LCA Tejas vs J-10A

[ADITYA MAYUKH]

Lca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas

 

[Defcon 1]

Lca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas

Please stop making stupid posts. Do you have sources saying tejas will be using R77 or meteor? BS

 

[t_co]

Lca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas

Here is a rough comparison of the two aircraft, with the aspects where one particular fighter has an advantage in bold

LCA Tejas // J-10

Crew: 1 Crew: 1
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in) Length: 15.49 m (50.82 ft)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 9.75 m (31.99 ft)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in) Height: 5.43 m (17.81 ft)
Wing area: 38.4 m2 (413 ft2) Wing area: 33.1 m2 (356.3 ft2)
Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) Empty weight: 9,750 kg (21,495 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb) Loaded weight: 13,000 kg (28,600 lb)
Useful load: 4,000 kg (8,800lb) Useful load: 6,000 kg[48] (13,200lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg (42,500 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan Powerplant: 1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[88] (12,100 lbf) Dry thrust: 79.43 kN / 89.17 kN (19,000 lbf / 17,860 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[89][90][91] (19,000 lbf) Thrust with afterburner: 130 kN/125kN (29,000 lbf / 27,999 lbf)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6[85] (1,350 km/h) ; (CAS) at high altitude Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[49][50] Mach 1.2 at sea level[7]
g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s2, +290/-97 ft/s2[7])
Combat radius: 300 km[citation needed] (186 miles) Combat radius: 1,600 km (with air to air refueling), 550 km (without air to air refueling)
Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) Ferry range: 1,850 km[48] ()
Service ceiling: 15,250 m[93] (50,000 ft) Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,055 ft)
Wing loading: 247 kg/m2 (50.7 lb/ft2) Wing loading: 381 kg/m2 (78 lb/ft2)
Thrust/weight: 1.07[85] Thrust/weight: 0.96 (with AL-31); 1.017 (with WS-10A)
g-limits: +8/?3.5 g[85]

Armament
Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition. Guns: 1× 23mm twin-barrel cannon
Hardpoints: 8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of 4,000 kg external fuel and ordnance
Hardpoints: 11 in total (6× under-wing, 5× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 6,000 kg (13,228 lb) external fuel and ordnance

Overall, the J-10A is a larger, heavier bird with a greater ordnance capacity and larger combat radius. The LCA is likely more maneuverable due to its lower wing loader and higher T/W ratio. From a raw payload perspective, the J-10A can deliver 50% more ordnance per sortie (6000kg vs 4000kg) than the LCA. Neither plane has been publicly confirmed with an AESA radar, although China has installed an AESA radar into the J-10B, which had its first test flight in 2008 and has been reported in operational service with select regiments facing Japan and Taiwan--which means that it should be fairly easy for China to install AESA into the J-10A if it so wishes to do so.

 

[t_co]

The LCA is too slow and short-ranged to be an effective strike fighter for conflicts involving any nation not named Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh. Furthermore, its tiny nose cone hampers its ability to incorporate a large, long-range AESA radar, limiting its utility as a true air-superiority fighter in conditions when GCI or AWACS is not available (as might be the case in a true air-to-air slugfest with any opponent boasting post-Cold-War IADS and a competent air force.)

The J-10A has the ability to be a medium-range strike fighter that projects force through the First Island Chain, and especially against Taiwan, which is the operating scenario the J-10 was designed for. However, in a contest versus Japan or the United States over the Western Pacific, China will need to use IFR to get the J-10 where it needs to be, again limiting its utility, and its lack of stealthiness means the J-10 will be highly vulnerable during its ingress and egress from the combat zone--especially versus American F-22s that could theoretically intercept them at any point between the Nanjing MR's megabases and the Ryukyu Islands.

 

[J20!]

LCA's radar is of similar size as J-10 or EF-2000. It is bigger than Rafale's radar. Just that Rafale/EF will produce more power while J-10 cannot.

