LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[farhan_9909]

Tejas composite myth

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/10726-lca-tejas-vs-jf-17-thunder-35.html

i could be wrong please correct me

LCA use 40% composites
JFT pt-04 had 8%.

So far this is what i know about composites

*They are lighter hence decreasing the over all weight.
*They increase the airframe life
*Decrease the RCS???

Now posting the dimensions of Both LCA and JFT

LCA


JFT



JFT

*5ft lengthy
*5ft more wingspan
*1ft taller

Yes all the above 3 to a certain extent contributes to weight

LCA
*Larger wing area


Now add to JF-17 weight (158kg fuel capacity)=Total JFT weight 6788kg
LCA 6500kg

LCA use 40% composites
JFT use 8%.

THis give rise to 2 possibilities

*Either No composites are used in LCA and the officials are laying as like they are laying about the induction of LCA since 2003.
*super low quality of composites are used

Note:Remind me when JFT 2 is revealed along with official specs.that will have 30-35% use of composites.

Composites in LCA is a myth if we look into the above matter

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas composite myth

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/10726-lca-tejas-vs-jf-17-thunder-35.html

What kind of calculation is this?

Are you out of your mind quoting garbage like this?

The reason Jf-17 has no composites is the chinese had no composite tech when they were building it.

Even their J-10 was all metal fighter. Only in the newer J-10 b version they are using composites.So there is no question of them using composites in the much older design of JF-17.

Do you understand what the larger wing area means?

it mens there is more weight on the wing. And to support this higher weight wings the fuselage of tejas needs additional strength meaning even more weight. All this weight was brought down by using composites making a much larger in volume tejas having almost the same weight lower volume all metal JF-17.

So nobody is lying here. it is only you who is getting confused failing to understand this simple logic.

About your 2003 LCA induction , if funds of 2500 cr was alloted in 1983 , and if IAF didnot upgrade it's ASR later, it could have been possible to induct LCA by 2003. Both did not happen. Funds for FSED phase-1 was allotted in 1993, and once the Tds and Pvs demonstrated the basic viability of the design , IAF revised it's ASR by asking for much higher weight , much more launching stress inducing R-73 in place of the older R-60 ,it specified in 1983, according to the availability in that time.

By the way the funding for the first metal cut of Tejas was approved in 1993.

Then how it can be inducted in 2003?



None other thn MSD Woollen who was the chief of both the IAF and HAL himself has compared the timelines of Tejas along with eurofighter(17 years) and RAFALE(16 years) and GRIPPEN and said that the realistic IOC date for tejas is 2010. It got there 3 years later owing to revised ASR from IAF.

SO whom you are trying to confuse by saying ADA promised LCA induction in 2003( with the present capability)?

The original ASr of 1983 called for 12 ton MTOW, 1.5 mach top speed, 17 deg STR,

Now even with FCS restrictions of 6gs (full capacity 8Gs),
22 deg AOA (full capacity-24 to 26 deg)
and 70 percent flight envelope at IOC,

Tejas has demonstrated a top speed of mach 1.6, (design target of mach 1.8 at FOC)
STR more than 18 deg/per sec(via 20 second vertical loop in Aeroindia 2013, note this STR will increase further in FOC once 8GS and AOA of 24-26 deg is permitted by FCS),
MTOW of 13.5 tons,

So why are you saying ADA is lying/ Compare this to your super duper JF-17 , which is yet to do a vertical loop e even years after induction, then who is lying?



If IAF revised ASR for Tejas with higher launching stress inducing R-73 missile instead of R-60 in 2004 leading to FSED phase-2 commencement in 2004, then which mad man told you LCA can be inducted in 2003 with present specs?

 

[ersakthivel]

i could be wrong please correct me

LCA use 40% composites
JFT pt-04 had 8%.

So far this is what i know about composites

*They are lighter hence decreasing the over all weight.
*They increase the airframe life
*Decrease the RCS???

Now posting the dimensions of Both LCA and JFT

LCA


JFT



JFT

*5ft lengthy
*5ft more wingspan
*1ft taller

Yes all the above 3 to a certain extent contributes to weight

LCA
*Larger wing area


Now add to JF-17 weight (158kg fuel capacity)=Total JFT weight 6788kg
LCA 6500kg

LCA use 40% composites
JFT use 8%.

THis give rise to 2 possibilities

*Either No composites are used in LCA and the officials are laying as like they are laying about the induction of LCA since 2003.
*super low quality of composites are used

Note:Remind me when JFT 2 is revealed along with official specs.that will have 30-35% use of composites.



Composites in LCA is a myth if we look into the above matter

The length and the width of the fighter alne doesnot say anything about it's weight.

