JF-17 and LCA development comparison

[Umair Nawaz]

Before I go Ninja on my exams, lemme just make a brief comment on the subject as I usually am the one with crazya$$ videos all over youtube...After uploading and researching the topic multiple times I have concluded that

"JF-17 and LCA Tejas cannot be compared with each other currently"

Lemme just briefly sum it up,

1- Under current circumstances, LCA tejas is still in the "product development stage" with confusion about its FOC dates while JF-17 has now moved on to the "product growth stage" with 40+ already in service with the PAF.

2.JF-17 is exactly as per requirement of its primary customer (PAF) and PAF in general seems very happy with it, infact it shocked quite a few after the info about unexpected modernization of the product was gradually released.On the other hand IAF seems to rely more on the Bisons even though continuously faced by public and media criticism calling the fighter a "flying coffin". The long development coupled by innumerable tests dictate the fact that IAF is not really satisfied by the performance of the platform, thats why talks of MK-II are surfacing even before the MK-I receives FOC by 2014, while thee naval version is supposed to get IOC by that time frame. (again as per plan)

Livefist: IAF Grudgingly Accepts Tejas IOC, Wants 83 Mk-IIs

LCA Navy - IDP Sentinel

3.JF-17 is now in process of adding further claws, new weapons integration (SD-10B,CM400 AKG) and a new block around the corner with upgrades in some sensors and EW as well as IFR etc to add further punch to the already potent aircraft.LCA on the other hand is still in testing, with its given arms and still officially has 2 more years to come in to IAF's service (in 2014).

4. If your talking performance, then most of us know the over weight issue of the LCA, the IOC standards of 6Gs and a restricted AOA and much more, while JF-17 has topped the bench mark which was set for it, i.e F-16 A in terms of WVR.

shuker ha bhai ap aye ho main suba se apki videos yaha upload kr rha hu, abdulbarijan or abdulbarijan 2 se utube py ap k accounts se But i must say in indians ki akl b moti ho gae ha jis main kuch nai ghusta aj kal.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Before I go Ninja on my exams, lemme just make a brief comment on the subject as I usually am the one with crazya$$ videos all over youtube...After uploading and researching the topic multiple times I have concluded that

"JF-17 and LCA Tejas cannot be compared with each other currently"

Lemme just briefly sum it up,

1- Under current circumstances, LCA tejas is still in the "product development stage" with confusion about its FOC dates while JF-17 has now moved on to the "product growth stage" with 40+ already in service with the PAF.

2.JF-17 is exactly as per requirement of its primary customer (PAF) and PAF in general seems very happy with it, infact it shocked quite a few after the info about unexpected modernization of the product was gradually released.On the other hand IAF seems to rely more on the Bisons even though continuously faced by public and media criticism calling the fighter a "flying coffin". The long development coupled by innumerable tests dictate the fact that IAF is not really satisfied by the performance of the platform, thats why talks of MK-II are surfacing even before the MK-I receives FOC by 2014, while thee naval version is supposed to get IOC by that time frame. (again as per plan)

Livefist: IAF Grudgingly Accepts Tejas IOC, Wants 83 Mk-IIs

LCA Navy - IDP Sentinel

3.JF-17 is now in process of adding further claws, new weapons integration (SD-10B,CM400 AKG) and a new block around the corner with upgrades in some sensors and EW as well as IFR etc to add further punch to the already potent aircraft.LCA on the other hand is still in testing, with its given arms and still officially has 2 more years to come in to IAF's service (in 2014).

4. If your talking performance, then most of us know the over weight issue of the LCA, the IOC standards of 6Gs and a restricted AOA and much more, while JF-17 has topped the bench mark which was set for it, i.e F-16 A in terms of WVR.

Also plz respond to this video its by a crazy french who has zero knowledge of avionics.if u comment he does replies too!!!

LCA vs JF-17 - YouTube

 

[sancho]

OK...but talking as of now...
as per IOC standards tejas can pull 6g's..
does it make it better than 8.5 G's of jf 17?

You can say so if you want, because LCA is in a development, where it is limited to something between 6 and 8Gs. But at the same time LCA has better dry TWR and lower wingloading and the same speed, so can you say JF 17 block 1 standard is generally more maneuverable then the LCA MK1 standard?

well,he does not clearly claims avionics of jf 17 to be better than LCA...

