# JF-17 Thunder vs LCA Tejas ( a neutral comparison trolling not needed)



## MrIndianSikh

so i've seen my fair share of a jingoistic comparisons of the JF-17 and the LCA and i think its about time a neutral comparison should take place between the two and if ya'll don't take my comparison for it here is an expert analysis of the JF-17 

Livefist: Pakistan&#8217;s JF-17 Thunder &#8211; An Analysis

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

Note: please do not flame each other on this and yes LCA is not at its full capability right now but in terms of technology it is better links are above to prove this i also add on that there is not 1 Pakistani built system on the JF-17 






tech specs for JF-17 
Crew: 1
Length: 14.0 m (45.9 ft)
Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) (31 ft)
Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 or WS-13 turbofan
Dry thrust: 49.4 kN /51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN/86.36 kN (18,973 lbf / 19,391 lbf)
G-limit: +8.5 g
Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8(1,191 knots, 2,205 km/h)
Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
Ferry range: 3,480 km (1,880 NM = 2,160 mi)
Service ceiling: 16,920 m (55,500 ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.95 


tech specs for LCA Tejas (MK1) 
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,560 kg (14,460 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,500 kg (23,100 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,540 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
External fuel capacity: 2x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1x 725 litre drop tank under fuselage
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m
Range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) without refueling
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,000 ft 
Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.91
g-limits: +9/&#8722;3.5 g


as you can see JF-17 has .4 higher thrust to weight ratio and if it's using a WS-13 turbofan a 1kn more thrust with the full on afterburner along with a higher service ceiling LCA is superior in everything else especially max take off weight (MTOW) and its airframe is light years ahead of the all metal JF-17 airframe (this is stated in the analysis of the JF-17 above) mainly in this case the JF-17 has a higher service ceiling the thrust to weight ratios of the two a/c is not not far apart (.4) 



as for weapons the LCA has 8 hardpoints while the JF-17 has 7 hardpoints 

JF-17 AAMs 
AIM-9L/M range 1 - 18.2 km 
PL-5E range 16-18km 
PL-9C range 22km 
SD-10* BVR range 100km 


LCA AAMS 

Python 5 range ~20km 
Derby* BVR range 50km 
Astra BVRAAM* BVR range 80km 15-20 km tail chase 
Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: (AA-12 Adder)* BVR range 40-160km range (depending on the variant) 
Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name (AA-11 Archer)* BVR range 20km-40km 


LCA uses more capable Russian R-73 R-77 and arguably one of the best AAM's in the world the Python 5 and Derby and has better BVR capability 


as for avionics stated in the links above LCA has better avionics a hybrid MMR developed with Israel a indigenous EW suite known as Mayavi (illusionist) and a Israeli Litening targeting pod which is far more capable than the FLIR used on the JF-17 

i directly quote from the links above " It is now widely claimed that the first batch of Pakistani JF-17s will be equipped with Chinese avionics and radar. The weapons package is yet to be finalised" 

"But the Thunder, despite Pakistans best efforts to package it as indigenous, is anything but. Pakistans contribution to the design and development of the project is close to nothing. Even today, it does not sport any Pakistani systems. It is at best a cheap and low-tech Chinese aircraft that Pakistan can mass produce"




as you can see despite not being at full capability the LCA is a better fighter jet than the JF-17 

i directly quote from the links above 

"This is not to say that the JF-17 is a bad aircraft. It will serve a very important purpose by giving Pakistan valuable experience in fighter aircraft manufacturing. It will help Pakistan rid itself of dependence on American weapons. It will give the Pakistan Air Force a shot in the arm by beefing up numbers and providing it with decent beyond visual range combat capability. Dismissing it as worthless would be nothing short of stupid."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## blackops

All has been posted enough dust had been splashed on both sides may god save this thread amen 
am out of here


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

MrIndianSikh said:


