What's new

Professionals please analyse Tejas and JF-17 on Airshow performance

This is a very fine thread and could be a great learning place for us her us illiterates ( in this topic :p :p). However as with the op I would like to request the trolls, who have sorry lives, to leave this thread alone and let some analysis come forward. You couldn't get anything from the other threads on these topics...
 
Thanks for opening this thread.

Is it a safe assumption that these type of shows could only throw some light on the WVR abilities. How much of this agility would be useful in the modern BVR warfare?

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Vauban @knight11 @Nihonjin1051 @mike2000 is back

Hmmmm....this is a tricky one:tongue:.
main-qimg-a699673d8c28b15a1a263adc89fd6e8e


On "pen and paper" i will say HAL Tejas is a better aircraft performance-wise.
But, there are three points to consider before rushing to the conclusion:
However, HAL Tejas is not yet combat-ready, and, God knows when it would be. Exclusive: Modi pushes 'obsolete' made-in-India plane on reluctant military
JF-17 is going through its Block-III development phase. Once, the development is complete, it would achieve significant improvement in terms of performance and capability. Better engines, better avionics, better radar, and so on. Just imagine a JF-17 with Saturn engine, and, Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA Radar!!!
And, finally, The "pen and paper" shortcomings of JF-17 is due to is budget constraint, not because of the lack of capability of the developers.:)
The JF-17 project was based on China's abandoned Super-7 project. It cannot be called a Mig-21/F-7 copy unlike what some people here often claim:D. It can be, at most, described as development over Mig-21/F-7.
Designs need not be original always. If a design is successful and battle-proven, it doesn't need to be abandoned. Think of Sukoi (Flanker) and Mirage aircraft families. Su-30, 34,35, 37 were all developed from Su-27. In case of Mirage, there were as many as 11 developments over the original design. See:Mirage (aircraft). There are also IAI Nesher, IAI Kfir and Atlas Cheetahs.:yu:

If we adjust the price of the 80’s F-16 for inflation, JF-17 is much more cheaper. The price will become more cheaper with the increase in number of export sales.:rolleyes1:

F-16 is in Block-62 stage, whereas JF-17 is just in Block-2. So, it has still plenty of room to improve. There are plenty of off-the-shelf Chinese equipment available. Moreover, Pakistan's relationship with Russia is warming up. So, there is a strong possibility of import of Russian AESA Radar, avionics, and, BVR missiles in near future as you yourself mentioned earlier

As compared to the airplanes that were directly benefited by US/Western technologies, it is a low-tech fighter.But If you consider a similar air-craft, such as, HAL LCA Tejas of India, which has access to plenty of Western technologies,and, which is still to finish its test sorties, it is far more successful.
Similarly, JAS Gripen project started in the early 1980s. Apart from some Swedish(ad Brazilian) orders, the number of sales is not very significant.

The point people often miss is, JF-17 was custom build for PAF according to their specific needs and requirements. So, it is natural that it would not be so easy for Pakistan/China to sell it to a third country. The countries that abandoned the purchase are either not in a very good shape in terms of economies, or, do not have any urge to buy air-crafts. They were offered the aircraft by Pakistan, those were kind of pushing sales. Burma is buying 16 air-crafts(potentially though, since it's still not certain . lol ). If we consider the original purpose of the aircraft, that is a lot of sales. This figure will be increased day by day(hopefully).

China can buy or even copy Russian air-crafts. They don't have any financial constraint either. So, there is no need for them to buy JF-17.
Pakistan is on the course of improving its relationship with Russia. If the situation improves, Pakistan may buy Russian Su-30s. Then, JF-17 may even be pushed to the sidelines.

Pakistan is one of the poorest country in the world(no offence here though). Better that China is a friendly neighbor. Otherwise, Pakistan would have been flying some F-6 or F-7 by now.
Does Volvo Aero manufacture their own engines for JAS Gripen? No. They use modified GE F404 engine. HAl Tejas is scheduled to use numerous foreign avionics and equipment as well.:yes4:
main-qimg-0e5b2593c984e296d29b5f64f5c77b05

So, getting a airplane manufactured by China, trying to learn the manufacturing technique, and, trying different configurations and ordnance is not a bad thing at all. It should have been a very exciting experience for Pakistani team. The design and research phase saved a lot of money and considering the low economic performance of the country, the situation of the industry is quite encouraging.

