LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[ace009]

We cannot say that for sure without going into the minute details, like weight distribution, point of pressure, inlet size etc. The Swedish engine has been extensively modified and goes by the name RM-12. It is made by Volvo, so they have full access to ToT, unlike India. This gives them more flexibility. The last I heard IAF pilots said the Gripen C/D alone is good enough to compete with Rafale and EF in flight characteristics. Let's not forget that Gripen's aerodynamics are superlative compared to other designs in the entire MRCA deal.



Yes, the radar is old. But it is actually better than what LCA and JF-17 carry even today.



The Swedish air force wants it. Export orders are subjective to change depending on geopolitics and availability of the F-35 and other competitors.

Ehhh - I am not so sure about the Gripen engine being "better" - actually, the thrust generated by the RM12 is ~80 kN/ 54 kN and 60% of it is STILL made in the USA. The newest version of the GE 404-102s OTOH have 85 kN/ 57 KN thrust.

The PS-05/A is definitely better than the NRIET KLJ-7 on the JF-17, and the EL/M-2032, but the upgraded AESA versions of the Gripen NG radar would be as good as the AESA versions of the LCA mk-2.

The Swedish airforce has ordered a small number of the Gripen D (only 12) and no orders have been placed for the Gripen E/F (or Gripen NG).

In all fairness, the Gripen is a generation ahead of almost any other "light fighter" save the F-16 (which is neither a "light fighter" nor a "medium weight" fighter, albeit almost as cheap as a "light fighter"). But in the coming years, the new generaion of "light fighters" like the LCA is expected to catch up with the Gripen. But the Gripen sure sets the benchmark for the Light fighters for now.

 

[no smoking]

By developing IDF, ROC also nurtured their own aviation talents, who sadly left ROC for SK after ROC gave up on the idea of developing any more indigenous planes.

I can't agree with this. IDF is actually a variation of F-16 A/B. If you have ever read some taiwanese articles about this project, you will find that american played a key role in it. They not only provide the key parts like radar, engine, etc, but also provide answer to most technical difficulties. According to taiwanese themselves, they knew the answer but they don't know how and why americans got it. They were facing the same problem as their brothers of mainland after 1960s: knowing how to build a plane with existing blue map, but it would be almost impossible to make a very tiny change.

 

[p2prada]

Ehhh - I am not so sure about the Gripen engine being "better" - actually, the thrust generated by the RM12 is ~80 kN/ 54 kN and 60% of it is STILL made in the USA. The newest version of the GE 404-102s OTOH have 85 kN/ 57 KN thrust.

Hi, this engine which delivers 0.5 tons lesser thrust than the LCA is still superior in performance to the LCA. There is such a thing as design and Gripen is superior. There is such a thing called drag and there is a high chance drag on Gripen is inferior to the LCA.

The PS-05/A is definitely better than the NRIET KLJ-7 on the JF-17, and the EL/M-2032, but the upgraded AESA versions of the Gripen NG radar would be as good as the AESA versions of the LCA mk-2.

Why is that so? Gripen's AESA design comes from Selex and that company will also be involved in developing the CAESAR, EF's radar. You could say both are one and the same. Most probably only power and size of radar will differ.

The Swedish airforce has ordered a small number of the Gripen D (only 12) and no orders have been placed for the Gripen E/F (or Gripen NG).

D is a trainer, a two seat version derived from the C. Do you want hundreds of those?
BTW, in 1999 it was the trainer versions of Mirage-2000 which dropped the LGBs over Kargil. So, they have combat value. Orders haven't yet been placed because of uncertainty in our own deal and the economic crisis.

In all fairness, the Gripen is a generation ahead of almost any other "light fighter" save the F-16 (which is neither a "light fighter" nor a "medium weight" fighter, albeit almost as cheap as a "light fighter"). But in the coming years, the new generaion of "light fighters" like the LCA is expected to catch up with the Gripen. But the Gripen sure sets the benchmark for the Light fighters for now.

