LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[Screambowl]

what? i ewer heard that wajiristan is like kargil. afaik it is the only place where jf 17 was employed in bombing.

PAF Bombing Taliban hideouts in waziristan RAW Footage - Video Dailymotion

south waziristan. But we have seen that the enemy has potential to operate from heights where use of Airfroce was necessary. Since LCA is small, light it will be good for operating in those regions for saturation bombing.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One can use a super tucano for such COIN operations with better success rate than any Jet ..

PAF Bombing Taliban hideouts in waziristan RAW Footage - Video Dailymotion

south waziristan. But we have seen that the enemy has potential to operate from heights where use of Airfroce was necessary. Since LCA is small, light it will be good for operating in those regions for saturation bombing.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Few years ago when googled for jf 17vs lca tejas, one would come across pages ridiculing lca and people throwing around phrases like 'late comabat aircraft', 'failed project', '30 years delay', 'pakistani jf 17 project started just few years ago and already inducted and producing 25 aircraft per year'. It seemed within few years pakistan would have hundreds of block 1 block 2 and lca nowhere to be seen.
Now years have passed and still 50 jf 17, and turrns out that block 2 is barely equivalent to tejas mark 1 and production of both starting around same time, may be 1 or 2 years difference.
Now a days even on Pakistani forum most people dont boast too much and say both have similar capabilities.

Now, google gives me following answer.com link as one of the top search results:

Which one is best LCA Tejas or jf-17 thunder

Answer by Charlie N. CONFIDENCE VOTES 47.7K
I have always had a fascination with aircraft since my first flight in a Harvard at 5 years old - I spent many years as a technician in the RAF during the cold war and later worked for a major airline in Canada.
Thrust with Afterburner Jf-17 84.4 Kn | Tejas Mk-I 85 Kn
G-limit Jf-17 +8.5 g | Tejas Mk-I +9g to -3.5 g
Dry Thrust Jf-17 49.4 Kn | Tejas Mk-I 53.9 Kn
Loaded Weight Jf-17 9,100kg | Tejas Mk-I 10,500 kg
Hardpoints Jf-17 7 | Tejas Mk-I 8
Max Weapon loadout Jf-17 3629 kg | Tejas Mk-I 4000 kg

Tejas has moderate edge in Physical performance front and is a wholly different project as far as technology is concerned. Its airframe, made of advanced carbon fibre composites, is light years ahead of the Jf-17 Thunder's all-metal airframe. The same goes for the Tejas' aerodynamics which, because of the compound delta-wing, extensive wing-body blending, and low wing loading are superior to those of the Thunder, which has a more conventional layout along the lines of the F-16 and a rejected Soviet light fighter design. As far as flight dynamics and control go, the Tejas, with its relaxed static stability and quadruplex, full authority fly-by-wire digital flight control system, is far more advanced than the Thunder, which still features conventional controls (fly-by-wire exists only for pitch control).

ANS 2 - Having read all the available specs on both of these aircraft, I would say they are extremely well matched. Both have known and reliable engines, both have a similar weapons load, both use the same 23 mm cannon. The differences will come in the avionics suite and in the ability of the pilots.
Sphinx Knight Azeroth + 19 others found this useful

I posted this because most common people will probably only come across such pages, very few will reach forums with detailed analysis and discussions and even fewer would understand the technical discussions, which as far as lca is concerned are very few, may be just dfi and brf.

 

[Butter Chicken]

Only good thing about JF-17 is that it can be mass produced....else it is a junk tin fighter that even its creator refused to induct.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Few years ago when googled for jf 17vs lca tejas, one would come across pages ridiculing lca and people throwing around phrases like 'late comabat aircraft', 'failed project', '30 years delay', 'pakistani jf 17 project started just few years ago and already inducted and producing 25 aircraft per year'. It seemed within few years pakistan would have hundreds of block 1 block 2 and lca nowhere to be seen.
Now years have passed and still 50 jf 17, and turrns out that block 2 is barely equivalent to tejas mark 1 and production of both starting around same time, may be 1 or 2 years difference.
Now a days even on Pakistani forum most people dont boast too much and say both have similar capabilities.

Now, google gives me following answer.com link as one of the top search results:



I posted this because most common people will probably only come across such pages, very few will reach forums with detailed analysis and discussions and even fewer would understand the technical discussions, which as far as lca is concerned are very few, may be just dfi and brf.