Since the JF-17 has a very small wing , it will have lower weight even if it has the same width as tejas.And since it's wings are far smaller , it's fuselage won't need that much weight inducing strengthening to carry the wings at supersonic top speeds.

but tejas has a far larger wing and , this larger wing gives more weight and it's fuselage must be strengthened far higher compared to JF-17 to carry this larger wings at supersonic speeds.Despite that the weight of tejas is more or less the same as that of JF-17,

not only that , tejas has more fuel in it and lifts a ton more than JF-17 even with the same empty weight.

With the same empy weight how comes tejas has a ton higher MTOW than the JF-17?

can you explain?

 

[ersakthivel]

Reported in net forums and rumour is spread only by the Indians..Crobato is not someone like you or me..but rather someone who was directly involved in the jft project.Had discussion with PAF officials.not a random forum guy






JFT is actually based on Super 7 project.
if i go by your approach..LCA was initially thought to be a 3rd generation fighter..so it must be a third generation fighter by now as well considering your logic

but this was not the case beacuse with the passsage of development..many changes in the designs are brought and the final product is usually different

have a look at project super 7.

First picture=super 7
2nd picture=pt-01 without lerx and dsi
3rd==pt-04,the one on which JFT is based off with lerx and dsi..







Both china and pakistan are more secret in defence sector than india,france,eft or the rest of the fighter origin countries


the design and its limitation to remain as a AJT forever with no hope for a good level maneuverability even with 200kn engine...lca isnt a illegal rip off but rather a legal rip off of mirage and saab viggen..for more detail please go through the last page


Sabre II was a pakistani project.but rather cancelled in favour of super 7

Super 7 was chinese project which was later replaced by FC-1

tell me which aircraft is more similar to JFT,

MIG 21 or F-16

Mig 21,F-16,JFT

The reality is that PAF allowed the Chinese official as well as the PAC engineers to look deep into the PAF f-16..which infact is the reason of 95% similarity of JFT and f-16

However deeply they look into your F-16, they cannot replicate the RSS airframe design and complex FBW just by looking it. It needs complete integral development of CLAWS for FCS and the implementation of principles of RSS airframe developed in tandem from the scratch at design phase itself.

That's why JF-17 is a useless crap belonging to the previous century, junked by the chinese on unsuspecting 3rd world airforces like PAF.

Even the trainers of future will have RSS air frame (considering the USAF tender to which Grippen proposes it's stripped down version of Grippen -c)

So JF-17 is below the tech level of future USAF trainers.So no LREX, reshaped nose cone, or DSi will save it from being an obsolete target practice for Fully Relaxed Static Stability , low wing loading ,ultra high ITR fighter like tejas in close combat


.
So other than firing long range chines BVR missiles(which will be dodged in future with modern EW counter measures), Jf-17 won't win any close combat with Tejas purely on agility, because of it's wing form giving it a far , far lower ITR , which won't allow it the quick first WVR missile shot on a high ITR(the signal spec of all cranked or compound deltas) fighter like Tejas.

Because of it's much higher RCS thanks to it's obsolete MIg-21 evolved airframe along with all metal body , a JF-17 pilot will have to deal with the reality of being targeted with a long range BVr shot from all composite skin, low RCS design fighter like Tejas, even before he sees Tejas on his radar screen.SO in fact JF-17 won't have any useful advantage over Tejas even in this count.


No corbotto post or Antibody post or Oscar the MOD of another forum are going to change this pathetic reality. This is why 3rd world bankrupt country air forces like PAF induct JF-17 as a cheap alternative for numbers,

.And another important impediment for you getting any decent fighter or avionics of for JF-17 is stated in your own post, i.e , you let chines the world's most efficient copiers to have a deep look into any thing you have.So which fool will deliver top line equipment to you and let it be copied lock stock and barrel by chinese?

.

 

[ersakthivel]

different fighter aircrafts made unstable with design changes with the passage of time

What are all the stabilizing items to be removed? You have a very poor understanding of arodynamics. The design must be completely redone from scratch to get a fully relaxed static stability F-15. it is wrong to say that once you introduce LREX and DSI, the fighter becomes RSS.

First you should know the job of LREX lift generation. It creates energizing VORTICE above the main wing , which induce higher lift for the main wing. The LREX does not generate most of the lift all by itself. true there is some lift generation by the shape of LREX. But the vortices induced by LREX leading to more lift being generated by the main wing. So addition of LREX alone is not sufficient to move the Cl behind Cg.

A fighter must be designed from the start to have the Cl in front of CG to be RSS, there is no guarantee that adding LREX alone will achieve that.