LCA and. J10A both have generally the same radar. Both radars are derivatives of the Israeli EL/M 2032.

The advantage, WRT radar performance though lies with the J10A, mainly because J10A uses a much more powerful engine which translates to higher capacity power pack powering the aircraft's avionics and radar.

PS. The Pulse-Doppler on Eurofighter is a great deal larger and more powerful than any 2032 derivative...

 

[p2prada]

LCA and. J10A both have generally the same radar. Both radars are derivatives of the Israeli EL/M 2032.

The advantage, WRT radar performance though lies with the J10A, mainly because J10A uses a much more powerful engine which translates to higher capacity power pack powering the aircraft's avionics and radar.

LCA's power pack generates 40 KVA. The MKIs powerpack should deliver 60 KVA. Any idea if J-10 uses the same 60 KVA powerpack or a smaller pack.

PS. The Pulse-Doppler on Eurofighter is a great deal larger and more powerful than any 2032 derivative...

No doubt.

 

[ersakthivel]

The LCA is too slow and short-ranged to be an effective strike fighter for conflicts involving any nation not named Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh. Furthermore, its tiny nose cone hampers its ability to incorporate a large, long-range AESA radar, limiting its utility as a true air-superiority fighter in conditions when GCI or AWACS is not available (as might be the case in a true air-to-air slugfest with any opponent boasting post-Cold-War IADS and a competent air force.)

The J-10A has the ability to be a medium-range strike fighter that projects force through the First Island Chain, and especially against Taiwan, which is the operating scenario the J-10 was designed for. However, in a contest versus Japan or the United States over the Western Pacific, China will need to use IFR to get the J-10 where it needs to be, again limiting its utility, and its lack of stealthiness means the J-10 will be highly vulnerable during its ingress and egress from the combat zone--especially versus American F-22s that could theoretically intercept them at any point between the Nanjing MR's megabases and the Ryukyu Islands.

Tejas has comparable radome dia as that of RAFALE.

too slow?Even the RAFLE has top speed of mach 1.8, Does that mean RAFLE is inferior to J-10?

The J-10s engine takes too long to reach top acceleration, . A dangerous prospect in the enemy skies while carrying out evasive maneuvers.

Most of the fighting maneuvers are carried out at trans sonic speeds . At top speeds the fighters are not very much maneuverable , so that does not help evading BVR missiles.

So agility in trans sonic speed with low wing loading is the spec to look for.here Tejas mk-2 will have a way higher TWr than the J-10 another important spec.

the combination of AOA, TWR, and wingloading determine the maneuverablitiy of the fighter . So tejas has some obvious advantages as well.

When the heavier bigger J-10 comes across himalayas , to face LCA Tejas which will track first, lock first and shoot first? RCS wise compare it.

 

[maomao]

J-10 is another piece of junk from Cheap chinese copycat factories.....J-10 and per say J-20 don't stand a chance against a Spitfire leave alone an Highly agile and advanced A/C such asTejas!

 

[ersakthivel]

Please stop making stupid posts. Do you have sources saying tejas will be using R77 or meteor? BS

MK-2 will have the interface needed to use METEOR is the statement of ADA chief Subramanium. So no bullshit this.

 

[ersakthivel]

Got it. That makes sense. Your point about turnaround rates is an especially oft-overlooked benefit of smaller, non-stealthy aircraft. Big birds with stealthy internal weapons bays like the F-22 are far harder on the ground crew in active combat situations than simpler aircraft.

Makes no sense all the above mentioned Junks are soon to be retired and has no way connected with Tejas induction.Those stealthy big birds too will be detected in the future.

 

[ersakthivel]

Initial Operational Certificate? And stage ONE?
Don't you think your standard is a little bit low?

Not lower than crashing J-10s with fly by wire faults compared to 2059 incident free text book flight trials across 10 platforms, with fly by wire tech exported to Boeing Airbus civilian planes.

 

[Defcon 1]

MK-2 will have the interface needed to use METEOR is the statement of ADA chief Subramanium. So no bullshit this.