See pakis still quotes design specification and not what is achieved. We said that it is and 8.5g air craft with 26* AOA etc. We demonstrated that at Baharine. Porkis say that it is BLA BLA BLA. What is the specification they have demonstrated on any air show. Infcat they withdrew from Baharine air show for face saving. The real specification of Blunder is 17* AOA, 2 ton weight carrying and 7 g performance. While tejas is an ultramodern aircraft with some minor design flaws which we are rectifying. MK1+ to be much better than Mk1 with low weight and refined aerodynamic speed and better acceleration and speed with greater range even if i do not consider ultra modern RADAR and EW. Blunder is just a trainer aircraft and lack all the punch we can expect from a fighter aircraft. It can not engage with tejas in BVR combat or close air combat nor in dog fight. It is a generation behind the tajas. It is a Mig 21 class of fighter with 70% speed of Mig 21.

 

[Flame Thrower]

I remember reading that LCA mk1 has combat radius of little over 200km.

Now the combat load is

Jammer on the central line...
2 1000 pound bombs
2 BVR 2 WVR

I am not sure of the flight path it might be a lo-lo-lo or lo-lo-hi.

LCA also has 1700km range without any payload and 3000 km with
3*800 ltr drop tanks.

I also remember that NLCA mk1 has range of 500 km in anti ship role.

Payload is Ashm on central line

2 800 ltr fuel tanks
2 BVR & 2 WVR

I don't know the flight path.

 

[Flame Thrower]

Ever walked into a store that advertises 'Upto 80% off'?? Only to find that the max discount applies to couple of tchotchkes, while the rest of the items don't have that big a mark down???
The report says 'up to 500 kms' depending on combat conditions!! You're making an assumption (meaningful payload?) without any data on what those conditions are !!! The report does not say that the performance is exactly as per the requirements either. The prudent thing to do is to leave it as an open question until more definitive data comes out!!

That's a good point, but can you explain the below points from the same reports...

The report also states that LCA Tejas has ferry range of 1700 km(3000 ltrs of internal fuel) without any payload. Now the real question is what amount of payload has reduced the combat range to 500 km.

You are very intelligent, as you've noticed a minute detail (payload is not mentioned for 500 km range) I believe you are capable enough(as your statements contradict what we believe) and I hope you are kind enough to explain the possible payload (rough estimate) that reduced the combat range to 500 km i.e., less than 30%(29.41%) of the ferry range.

Thanks in advance

 

[Filtercoffee]

I'm sorry sir these are facts put out to justify. Can we please refrain from personal remarks? And if you could tell us about details about your facts we can then speak further.

 

[Filtercoffee]

Apart from sadness in your tone does it even matter? All the mods do is to have greater ideas. After reading your problem of combat range and points to state, its an Indian aircraft. Its better to know indirect what the other guy knows. So you could help us by atleast throwing us a bone here and there. Kind regards and I hope you understand.

 

[Filtercoffee]

Some things are meant for everyone then.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

For the start >>

If you want to whinge, this forum is not for you..
If you want to rant on superficialities, this forum is not for you..
If you do not want to contribute to the discussion, this forum is not for you..
If you want to retort to a post with a smart alec comment, this forum is not for you.
If you feel like wasting bandwidth and other people's time, this forum is not for you.


Enough lip service / discussion to my mind has already been done.

Their is no place for trolls let it be intellectual or any other category, Duplicate account will be deleted without prior notice ..

 

[HarshBardhan]

Many people troll JF-17 on this forum but I want to highlight some positive features of this fighter as well:

1. The hydraulic brakes of JF 17 have an automatic anti-skid system which prevents it from skidding off the runway.
2. The position and shape of the JF 17's inlets is designed to give the required airflow to the jet engine during maneuvres involving high angles of attack. JF-17 has DSI intakes , type of jet engine air intake used by some modern combat aircraft to control air flow into their engines. It consists of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. This eliminates the need for a splitter plate, while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary-layer airflow. It is a hall-mark for all Chinese designs and is also used on F-35

 

[TheHurtLocker]

1. The hydraulic brakes of JF 17 have an automatic anti-skid system which prevents it from skidding off the runway.

I'm a layman in the subject and may be completely off the ball, but I believe you are talking about an Anti-Lock Braking system for the Aircraft that allows the Nose wheel to steer under Braking?
A calm driver with good feel for the brakes can modulate pedal(in car terms) pressure to regain control and I assume the same can be done for aircraft.
If a 180 CC TVS Motorbike has them(Bosch supplied system IIRC) I think it would be unlikely that a fighter does not have them.............. so does the Tejas/MKI/Rafale have it?