 

[ersakthivel]

different fighter aircrafts made unstable with design changes with the passage of time

What are all the stabilizing items to be removed? You have a very poor understanding of aerodynamics. The design must be completely redone from scratch to get a fully relaxed static stability F-15. it is wrong to say that once you introduce LREX and DSI, the fighter becomes RSS.

First you should know the job of LREX lift generation. It creates energizing VORTICE above the main wing , which induce higher lift for the main wing. The LREX does not generate most of the lift all by itself. true there is some lift generation by the shape of LREX. But the vortices induced by LREX leading to more lift being generated by the main wing. So addition of LREX alone is not sufficient to move the Cl behind Cg.

A fighter must be designed from the start to have the Cl in front of CG to be RSS, there is no guarantee that adding LREX alone will achieve that.

 

[TrueSpirit]

A comparative analysis:

JF-17 and Lca Tejas: Difference in approach

With 40 JF-17 aircrafts already inducted into Pakistan air force and Zero Tejas inducted in IAF, at least in papers JF-17 seems to be a successful project, but it is also clear that approach taken by IAF and PAF on LCA and JF-17 have been completely opposite to each other in terms of participation and acceptance levels of the aircraft.

For Pakistani air force JF-17 will be replacing aging A-5C, Mirage-III, Mirage-V, and F-7P/PG by 2015 and JF-17 is slated to become the backbone of Pakistan Airforce (PAF), JF-17 will also will be providing PAF next Gen technology, But for IAF Lca will not be bringing any new technology which it does not possess and will not be backbone or even lead secondary aircraft in future ,role of JF-17 and Tejas to their respected air force are different and also shows different approach taken by them .

PAF inducted JF-17 when it was capable only to carry PL-5EII WVR air to air missiles and fuel tanks over the time BVR missiles and other weapons were added to the aircraft; it took two years for PAF and Pakistani Aeronautical establishment to bring it to IOC standards. PAF already has Two Squadrons of JF-17 which are mostly used for carrying out such tests and for pilot conversion training.

IAF on other hand only agreed to accept 20 IOC-2 standard LCA and 20 more of FOC standards , while whole 40 JF-17 inducted by PAF are of IOC standards , this clearly shows IAF hesitance in inducting more LCA at its Initial stage , while PAF inducted larger number of JF-17 aircrafts with their IOC limitations . Both air forces have plans to induct close to 250 of such aircrafts in their fleet and approach taken by PAF will lead them to higher induction rate and better production line.

JF-17 has been developed in Blocks, first 40 aircraft which has already been delivered to PAF are of Block- I stage and first Block –II aircraft will likely be ready by end of this year or early next year and will come with "enhanced features" like IFR, New ECM/data link, infra-red search and track (IRST) system and new weapons integration, PAF also has agreed to stick with Russian built Klimov RD-93 engines .Block II will incorporate features which PAF could not integrate with Block-I aircrafts leading to limited combat capabilities of JF-17 , Initial plans of Block-II aircrafts were to equip it with new WS-13 turbofan Chinese engine delivering higher thrust then current Russian engines and also equip it with an AESA radar , but now Block-III has been planned which will incorporate this features and plans are to have first aircraft ready by 2016 , Block-III will have reduced RCS and will feature twin seat variant and likely to have some stealth elements in the airframe .

While Tejas MK-2 which cannot be considered has another block variant, since MK-2 will feature new higher thrust engine, IFR, new mission computers, higher fuel and weapons carrying capacity and will also have different dimensions compared to Tejas MK-1 and first flight of Tejas MK-2 is expected by end of 2014 or early 2015, while FOC of Tejas MK-1 has been planned in 2014. Without any induction of MK-1 aircrafts, IAF forced development of MK-2 which has lead to delays and shift in focus for development of two variants of Tejas. PAF inducted JF-17 when it had not matured and suffered from technical deficiencies but brought standard of aircrafts in blocks to make it combat capable.

If IAF had agreed to more Tejas MK-1 in IOC standards, it could have helped starting and stabilizing production line for the aircraft. With limited orders for Tejas MK-1, aircrafts will be produced at slower rate and even Induction will be at much slower rate, while PAF with a stable production line will induct next 20 JF-17 of Block-II standard next year bringing total to 62 aircrafts while Tejas MK-1 handed over to IAF will only stand at 4.


Link

 

[ersakthivel]

A comparative analysis:

JF-17 and Lca Tejas: Difference in approach

With 40 JF-17 aircrafts already inducted into Pakistan air force and Zero Tejas inducted in IAF, at least in papers JF-17 seems to be a successful project, but it is also clear that approach taken by IAF and PAF on LCA and JF-17 have been completely opposite to each other in terms of participation and acceptance levels of the aircraft.

