another thing is Thunder is half chinese. How come European vendors would share LOAL BVRAAM with JF-17 ? But no worries. I will point you to this thread. Chinese solution in working

Next-Gen Chinese AAM for JF-17 Block III


3. No HMDS has been integrated and it is deferred to Block III because Pakistan has only two options for True HOBS missile. Brazilian A-Darter which would only be available to export customers in 2018 and the chinese one which would become available in 2018-2019. So what is point of HMDS when there is no true HOBS missile to be mated with HMDS ? Logic 101

So we can agree that the Block.III JF-17 will just about be as capable as the Mk.1 FOC standard LCA? Okay then. So why are we even having this discussion? Why is the JF-17's induction being used as some sort of trump card to diminish the LCA's capabilities entirely?

If the IAF had been agreeable to accepting a sub-standard product (in the sense it was not compliant with all their outlined requirements) then the LCA could have been in service in around 2011/12.


There is a different thought process adopted by the IAF- they want the best of the best with no exceptions, the PAF is not in a position to demand this and thus are pursuing divergent policies. As such it is absurd to use the fact the Thunder is in service and the LCA as a means of criticising the LCA. One is comparing apples and oranges in this sense.

4. Why would JF-17 needs a quadraplex FBW FCS when it is a stable design ? while Delta design s are unstable and to achieve a similar performance as that of stable designs they require more complex FCS to control its movememnt. Common Sense 101.

Well this is obvious but it also highlights how much more complex the LCA was to develop.

5. This is one place where JF-17 lacks. But answer me one thing does lack of carbon composites has affected JF-17 maneuverability in any case judging you have seen latest JF-17 solo performances ?

Carbon composites to not only aide in increased manoeuvrability but a whole host of additional performance measures over traditional airframe compositions such as RCS, maintainability and life cycle costs.

And whilst the LCA's stipulated AoA (as per FOC) is 26", this does not mean it will never surpass this. Did the Thunder demonstrate 28" prior to induction? Right now the LCA is being flown by ASTE (test pilots) to attain the stipulate performance levels as set by the IAF and doing so in a controlled and cautious manner. Once the bird is in service she will be handed over to TACDE and it is these pilots that will extract ever last bit of performance out of her and we will then learn what she is truly capable of.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

I dont want emotional rehtorics. KLJ V2 has a range of 130-140 KM against 5 m2 targets. It can fire AAM AGM. Air to Sea. Anti radiation missiles. It has Dual rack. It has a spanish EW suit.

Come up with something like this to best JF-17 or else just dont quote me again and again with same rubbish LCA is better can JF-17 because I said so.

Dont worry Mate

In the coming days and months you will see and hear a LOT of
comparisions between LCA and JF 17

This LCA Vs JF 17 rivalry is just beginning

We are confident of our product being better than yours and hence we are proceeding

 

[Abingdonboy]

+ @Bratva @Windjammer I have not even mentioned the fact the LCA has a fully developed twin seat/trainer version AND a Naval/carrier-borne variant is being developed. These additional development paths are entirely ignored by those trying to box the LCA into the typical "failure" narrative.

IF the LCA had come into service a whole decade after the Thunder then one might be inclined to make unflattering comparisons with the Thunder's induction cycle(but even then given the sheer amount of work India has put into this project it would still be unkind).

Does one not consider that these additional development paths may have added yet another additionally layer of complexity to an already complex and ambitious program in the LCA? Again, the Thunder has NOTHING comparable to the twin-seat LCA- forget the N-LCA. This is one of the few (non-fith gen) fighters I can think of that has entered service without a trainer/twin-seat variant and, in my opinion, further illustrates the fact that India has taken a far more holistic and "capability driven" approach to the LCA whilst the PAF was simply interested in new airframes ASAP that has led to a large degree of corner cutting in the Thunder project. OF COURSE the Thunder entered service BEFORE the LCA- with the amount of features it lacks vis a vis the LCA it would have been disgraceful if it hadn't. The Chinese had the ability to focus 100% on a single seat version, the ADA had to split their time between 4 different versions, and then the Thunder only JUST beat the LCA into service.


The Indian designers (ADA) and the military are guilty of "wanting it all"- an all singing, all dancing fighter and that has lead to a whole host of complications HOWEVER the fruits of all this work will be enjoyed well into the future.



A comparison against the LCA is extremely unkind to the Thunder in almost every measure.

 

[Bratva]

Does this look like an optimal solution considering drag, RCS, cockpit observation etc? Do not most aircraft have integrated, hydraulically actuated, IFR probes these days? Could there not be a reason for this?