Gripen's sensors and flight profile surpasses the F-16 Block 50. Gripen's loiter time etc match that of the F-16 Block 50. The Gripen NG may surpass even the F-16IN version. The Block 2 of the LCA isn't meant to do all of Gripen's roles. The LCA mk2 is being built to satisfy IAF's original requirements and with newer technology. The AESA has been delinked from LCA program.

BTW, if you did not know, Gripen was said to have the best sensor fusion among all aircraft in the MRCA competition, even SH. Gripens on the ground can continue taking feeds from Gripens in the air. When an enemy is targeted by you, the other Gripens get information on their screens saying you locked on so and so targets. If a Gripen is locked on, other Gripens know which aircraft was targeted so they can maneuver based on that. Even today it has the best sensor fusion and only set to be surpassed by the F-35. Perhaps others may catch up, but definitely not the F-16. The F-16s story is over or nearly over.

 

[ace009]

Hi, this engine which delivers 0.5 tons lesser thrust than the LCA is still superior in performance to the LCA. There is such a thing as design and Gripen is superior. There is such a thing called drag and there is a high chance drag on Gripen is inferior to the LCA.



Why is that so? Gripen's AESA design comes from Selex and that company will also be involved in developing the CAESAR, EF's radar. You could say both are one and the same. Most probably only power and size of radar will differ.



D is a trainer, a two seat version derived from the C. Do you want hundreds of those?
BTW, in 1999 it was the trainer versions of Mirage-2000 which dropped the LGBs over Kargil. So, they have combat value. Orders haven't yet been placed because of uncertainty in our own deal and the economic crisis.



Gripen's sensors and flight profile surpasses the F-16 Block 50. Gripen's loiter time etc match that of the F-16 Block 50. The Gripen NG may surpass even the F-16IN version. The Block 2 of the LCA isn't meant to do all of Gripen's roles. The LCA mk2 is being built to satisfy IAF's original requirements and with newer technology. The AESA has been delinked from LCA program.

BTW, if you did not know, Gripen was said to have the best sensor fusion among all aircraft in the MRCA competition, even SH. Gripens on the ground can continue taking feeds from Gripens in the air. When an enemy is targeted by you, the other Gripens get information on their screens saying you locked on so and so targets. If a Gripen is locked on, other Gripens know which aircraft was targeted so they can maneuver based on that. Even today it has the best sensor fusion and only set to be surpassed by the F-35. Perhaps others may catch up, but definitely not the F-16. The F-16s story is over or nearly over.

The D version is a two seater - presumably to be used as a trainer, but also it is the most advanced of them all. The C version has been ordered as few as 50 by Sweden and that's all there were. Even Sweden has not ordered any E/F versions. Denmark is considering to buy the C/D versions, but with AESA.

The "sensor integration" or sensor fusion for Gripen was very good compared to 2005-2006 standards, but in a network centric environment of modern airforces (at least what IAF is trying to achieve), it is behind/ less important. There was a Gripen C vs F-16 Block 52 showdown in the Polish airforce Loyal Arrow 2009 exercise. The Gripen's (with RCS of 0.1 m^2) were detected earlier and beaten by the F-16s (RCS 0.5 m^2) due to better radar, sensor and situational awareness abilities.
Not really comparing the LCA (since it has never been deployed in a network centric environment), but compared to the F-16 Block 52+, the Gripen C/D is behind.

 

[p2prada]

The D version is a two seater - presumably to be used as a trainer, but also it is the most advanced of them all. The C version has been ordered as few as 50 by Sweden and that's all there were. Even Sweden has not ordered any E/F versions. Denmark is considering to buy the C/D versions, but with AESA.

I haven't checked the numbers inducted, but they are at least ahead of the competition, in this thread.

Swedish air force is interested in NG. But there is a possibility they may go for a more stealthy version or even a 5th gen version once MRCA deal is done.

FYI the Gripen D does not have a gun. It is more advanced only because of the WSO. Sensor fusion works pretty much the same.

The "sensor integration" or sensor fusion for Gripen was very good compared to 2005-2006 standards, but in a network centric environment of modern airforces (at least what IAF is trying to achieve), it is behind/ less important.

You mean to say the Erieye is not good. Gripen's 2005-06 standards is what IAF will try to achieve by 2012.

