What's new

Indian LCA Tejas Or Pakistani JF-17: Who Is Winning The Malaysian Fighter Jet Contract?

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,152
0
2,598
Country
China
Location
Australia
F-16 still has much better engine than JF-17. Higher power type and more reliable too. Much better payload than block 3 and most probably also similar or better range than block 3.

Block 3 has better radar and electronic jamming and countermeasure than 2000s block 52 F-16. C5 is not as good as PL-15. Block 52's radar also not great for C5. Not sure about smaller AESA for PL-15. Maybe good enough because active seeking can cover distance. But remember PL-15 is very expensive and not quite that suitable unless tactics can create kills. JF-17 even block 3 suffers from less energy to make best use of missiles and can carry maximum of 4 which already will drain its energy and range. This has effect of reducing probability for kills so sometimes it will just be wasting super expensive missiles. It would be more effective if there are 6 fired rather than 4 for example or fired much closer from ideal approach like from J-20 which can sneak much closer and into good positions. PL-15 definitely is a boost in air to air for block 3 but more limited in effectiveness. How quick can JF-17 turn and re-engage then turn and climb etc?

Something like AZM or even J-10C will wear PL-15 with more effectiveness. Like giving sharper sword to more trained and stronger fighter than weaker less experienced person. JF-17 block 3 purpose is to modernize the type with new radar and ideally with capability to take PL-15 with this new radar can push the range further because IAF is doing this and already has Rafale with Meteor. Block 3 with PL-15 cannot match this in function but will need to create two or three per Rafale in IAF. The advantage is even two fulled equipped block 3 will probably still be same price or cheaper than one fully equipped imported Rafale.

Block 3 will be good for BVR but lacks range and payload. Also poor energy compared to F-16 which is amazing even now. Top 4th generation fighters are still the king of energy apart from Su-57 J-20 and F-22 which have both the power and the fuel reserve. F-16 in every way would be strong if only electronic and missile technology means BVR is becoming even more important even in only 4th generation environment. Due to this, F-16 even block 52 with C5 really needs radar upgrade to stay relevant. This is basically just the 2010 and beyond F-16 types. Block 52 will dominate everything including Su-30MKI until AESA and new generation missiles become attached to even poorer aircraft. This is block 3 JF-17 and something like MK1A Tejas with Uttam and Astra or modern missiles.

Malaysian decision will become about politics and deals. Who can offer sweet deals and maybe provide other benefits while politics is agreeable. Definitely will not be about what is overall better. These fighters really are too close to matter in this decision. It is not like choosing between F-22 and Mig-29.
 
Last edited:

retaxis

FULL MEMBER
Nov 16, 2007
876
0
956
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Indian pilots are terrible. Pakistan with J-7 could take out indian pilot in F-22 any day
 

Euro fighter

BANNED

New Recruit

Dec 24, 2018
37
0
52
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Even so the JF17 will maintain the first shoot capability due to the pl15 giving it the edge over the f16, that as well as its Radar.

What can't you understand?
I think a better understanding of first shoot capability is needed

I have already explained that he PL15 200km range claims is for tankers and slow moving awacs .
The shoot capability on a Fighter will be 30% less at least ie 140km at best

now that is further eroded by
Height and speed of both the Thunder and the opponent at time of missle launch ie the 140km will hughly eroded if too high or too low

As the Amraam c5 and f16 all missed Su30mki even at 80km due to the tctics of diving steep or going too high the max range is erroded.

Then you have NEZ on each missle

Then you have loss of energy on the BVR missle fired the longer the range . the more energy reduced

Then you have the jammers

And the EW suites

Finally you RCS on each plane

Once you account for all these factors you begin to realise why the max BVR kill ever is less than 60lkm

Trying to kill a fighter from over 100km is almost impossible . Too much distance and time for the opponent to duck and dive called Hot & Cold
 

Huffal

FULL MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
1,337
0
1,386
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I think a better understanding of first shoot capability is needed

I have already explained that he PL15 200km range claims is for tankers and slow moving awacs .
The shoot capability on a Fighter will be 30% less at least ie 140km at best

now that is further eroded by
Height and speed of both the Thunder and the opponent at time of missle launch ie the 140km will hughly eroded if too high or too low

As the Amraam c5 and f16 all missed Su30mki even at 80km due to the tctics of diving steep or going too high the max range is erroded.

