Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

[Abingdonboy]

can you please do a scenario analysis with AWACS resources at disposal of each nation's airforce.
i believe Phalcon outperforms anything in the region so coupled with this, Tejas can actually be more potent.

The EL/W-2090 Phalcon AWACS is easily one of the most potent such systems operational anywhere in the world, perhaps second only to the USAF's E-3s (even then the EL/W-2090 is far more contemporary).

Having said that there will only be 5 (2 more are being built as we speak) and they will be backed by around 5-7 DRDO EMB-145 AWACS until AWACS (INDIA) comes online by 2020-.

The EL/W-2090 is simply unmatched in this region and when data-linked with every aircraft in the IAF (and IN/IA) inventory will be able to provide targeting information deep inside Pak territory whilst still being in Indian territory. This would present most utility not to the LCA but those "packages" going deep into Pak territory (MKI, Rafale, Mirage, Jaguar, MiG-29UPG) for their relevant missions. This would allow these fighters to have their radars in a state of passive detection and thus not emit their locations themselves.

For the LCAs, they will remain a "rear guard" point defence fighter so will likely see less of the above utility in AWACS but all of the above advantages are there for if/when the LCAs are perfuming offensive missions or even if they are flying defensive missions linked to an AWACS for greater situational awareness.

The PAF too has AWACS but they have 2 critical disadvantages as compared to the Indian scenario; 1) not all of their aircraft are data-linked with each other- the ZDK can only data-link with the Thunders and Mirage III (?) and the SAAB ERIEYEs can only link with the F-16s (via LINK-16) as such the PAF would have to be far more aware of their positioning of their assets and specific data would not be able to be seen by mixed "packages" i.e. if there was a strike package involving F-16s and Thunders/Mirages supported by a ERIEYE only those F-16s would be in possession of the targeting data with the Thunders/Mirages having to rely on their own systems for their own situational awareness meaning they would have to be emitting (and thus prone to being targeted easier) and their operational picture would be far more limited. 2) As I have outlined, the EL/W-2090 is far more potent than any other AWACS in the region meaning they can provide situational awareness are greater ranges to all linked in assets and can remain inside "safe" airspace. As an aside, there was a supposedly a fear within the PAF that their own AWACS could be "blinded" by the powerful emissions capability onboard the EL/W-2090 how real these fears are is impossible to know.

 

[ConcealCarry]

Paper tigers don't go to air wars, let Tejas get FOC first then we can do such comparisons

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect especially when it comes to defence and military capabilities of each other. In this line a very hot contested topic is the indigenous fighter jets of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and JF-17 Thunder.

India and Pakistan have a tendency to compare each other in every aspect specially when it come to defence and military capabilities of both countries. In this line a very hot contested topic is indigenous fighter of both countries. The pride of both countries Tejas and J/F-17 Thunder.

India has designed and developed the LCA Tejas from tip-to-toe but that is not the case with the JF-17 Thunder. The JF-17 which Pakistan claims to be a product of their own innovation is basically designed and developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China and is jointly manufactured by Pakistan and China. Hence the term JF which stands for "Joint Fighter" was given to the fighter jet.

Before starting my comparison I would like to clear a few things. Most of the data for comparison has been taken from official websites of both fighter jets and the remaining from reliable online sources. I would also like to state that I have taken only those points into consideration that actually matter in an AtoA (air-to-air) combat with other things keeping aside for this comparison.


Comparison is between the LCA Tejas MK-I and the JF-17 Block I ::

1- Location of Combat >>

The first thing that will matter a lot will be the most probable location of fight. Based on the range of Tejas, its role will be that of a primary air defence aircraft and being 2nd in line fighter jet with primary offensive roles designated to the state-of-the-art Su-30 MKI, Mig-29s and Mirages, it is very unlikely that the Tejas will ever cross the international border. On the other hand, the JF-17 along with the F-16s will form the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force and will be assigned with an offensive task. So the most obvious location of an AtoA face-off between the two jets will be in Indian Airspace.