Also, Sweden has been operating AWACS since 1997. You could say IAF is trying to do by 2012 what Sweden has accomplished since 1997.

S100B Argus - Airforce Technology

It's funny how you are trying to downplay an air force which is more advanced than the Israeli Air force when it comes to technology when even Indian Air force is a decade behind Sweden.

There was a Gripen C vs F-16 Block 52 showdown in the Polish airforce Loyal Arrow 2009 exercise. The Gripen's (with RCS of 0.1 m^2) were detected earlier and beaten by the F-16s (RCS 0.5 m^2) due to better radar, sensor and situational awareness abilities.

The F-16s RCS is said to be 1m2 between 150-200Km. Gripen's RCS is supposed to be 10 times lesser so your figure would be correct when we say it's at 150-200Km. As to why the Gripen lost could have a whole host of other reasons including RoE rather than just technology. Also, one engagement does not decide win or lose and it definitely does not prove if the platform is inferior or superior.

A single EF-2000 beat 2 F-15Es over the UK. Does that mean the F-15E is an inferior aircraft even though the sensors are a generation ahead on the F-15E?

Not really comparing the LCA (since it has never been deployed in a network centric environment), but compared to the F-16 Block 52+, the Gripen C/D is behind.

If you actually believe the F-16 can match the Gripen then you are fooling yourself. Gripen is simply the better aircraft even though the F-16 is larger. There are only three disadvantages to Gripen compared to the F-16. One is it's smaller size due to which it can carry less stuff. Two would be a less powerful engine. The third would be it's lack of combat experience. Points one and two is set to change with the NG while nothing much can be done for the third.

The Gripen would have been very scary had PAF bought it when they had the chance, especially with the Erieyes. They decided on the F-16 because of the soft loans and aid from the US. PAF currently operates the most advanced BVR missile in South Asia. With Gripen in the mix they would have gone ahead with Meteor as well. Lucky for us Gripen is expensive.

 

[Zebra]

@ p2p ,

does Gripen is expensive ?

40 million for Gripen C and 50-60 million for NG ?

With its 4+ generation competitors clustered in the $60-120+ million range vs. the Gripen's claimed $40 million/ $50-60 million for Gripen NG .
( date :Sep 20, 2011 )

sources place the average flyaway cost of the JAS-39 at about $40 million1 per plane, or about $50 million in current dollars.

The JAS-39 Gripen: Sweden’s 4+ Generation Wild Card

 

[ace009]

I haven't checked the numbers inducted, but they are at least ahead of the competition, in this thread.

Swedish air force is interested in NG. But there is a possibility they may go for a more stealthy version or even a 5th gen version once MRCA deal is done.

FYI the Gripen D does not have a gun. It is more advanced only because of the WSO. Sensor fusion works pretty much the same.



You mean to say the Erieye is not good. Gripen's 2005-06 standards is what IAF will try to achieve by 2012.

Also, Sweden has been operating AWACS since 1997. You could say IAF is trying to do by 2012 what Sweden has accomplished since 1997.

S100B Argus - Airforce Technology

It's funny how you are trying to downplay an air force which is more advanced than the Israeli Air force when it comes to technology when even Indian Air force is a decade behind Sweden.



The F-16s RCS is said to be 1m2 between 150-200Km. Gripen's RCS is supposed to be 10 times lesser so your figure would be correct when we say it's at 150-200Km. As to why the Gripen lost could have a whole host of other reasons including RoE rather than just technology. Also, one engagement does not decide win or lose and it definitely does not prove if the platform is inferior or superior.

A single EF-2000 beat 2 F-15Es over the UK. Does that mean the F-15E is an inferior aircraft even though the sensors are a generation ahead on the F-15E?



If you actually believe the F-16 can match the Gripen then you are fooling yourself. Gripen is simply the better aircraft even though the F-16 is larger. There are only three disadvantages to Gripen compared to the F-16. One is it's smaller size due to which it can carry less stuff. Two would be a less powerful engine. The third would be it's lack of combat experience. Points one and two is set to change with the NG while nothing much can be done for the third.