This approach of inducting JF-17 with no avionics worth the name is taken by PAF because it is simply bankrupt, See their own admission in the following link.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-force-development-plan-2025-says-report.html

clearly admitting they are bankrupt.

For Pakistani air force JF-17 will be replacing aging A-5C, Mirage-III, Mirage-V, and F-7P/PG by 2015 and JF-17 is slated to become the backbone of Pakistan Airforce (PAF), JF-17 will also will be providing PAF next Gen technology, But for IAF Lca will not be bringing any new technology which it does not possess and will not be backbone or even lead secondary aircraft in future

What hilarious find!!!!!!!! I would recommend some padma award to the journo for this discovery alone

Compared to tejas Mk-1 eighty percent of IAF fighters are simple junks.MIG-21, 23, 27, Jags. they are all begging to be retired.

Among all the fighters in IAF tejas has the least RCS ,

And the budhead has made the discovery that Tejas is not even going to be the lead secondary fighter.

Does he thinks the IAF stables is made of all F-22 fleet.

,role of JF-17 and Tejas to their respected air force are different and also shows different approach taken by them .

I am afraid the role of JF-17 in PAf is killing young pilot and proving to be maintenance nightmare exactly like the old Migs in IAF.

PAF inducted JF-17 when it was capable only to carry PL-5EII WVR air to air missiles and fuel tanks over the time BVR missiles and other weapons were added to the aircraft;

it took two years for PAF and Pakistani Aeronautical establishment to bring it to IOC standards. PAF already has Two Squadrons of JF-17 which are mostly used for carrying out such tests and for pilot conversion training

So people do IOC with 40 fighters from operational squadrons. How come 40 fighters are produced without getting IOC at first?

IAF on other hand only agreed to accept 20 IOC-2 standard LCA and 20 more of FOC standards , while whole 40 JF-17 inducted by PAF are of IOC standards , this clearly shows IAF hesitance in inducting more LCA at its Initial stage , while PAF inducted larger number of JF-17 aircrafts with their IOC limitations .

IAF showed no hesitation. the initial ordr was 20 MK-1s and then they voluntarily increased it to 40.So where is the hesitation. Don't fool people.

Both air forces have plans to induct close to 250 of such aircrafts in their fleet and approach taken by PAF will lead them to higher induction rate and better production line.

All Lca teja sfighters are of one standard only. that is the FOC standard. What is going to happen between IOC and FOC of tejas mk-1 is just the opening of the FCS flight envelope and AOA and G limit to full potential. No one is going to add a canard or tail fin to make a FOC mk-1. SO I don't know what is being referred here as IOC-2 mk-1s and FOC mk-1s.

JF-17 has been developed in Blocks, first 40 aircraft which has already been delivered to PAF are of Block- I stage and first Block –II aircraft will likely be ready by end of this year or early next year and will come with "enhanced features" like IFR, New ECM/data link, infra-red search and track (IRST) system and new weapons integration, PAF also has agreed to stick with Russian built Klimov RD-93 engines .Block II will incorporate features which PAF could not integrate with Block-I aircrafts leading to limited combat capabilities of JF-17 , Initial plans of Block-II aircrafts were to equip it with new WS-13 turbofan Chinese engine delivering higher thrust then current Russian engines and also equip it with an AESA radar , but now Block-III has been planned which will incorporate this features and plans are to have first aircraft ready by 2016 , Block-III will have reduced RCS and will feature twin seat variant and likely to have some stealth elements in the airframe .

While Tejas MK-2 which cannot be considered has another block variant,

Why?

since MK-2 will feature new higher thrust engine, IFR, new mission computers, higher fuel and weapons carrying capacity and will also have different dimensions compared to Tejas MK-1 and first flight of Tejas MK-2 is expected by end of 2014 or early 2015, while FOC of Tejas MK-1 has been planned in 2014.

But it has the same cranked delta aerodynamic lay out of MK_1 with wings expanded to have the same wing loading figure. SO most of the aerodynamic behaviour is going to be the same. Otherwise tejas mk-2 cannot be tested and inducted within 7 or eight years as planned.
So Tejas mk-2 is infact a block-2 version of tejas mk-1.

Without any induction of MK-1 aircrafts, IAF forced development of MK-2 which has lead to delays and shift in focus for development of two variants of Tejas.