He can't because he only speculated about the possible capability, with the arguments that China has developed a stealth fighter and that PAF has said it is near F16 Block 50 standard. The earlier is a fanboy claim, the later is not reliable but tells you something, that the avionics are propper 4th gen standard, but possibly below US export avionics.

Btw:

Avionics are pretty comparable and propper 4th gen standard. One could only find advantages for each fighter in certain fields, Dash HMS and Litening LDPs for LCA, or better MDFs for JF 17, but overal they are equal here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...lca-development-comparison-9.html#post3625033


Claiming Israeli techs are allways the best is not reliable either of course, but compared to the Chinese case, we can find way more publically available specs, infos, reports about them. We know that the Dash HMS is one of the most mature and best helmets available, we know nearly all specs of the Litening pod and that even US forces prefer to buy them buy them, so we come to a conclusion about them, which is not the case with most Chinese techs.

for radar ranges...
he is taking 5m2 as standard to compare..
and he is correct...otherwise please prove it wrong..

No he is not and that's what I tried to make you understand in the last point, the 150Km are the detection for fighter class targets of 5m2 the common used target size of radars in this generations, the detection for bigger targets like transport aircrafts, tankers or ships for example is far bigger be it for EL 2032, KJ 7, KJ10, or Zhuk ME, but manufacturers commonly point out the detection against fighter sized targets.

You can easily find publically available specs for numerous radars:

EL 2032 - 80nm ~ 148Km (http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/38030.pdf)
Zhuk ME - 120Km (http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/2257/zhukmeav9.jpg)
KJ 7 - 105Km (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI...Azw/6KlQvpDYNfY/s1600/JF-17+Thunder's+MMR.JPG)

More modern radars like RBE 2 PESA, or Captor M of Rafale, EF, or Russian Flanker, or modern AESA radars are always rated against targets of 3m2. That's why I said, he even get that wrong, because no manufacturer rates his maximum A2A detection against the biggest possible target.

for RCS:-

prove it LCA has got some lower RCS compared to JF 17...?
as far as i know both of jets have got almost similar RCS in clean config.

Based on? My points are made in the comparison above.

dry TWR:-
it all depends on the circumstances and the type of mission...

Of course and still you do more than 2/3rd of the mission with dry thrust, be it even just to safe fuel in CAP, so AB thrust is not the important one. That's why the Swedes for example focused of dry thrust of the RM 12 engine, while the AB thrust is lower compared to GE 404, although it is based on the GE 404. Or why Supercruise capability is an advantage, because it makes you fly at high speeds without the use of AB.

operational cost of engines:-
this does not affect jf 17's performance IN AIR against LCA...

True, neither does the unit cost and still he said that's a reason why JF 17 is superior isn't it? But either you look at both sides unbiased and equally, or you shouldn't bother to do such comparisons and the autor of your comparison had obviously a very one sided view!

 

[Safriz]

Nothing about JF-17 is last and final..The plane is still an ongoing development project and china still experimenting with the plane.
Many things can change about JF-17 in near future...

 

[Viper0011.]

Just like 90% of Pakistani members say that at least 50% of JF 17 is indigenous, which is not the case either, so how come only Indian development are not indigenous anymore, only because we use our advantages to procure more capable foreign techs and add them to OUR developed weapons?

There is no' advantage' to either one of you guys, be it Pakistan or India. Lack of proper knowledge and infrastructure to build jets, propulsion systems, testing, avionics, integration, etc SHOULDN'T be called 'advantage. It is a LACK, not an upper hand. If I had all these in my house running well, I wouldn't be asking my neighbor for his engine or avionics. Simple is that.
You guys are stepping into the aviation industry and you'll need help from the big brothers. In fact, it is helping you a lot as the mature industries like the US, Russia, China, Israel, etc, have been through 'lesson learning' where money was wasted due to mistakes. In your case, you can learn much cheaper than the pioneers. LCA and JFT are similar jets with LCA initially having a bit more composites involved and the Western avionics. But JFT's avionics were taken from the F-16 and were further improved after F-16 B 52 came to Pakistan and per the Chinese J-10 and J-31 project. So as of now, both of these planes offer similar capability. NONE of the planes is entirely 'indigenous'

 

[sancho]

Before I go Ninja on my exams, lemme just make a brief comment on the subject as I usually am the one with crazya$$ videos all over youtube...After uploading and researching the topic multiple times I have concluded that

"JF-17 and LCA Tejas cannot be compared with each other currently"

Lemme just briefly sum it up,

1- Under current circumstances, LCA tejas is still in the "product development stage" with confusion about its FOC dates while JF-17 has now moved on to the "product growth stage" with 40+ already in service with the PAF.