The Gripen would have been very scary had PAF bought it when they had the chance, especially with the Erieyes. They decided on the F-16 because of the soft loans and aid from the US. PAF currently operates the most advanced BVR missile in South Asia. With Gripen in the mix they would have gone ahead with Meteor as well. Lucky for us Gripen is expensive.

Actually according to aviation experts, the Israeli Phalcon is more advanced than the Erieye IAI Phalcon 707 - but we digress.

As I have mentioned before, the Gripen is ideally suited for an European theater - decent stealth, higher sortie rate and limited range. Good sensor integration and networking capabilities.
But due to small size, the range is limited, the radar is less powerful and the EW suit is also NOT so great. When it faces larger 4.5 generation fighters, the Gripens limitations become apparent - even for F-16. The "sensor" integration you are talking about is mentioned here ... from SAAB website.

Advanced aerodynamics combining a close coupled canard-delta configuration.
Lightweight structure employing advanced materials and construction techniques.
The world´s most highly developed data link.
Triplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System for optimum combat agility.
Fully-integrated avionic systems operating via five MIL-STD 1553B digital data bus highways.
Advanced cockpit layout with large colour Multi-Function Displays (MFDs) and Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) controls.
Long range PS-05/A multi-mode, pulse doppler radar.

Now tell me, what is so unique there that is not present in any of the current 4.5 generation fighters? The Rafale, the EF-2000, the F/A-18 SH, the F-16 Block 52+ or the Mig-29K. Heck, the Tejas will pretty much have the same, courtesy of Israel and France (and to a lesser extent DRDO).
The claim about "the world's most highly developed data link" is about 7-8 years old. The new multi-frequency datalink is not going to happen till the NG version is developed. The current version was the most advanced one in 2004. It has since been superseded by the Rafale's SPECTRA-associated Datalink, Eurofighters datalink system and the new generation of datalinks on the Superhornets. SAAB indeed is one of the earliest proponents of datalinks, but their proprietory system is neither suited for NATO nor for other countries and only in their version 15 datalink system (2008) did they go for Link 16, the NATO standard, which is proven to be one of the best jam-proof systems out there).

 

[pashya001]

Instead of buying eurofighter or raffel why not we colabrate with saab and making advance vergon of lca

 

[ace009]

Instead of buying eurofighter or raffel why not we colabrate with saab and making advance vergon of lca

Because it would take 8-10 years and IAF will run out of all second line fighters by then ...

 

[DMF]

JF17 get more than 100 order, CF factory said the so far the delivery plan already stretch to 2015.
it's not a mighty air power, but worth the cost, a multirole fighter can carry big missiles

 

[Armand2REP]

Clearly it's just a carry trial.

 

[p2prada]

Actually according to aviation experts, the Israeli Phalcon is more advanced than the Erieye IAI Phalcon 707 - but we digress.

Our AWACS don't have datalinks. If they fly they cannot provide digital target coordinates to the MKIs screen. It will be verbal.

Even though Phalcon is a superior system, it will accomplish it's objectives only in 2012. That's why I gave the year as 2012. We will receive a new ODL from Israel meant for IAF.

As I have mentioned before, the Gripen is ideally suited for an European theater - decent stealth, higher sortie rate and limited range. Good sensor integration and networking capabilities.
But due to small size, the range is limited, the radar is less powerful and the EW suit is also NOT so great. When it faces larger 4.5 generation fighters, the Gripens limitations become apparent - even for F-16.

The F-16 is also ideally suited to the European theatre. Without CFT or drop tanks both aircraft have crappy ranges. Both are quite stealthy and have a high sortie rate. One aircraft was made in the 70s and the other in the 90s.

Heck even EF and Rafale have crappy range without external fuel. They are actually 300 mile fighters in military parlance.

The radar is almost the same as that on the F-16 as it is on other similar aircraft like the Mig-29. It delivers 1KW, same as the Mig-29 and perhaps even the F-16(still confidential I guess).

The "sensor" integration you are talking about is mentioned here ... from SAAB website.