Another lie it was the navy which wanted a higher powered enginetejas to compensate for the extra weight of carrier version.
Seeing the advantages IAF also joined in is the official version. Otherwise Tejas mk-1 is perfectly good enough for all duties in IAF.
I don't know from where the reporter plucked his claim of IAF forcing ADA to develop mk-2 without inducting Mk-1.
Infact IAF is inducting 40 MK-1s and concurrent development of airframes is not something unheard of.

PAF inducted JF-17 when it had not matured and suffered from technical deficiencies but brought standard of aircrafts in blocks to make it combat capable.

As I posted the link earlier PAF inducted it because it had no choice, being bankrupt.The JF-17 still hasn't matured and still suffers from crashes.IAF has not done that because it already has the Mig-21 to fulfill the role of Jf-17 in PAF(that is crashing frequently)

If IAF had agreed to more Tejas MK-1 in IOC standards, it could have helped starting and stabilizing production line for the aircraft. With limited orders for Tejas MK-1, aircrafts will be produced at slower rate and even Induction will be at much slower rate,

by the time 40 Mk-1 s will be produced Mk-2 would have finished FOC . That is why IAF has limited MK-1 numbers to 40. It is funny the journo is giving such a colorful twist to this simple fact.

while PAF with a stable production line will induct next 20 JF-17 of Block-II standard next year bringing total to 62 aircrafts while Tejas MK-1 handed over to IAF will only stand at 4.


Link

You can count on the link to post some even more venerable historic news on tejas , true to it's past track record.

PAF inducts the junk fighter because it has no options . IAf inducts mk-2 after the production of only 40 Mk-1 because the MK-2 option is available to it. thats all.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

a scientist from ADA said Tejas is capable and comparable to j-10 . is it true ?

 

[ersakthivel]

a scientist from ADA said Tejas is capable and comparable to j-10 . is it true ?

We need full specs of both for comparison.

 

[J20!]

a scientist from ADA said Tejas is capable and comparable to j-10 . is it true ?

I'm not a scientist, but I do know that J10 flies, faster, farther, higher, can turn tighter produces 10000lbf more thrust(weighs more too), produces almost twice the electric power to run its sensors and avionics and carries a much larger payload to boot.

I'm sure there are parameters in which LCA outperforms J10, but realistically speaking, J10 is in another fighter class (medium weight vs light weight for LCA) completely.

LCA Mk1 is as capable and is comparable to JF17 block 2 in almost every criteria. Comparing it to J10 is wishful thinking at best.

 

[J20!]

You can count on the link to post some even more venerable historic news on tejas , true to it's past track record.

PAF inducts the junk fighter because it has no options . IAf inducts mk-2 after the production of only 40 Mk-1 because the MK-2 option is available to it. thats all.

Have you seen the facility that builds JF17's in Pakistan?
Of course not. Its the size of a small town. How long will it take HAL to build a production facility capable of reliably delivering between 15 and 20 airframes - OF CONSISTENT QUALITY GRADE - annually? 3 more years? 4?

How long till the IAF has 2 squadrons of trained pilots oriented to the LCA with significant flying hours under their belts? All the LCA has now are test pilots... How many IAF pilots are qualified to fly LCA into combat? 0. How many do the PAF have for the JF17? over 40 at last count.

That's the general problem with your aviation industry. Too concerned with the bells and whistles to focus on serial production of an airframe flying consistently, regularly and safely that can be upgraded with superior indigenous systems in time.

JF17 block II, (roughly equivalent to LCA MK1 plus the IFR probe) will be entering production soon, probably before LCA does.

The difference between them being JF17 block II will be rolling off a complete production line that's been producing and maintaining JF17's for years, being flown by many more qualified, experienced - on this type - pilots it into combat.

LCA Mk1 will be coming off a brand new, incomplete, inefficient(HAL) production line, run by personnel - from production manager to mechanic - who don't have the equivalent experience of their Pakistani counterparts, being flown by pilots who haven't been qualified on the jet for long.

A little less hubris and a bit more actual production would do your aviation industry a world of good.

 

[p2prada]

LCA Mk1 will be coming off a brand new, incomplete, inefficient(HAL) production line, run by personnel - from production manager to mechanic - who don't have the equivalent experience of their Pakistani counterparts, being flown by pilots who haven't been qualified on the jet for long.

You are underestimating HAL here.

Just because the Pakistanis managed to assemble 40-50 JF-17s doesn't mean they trumped HAL.

Let's not forget HAL's other projects. Apart from that the other LCA prototypes were all made by HAL, all hand made from scratch compared to PAC's assembly from SKDs, not even CKDs.

Our test pilots are far more experienced compared to PAC's test pilots.