So we can agree that the Block.III JF-17 will just about be as capable as the Mk.1 FOC standard LCA? Okay then. So why are we even having this discussion? Why is the JF-17's induction being used as some sort of trump card to diminish the LCA's capabilities entirely?

If the IAF had been agreeable to accepting a sub-standard product (in the sense it was not compliant with all their outlined requirements) then the LCA could have been in service in around 2011/12.


There is a different thought process adopted by the IAF- they want the best of the best with no exceptions, the PAF is not in a position to demand this and thus are pursuing divergent policies. As such it is absurd to use the fact the Thunder is in service and the LCA as a means of criticising the LCA. One is comparing apples and oranges in this sense.



Well this is obvious but it also highlights how much more complex the LCA was to develop.


Carbon composites to not only aide in increased manoeuvrability but a whole host of additional performance measures over traditional airframe compositions such as RCS, maintainability and life cycle costs.

And whilst the LCA's stipulated AoA (as per FOC) is 26", this does not mean it will never surpass this. Did the Thunder demonstrate 28" prior to induction? Right now the LCA is being flown by ASTE (test pilots) to attain the stipulate performance levels as set by the IAF and doing so in a controlled and cautious manner. Once the bird is in service she will be handed over to TACDE and it is these pilots that will extract ever last bit of performance out of her and we will then learn what she is truly capable of.

Ah what a joke. Mk1 cant wven fire the current weaponary JF-17 are capable of firing and you in your blind zeal making block III = Mk.1

This is the moment in arguemnt where emotions take over and person would do anything to triumph the argument with as silly arguments as possibile


JF-17 induction is being used as a triumph because we had a head start of makin g a complete playbook of How, why and in which scenarios JF-17 can be used. Complete JF-17 play books of BVR, WVR, Anti Radiation, Electronic warfare and Seawarfare and Combat Air Support has been developed. JF-17 was handed over to TACDE equivalent school in Pakistan CCS this year. They are pushing JF-17 to its limit as we speak. Another head start we had and it took us like 3-4 years to develop all this RoE and scenarios of extracting optimial performance from JF-17

Meanwhile JF-17 has been pitted against Su-27, J-10 A, SU-30 MKK and F-16. Data links have been integrated with ZDK-03

Tell me with all this in play How come JF-17 is inferior agaisnt LCA? has LCA been pitted against all types of aircraft within IAF Has LCA been datalinked with IAF AWAC ? or can LCA fire these kin ds of munitions ?

truly we are comparing Apple an oranges here mate. it is not about sub standard but the availability of product. Warna to JF-17 has all the hardware and software to accept It all depends upon the availabilty and willingness of manufactures to give there products




now tell me how long IAF would take to develop palybook of all the scenarios ?



And for you other queries I will answer them in the morning.

 

[Bratva]

+ @Bratva @Windjammer I have not even mentioned the fact the LCA has a fully developed twin seat/trainer version AND a Naval/carrier-borne variant is being developed. These additional development paths are entirely ignored by those trying to box the LCA into the typical "failure" narrative.

IF the LCA had come into service a whole decade after the Thunder then one might be inclined to make unflattering comparisons with the Thunder's induction cycle(but even then given the sheer amount of work India has put into this project it would still be unkind).

Does one not consider that these additional development paths may have added yet another additionally layer of complexity to an already complex and ambitious program in the LCA? Again, the Thunder has NOTHING comparable to the twin-seat LCA- forget the N-LCA. This is one of the few (non-fith gen) fighters I can think of that has entered service without a trainer/twin-seat variant and, in my opinion, further illustrates the fact that India has taken a far more holistic and "capability driven" approach to the LCA whilst the PAF was simply interested in new airframes ASAP that has led to a large degree of corner cutting in the Thunder project. OF COURSE the Thunder entered service BEFORE the LCA- with the amount of features it lacks vis a vis the LCA it would have been disgraceful if it hadn't.


The Indian designers (ADA) and the military are guilty of "wanting it all"- an all singing, all dancing fighter and that has lead to a whole host of complications HOWEVER the fruits of all this work will be enjoyed well into the future.



A comparison against the LCA is extremely unkind to the Thunder in almost every measure.

Emotional and empty rehtorics without any substance. I pitty how you appealing to masses with zero substance in your post ignoring pretty consistently about the evolved JF-17 of today.

Is it our fault that you are ignorant of JF-17 dual seater that would be unveiled next year ?

Talk about the current capability set of JF-17 Vis a Vis LCA instead of acting like a typical enraged girlfriend who bring past things in present argument .

 

[cerberus]

Perhaps you like to share with us the capabilities of DRFM as well ?