The DSI is indeed a very thoughtful addition. Saves weight, reduces moving parts and allegedly reduces signature of the Engine blades(Although for a single Engine "Y" intake configuration, I doubt it adds to very much, especially in a metal skinned MiG21 hitjob)

 

[Vijyes]

There is a massive difference between ferry range and combat radius. JF 17 has ferry range of 2100km while Tejas has 1700km.
The fuel capacity of Tejas is 2 tons while that of JF17 is 2.4 tons. The engine of F404 is not that terrible compared to Rd93 (both have similar thrust) that despite JF17 having almost same weight as Tejas (slightly more than tejas actually), it would give 65% more Mileage than F404. Though that is possible, it requires that JF17 is aerodynamically stable and hence not maneuverable and flies like a commercial jet liner plane which then would make it the worst fighter plane ever.

 

[Vijyes]

There is a massive difference between ferry range and combat radius. JF 17 has ferry range of 2100km while Tejas has 1700km.
The fuel capacity of Tejas is 2 tons while that of JF17 is 2.4 tons. The engine of F404 is not that terrible compared to Rd93 (both have similar thrust) that despite JF17 having almost same weight as Tejas (slightly more than tejas actually), it would give 65% more Mileage than F404. Though that is possible, it requires that JF17 is aerodynamically stable and hence not maneuverable and flies like a commercial jet liner plane which then would make it the worst fighter plane ever.

 

[tsunami]

Well this is the first time somebody saying that JF-17 have more internal fuel capacity then Tejas.

All I know is Tejas is having 2450 KG internal fuel capacity and JF-17 having only 2300.

 

[Vijyes]

Well this is the first time somebody saying that JF-17 have more internal fuel capacity then Tejas.

All I know is Tejas is having 2450 KG internal fuel capacity and JF-17 having only 2300.

Yup, agreed. Sorry, my mistake. Even then, a difference of 100% in mileage is staggering.

Gripen has 5ton fuel capacity and 3200km ferry range. Tejas is similar to gripen in terms of range. The JF17 on the other hand is extraordinary and if the 3400km figure and the maneuverability is correct, it is one of the best planes by its own virtue.

 

[tsunami]

Yup, agreed. Sorry, my mistake. Even then, a difference of 100% in mileage is staggering.

Gripen has 5ton fuel capacity and 3200km ferry range. Tejas is similar to gripen in terms of range. The JF17 on the other hand is extraordinary and if the 3400km figure and the maneuverability is correct, it is one of the best planes by its own virtue.

JF-17 have 3400 KM range is a pure lie. As far as I know this figure is impossible on internal fuel for most of the top fighter including Rafale, EFT, F-22, F-16, Gripen, and many more.

JFT is a 6.6 ton fighter with 2.3 ton internal fuel so it's loaded weight should be somewhere 9.3 tons. The fighter have only less then 25% fuel when having no external load. It's range should not be more then 2000 KMs with that.
And as we know it's maximum takeoff weight is 12.5 tons which roughly allows it to carry only 3 tons of load it should be not possible for the fighter to go 3400 KMs with 3 tons external fuel too.

 

[Vijyes]

JF-17 have 3400 KM range is a pure lie. As far as I know this figure is impossible on internal fuel for most of the top fighter including Rafale, EFT, F-22, F-16, Gripen, and many more.

JFT is a 6.6 ton fighter with 2.3 ton internal fuel so it's loaded weight should be somewhere 9.3 tons. The fighter have only less then 25% fuel when having no external load. It's range should not be more then 2000 KMs with that.
And as we know it's maximum takeoff weight is 12.5 tons which roughly allows it to carry only 3 tons of load it should be not possible for the fighter to go 3400 KMs with 3 tons external fuel too.

With 5.5 ton of fuel, 3500-4000 km range is acceptable but that doesn't make sense. A plane is meant to carry payload. If there is no payload there is no point of having a plane. The mileage difference of 100% between tejas and JF17 is just plain lie. If someone is saying that with all payload converted to fuel, the range increases, then it is meaningless to consider such a value as range. Range should be calculated only on internal fuel. External pods are not to be considered at all

 

[tsunami]

With 5.5 ton of fuel, 3500-4000 km range is acceptable but that doesn't make sense.

Well even with that it will not be a 70% jump in range. External drop tanks increases drag on air frame also it increases the weight of fighter so the mileage reduces a lot. Most of the cases I know it that combat radius cannot be increased more 20% with help of external fuel.

Range should be calculated only on internal fuel. External pods are not to be considered at all

Well that depends if the fighter is Rafale or F-15 external tanks can be consider even with upto 5 tons fuel because the fighter have 9-10 tone load capacity and the fighter will be still carrying 4-5 tons bomb load easily and this will increase 20% combat radius. JF-17 where Tejas it will be at 1 ton for JF-17 as it should be carrying at least 2 tons of load. For tejas it can be upto 1.5 tons external fuel.