JF-17 is a Chinese success, not a Pakistani success. PAC's part in the project was as much as IAF's part in MKI. Not impressive enough that PAC should garner as much attention as HAL which is nearing completion of a large scale project like MKI, including indigenous manufacture of the engine and radar.

a scientist from ADA said Tejas is capable and comparable to j-10 . is it true ?

No. J-10 is a MRCA, Tejas is a LCA.

LCA Mk2 should exceed J-10 in some parameters that we may not necessarily know of, like acceleration, turn rates, rate of climb and fuel efficiency. Radar capability may be similar. But payload and range is J-10s advantage apart from avionics volume due to its larger size.

If LCA's airframe life matches or exceeds the F-414's service life, then quality would be LCA's advantage. While LCA's size is a limiting factor, the engine allows it to have decent upgrade potential.

LCA Mk1 is of no match to the J-10 by any standard.

 

[J20!]

You are underestimating HAL here.

Just because the Pakistanis managed to assemble 40-50 JF-17s doesn't mean they trumped HAL.

Let's not forget HAL's other projects. Apart from that the other LCA prototypes were all made by HAL, all hand made from scratch compared to PAC's assembly from SKDs, not even CKDs.

Our test pilots are far more experienced compared to PAC's test pilots.

JF-17 is a Chinese success, not a Pakistani success. PAC's part in the project was as much as IAF's part in MKI. Not impressive enough that PAC should garner as much attention as HAL which is nearing completion of a large scale project like MKI, including indigenous manufacture of the engine and radar.

I really don't doubt HAL's ability to produce 40 LCA Mk1's. What I doubt is HAL's ability to transition the LCA from test programme and LRP to full serial production EFFICIENTLY. How long, realistically speaking do you think it will take? Because it took PAC from 2006 to 2012 to make their JF17 production line consistent and efficient - quality and numbers wise - at circa 15 airframes per annum.

HAL had significant assistance from the Russians to establish India's MKI production line, PAC had very substantial assistance in their JF17 production line. But HAL will be setting up its LCA production line independently I assume. Do you really believe they can do it as efficiently as PAC is now with their JF17 line after almost 7 years of constant instruction and standardization across their supply and production lines?

It will take at least another 3 years for HAL to efficiently engage in LCA serial production, by which time the PAC will surely be producing JF17 Block2 in the same numbers as they produce JF17 Block1's presently. That was my point. By having set up their production line 7 years earlier than HAL, PAC has a distinct lead in standard serial production of their respective airframes.

PAC's ability to produce JF17 en masse has also contributed to the PAF being able to transition tens of pilots from their old Mirages and qualify them on the thunder. How many years till the IAF has qualified 40 pilots to fly 40 LCA's in active combat? HAl's test pilots may be more experienced than their PAC counterparts but their in no way more qualified on LCA than the PAF is...

Producing JF17 to a lower almost 3rd gen standard in block 1 has given both PAC and the PAF 7 years to train their personnel and acclimatize them to production, operation and regular maintenance of the airframe before moving on to an LCA Mk1 standard. The IAF constantly changing their requirements for LCA means that if an Indian - Pakistani war where to break out in the next 4 years, the PAF would hold the advantage where light fighter aircraft where concerned ( ZDK-03 + JF17 combo).

 

[sayareakd]

I really don't doubt HAL's ability to produce 40 LCA Mk1's. What I doubt is HAL's ability to transition the LCA from test programme and LRP to full serial production EFFICIENTLY. How long, realistically speaking do you think it will take? Because it took PAC from 2006 to 2012 to make their JF17 production line consistent and efficient - quality and numbers wise - at circa 15 airframes per annum.

they make only 60 % of the frame. So what so special about them ?

 

[SATISH]

I really don't doubt HAL's ability to produce 40 LCA Mk1's. What I doubt is HAL's ability to transition the LCA from test programme and LRP to full serial production EFFICIENTLY. How long, realistically speaking do you think it will take? Because it took PAC from 2006 to 2012 to make their JF17 production line consistent and efficient - quality and numbers wise - at circa 15 airframes per annum.

HAL had significant assistance from the Russians to establish India's MKI production line, PAC had very substantial assistance in their JF17 production line. But HAL will be setting up its LCA production line independently I assume. Do you really believe they can do it as efficiently as PAC is now with their JF17 line after almost 7 years of constant instruction and standardization across their supply and production lines?

It will take at least another 3 years for HAL to efficiently engage in LCA serial production, by which time the PAC will surely be producing JF17 Block2 in the same numbers as they produce JF17 Block1's presently. That was my point. By having set up their production line 7 years earlier than HAL, PAC has a distinct lead in standard serial production of their respective airframes.