> so i've seen my fair share of a jingoistic comparisons of the JF-17 and the LCA and i think its about time a neutral comparison should take place between the two and if ya'll don't take my comparison for it here is an expert analysis of the JF-17
> 
> Livefist: Pakistan&#8217;s JF-17 Thunder &#8211; An Analysis
> 
> Livefist: "JF-17 Not As Advanced As LCA, But It Can Drop Bombs": Nawaz Sharif
> 
> Note: please do not flame each other on this and yes LCA is not at its full capability right now but in terms of technology it is better links are above to prove this i also add on that there is not 1 Pakistani built system on the JF-17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tech specs for JF-17
> Crew: 1
> Length: 14.0 m (45.9 ft)
> Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) (31 ft)
> Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
> Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
> Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
> Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
> Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
> Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 or WS-13 turbofan
> Dry thrust: 49.4 kN /51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
> Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN/86.36 kN (18,973 lbf / 19,391 lbf)
> G-limit: +8.5 g
> Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb)
> Maximum speed: Mach 1.8(1,191 knots, 2,205 km/h)
> Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
> Ferry range: 3,480 km (1,880 NM = 2,160 mi)
> Service ceiling: 16,920 m (55,500 ft)
> Thrust/weight: 0.95
> 
> 
> tech specs for LCA Tejas (MK1)
> General characteristics
> Crew: 1
> Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
> Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
> Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
> Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
> Empty weight: 6,560 kg (14,460 lb)
> Loaded weight: 10,500 kg (23,100 lb)
> Max takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,540 lb)
> Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
> Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf)
> Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)
> Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
> External fuel capacity: 2x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1x 725 litre drop tank under fuselage
> Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m
> Range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) without refueling
> Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,000 ft
> Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft²)
> Thrust/weight: 0.91
> g-limits: +9/&#8722;3.5 g
> 
> 
> as you can see JF-17 has .4 higher thrust to weight ratio and if it's using a WS-13 turbofan a 1kn more thrust with the full on afterburner along with a higher service ceiling LCA is superior in everything else especially max take off weight (MTOW) and its airframe is light years ahead of the all metal JF-17 airframe (this is stated in the analysis of the JF-17 above) mainly in this case the JF-17 has a higher service ceiling the thrust to weight ratios of the two a/c is not not far apart (.4)
> 
> 
> 
> as for weapons the LCA has 8 hardpoints while the JF-17 has 7 hardpoints
> 
> JF-17 AAMs
> AIM-9L/M range 1 - 18.2 km
> PL-5E range 16-18km
> PL-9C range 22km
> SD-10* BVR range 100km
> 
> 
> LCA AAMS
> 
> Python 5 range ~20km
> Derby* BVR range 50km
> Astra BVRAAM* BVR range 80km 15-20 km tail chase
> Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: (AA-12 Adder)* BVR range 40-160km range (depending on the variant)
> Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name (AA-11 Archer)* BVR range 20km-40km
> 
> 
> LCA uses more capable Russian R-73 R-77 and arguably one of the best AAM's in the world the Python 5 and Derby and has better BVR capability
> 
> 
> as for avionics stated in the links above LCA has better avionics a hybrid MMR developed with Israel a indigenous EW suite known as Mayavi (illusionist) and a Israeli Litening targeting pod which is far more capable than the FLIR used on the JF-17
> 
> i directly quote from the links above " It is now widely claimed that the first batch of Pakistani JF-17s will be equipped with Chinese avionics and radar. The weapons package is yet to be finalised"
> 
> "But the Thunder, despite Pakistan&#8217;s best efforts to package it as indigenous, is anything but. Pakistan&#8217;s contribution to the design and development of the project is close to nothing. Even today, it does not sport any Pakistani systems. It is at best a cheap and low-tech Chinese aircraft that Pakistan can mass produce"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see despite not being at full capability the LCA is a better fighter jet than the JF-17
> 
> i directly quote from the links above
> 
> "This is not to say that the JF-17 is a bad aircraft. It will serve a very important purpose by giving Pakistan valuable experience in fighter aircraft manufacturing. It will help Pakistan rid itself of dependence on American weapons. It will give the Pakistan Air Force a shot in the arm by beefing up numbers and providing it with decent beyond visual range combat capability. Dismissing it as worthless would be nothing short of stupid."