Though this is not a deciding factor but familiarity with terrain, operating under air defence environment with ground radars, AWACS, SAM and AA guns matters a lot. This will definitely be a disadvantage for the JF-17 Thunder. Same will be the case if the LCA Tejas operates in Pakistani Airspace which is very unlikely. India has other fighter jets like the 'SEPECAT Jaguar' which are described as "deep penetrating strike aircraft".


2- BVR Combat >>

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. (I am giving advantage to J/F-17 on this and taking it based on Chinese claims).

The LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft, however it is not clear if it is for 5m2 size aircraft or not so let's put both radars on par i.e. 130 km for 5m2 size aircraft. Both have ECM suite which are on par and carry EW pods externally. Both jets RCS is classified but I am taking it on the basis of claims made by websites of respective countries. RCS of JF-17 is 3m2, this will allow Tejas to detect a JF-17 from 75 km away. Tejas being designed keeping stealth in mind, its RCS is claimed to be 1/3 of mirage 2000 by some sites which makes it around 1.6m2 while others claim it to be 1.5m2 . Ignoring both claims I take it to 2m2. So the JF-17 will only be able to detect the Tejas at around 50 km away while Tejas will see an approaching JF-17 75 km away.

LCA's primary BVR missiles will be R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 will use SD-10 which is variant of Chinese PL-12. Performance wise both missiles are at par. R-77 has range of 80 km while SD-10 has a range of 70 km. Range of the missile don't matter as the radar of both jets will only be able to detect each other within their BVR range, but with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first, it will also have the advantage to fire first i.e. from 75 km away while the JF-17 will have no clue of the Tejas for another 25km. The only warning the JF-17 will feed its pilot will be that of an approaching missile.


3- WVR Combat >>

G tolerance of both jets is same i.e. +8.5g/-3g. Both have equal speed of Mac 1.6. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. Angle of Attack of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 has 26 degree ('Doubtful and overrated' as only 1 source claim about it and no other info available, but let's accept the claim since even the Gripen and the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees so definitely the JF-17 cant have equal but can have lower than 26 degrees). Less AoA of Tejas is Nullified by its better TWR. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage here during the first few turns but if Tejas will be able to survive during this period then the JF-17 will face a disadvantage due to quicker loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has Smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive as it will have JF-17 in sight because of smoke tail left by its engine.

Now one more factor that will add to the disadvantage for the JF-17 is the Helmet Mounted System of Tejas. HMS will provide High off BoreSight shooting ability to Tejas as compared to the JF-17 which does not have a Helmet Mounted System. This further diminishes the initial turn rate advantage of the JF-17.


4- Service Ceiling >>

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. All that the JF-17 has to do is climb above the service ceiling of Tejas and it will be able to avoid a dog-fight and run away into its airspace. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas.


5- Digital Fly BY Wire >>

Tejas uses Quadruplex Digital FBW while the JF-17 has FBW in only pitch axis. This gives the Tejas an advantage of easy controls during high angle of attacks as compared to the JF-17 where the pilot has to put an extra effort to control the aircraft. This will indirectly affect pilot performance while performing high G maneuvers required in close combat.


6- Combat radius >>

Tejas has a combat radius of mere 500 km while the JF-17 has radius of 1350 km. Combat radius matters if a fighter jet is designed for deep strike missions and gives an ability to stay in the air for long hours before being refueled, thus saving precious time.
So no doubt this round to the JF-17.


Conclusion ::

So when it comes to BVR combat, Tejas has a clear edge over its opponent with less RCS and longer range Radar. The JF-17 is on par with Tejas in close combat scenario. The JF-17 has advantage if it decides to play hide and seek with Tejas flying above the service ceiling waiting for it to loose its precious fuel and then engage.