Now looking at the Big-boy's Club::D
However , i will confess DRDO of India has wasted millions of dollars in their HAL LCA Tejas and Kaveri Engine program. On the other hand, India has blocked several western technologies so that Pakistan cannot have access of them. Considering the size of India’s economy and its manipulation of the West, Pakistan can boast its JF-17 as a big success and is really playing with big boys.:agree:

So in Conclusion i will say finally and above all, It doesn't matter whether it is a Mig-21/F-7 copy or anything else. The matter is, as long as PAF is able to redesign, test and improve it whenever and whatever they need, that is the big advantage for them which most other (mostly developing) countries in the world do not have. Just my opinion though and from what i have red so far about both fighters.:meeting:
 
Last edited:
Without comparing both, I would like to raise few
points for both aircrafts.
1. JF-17 took long for takeoff and go on vertical flight
right away but couldn't sustained it for more than 3-4
seconds.
2. Tejas took short takeoff, didn't go for vertical flight
right away but when it did, it sustained it for much
longer period of time.
 
Haan is thread ko bhi ch**d do -_-

Here is a good example of destroying the thread, the person is cleaver to attract the posters to response and then keep quite and let the troll war begins. He knows each and every answer but still throw the bate.

I'm sorry but how was me asking a knowledgeable member to contribute to this thread "destroying this thread"? I seriously did not get what you were trying to say and/or imply.
 
Couple of things I noticed:
1) The JF-17 is flown in a much cleaner configuration than the Tejas. The Tejas is essentially carrying two missiles (Smokewinders). This adds a significant drag penalty as its the missile plus the pylon. The JF-17 was cleaner. This should give JF-17 a SLIGHT advantage.

2) The Tejas does get airbone much sooner than the JF-17. This means it has a lower stall velocity (expected). Obviously then it needs to pick up additional speed to do a pull up because it needs to gain kinetic energy. I would wager its better to pick up speed in the air (like the tejas) than to pick it up on the ground (like the jf17) because ground causes much much more resistance. But someone will have to measure the videos for actual differences in times from brake release to pull up.

3) The Tejas seems to make a tighter turn than the JF-17. Good for Tejas. BUT it bleeds more energy than the JF-17. So in the short term this is good for tejas. In the long term this is good for JF-17. Would come down to pilot skill.

4) The Tejas pilots seem to be taking it easy on the vertical loops. Maybe because they bleed so much speed in the preceeding tight turns and they need to regain some.

5) Readers should keep in mind aircraft are flown in airshows with ridiculous configurations (clean, very little fuel). In the field it would obviously perform worse.

That's a sound analysis, and fits the profiles of the two aircraft properly. What you have here is a pretty standard mark up between your average detla wing aircraft and conventional design. Sustained manoeuvrability vs instantaneous. And you're right, it doesn't look like the Tejas pilot took it to its maximum AoA, it would lose energy too much.

Some aspects of the Tejas' display were expectedly impressive and others were expectedly average, nothing out of the ordinary in either performance.
 
One jet u all forgot is f-20 tigershark , and jf 17 reminds us of forgotten warbird
 
I start with some simple questions

1) How would you compare Thrust/ Weight ratio of the two based on these two shows?
2) How do you compare ability to turn faster and/or tighter of the two?
3) Do you see a relation between choice of manoeuvres and design/ performance of aircraft? In what areas you see one fighter edging ahead of the other (based on their performance in these two Airshows)

1) Based on air show displays, one can't honestly judge anything.
2) In WVR combat a conventional aircraft will always have the upper hand, deltas will always bleed, simple physics. In the subcontinental scenario, this is very realistic.
3) Besides the hardware- THE training, and doctrine, will always play an important part in combat.

Best Regards
 
1) Based on air show displays, one can't honestly judge anything.
2) In WVR combat a conventional aircraft will always have the upper hand, deltas will always bleed, simple physics. In the subcontinental scenario, this is very realistic.
3) Besides the hardware- THE training, and doctrine, will always play an important part in combat.

Best Regards
Fully agree with first and third points but not with second. Well in dogfight, it depends on altitude and speed. On low altitude and slow speed, a conventional jet will have advantage over delta wing but Delta wing aircrafts will have advantage on high speed, high altitude. Same with turning rate. While STR will be better in conventional jets, delta wings have advantage in ITR.
 
Fully agree with first and third points but not with second. Well in dogfight, it depends on altitude and speed. On low altitude and slow speed, a conventional jet will have advantage over delta wing but Delta wing aircrafts will have advantage on high speed, high altitude. Same with turning rate. While STR will be better in conventional jets, delta wings have advantage in ITR.

Ever sat in a delta wing?
 
Back
Top Bottom