2.JF-17 is exactly as per requirement of its primary customer (PAF) and PAF in general seems very happy with it, infact it shocked quite a few after the info about unexpected modernization of the product was gradually released.On the other hand IAF seems to rely more on the Bisons even though continuously faced by public and media criticism calling the fighter a "flying coffin". The long development coupled by innumerable tests dictate the fact that IAF is not really satisfied by the performance of the platform, thats why talks of MK-II are surfacing even before the MK-I receives FOC by 2014, while thee naval version is supposed to get IOC by that time frame. (again as per plan)

Livefist: IAF Grudgingly Accepts Tejas IOC, Wants 83 Mk-IIs

LCA Navy - IDP Sentinel

3.JF-17 is now in process of adding further claws, new weapons integration (SD-10B,CM400 AKG) and a new block around the corner with upgrades in some sensors and EW as well as IFR etc to add further punch to the already potent aircraft.LCA on the other hand is still in testing, with its given arms and still officially has 2 more years to come in to IAF's service (in 2014).

4. If your talking performance, then most of us know the over weight issue of the LCA, the IOC standards of 6Gs and a restricted AOA and much more, while JF-17 has topped the bench mark which was set for it, i.e F-16 A in terms of WVR.

All you have summed up here is, that PAF is happy with the inducted fighters, while LCA still don't fullfil IAFs requirements, but you didn't compared both fighters with eachother, according to their specs or capabilities and the last point makes that very clear, because you didn't understand that LCA MK1 is overweighted according to the initial plans and IAF requirements, but that this "overweight" is still just 150Kg above JF 17s emptyweight. That in return means, LCA MK1 might fullfil PAFs weight requirements, while JF 17 B1 might not IAFs either. So it's IAF that has different requirements here and not the fighter that has a real problem, that's why Indian test pilots are as happy with it's handling as Pakistani test pilots with JF 17s.

 

[Rocky rock]

this thread is just opened due to jealousy! coz indian's couldn't even made one succeessfull flight of Tejas...even not of LAH...n Arjunk...lol even brahmos i'll just call that country a big failure...but pakistan did this in low budget and increasing it's thunder platform we have 50 thunder's active in our AF..how much does india have? thunder have done almost 6 or 7 shows on international lvl n also gng to get order's from so many countries n india still couldn't made for their selves isn't that so shamefull n here you are talkin about platform comparison budget n all that? huh? we know you have large budget than ours but what's its benefit?eventhough ur every production is just a failure.. plz let me silent!

 

[sancho]

There is no' advantage' to either one of you guys, be it Pakistan or India. Lack of proper knowledge and infrastructure to build jets, propulsion systems, testing, avionics, integration, etc SHOULDN'T be called 'advantage. It is a LACK, not an upper hand.

Is it? But did you with your US is the best mentality ever came to the conclusion that WE (Pakistan and India) would rather live with less capability, that beeing strangleholded by the US and their export fighters, restrictions and unreliability as a supplier and that these are the reasons why Pakistan today prefers Chinese fighters and techs over US once, or why India rejected US F16s, F18SH, F35s, Black Hawks, S92 in high numbers?

Both projects, JF 17s and LCAs main aim is to get an indigenous industrial base to be not dependent on countries like the US and to be selfreliant in future. The idea was never to build a high tech fighter, just to have an independent low end base, that is cost-effective, developed and build to big parts by Pakistan or India.

Damn, wasted my 6000s post

 

[Viper0011.]

Is it? But did you with your US is the best mentality ever came to the conclusion that WE (Pakistan and India) would rather live with less capability, that beeing strangleholded by the US and their export fighters, restrictions and unreliability as a supplier and that these are the reasons why Pakistan today prefers Chinese fighters and techs over US once, or why India rejected US F16s, F18SH, F35s, Black Hawks, S92 in high numbers? Damn, wasted my 6000s post

You actually did waste your post and mine too. And more than you'll write to defend the crap that you wrote above.
If you re-read my post. No one questions the fact that any country has the right to produce whatever they want to produce. THAT'S why the US is investing in India and helping India (just one example). The US could've just as easily imposed that 'you want our trillions of dollars of investments and a piece of our economy, you must buy our equipment'. But they didn't do that. So you getting defensive doesn't make sense.