In the end I would say that an AtoA combat depends more on Pilot skills and how a pilot understands and uses the advantages of his aircraft and how he guards its weaknesses.
So just like how the small GNATS became Sabre slayers, who knows in future wars, and with constant upgrades to the Tejas, the LCA might very likely become a Thunder slayer.

Defence News - Comparison between LCA Tejas and JF-17 Thunder in an A-to-A Scenario

 

[sathya]

Sorry mate you are late for almost eight year for Thunder IOC / FOC news and now we have more than 70+ operational example of that. Sorry again for that

Sorry I haven't heard about ioc / Foc of thunders from day 1 or since first operational example..

Since there are 70 numbers now, must have logged like 10,000 hours of flight ..

Will you be kind enough to give me a link for any official ioc/ Foc...
Even reports about it in standard news source will do..

 

[My-Analogous]

Sorry I haven't heard about ioc / Foc of thunders from day 1 or since first operational example..

Since there are 70 numbers now, must have logged like 10,000 hours of flight ..

Will you be kind enough to give me a link for any official ioc/ Foc...
Even reports about it in standard news source will do..

We achieve 10,000 hours sorties in 2011 and we also have export order for JF17

JF-17 Completes 10,000 Sorties

 

[Spy Master]

I'm not saying the PAF is a Cuban or African AF but then it is not the USAF or FrAF either. The fact is the PAF was FORCED to adopt the Thunder in the state it was because it was simply the only option available to you, in the last decade what other fighter have you inducted (the F-16s withstanding)? Had it not been for the Thunder the majority of your AF would be Mirages and F-7s- this is undeniable. Can you deny that the JF-17 was inducted in haste with many capabilities not included (and still to this day not included)? Professional is one thing but that doesn't change the reality of the resources the PAF has available to it. The PAF cannot match the vast resources the IAF enjoys and it is this compulsion that led to the JF-17 being inducted with certain shortcomings and why the IAF has refused to induct the LCA until it is exactly what they wanted. This is pragmatism, this does not demand the PAF or its professionalism.


And all this "WILL" and "IS" lexicon you use to demean the LCA is funny because the LCA HAS all of the above features TODAY (LDP, HMDS, IFR probe, twin seat variant, naval variant etc etc) that the JF-17 has NOT and in some cases NEVER will have.

Are you really a senior poster? Point was JF 17 vs Tejas and not what was available or not..Don;t deviate from point... Thunder was INUDCTED IN 2006 and it is gradually evolved with time..and unlike Tejas this is the sane strategy...Your point is that IAF will induct Tejas when it is fully capable while still flying Mig coffins?? why not Induct tejas and retire Migs which is killing your pilots...At least its not a flying coffin and evolve it with time?? isn't it better than Mig 21 as of now after more than 30 years or is it not that's why IAF don't want to own its own jet(as of Indan media)?...On the other hand PAF induct JF 17 and solve its issues with time after flying it for hundreds of hours and even used it in FATA as told by the recent interview of ACM...for instance IFR probe can be installed later and we have seen it on block 2...AESA radar can be installed later...but its still flying and it can kick *** in case of war...!
You would agree with me that by the time you induct Tejas PAF's pilot would have hundreds of hours experience on JF 17? while i dont think so Tejas is so much advanced that in case of war it will guide its own pilot or does it? I have seen you are too much biased and emotional in your analysis unlike other mates of you like Spark and Sandy...!
And the capabilities you are talking about all the time in EVERY thread...I will not go into details again and again and again..Coz you always have nothing in argument but this lame excuse..I recommend you to read the latest interview Posted of ACM.. it will surely address all of your delusions about JF 17 and its capabilties...! This very low level JF 17 as of now has a confirmed buyer as of now( latest interview of ACM)..While superior Tejas is nowhere to be seen...!

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Once Teja gets operational, than we can start comparing both the planes. A plane whose project started way before JF17 and still not flying yet while the later one has started getting foreign orders, is not even worth discussion of.

