LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
No Yatharth, Mk-2 is just a block improvement on MK-2. MK-2 or safely assuming MK-3 will get 5th gen feature but that will be restricted to better avionics, computers aiming devices, detection devices and addition of some LO features. But there is no plan for new airframe material so calling it stealth is too much exaggeration.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Yes it will not be a pure stealthy fighter but it is estimated to have advanced aerodynamics and airframes in LCA MK II.
only changes that are being made into LCA frame are to reduce drag by modifying wings and to have improved air intake for engines. due to its small airframe with lots of composites in body it definitely have low RCS when compared to planed like Sukhoi but you cannot term it as stealthy. Moreover all weapons are carried externally and that will also increase its RCS . So I will not term it as stealthy.Stealth is not something that can be designed in a day or two.
 

Yatharth Singh

Knowledge is power.
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
744
Likes
176
Country flag
ohh I`m really sorry. Yeah yeah I got it. Actually it was about MCA not LCA.
It seems that my mind was somewhere else. :emot100: and I considered MCA as LCA.
Sorry again.
 

hitenray09

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
68
Likes
1
im still unsure whether jf 17 is capable of dropping bombs without complete configuration.
a good saying in hindi
"hati ke dant dikhane ke aur khane ke kuch aur"
something like that im bad at hindi so just excuse if the idiom is wrong
 

maomao

Veteran Hunter of Maleecha
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
5,033
Likes
8,354
Country flag
Is Pakistan's JF-17 a Thunder or Blunder ?
Pakistan has witnessed new defense acquisitions in this decade than any other, and in the center of it all is the new fighter which was designed by China with partial funding from Pakistan. It is formally known as JF-17 Thunder. When the fighter was in development, Pakistani online communities were jumping with excitement comparing it with it's arch rival India's modern combatants Su-30MKI, Mig-29S & Mirage-2000H. There were claims of it featuring western Radars and long range missiles & Chinese ordering some due to its superior capabilities.

But the reality is far from it- China having spent significant amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to use most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some of its development costs.

Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary's front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.

Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its wings bearing resemblance to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn't have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed.

It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. When it's arch rival, the IAF, was overtly critical and severely blasted HAL's Tejas for having a low thrust to weight ratio, maybe they should have compared it with JF-17 which has even less, even with Emergency thrust.

The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93's "Combat thrust with afterburner" as 19,200lbf, while the whole defence community knows RD-93's thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with it's new re-designed Sea wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov.

However, Klimov's RD-33 series 3(whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes) has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their official released document. They further state that as "Take-off emergency mode". So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine's lifespan.

This is a far cry from PAC's "Combat thrust" claim. Why this is being stated is because, the engines(bought by the Chinese after pressurizing the Russians) are the only non-chinese & non-pakistani component, and even there they have lied about its capabilities. Hence the true -lower than published- specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one's guess. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best.

The next Achilles heal is JF-17's speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17's max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7's has higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

So why is Pakistan still inducting more and more of this fighter, which its critics increasingly call it Junk Fighter – 17 ? The answer may lie with Pakistan's recent trauma & its psyche. Having sanctioned by the U.S, the star of their airforce, the F-16s were severally hit by lack of spares and most of the time grounded.

The other 2 sources to procure modern Aircraft- Russia, have been sealed off due to the legacy of Soviet era friendship, current market in India & India's pressure- and the other source, the European Union, for their ridiculously high costs. The third source, the Chinese, at that time were still flying their reverse engineered Mig-21s.

In those circumstances, "Never again" was the motto of PAF and it instantly jumped into the project of further reversing the reverse engineered Mig-21, known as Super-7(a.k.a Super F-7) to obtain self reliance. The result of that project is the JF-17. So the decision was appropriate at that time, in those situations. However now with China having developed the J-10, and going by the recent reports of offering ToT to Pakistan, one wonders why are the Pakistans still ordering 250 planes.

Is the trauma of F-16 sanctions so high that they don't even trust the Chinese? This can't be the case because they still need the chinese to procure the RD-93 engines for them, even after the Chinese transfer all their associated JF-17 tech to PAC. So why...? The answer lies with their ego/psyche rather than the trauma. Unlike J-10, Pakistan shares copyright to JF-17 and that, for some weird reason, gives them something to celebrate about.

This is strange for the reason, war machines are for fighting wars and achieving tactical & strategic objectives, not for gloating about who holds the copyrights. When JF-17 comes face to face with MKI or SMT, there won't be much to celebrate about it, or the few millions if at all it earns though exports. In the end, it's all about defending ones homeland from the enemy, and not copyrights.

JF-17 would have been the best fighter and a sensible decision in the absence of J-10, but now its reason for existence is as obsolete as the fighter itself. This writer would rather have an upgraded a Mig-23MLD than a JF-17 any day.

http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/78877/52753
 

hitenray09

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
68
Likes
1
the reason for going after jf 17 is the had no other option at that momment apart from it. they wanted to quantify paf and this was the easiest and cheapest available option for them.
 

ganesh177

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,308
Likes
1,657
Country flag
LCA (Tejas), J-10 and JF-17 airshow performance comparison

LCA (Tejas), J-10 and JF-17 airshow performance comparison


 
Last edited by a moderator:

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,625
Likes
37,233
Country flag
Chinese JF-17 Thunder and MiG 21 comparison

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
Even though people think JF-17 is far inferior to LCA in my opinion i think they are evenly matched. The addition composite structure and advances in avionics wont make a great difference if both fighters are pitted against each other.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Even though people think JF-17 is far inferior to LCA in my opinion i think they are evenly matched. The addition composite structure and advances in avionics wont make a great difference if both fighters are pitted against each other.
well,let both bird have a fight,then we can know which is better...hhaha
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Even though people think JF-17 is far inferior to LCA in my opinion i think they are evenly matched. The addition composite structure and advances in avionics wont make a great difference if both fighters are pitted against each other.
modern planes rely more of RADAR , AVionics and BVR . IF LCA has batter performeance in RADAR and AVionics it can do much better than JF17 which has chinese systems. If somehow JF 17 gets western avionics from french it will be a match for LCA Mk2 Else its no match in 1to 1 fight against even LCA MK1 .
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
The addition composite structure and advances in avionics wont make a great difference if both fighters are pitted against each other.
I believe both jets are meant for BVR firing so i compare only this aspect to get to conclusion which one is superior.

RCS: Both jets are small but LCA is made up of carbon fibre composite and it do reduces RCS significantly in comparison to all aluminium airframe sporting fighter jets. And presently JF-17 is all metal. In any BVR duel LCA will have edge because of relatively smaller RCS and will see first, track first and fire first. So contrary to your belief composites do make a difference in combat and in BVR a big difference.

BVRAAM: LCA will carry R-77 BVRAAM and JF-17 more likely will continue with SD-10(no other option, MICAs not on sale for PAF). PAF's craving for MICA in spite of having SD-10 speaks thousand things about SD-10, hence no comment from my side.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top