Then you have NEZ on each missle

Then you have loss of energy on the BVR missle fired the longer the range . the more energy reduced

Then you have the jammers

And the EW suites

Finally you RCS on each plane

Once you account for all these factors you begin to realise why the max BVR kill ever is less than 60lkm

Trying to kill a fighter from over 100km is almost impossible . Too much distance and time for the opponent to duck and dive called Hot & Cold
I think a better understanding of first shoot capability is needed

I have already explained that he PL15 200km range claims is for tankers and slow moving awacs .
The shoot capability on a Fighter will be 30% less at least ie 140km at best

now that is further eroded by
Height and speed of both the Thunder and the opponent at time of missle launch ie the 140km will hughly eroded if too high or too low

As the Amraam c5 and f16 all missed Su30mki even at 80km due to the tctics of diving steep or going too high the max range is erroded.

Then you have NEZ on each missle

Then you have loss of energy on the BVR missle fired the longer the range . the more energy reduced

Then you have the jammers

And the EW suites

Finally you RCS on each plane

Once you account for all these factors you begin to realise why the max BVR kill ever is less than 60lkm

Trying to kill a fighter from over 100km is almost impossible . Too much distance and time for the opponent to duck and dive called Hot & Cold
The range of the pl15 varies from 200km-350km.

And even if we do take ur 30% erosion rate into account the range still ranges from 140km - 245km...still managing the first shoot capability.

Well height factor depends on the situation and training of the pilot. Also, I'm pretty sure a2a missiles perform better at high altitude considering the fact that the enemy aircraft will have less maneuverability due to the air being thinner. The a2a missile will have the same laws of physics applying to it, but still it won't be as much of a burden as it would be on an aircraft (speed of the missile is a big thing and the pl15 is a mach 4+ missile)

Also what heights do you expect for our thunders to engage ur aircrafts? At 55k ft?

And speed of the aircraft, does it really have that much of a factor to play in here? Just like all ur aircraft, it will most likely be traveling at subsonic speeds...


You know you lost all your credibility when you said the AMRAAM missed the su30mki.

The amraam got a confirmed hit on the su30mki, as per noted by kaiser tufail and f16.net. And according to multiple villagers in kashmir, they saw 2 pilot chutes coming down over IOK. So no. The amraam did not miss. Its further evident when the iaf displayed an exploded amraam fragment.

NEZ of missiles. I'm pretty sure those are classified. Only estimates exist.

Loss of energy regarding bvr missiles... Ok? That's why most pilots tend to fire their a2a missiles not at their max range.

Jammers and ew suites are our forte. They are on pretty much all front line fighters (less the mirages).

Rcs on aircraft is accounted for during the development of an a2a missile. 5m2 rcs and even 3m2 rcs is used as a basis for the range of an a2a missile.


Well tbf a kill at 100km is possible. Firstly the enemy would have to know an a2a missile is sent their way. That is negated when their comms, radars and MAWS are jammed by ew. Thats what happened to the man the myth the legend abhinandan on 27th of Feb. He was heavily jammed just like all the rest of ur aircraft and sams
 

drunken-monke

FULL MEMBER
Jan 19, 2011
1,269
-12
1,179
Country
India
Location
India
Increased combat range means reduced weapons. But overall the JF17 is a far superior aircraft than the Tejas. Unlike the Tejas the JF17 has been tried and tested in both aerial and ground offensives and came out with flying colours. Not only does the JF17 look s like a great aircraft but is has great performance too and it has has been enhanced far more effectively than the Tejas.
Please, could you enlighten me in ways where Jf 17 is better than Tejas.

A comparative analysis could help me.
 

Windjammer

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 9, 2009
37,056
169
131,278
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
The problem is that PL15 was never used in real combat. AMRAAM yes (but without impressive results)
So you are back with your false flags ....some one pretending that he enjoys frog legs but as a curry.
Has the MICA missile been tested in combat and as for AMRAAM....one just needs to look at the pathetic defeated faces of your cousins.....the AMRAAM victims.


1619443688293.png
 

Ghost Hobbit

BANNED
Aug 27, 2020
1,464
-37
936
Country
India
Location
India
So you are back with your false flags ....some one pretending that he enjoys frog legs but as a curry.
Has the MICA missile been tested in combat and as for AMRAAM....one just needs to look at the pathetic defeated faces of your cousins.....the AMRAAM victims.


View attachment 737616
Buddy, good maneuverability comes not only when you fly fast but also stop quickly (for tight turns etc.)....reading your statements I can make out that JF17 has good wind-breaks :rofl:
 

Windjammer

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 9, 2009
37,056
169
131,278
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Buddy, good maneuverability comes not only when you fly fast but also stop quickly (for tight turns etc.)....reading your statements I can make out that JF17 has good wind-breaks :rofl:
Seems something is certainly taking it's effect on your knowledge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)


Top Bottom