The DRFM is included in suit part of the integrated defensive aids suite (IDAS), the jammers are lightweight and compact, yet powerful, and are meant to be targetted against continuous wave (CW), pulse and pulse-Doppler emitters. At the heart of the capability is a digital, software reprogrammable radio frequency memory (DRFM) that is used to deceive and jam coherent multimode airborne radars. The DRFM incorporates both the RF and memory sections required for digitising and storing signals of interest, as well as the techniques generator. On the MiG-29UPG, the jamming suite uses Elettronica of Italy’s Virgilius family of directional jammers, which make use of active phased-array transmitters for jamming hostile low-band (E-G) and high-band (G-J) emitters. Other systems features include a wide- and narrow-band signals reception, monopulse amplitude direction-of-arrival, direction-finding, threat identification/classification capabilities, a multi-domain (range, velocity, noise and amplitude) techniques generator, CW and pulse repeater channels, a steerable combined output signal, interfaces for a countermeasures dispensing system, host platform avionics in-flight data recording for post-mission debriefing and maintenance, and field-programmable threat library. The EW suites for both aircraft types receive emitter signals within the 2GHz to 18GHz band and transmit across the 6GHz to 17.5GHz frequency range. The MoD-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) is presently series-producing the jamming suites as well as the related radar warning receivers.

For escort jamming purposes, the MiG-29UPG are expected to be equipped with ELTA Systems’ EL/L-8251 jamming pod, which offers wide frequency coverage between 1GHz and 18GHz.

TRISHUL: ASPJs Developed For Tejas Mk1 & MiG-29UPG

 

[Windjammer]

Jf-17 already doing DACT with and against the likes of J-11, J-10, F-16 and others, carrying out strikes against insurgents, how does Tejas even comes into equation.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Ah what a joke. Mk1 cant wven fire the current weaponary JF-17 are capable of firing

And hence why the LCA is yet to receive FOC clearance, only once it has proven its full spectrum capabilities in accordance to the IAF's criteria will it be inducted and this will happen in the next 6 months (and is ongoing as we speak).

and you in your blind zeal making block III = Mk.1

Well, I think it is a fair comparison to make:

HMDS= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block III
IFR Probe= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block II (from the 22s Block II unit onwards)
AESA Radar= LCA MK.1A/P/ JF-17 Block III (?)
LOAL BVRAAM= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block ?

Jf-17 already doing DACT with and against the likes of J-11, J-10, F-16 and others, carrying out strikes against insurgents, how does Tejas even comes into equation.

JF-17 induction is being used as a triumph because we had a head start of makin g a complete playbook of How, why and in which scenarios JF-17 can be used. Complete JF-17 play books of BVR, WVR, Anti Radiation, Electronic warfare and Seawarfare and Combat Air Support has been developed. JF-17 was handed over to TACDE equivalent school in Pakistan CCS this year. They are pushing JF-17 to its limit as we speak. Another head start we had and it took us like 3-4 years to develop all this RoE and scenarios of extracting optimial performance from JF-17

Meanwhile JF-17 has been pitted against Su-27, J-10 A, SU-30 MKK and F-16. Data links have been integrated with ZDK-03

Yes, this is a fair point but a relatively minor point to make. All weapon systems go through a similar induction/proving process.

Having said that, the IAF has been working closely with the ADA and their test pilots (from ASTE) have been the ones flight testing the LCA so they have (some) understanding of its capabilities.

Additionally the LCA has taken part in a major IAF full-spectrum war game already (Iron First 2013) so work in this regard has already begun.

now tell me how long IAF would take to develop palybook of all the scenarios ?

Around 2-3 years.

Emotional and empty rehtorics without any substance. I pitty how you appealing to masses with zero substance in your post ignoring pretty consistently about the evolved JF-17 of today.

Is it our fault that you are ignorant of JF-17 dual seater that would be unveiled next year ?

Talk about the current capability set of JF-17 Vis a Vis LCA instead of acting like a typical enraged girlfriend who bring past things in present argument .

I'm unable to understand how any of this is relevant to what I have written. I believe I made valid remarks that you are yet to adequately address.

 

[Bratva]

And hence why the LCA is yet to receive FOC clearance, only once it has proven its full spectrum capabilities in accordance to the IAF's criteria will it be inducted and this will happen in the next 6 months (and is ongoing as we speak).


Well, I think it is a fair comparison to make:

HMDS= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block III
IFR Probe= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block II (from the 22s Block II unit onwards)
AESA Radar= LCA MK.1A/P/ JF-17 Block III (?)
LOAL BVRAAM= LCA Mk.1/JF-17 Block ?



Yes, this is a fair point but a relatively minor point to make. All weapon systems go through a similar induction/proving process.