Now tell me, what is so unique there that is not present in any of the current 4.5 generation fighters? The Rafale, the EF-2000, the F/A-18 SH, the F-16 Block 52+ or the Mig-29K. Heck, the Tejas will pretty much have the same, courtesy of Israel and France (and to a lesser extent DRDO). [/quote]

Specs don't matter when it comes to sensor integration. What matters is software. This is what separates the west from the east, not exactly hardware.

The claim about "the world's most highly developed data link" is about 7-8 years old. The new multi-frequency datalink is not going to happen till the NG version is developed. The current version was the most advanced one in 2004. It has since been superseded by the Rafale's SPECTRA-associated Datalink, Eurofighters datalink system and the new generation of datalinks on the Superhornets.

Hmm, I never mentioned about datalinks being superior. Even the Link 16 is good enough for what we have today. Heck I never even mentioned datalinks. The F-16Block 52 is inferior to Gripen in that respect, because Saab's datalinks are much newer to whats on the F-16.

SAAB indeed is one of the earliest proponents of datalinks, but their proprietory system is neither suited for NATO nor for other countries and only in their version 15 datalink system (2008) did they go for Link 16, the NATO standard, which is proven to be one of the best jam-proof systems out there).

Cheers. Saab is using their own and it is interoperable with NATO.

@ p2p ,

does Gripen is expensive ?

It is the most expensive among all the aircraft mentioned in this thread.

 

[SPIEZ]

JF17 get more than 100 order, CF factory said the so far the delivery plan already stretch to 2015.
it's not a mighty air power, but worth the cost, a multirole fighter can carry big missiles

Isn't this an air-craft made by China for the puke's. Which China even doesn't want to buy ?

 

[nimo_cn]

Isn't this an air-craft made by China for the puke's. Which China even doesn't want to buy ?

Well, JF17 was designed for international market at the very beginning.

 

[p2prada]

The chances of PLAAF buying the JF-17 is very small.

I am guessing once the engines are ready PLAAF may go for a 1000 J-10s for the low end with J-11s and J-20s at the high end. Manufacturing that many will pose problems though.

 

[ace009]

Well, JF17 was designed for international market at the very beginning.

Is that why the codes were written in C++ and not in Ada, that can be hacked by any decent hacker in the world (read - Chinese)? So that if a client state gets too big for China, the Chinese hackers can mess up their JF-17 codes?





Just trolling nimo ...

 

[jat]

JF-17 is very similar to the J-7. Pakistan requires it to build their own domestic industry. The only experience they have before the JF-17 is J-7. Despite the BVR and radars etc, in the end the JF-17 is not a new generation air frame, not even difficult to build. Looking at the wings/ wing area one can understand that the JF-17 is geared towards to air to air more so than the J-10 which has a higher wing loading.
The J-10 with its 4 extra wetpoints at the fuselage only carries dumb bombs and targeting/ ECM pods. any air to air missiles will disrupt with the landing gear. The J-10 is or should be less agile in the air but makes up for it with TW ratio. However, the same engine which provides it with this advantage also has drawbacks in terms of FOB. One wonders why the J-10 has canards when the J-10 gets a TVS varient of either the AL-31 or WS-10 it would provide the same advantage of of canards even more so. Perhaps it is for low speed low altitude handling?
As far as which is a greater threat, no doubt the JF-17 which should have a smaller take off time with the RD-93 engine and take off distance. But this same engine no longer has funding for growth. ie no supercruise while it may be possible for the J-10 to have a more powerful engine.
BTW those antiship missiles are not that great of a concern since Pakistan already has P-3 with Harpoons.

 

[asianobserve]

Well, JF17 was designed for international market at the very beginning.

Designed by the Russians that is.

 

[SPIEZ]

Designed by the Russians that is.

That's interesting, online articles point to the Chinese engineering.

 

[ace009]

It is "Chinese engineering" - the airframe is based upon Mig-21 airframe (J-7, J-8 etc). The engine is a copy of Russian Al-31. The Avionics is a mix of copied Russian, French and Israeli ones and the the Radar is a copy of Russian radar.
The system software is Chinese/ Pakistani and the missiles are Chinese (based on Russian design).