 
my frind 2nd luet 
somthing u should lern is VS threads end in flames ,second LCA and JFT can not be compairen neutrral by a indian or pakistani as seen above.
wiki is no source forr any of the above Aircraft .LCA is in the shed and i cant see any time soon its comming out ,JFT is not only out but BLK 2 is on the way and if u need any info on that JF-17 Thunder
so what u said above is crap cuz until these 2 come face to face (god forbid) no one can compair them 
thnx dude
regards
GUY sick and tired of 2nd lutenants with vs threads

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MrIndianSikh

i got the information respectively from PAC website only a fool would go to wikipedia as for LCA i got it from its respective website as well


----------



## Pfpilot

In my opinion, instead of presenting a neutral view, you may have just summarized the whole problem in comparing the two aircraft. The LCA is given too much credit because it uses more western systems, the prejudice against Chinese equipment completely eliminates any chance of a fair assessment. Your whole basis of superiority is based on its western engine and its western jamming equipment which is theoretically superior, according to western analysts. 
The LCA is more of a stepping stone for the Indian indigenous industry, the experience gained from the LCA development is extremely valuable. But to compare it with an essentially Chinese aircraft that is being produced extremely fast and being upgraded on the go, it is complicated at best. Any advantages you speak of are essentially countered by the block 2 jf-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mirage 5000

say no to VS threads 
say no to VS threads 
say no to VS threads 
say no to VS threads 
say no to VS threads 

please its bring more trolls more hate more mess on board

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MrIndianSikh

i agree but to add on with that the MK2 version of the LCA will just be even better both are good fighter aircraft the JF-17 was a good choice for the PAF as it is cheap and a cost effective way to replace aging Mirages and F-7's it beefs up the conventional capability of the PAF 

let me add on by saying that the western systems on the LCA are better technologically speaking the LCA is superior but i'm quite sure the Block 2 version of the JF-17 may be even better and use state of the art avionics possibly not even chinese but then again the MK2 version of the LCA will probably improve too avionics wise


----------



## WAQAS119

^^^^^^^^^

Wao.........! You are genius


----------



## Pfpilot

Well the only reason I mentioned the block 2 was to show how fast the jf-17 program is moving, by the time the first LCA squadron is up and running, the block 2 aircraft may well be joining the air force as well...so essentially you are comparing an aircraft that is ahead in its technological development than the LCA.
The needs also differ greatly, the PAF needs the jf-17 to be a viable fighter, to take on mkis and the mrca's as they come over the border. The LCA will replace the mig-21 and be also used in the defensive role, but due to the Indo-Pak dynamic, the PAF offensives into India will be most likely be border incursions not very far into Indian territory since the Pakistanis will always be forced to fight a defensive war due to India's quantitative and qualitative advantages. In such circumstances, the jf-17 has been made increasingly more advanced since it would bear the brunt of Indian attacks in Pakistan, while the LCAs will probably get off far easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## brational

Full Time-pass... Pls stop this thread..


----------



## MrIndianSikh

true but god forbid the two air forces coming into conflict with each other i believe JF-17 will be a good point defense fighter for the PAF.... if the PAF puts a medium power radar and a SD-10 that is the biggest threat to any AF in the world namely the IAF but other factors are in air to air combat such as ECM and ECCM pilot skills etc i didn't make this thread to piss anyone off i made to show a comparison that is not jingoistic 

let me add on by saying the LCA is smaller and its air frame uses carbon fiber composites which do not reflect radar waves basically the aircraft becomes stronger lighter and harder to detect on radar JF-17 uses an all metal air frame which does reflect radar waves so it will be easier to detect nonetheless i believe JF-17 would be used more for interception and air strikes on insurgency hit areas rather than deep penetration air superiority missions


----------



## Nav

MrIndianSikh said:


> i agree but to add on with that the MK2 version of the LCA will just be even better both are good fighter aircraft the JF-17 was a good choice for the PAF as it is cheap and a cost effective way to replace aging Mirages and F-7's it beefs up the conventional capability of the PAF
> 
> let me add on by saying that the western systems on the LCA are better technologically speaking the LCA is superior but i'm quite sure the Block 2 version of the JF-17 may be even better and use state of the art avionics possibly not even chinese but then again the MK2 version of the LCA will probably improve too avionics wise


 
sir with most respect Lca is as gud as it is on paper , its still not in production phase thus not opretional yet. as far As Mk2 it is far far away probably 2030 or beyond

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

MrIndianSikh said:


> let me add on by saying the LCA is smaller and its air frame uses *carbon fiber composites which do not reflect radar waves *basically the aircraft becomes stronger lighter and harder to detect on radar JF-17 uses an all metal air frame which does reflect radar waves so it will be easier to detect nonetheless i believe JF-17 would be used more for interception and air strikes on insurgency hit areas rather than deep penetration air superiority missions



can u elaborate more on this bode part? in what theory that carbon fiber doesnt reflect radar signiture? objects either absorb the wave or reflect it away``thats why its such a challenging thing for scientists to develop stealth fighter, because they need to come up with the best airframe with least compensation on areodynamics and maneuverability, as there is no such thing as you claim that dont reflect radar signitures````

if thats the case as you claimed`` scientists dont need to come up with the secret fomular of plane coatings which absorb radar waves`!


----------



## red_baron

does this even looks like a fighter jet?






even wing commander mishra is looking at something better on the other side

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ccpp

India's first indigenous jet was left to die young 
Chethan Kumar, Bangalore, June 17, DHNS:: 

India's first indigenous jet was left to die young

There is really no comparsion.


----------



## AUz

*@Thread Starter*

Don't be stupid.First,spend some time in this fcuking forum ! All these BS has been discussed a zillion times..Your "neutral" lol neutral part) comparison is horse crap.


----------



## sathya

Nav said:


> sir with most respect Lca is as gud as it is on paper , its still not in production phase thus not opretional yet. as far As Mk2 it is far far away probably 2030 or beyond


 
LSP7 & 8 ... will b operated by airforce pilots... 
LSP 7 is due in august..
yes compared to jf 17 , LCA is going slow. surprisingly jf 17 wants even more lead gap ( recent ?urgent 50 jf 17)
but IAF will get their hands on from this august.. hopefully all LCA mk1 2015... 
so from 2016 we expect mk 2 .. which will b most likely..


----------



## untitled

here we go again


----------



## monitor

You start a product mark as two country's hallmark of their indigenous defence manufacturing capability and expect no trolling 
It will be a record if any trollign does not take place .


----------



## sathya

varigeo said:


> here we go again


 
can't resist ... lol


----------



## naveenp

close the thread.

@ thread starter--> please post a new thread when jf-17 faces LCA. until that time both jets are just like toys.


----------



## deckingraj

Pfpilot said:


> Well the only reason I mentioned the block 2 was to show how fast the jf-17 program is moving, by the time the first LCA squadron is up and running, the block 2 aircraft may well be joining the air force as well...so essentially you are comparing an aircraft that is ahead in its technological development than the LCA.
> The needs also differ greatly, the PAF needs the jf-17 to be a viable fighter, to take on mkis and the mrca's as they come over the border. The LCA will replace the mig-21 and be also used in the defensive role, but due to the Indo-Pak dynamic, the PAF offensives into India will be most likely be border incursions not very far into Indian territory since the Pakistanis will always be forced to fight a defensive war due to India's quantitative and qualitative advantages.* In such circumstances, the jf-17 has been made increasingly more advanced since it would bear the brunt of Indian attacks in Pakistan, while the LCAs will probably get off far easier.*


 
Nice post but what the mistake you are making(most Pakistani unknowingly-knowingly do) is forgetting China...Unlike PAF, IAF has two adversary..both PAF and PLAAF.....Secondly please keep in mind unlike PAF, IAF has both loads of money and plethora of choices to choose fighters from.....If LCA is not best of best then this fighter will not have much future....It will act as a gap filler and that's about it...However the way ministry is working on this one it gives you a different inclination...


----------