Having said that, the IAF has been working closely with the ADA and their test pilots (from ASTE) have been the ones flight testing the LCA so they have (some) understanding of its capabilities.

Additionally the LCA has taken part in a major IAF full-spectrum war game already (Iron First 2013) so work in this regard has already begun.

Around 2-3 years.


I'm unable to understand how any of this is relevant to what I have written. I believe I made valid remarks that you are yet to adequately address.

JF-17 project Director said. The preceding block updates are backward compatible with previous blocks.

So how is the weakness of JF-17 ? By the time 101th JF-17 enters in to PAF in 2018 2019. We will start upgrading all JF-17 with AESA, HMDS, Next GEN missiles as well IFR probes as well as with RD-93 MA as we start receing the hardware . We will train 100 pilots at once while you will be at what ? 20-30 LCA Mark in in 2018-2019 right ? So I don't see an issue where JF-17 is lacking when all roles of AAM AGM ASM has been integrated on to JF-17 while LCA is still lacking behind air to sea. While basic AAM and AGM has been integrated.

the point you should try to understand is JF-17 is capable of all these things. When someone implies JF-17 is inferior to LCA it means JF-17 cant have that capability because it can not be integrated in to it. Not that JF-17 in its present condition means It is inferior and it will remain inferior.

While we have already established a complete supply chain and maintenance depo of JF-17. How prepared IAF is to absorb the composite related intensive maintenance and what kind of supple chain ahs been developed for LCA so far ?

We will be miles ahead of you with covering most of the weak basis by the time LCA inducts in IAF.

 

[My-Analogous]

JF itself is an insult..

Yes it is an insult for Indians and we have now 70+ insults for Indians

 

[cerberus]

JF-17 project Director said. The preceding block updates are backward compatible with previous blocks.

So how is the weakness of JF-17 ? By the time 101th JF-17 enters in to PAF in 2018 2019. We will start upgrading all JF-17 with AESA, HMDS, Next GEN missiles as well IFR probes as well as with RD-93 MA as we start receing the hardware . We will train 100 pilots at once while you will be at what ? 20-30 LCA Mark in in 2018-2019 right ? So I don't see an issue where JF-17 is lacking when all roles of AAM AGM ASM has been integrated on to JF-17 while LCA is still lacking behind air to sea. While basic AAM and AGM has been integrated.

the point you should try to understand is JF-17 is capable of all these things. When someone implies JF-17 is inferior to LCA it means JF-17 cant have that capability because it can not be integrated in to it. Not that JF-17 in its present condition means It is inferior and it will remain inferior.

While we have already established a complete supply chain and maintenance depo of JF-17. How prepared IAF is to absorb the composite related intensive maintenance and what kind of supple chain ahs been developed for LCA so far ?

We will be miles ahead of you with covering most of the weak basis by the time LCA inducts in IAF.

This not first time india is manufacturing an aircraft

Other thing related supply chain you Goole its there

As for being miles ahead PAC is know where near in comparison of HAL in R&D in Aerospace and Patent filing

 

[Abingdonboy]

20-30 LCA Mark in in 2018-2019 right ?

From the end of 2016 HAL will be looking to churn out LCAs at a rate of 16/year so by 2019 there should be around 50-60 LCAs in service.

So I don't see an issue where JF-17 is lacking when all roles of AAM AGM ASM has been integrated on to JF-17 while LCA is still lacking behind air to sea

Not an area the IAF were particularly interested in given the LCA is meant to be a point-defence fighter. AShM will come for the LCAs in due time (especially considering she will be a carrier fighter) but there is no rush given the the fact that the IAF has designated Maritime strike aircraft in the Jaguar IMs and that many of its MKI SQNs are proficient in such operations along with the MiG-29UPGs.

The PAF requires the Thunder to be its backbone and thus has imparted a wide spectrum of missions to it- out of necessity.

While we have already established a complete supply chain and maintenance depo of JF-17. How prepared IAF is to absorb the composite related intensive maintenance and what kind of supple chain ahs been developed for LCA so far ?

Well clearly the IAF is in a position to service the LCA and her maintenance requirements - it has had plenty of lead in time to make such preparations. The LCA's first airbase has been earmarked for some time and all necessary infrastructure has been set up at that location. Additionally the first SQN of LCAs inducted into the IAF will remain at HAL's airport in Bangalore for a few months so as to allow for as smooth an induction into service as possible.

 

[Windjammer]

 

[cerberus]

Not trolling but this not jf Thread

 

[Shamain]

And this such an amazing lca teja or tejas whose bar gets raised so hi every year without any induction shows these great manoeuvres in her flypast.