 

[#hydra#]

Are you really a senior poster? Point was JF 17 vs Tejas and not what was available or not..Don;t deviate from point... Thunder was INUDCTED IN 2006 and it is gradually evolved with time..and unlike Tejas this is the sane strategy...Your point is that IAF will induct Tejas when it is fully capable while still flying Mig coffins?? why not Induct tejas and retire Migs which is killing your pilots...At least its not a flying coffin and evolve it with time?? isn't it better than Mig 21 as of now after more than 30 years or is it not that's why IAF don't want to own its own jet(as of Indan media)?...On the other hand PAF induct JF 17 and solve its issues with time after flying it for hundreds of hours and even used it in FATA as told by the recent interview of ACM...for instance IFR probe can be installed later and we have seen it on block 2...AESA radar can be installed later...but its still flying and it can kick *** in case of war...!
You would agree with me that by the time you induct Tejas PAF's pilot would have hundreds of hours experience on JF 17? while i dont think so Tejas is so much advanced that in case of war it will guide its own pilot or does it? I have seen you are too much biased and emotional in your analysis unlike other mates of you like Spark and Sandy...!
And the capabilities you are talking about all the time in EVERY thread...I will not go into details again and again and again..Coz you always have nothing in argument but this lame excuse..I recommend you to read the latest interview Posted of ACM.. it will surely address all of your delusions about JF 17 and its capabilties...! This very low level JF 17 as of now has a confirmed buyer as of now( latest interview of ACM)..While superior Tejas is nowhere to be seen...!

What is the rate of climb of jf17 & lca respectively.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Thunder was INUDCTED IN 2006 and it is gradually evolved with time..and unlike Tejas this is the sane strategy...Your point is that IAF will induct Tejas when it is fully capable while still flying Mig coffins?? why not Induct tejas and retire Migs which is killing your pilots...At least its not a flying coffin and evolve it with time??

As I have said, it is a difference in approach and methodology that has led to the current situation. The IAF has been criticised by many quarters for refusing to induct the LCA whilst it hasn't met their very exacting ASQRs and continuing to fly the MiG-21/27s. This is a legitimate criticism of the IAF and whilst they have sought to address the issue by replacing certain MiG-21 SQNs with MKIs and Hawk MK.132s (for the trainer/OCU MiG-21 units) this has still not addressed the core issue of having such vintage a/c flying. But the IAF, in all their wisdom has continued down this road because it feels it will benefit from this approach in the end (the best possible system in its hands). This mentality, it could be argued, is a result of the immense resources the IAF now enjoys and hence they are, rather, spoiled and can demand the best of the best.


However, I am confident that once the LCA enters service there will be a lot of revisionism and many will praise the IAF for insisting on such a high level of capabilities.


The PAF is in a very different situation and this led to an early induction of the Thunder with many key capabilities missing and only being promised in later standards.


As I have said, it is a difference in mentality and circumstances that have lead to this divergent approach but the results are clear for all to see.


The rest of your post was an unnecessary personal attack and I shall ignore it.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@spymaster

I would like to say THANKS to you for posting this article

However you DO NOT understand The technicalities of fighter planes
AND the different dynamics under which PAF and IAF live and operate

So @Abingdonboy Sir ; there is no point in this interaction with this Gentleman

 

[Abingdonboy]

Once Teja gets operational, than we can start comparing both the planes. A plane whose project started way before JF17 and still not flying yet while the later one has started getting foreign orders, is not even worth discussion of.

I ask you, why do we compare the JF-17 to the LCA when both are VERY different projects with very different aims even from the conception stage? It is ONLY because of the India-Pakistan rivalry one does so. If any other nation had been in Pakistan's position vis a vis the JF-17 no one would think it suitable to compare it to the LCA.