Next, the PURPOSE behind my post was to interject and provide facts, that none of the two program, the JFT and the LCA...are indigenous. Had nothing to do with US or anyone else 'strangling' your defense purchases. You guys were fighting on how the LCA is 'Indian made' and the JFT was NOT Pakistani made.....that was the core of my focus. None of them are home made. They are home 'Integrated'. Thanks for wasting your post, my post as a response and another tit for tat stupid discussion that I hate.
Only if I can change our Indian members mentality that not everything has to be a vs. topic!!

 

[mylovepakistan]

You can say so if you want, because LCA is in a development, where it is limited to something between 6 and 8Gs. But at the same time LCA has better dry TWR and lower wingloading and the same speed, so can you say JF 17 block 1 standard is generally more maneuverable then the LCA MK1 standard?



He can't because he only speculated about the possible capability, with the arguments that China has developed a stealth fighter and that PAF has said it is near F16 Block 50 standard. The earlier is a fanboy claim, the later is not reliable but tells you something, that the avionics are propper 4th gen standard, but possibly below US export avionics.

Btw:


http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...lca-development-comparison-9.html#post3625033


Claiming Israeli techs are allways the best is not reliable either of course, but compared to the Chinese case, we can find way more publically available specs, infos, reports about them. We know that the Dash HMS is one of the most mature and best helmets available, we know nearly all specs of the Litening pod and that even US forces prefer to buy them buy them, so we come to a conclusion about them, which is not the case with most Chinese techs.




No he is not and that's what I tried to make you understand in the last point, the 150Km are the detection for fighter class targets of 5m2 the common used target size of radars in this generations, the detection for bigger targets like transport aircrafts, tankers or ships for example is far bigger be it for EL 2032, KJ 7, KJ10, or Zhuk ME, but manufacturers commonly point out the detection against fighter sized targets.

You can easily find publically available specs for numerous radars:

EL 2032 - 80nm ~ 148Km (http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/38030.pdf)
Zhuk ME - 120Km (http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/2257/zhukmeav9.jpg)
KJ 7 - 105Km (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI...Azw/6KlQvpDYNfY/s1600/JF-17+Thunder's+MMR.JPG)

More modern radars like RBE 2 PESA, or Captor M of Rafale, EF, or Russian Flanker, or modern AESA radars are always rated against targets of 3m2. That's why I said, he even get that wrong, because no manufacturer rates his maximum A2A detection against the biggest possible target.




Based on? My points are made in the comparison above.



Of course and still you do more than 2/3rd of the mission with dry thrust, be it even just to safe fuel in CAP, so AB thrust is not the important one. That's why the Swedes for example focused of dry thrust of the RM 12 engine, while the AB thrust is lower compared to GE 404, although it is based on the GE 404. Or why Supercruise capability is an advantage, because it makes you fly at high speeds without the use of AB.



True, neither does the unit cost and still he said that's a reason why JF 17 is superior isn't it? But either you look at both sides unbiased and equally, or you shouldn't bother to do such comparisons and the autor of your comparison had obviously a very one sided view!

- no i dont say that block I standard is more maneuverable than LCA MK-1...but as of now yes jf 17 is MORE MANEUVERABLE...thats for sure..
dry TWR and lower wingloading:-
does A BIT HIGHER TWR (supposition) helps LCA to be better in WVR with a ristricted AoA and the G-LIMIT ?
ahh..please i think we should not go into details of TWR..it fluctuates according to mission circumstances,
but assuming both of these jets under same circumstances and same mission status...i.e same weapon payload

first off,this is highly unlikey the case,we are discussing on paper...
secondly even if both are carrying same payload and flying with dry TWR...i should remind you that LCA is heavier than jf 17 i.e more empty weight...

so AT THE SAME TIME jf 17 has still advantage...( as of now )

coming to lower wing loading..it has its advantages and disadvantages as well...low wing loading gives superior sustained turn rates,superior climb rate,better high altitude performance and better service ceiling...
while jets having higher wing loading like jf 17 is in the case...have some advantages too,
like more suited for high speed flights,superior instantaneous rates,BETTER low altitude performance..

so the LCA should have following advantages:
superior sustained turn rates but its negated by the G-tolerance limit..i.e 6 as of now
superior ceiling and climb rate...but jf 17 has got better ceiling..

jf 17 holds an edge in instantaneous turn rates,service ceiling,better AoA and G-LIMIT...

SO WHICH IS MORE MANUVERABLE ...its offcourse the jf 17...( not talking about FOC standards )

- yes he cant and neither did he not say clearly that jf 17's avionics package was BETTER...hence he is NOT wrong on what he said...

similarly indians too, can not say that LCA has better avionics package...