In English language "interface to use meteor" and "will be using meteor" are different terms.

 

[ersakthivel]

In English language "interface to use meteor" and "will be using meteor" are different terms.

Considering the monetary value of the Indian Meteor (both Rafale and Tejas put together)contract the makers will sell it to india , regardless of whichever language we discuss it.

Especially when India is about to buy RAFALE which is going to use METEOR, what is the basis of the non availability of Meteor to Tejas?What is the basis of your assumption that Meteor will guys insist on using the missile only on RAFALE and not on Tejas?

Germans, French, Italians and the british are selling warplanes, submarines, helicopters and so many other cutting edge defence equipment to India competing against each other, So why will they bar Meteor if IAf asks?Have you got any inside scoop on non availability of Meteor to Tejas?

Remember Gripppen, RAFALE were not designed with meteor in mind.

But when the missile came along they are going to buy it.When India buys so many items from European what makes you think that they won't sell this top secret piece to India?

 

[J20!]

LCA's power pack generates 40 KVA. The MKIs powerpack should deliver 60 KVA. Any idea if J-10 uses the same 60 KVA powerpack or a smaller pack.

I honestly have no idea, but J10A and MKI use almost exactly the same engine. Differences being

1. AL-31FN on J10A is a great deal lighter than the AL31FP's on MKI because they lack the heavy TVN mechanisms thus a greater engine thrust to wight ratio,

2. and AL31FN on J10A was specially modified to carry the gearbox on the side rather than underneath as in all AL31 variants to fit the J10A's slim fuselage.

I don't see why they would sacrifice this key advantage over light weight fighters and lose the logistical commonality advantage with the over 100 J11A's they usually operate with by using a lower capacity power pack, but I wouldn't want to speculate any further.

 

[J20!]

The J-10s engine takes too long to reach top acceleration, . A dangerous prospect in the enemy skies while carrying out evasive maneuvers.

J10A's engine is almost exactly the same engine that powers the IAF's Su30 MKI. These engines provide excellent acceleration and thrust performance, certainly exceeding the performance of the F404's powering LCA Mk1.

Most of the fighting maneuvers are carried out at trans sonic speeds . At top speeds the fighters are not very much maneuverable , so that does not help evading BVR missiles.

Maneuvering, yes, but BVR missiles are not evaded at transonic speeds, and quite frankly today's active radar guided BRAAM's, with their very large no escape zones are much harder to evade than the BVRAAM's that defined BVR air warfare of the 80's and 90's.

Higher top speeds actually mean more kinetic energy imparted to BVRAAM's, meaning much longer range for active radar guided PL12's launched by J10's flying at mach 2 than derby's fired by LCA Mk1's flying at mach 1.7.

So agility in trans sonic speed with low wing loading is the spec to look for.here Tejas mk-2 will have a way higher TWr than the J-10 another important spec.

I thought we were discussing LCA Mk1 and J10A. If you factor in LCA Mk2 wouldn't it be a better comparison with J10B, which is a much lighter fighter, with a higher engine thrust and TWR than J10A?

When the heavier bigger J-10 comes across himalayas , to face LCA Tejas which will track first, lock first and shoot first? RCS wise compare it.

And why would an LCA detect and attain lock on a J10A, which has a higher power radar, electronic warfare, and avionics suite first?

Not to mention that a combat loaded LCA Mk 1, with not the most advanced EW suite around, flying at high altitude, isn't going to be a "stealthy" target to begin with...

 

[p2prada]

I honestly have no idea, but J10A and MKI use almost exactly the same engine.
I don't see why they would sacrifice this key advantage over light weight fighters and lose the logistical commonality advantage with the over 100 J11A's they usually operate with by using a lower capacity power pack, but I wouldn't want to speculate any further.

It is not about logistics and commonality won't affect it. My question is more due to size constraints than anything else. I am asking whether the Russians gave you the same one as on Flankers since the Flanker power packs are pretty large or did you make your own. I guess it would be difficult to get that answer anyway.