As the LCA's capabilities become more and more apparent and its induction draws near the criteria offered by many Pakistani members for being superior to the LCA is not based in any technological advantage but purely being in service first. Is this not the most juvenile criteria one has ever heard? "mine is better because I was first". So the JF-17 is better than the F-35 by this logic?

As I have been saying again and again, comparing the Thunder and the LCA is inherently unfair to BOTH programs as both have different approaches and objectives from the very outset.

Wouldn't any sane individual agree it is absurd to compare the world's most advanced MiG-21 variant (not my own words) to an aircraft built from the ground up to be a highly capable 4th generation fighter built, designed, tested and certified by a nation who previously has little to no high-tech industrial base AND whose users demanded state of the art capabilities, a twin seat variant AND a naval variant?

 

[SipahSalar]

Here is a comparison:

JF-17, can do everything a modern jet fighter is supposed to do.

Tejas, still learning to fly.

 

[Abingdonboy]

JF-17, can do everything a modern jet fighter is supposed to do.

EXCEPT fire HOBS missiles, refuel in-flight or train rookie pilots in the air.

Tejas, still learning to fly.

Oh really? So the 3,000 (aprx) flight hours logged by the LCA's test team were all imaginary?

 

[Spy Master]

As I have said, it is a difference in approach and methodology that has led to the current situation. The IAF has been criticised by many quarters for refusing to induct the LCA whilst it hasn't met their very exacting ASQRs and continuing to fly the MiG-21/27s. This is a legitimate criticism of the IAF and whilst they have sought to address the issue by replacing certain MiG-21 SQNs with MKIs and Hawk MK.132s (for the trainer/OCU MiG-21 units) this has still not addressed the core issue of having such vintage a/c flying. But the IAF, in all their wisdom has continued down this road because it feels it will benefit from this approach in the end (the best possible system in its hands). This mentality, it could be argued, is a result of the immense resources the IAF now enjoys and hence they are, rather, spoiled and can demand the best of the best.


However, I am confident that once the LCA enters service there will be a lot of revisionism and many will praise the IAF for insisting on such a high level of capabilities.


The PAF is in a very different situation and this led to an early induction of the Thunder with many key capabilities missing and only being promised in later standards.


As I have said, it is a difference in mentality and circumstances that have lead to this divergent approach but the results are clear for all to see.


The rest of your post was an unnecessary personal attack and I shall ignore it.

Lets forget the scenario of the resources...we were talking about fighter to fighter..!
1. The IAF approach is to only induct Tejas when it is fully operational and it might be 2019-2020 as of now..from 2020 they will start making a serial production and from your point of view that is a true approach on the cost of pilot life of MIGs...!
2. PAF approach is to induct Thunder and make it potent with time, with the serious advantage of pilot skill on the aircraft after flying it for 100s of hours..Then you can see by 2020 PAF will nearly have 70-80 aircrafts with precious blocks that can be upgraded to latest blocks with the advantage of pilot training..!
Now look what is what and who is who and who is sane...!
3. Your all weather logic that you are proud of that Mark 1 will be equal to Block 3 is missing the key point that block 1 is rolled out in 2006 and Tejas is yet to see the light of sun in Operational mode..! If Tejas that has seen only Delays and Upgradation in his life is to be rolled out in 2020 with latest capabilities then so it the Thunder in 2018..!
4. The rest of my post with a "single line" about yourself was addressing your question about certain capabilities of thunder from the latest interview but as always you chose to ignore it..!

EXCEPT fire HOBS missiles, refuel in-flight or train rookie pilots in the air.



Oh really? So the 3,000 (aprx) flight hours logged by the LCA's test team were all imaginary?

Read the latest ACM interview , refuel in flight has been done many times in block 2.....!

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

I ask you, why do we compare the JF-17 to the LCA when both are VERY different projects with very different aims even from the conception stage? It is ONLY because of the India-Pakistan rivalry one does so. If any other nation had been in Pakistan's position vis a vis the JF-17 no one would think it suitable to compare it to the LCA.