- RADAR RANGES :-
he seemed to be taking the ranges in air to air mode...where he is more or less correct...

tejas has UPTO 80 NMI for air to air... ( no source available quoting range for 5m2 )
jf 17 has 105 km for 5m2...( no source is available quoting max. air to air range of KLJ-07 )

so assuming both radars have detection and tracking ranges lieing in close vicinity is not wrong...
yes its mere an assumption but you cant prove it wrong either..

- RCS:-

how can you claim that RCS of tejas is lower?
do we know RCS of tejas...NO
do we know RCS of JFT..NO

as far as my brain helps me...
small size, less reflecting surfaces, use of RAM coatings and high use of composites materials can reduce the RCS...but can not bring lower than 1...

same is the case with jf 17..like we heard many of think tanks including pshamim saying jf 17 has lowest RCS among all the jets including block 52 in PAF's fleet...as of now...

DSI,limited use of RAM,small size may also be sufficient enough to bring RCS around 1...

- yes unit cost too,does not affect performance in air
BUT,engine operational cost is not that big issue...and PAF is happy with engine performance..
on the other hand the high over-running cost of LCA actually shows that how successful the project has been...

 

[Storm Force]

One thing we ALL KNOW JF17 THUNDER is here and in service. I AGREE with the JFT famboyz that THUNDER future blocks will improve on composites building into airframe better radars & jammers and better range of weapons.

LCA has taken too long to achieve IOC & FOC in my imo to be really useful to a IAF that has large nos of SU30MKI and soon rafale. The best thing for india on LCA project is the infrascture labs, wind tunnels , computer simulators which are indian indengious tech that can be used to develope future helio, AMCA * ucav ... in india itself.

FOR PAKISTAN to devlope this base will be costly and not needed since it can be done at CHENGDU in china .

 

[Su-11]

If tejas is over weight then what do we call JF-17 whose weight is 26kgs heavier than LCA? Fat Bastard?

Tejas - 6560kgs

JF-17 - 6586kgs

LCA is over weight because it is over weight in IAF's eyes who seek nothing but the best money can buy.

PAF on the other hand cannot afford any good fighters and has to settle with below average fighters. So we often hear statements like "PAF is happy with JF-17" and sshit. In reality they are happy that they atleast get to fly a half-baked cheap fighter than no fighter at all. Something is better than nothing afterall.

 

[Secur]

PAF on the other hand cannot afford any good fighters and has to settle with below average fighters. So we often hear statements like "PAF is happy with JF-17" and sshit. In reality they are happy that they atleast get to fly a half-baked cheap fighter than no fighter at all. Something is better than nothing afterall.

Kid , do not make childish statements that you wont be able to prove with sources and facts ... You do not know jackshit about JFT and its capabilities but still parroting the same old propaganda that they tell you on BRF ... So , next time before trying to derail the thread and start a flame war , do research a little unless of course you want to be handed a pink certificate for your efforts ...

 

[Viper0011.]

PAF on the other hand cannot afford any good fighters and has to settle with below average fighters. So we often hear statements like "PAF is happy with JF-17" and sshit. In reality they are happy that they atleast get to fly a half-baked cheap fighter than no fighter at all. Something is better than nothing afterall.

I read these silly posts and my hats go off to the moderators who put up with so much emotionality here and macho-ism and grandiosity its not even funny!!! This forum feels like its a chick forum with the amount of estrogen flying around in these posts.

Calling one Cheap and second one better (when you have like 20% of the part in putting it together makes sense to you man?
Also, below average, etc, etc.....then why didn't you guys attack them in 2002 and in 2008? If you are so macho and knowing PAF didn't even have a decent jet to compete with your AF...why didn't you take the shot.
I am glad you are not sitting in your planning and strategic advisory services. You would get hundreds of millions of innocent people killed with this mentality.
Both the jets are lower end jets with decent 4th gen capabilities like the BVR's, long range radars, jamming, counter measures, the electronic suites, stand off and precision strike, etc. NEITHER of these are made to replace the SU-30 or Rafale or F-16 B 52. So lower end if the name of the game!!!

 

[Su-11]

Lol.. so you are saying PAF could have taken the Eurofighter but instead they rejected it and inducted JF-17 because it is superior and are "Happy with it"? IAF is happy with Su-30MKI and Rafale, that's why they are not happy with LCA in its current form.