PAC's ability to produce JF17 en masse has also contributed to the PAF being able to transition tens of pilots from their old Mirages and qualify them on the thunder. How many years till the IAF has qualified 40 pilots to fly 40 LCA's in active combat? HAl's test pilots may be more experienced than their PAC counterparts but their in no way more qualified on LCA than the PAF is...

Producing JF17 to a lower almost 3rd gen standard in block 1 has given both PAC and the PAF 7 years to train their personnel and acclimatize them to production, operation and regular maintenance of the airframe before moving on to an LCA Mk1 standard. The IAF constantly changing their requirements for LCA means that if an Indian - Pakistani war where to break out in the next 4 years, the PAF would hold the advantage where light fighter aircraft where concerned ( ZDK-03 + JF17 combo).

That is where you are making a mistake. India has been manufacturing aircrafts since the 60s started from the MiG 21 I presume ( or gnat or Marut). And it is still going on with the Su 30 MKI and the future MMRCA. The HAL and the NAL have massive manufacturing complexes all over India and they are not stuck with just Bangalore. So you dont need to worry about the transmission as the LSPs have already been completed and the SBP production are going to start in November this year.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

some the 20-odd Indian Air Force test pilots have flown the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and they will all swear that it is a great fighter to fly. It handles beautifully.HAL's poor production fails to translate the Tejas' contemporary design into a reliable fighter that takes to the air day after day. Most of Tejas problems stem from poor production, not from an inadequate design.HAL never bothers because it regards the Tejas as the problem of the Aeronautical Development Agency, which oversees the LCA programme. HAL prefers to focus on building foreign aircraft under licence, a mechanical task that it has done for decades with ever-increasing levels of inefficiency.

HAL must work with the ADA to set up the Tejas Mark I assembly line and produce the aircraft in numbers. The ADA's eagerness to develop the Tejas Mark II has resulted in the neglect of the Mark I, which is shaping up as an adequate light fighter for the IAF.

And IAF need to learn something for the Navy trust , like love weapons made in India

 

[p2prada]

I really don't doubt HAL's ability to produce 40 LCA Mk1's. What I doubt is HAL's ability to transition the LCA from test programme and LRP to full serial production EFFICIENTLY. How long, realistically speaking do you think it will take? Because it took PAC from 2006 to 2012 to make their JF17 production line consistent and efficient - quality and numbers wise - at circa 15 airframes per annum.

This kinda comparison won't work against HAL. HAL has made thousands of aircraft, many from scratch too. Namely HF-24, Gnats, Jaguars, Ajeet and even MKI.

HAL had significant assistance from the Russians to establish India's MKI production line, PAC had very substantial assistance in their JF17 production line. But HAL will be setting up its LCA production line independently I assume. Do you really believe they can do it as efficiently as PAC is now with their JF17 line after almost 7 years of constant instruction and standardization across their supply and production lines?

HF-24 Marut's production line was set up independently.

It will take at least another 3 years for HAL to efficiently engage in LCA serial production, by which time the PAC will surely be producing JF17 Block2 in the same numbers as they produce JF17 Block1's presently. That was my point. By having set up their production line 7 years earlier than HAL, PAC has a distinct lead in standard serial production of their respective airframes.

PAC is still far away from serial production using raw materials.

PAC's ability to produce JF17 en masse has also contributed to the PAF being able to transition tens of pilots from their old Mirages and qualify them on the thunder. How many years till the IAF has qualified 40 pilots to fly 40 LCA's in active combat? HAl's test pilots may be more experienced than their PAC counterparts but their in no way more qualified on LCA than the PAF is...

It is a bit different if you are comparing IAF and PAF. All 50 JF-17s are conversion and training units with mostly IOC specs. They will receive FOC specs only after 2015 after the 50 JF-17 B2s are delivered. Meaning the capabilities of B1 will be quite modest.

As for IAF, LCA isn't the only aircraft that will be inducted as you already know. Both Rafale and Super MKI will need pilots and the scale of IAF training will be larger in that respect. You can't ignore IAF's other priorities simply because LCA has a lower priority in comparison.

Producing JF17 to a lower almost 3rd gen standard in block 1 has given both PAC and the PAF 7 years to train their personnel and acclimatize them to production, operation and regular maintenance of the airframe before moving on to an LCA Mk1 standard. The IAF constantly changing their requirements for LCA means that if an Indian - Pakistani war where to break out in the next 4 years, the PAF would hold the advantage where light fighter aircraft where concerned ( ZDK-03 + JF17 combo).

Sorry, not even close. We have far too many aircraft for ZDK/Erieye to survive and PAF/PA have obsolete air defence. In 4 years our air defence will be miles ahead, comparable to US and Russia from current levels of obsolescence. Neither JF-17 or ZDK will be a match for the air defence.