As the LCA's capabilities become more and more apparent and its induction draws near the criteria offered by many Pakistani members for being superior to the LCA is not based in any technological advantage but purely being in service first. Is this not the most juvenile criteria one has ever heard? "mine is better because I was first". So the JF-17 is better than the F-35 by this logic?

As I have been saying again and again, comparing the Thunder and the LCA is inherently unfair to BOTH programs as both have different approaches and objectives from the very outset.

Wouldn't any sane individual agree it is absurd to compare the world's most advanced MiG-21 variant (not my own words) to an aircraft built from the ground up to be a highly capable 4th generation fighter built, designed, tested and certified by a nation who previously has little to no high-tech industrial base AND whose users demanded state of the art capabilities, a twin seat variant AND a naval variant?

Dude, LCA 'capabilities' will be more apparent on paper if India can wait for 10 more years. I hope you get the point here as I assume you to be a smart person.Enough said.

 

[Bratva]

It's simply not worth it. As the opening to this article states- Indians and Pakistanis all too often fall into the trap of comparing like for like (i.e. artillery with artillery, light single engined fighters with light single engined fighters) without contextualising the comparison.

The simple fact of the matter is not only do Su-30MKIs (massively) outnumber both F-16s and JF-17s of the PAF they also outclass them in almost every tangible criteria. This is before we bring in the upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s who are more than a match for the Blk.52 F-16s and would make short work of the Thunder (in raw spec comparisons).

As far as the LCA vs JF-17s comparison goes- as much as Pakistanis LOVE to have this discussion one needs to remember we are not comparing like for like here either. The LCA was designed from the ground up in India with certain inherent design features in mind that prove to be superior to and congruent with a 4th generation fighter (composite structure, unstable flight dynamics) whilst the Thunder was all about getting a cheap and cheerful bird to replace the F-7s and Mirages en masse in the PAF. The ADA has approached the project in a holistic way (further insisted upon by the IAF) wherein all contemporary systems (HMDS, LDP, IFR probe etc) had to be available from day one on the very first LCA delivered to them and proven. In line with this the ADA have also developed twin seat and naval variants of the LCA, the Thunder lacks all of the above. The Thunder is all about "being good enough", the LCA is a project intended to lay a solid foundation for India's future aviation success.

The very fact that the LCA Mk.1 will come with features from the outset that are only to be found on late BLK.2 and BLK.3 JF-17s says it all. The Thunder was inducted in haste and with many shortcomings, the LCA is rather the opposite approach.

This goes to the very heart of the two nations' mentalities/dynamics- the ADA is a fully civilian run and staffed organisation and the project was spearheaded by scientific minds (for better or worse) who saw the LCA project as a scientific undertaking to further India's understanding of this technology and for future purposes. And hence the ADA have set up a vast array of laboratories and technology centres across India to develop the LCA from the ground up and certify their work in house. The JF-17 project was, naturally, conceptualised and insisted upon by the military who cared little for building a scientific base- they simply wanted a new fighter they could afford in large enough numbers. Much of the work on the JF-17 was conducted inside China by the Chinese but this follows the entire methodology behind the project so this is not a criticism of the Pakistanis.

I dont understand the mentality of indians. So if JF-17 Inducted early and being upgraded in increments vis a vis it has become a shortcoming of some sort ?

This is some serious flaw in such argument. So The eurofighter, Rafael, F-16, F-22 raptor, F-35 who cant even fire gun were inducted early and were/would be upgraded incrementally exactly like JF-17. So would you downvote them as well ?

Point one short coming of JF-17 when it was inducted vis a vis when F-16 was inducted and When Eurofighter was inducted.

A nation inducts aircraft early so it can create a support base of aircraft much early. How much of LCA support base has been created in IAF bases sans where the aircraft is being flight tested ? How much IAF technicians are trained on maintaining LCA ?