LCA uses 30-40KVA power packs which is supposedly our own. But the F-404 also comes with a 50KVA powerpack which is not on LCA Mk1.

 

[J20!]

It is not about logistics and commonality won't affect it. My question is more due to size constraints than anything else. I am asking whether the Russians gave you the same one as on Flankers since the Flanker power packs are pretty large or did you make your own. I guess it would be difficult to get that answer anyway.

LCA uses 30-40KVA power packs which is supposedly our own. But the F-404 also comes with a 50KVA powerpack which is not on LCA Mk1.

The similarly sized F16 carries a 60KVA main generator, a 10KVA back-up generator and another 5KVA generator on-board, so size constraints really shouldn't be a problem. But as I said, all speculation. I'm more intrigued as to the max capacity of the J10B's main generator linked to the more powerful WS10A.

 

[ersakthivel]

J10A's engine is almost exactly the same engine that powers the IAF's Su30 MKI. These engines provide excellent acceleration and thrust performance, certainly exceeding the performance of the F404's powering LCA Mk1.



Maneuvering, yes, but BVR missiles are not evaded at transonic speeds, and quite frankly today's active radar guided BRAAM's, with their very large no escape zones are much harder to evade than the BVRAAM's that defined BVR air warfare of the 80's and 90's.

At their top speeds a fighter is least maneuverable.So no fighter is going to evade a BVR by having 0.3 mach more top speed. Case in point is RAFALE (top speed 1.8 mach) preferred over much higher top speed TYPHOON in indian MMRCA contract.which was . Evasive maneuvers for what ever their worth are carried out at speeds where the fighters are more maneuverable, not at speeds where fighter is not maneuverable is my guess.

At their top speeds no fighter will pull enough Gs to out run a much higher G capable ,much more top speed capable BVR.

Higher top speeds actually mean more kinetic energy imparted to BVRAAM's, meaning much longer range for active radar guided PL12's launched by J10's flying at mach 2 than derby's fired by LCA Mk1's flying at mach 1.7.

for 50g capable mach 4 plus BVRMs the differece of 0.3 mach doesn't really matter.

I thought we were discussing LCA Mk1 and J10A. If you factor in LCA Mk2 wouldn't it be a better comparison with J10B, which is a much lighter fighter, with a higher engine thrust and TWR than J10A?



And why would an LCA detect and attain lock on a J10A, which has a higher power radar, electronic warfare, and avionics suite first?

Not to mention that a combat loaded LCA Mk 1, with not the most advanced EW suite around, flying at high altitude, isn't going to be a "stealthy" target to begin with...

the reason is difference in RCS. LCA will definitely have lessser RCS.

 

[ersakthivel]

The similarly sized F16 carries a 60KVA main generator, a 10KVA back-up generator and another 5KVA generator on-board, so size constraints really shouldn't be a problem. But as I said, all speculation. I'm more intrigued as to the max capacity of the J10B's main generator linked to the more powerful WS10A.

The power produced will be divided among ew suit radar and most importantly for the much bigger hydraulics of bigger J-10. So you don't have to assume all the power generated will be given directly to Radar and Ew suit. A lot of it should also be given to much bigger power hungry hydraulic actutaors.

What counts is the specific power out put of the radar taken along with RCS.

because J-10 may have more powerful radar, but it also has higher RCS. Lca may have less powerful radar, but it has lesser RCs. SO detection ranges will be affected by both these factors.

So we need to know the exact power of both radars along with cumulative RCS in air to air mode to come to a any reasonable conclusion. My guess is the RCS factor will even out the power differences among the radars

 

[ADITYA MAYUKH]

Due to j 10s big rcs it can be seen on lca screen but with a low rcs it will be hard for j 10 to find lca and with superior ew and missile lca can kill j10 easily and in dog fight lca is going to have an edge due to its small size ana superior sensors