No point starting a silly d-measuring contest, don't you agree? Since LCAs won't be properly used in combat in just 4 years while there will be far too few JF-17s that will deter IAF (only 50 B2s). IAF has plenty of other "superior" aircraft.

 

[J20!]

This kinda comparison won't work against HAL. HAL has made thousands of aircraft, many from scratch too. Namely HF-24, Gnats, Jaguars, Ajeet and even MKI.



HF-24 Marut's production line was set up independently.



PAC is still far away from serial production using raw materials.



It is a bit different if you are comparing IAF and PAF. All 50 JF-17s are conversion and training units with mostly IOC specs. They will receive FOC specs only after 2015 after the 50 JF-17 B2s are delivered. Meaning the capabilities of B1 will be quite modest.

As for IAF, LCA isn't the only aircraft that will be inducted as you already know. Both Rafale and Super MKI will need pilots and the scale of IAF training will be larger in that respect. You can't ignore IAF's other priorities simply because LCA has a lower priority in comparison.



Sorry, not even close. We have far too many aircraft for ZDK/Erieye to survive and PAF/PA have obsolete air defence. In 4 years our air defence will be miles ahead, comparable to US and Russia from current levels of obsolescence. Neither JF-17 or ZDK will be a match for the air defence.

No point starting a silly d-measuring contest, don't you agree? Since LCAs won't be properly used in combat in just 4 years while there will be far too few JF-17s that will deter IAF (only 50 B2s). IAF has plenty of other "superior" aircraft.

HAL has produced many foreign aircraft, I'll take your word for it that it was from scratch. But HAL still hasn't transitioned a fighter aircraft from testing and the prototype modification that follows, to serial production independently before. You can't dispute that.

"HF-24, Gnats, Jaguars, Ajeet and even MKI" are all license produced modifications of foreign designed aircraft. HAL never transitioned any of these from prototype to serial production and even the modifications they made to the respective airframes were usually with foreign consultation. That's my point. PAC has already begun and solidified their serial production process (with Chinese assistance of course). HAL has not. And it will take quite some time before it does or even reaches PAC's level of productivity right now, let alone when the PAC is producing JF17 block 2's in 2015 and HAL is only starting serial production of LCA Mk1 and working out the inevitable bugs in their production process.

Dassault is quite publicly doubting HAL's ability to serially produce their aircraft, with their production line design, under their supervision within the time constraints of the MMRCA contract (granted for a much more complicated fighter than LCA). But do you honestly believe that HAL will be able design and implement a cost effective production line for India's FIRST indigenous production jet fighter on its own before 2015?

 

[p2prada]

HAL has produced many foreign aircraft, I'll take your word for it that it was from scratch. But HAL still hasn't transitioned a fighter aircraft from testing and the prototype modification that follows, to serial production independently before. You can't dispute that.

HF-24.

"HF-24, Gnats, Jaguars, Ajeet and even MKI" are all license produced modifications of foreign designed aircraft. HAL never transitioned any of these from prototype to serial production and even the modifications they made to the respective airframes were usually with foreign consultation.

I agree with Gnat, Jaguar and MKI. But Ajeet was a major modification, quite like converting a Gripen C to a Gripen Demo.

HF-24 was an entirely indigenous project, only the engine was imported.

That's my point. PAC has already begun and solidified their serial production process (with Chinese assistance of course). HAL has not. And it will take quite some time before it does or even reaches PAC's level of productivity right now, let alone when the PAC is producing JF17 block 2's in 2015 and HAL is only starting serial production of LCA Mk1 and working out the inevitable bugs in their production process.

PAC hasn't even done anything close to what HAL has done. Come on, CAC is doing all the work. PAC is just assembling. It is as good as what we did with Mig-21s. We at least assembled Tumansky engines in India. PAC is not even doing that. Even the radar comes from China, I believe.

PAC is still far from indigenous production of JF-17.

Dassault is quite publicly doubting HAL's ability to serially produce their aircraft, with their production line design, under their supervision within the time constraints of the MMRCA contract (granted for a much more complicated fighter than LCA). But do you honestly believe that HAL will be able design and implement a cost effective production line for India's FIRST indigenous production jet fighter on its own before 2015?

Their reasons are political. They want to give it to a no-name company and keep most of the work for themselves and avoid ToT. Basically, they know that if they provide ToT HAL will use the experience in other programs. Giving such a major work to Reliance is like asking CNPC/Huaweii to make MKIs. Please think logically. They swallowed their words anyway.

Apart from that let time speak for itself.