LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[farhan_9909]

JF-17 Thunder: A Giant Leap

By Wing Commander Abid Ali Khan/Sqn Ldr Ahsan Rafiqui

Pakistan's success in joint design and development of a fighter trainer, Karakoram-8 (K-8), was a stagger*ing achievement. This encouraged our policy makers to undertake a giant step that is, the design and development of a state-of-the-art aircraft. It was realized that an advanced fighter would be required by Pakistan Air Force in near future to narrow the rising gap of its advanced aircraft inventory as com*pared to India. It was also necessary to give the much needed boost to the nation's developing aviation indus*try. The Air Staff proposal of co"‘designing, co-developing and co-manufacturing with the Chinese government the JF -17 Thunder was finalized in 1999. The aircraft was to be developed as planned replace*ment of aging fleets of A-5, F-7 and Mirage of Pakistan Air Force. In the development phase, five prototypes (PT) were planned to be manufac*tured for verification of the aircraft's performance through ground tests, flight tests and demonstrations.

JF-17 is jointly designed at Chengdu Aircraft Design & Research Institute (CADI) and the prototypes are being developed and manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC). In order to ensure effective transfer of technology and expertise, Pakistani experts remained associated with all aspects of design, development and manu*facturing in China. Most of the JF-17 aircraft planned to be inducted in PAF will roll out from Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra. President of Pakistan laid the foundation stone for establishing the required infrastructure for this unique manufacturing facility at Kamra on May 5, 2005.The joint development of a new generation multi-role fighter aircraft called Super-7/FC-1 (Renamed later as Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) and code*named as "Thunder") formally started in 1999 to meet the objectives. Based on their mythology of dragons and fairies, the Chinese also call this fighting machine as "Xiao Long" (A small dragon). The first prototype flew its maiden flight in August, 2003, and the second fly worthy pro*totype took off from Chengdu in April, 2004. The joint flight test team has flown a number of verifica*tion sorties on the available prototypes and suggested various changes to enhance the aircraft's flight quali*ties, performance, structural integri*ty and the functionality of different systems. These recommendations have given a new look to the third flyable prototype. This new proto*type is planned to enter the skies in the first half of 2006.

JF-17's designers say that the strength of the Thunder lies in its advanced aerodynamics and state-of-the-art avionics. It is one of the only two current modern time fight*ers incorporated the latest research on intake design. In order to improve the aircraft's performance, study on diverterless supersonic intake has been in progress since 1999. Bump intake design on JF- 17 took almost two years with a number of intake models subjected to high and low speed wind tunnel tests. Analysis show that at high speeds, the bump works with forward-swept inlet cowls to give high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion, and, good engine/intake matching. It redirects unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, essentially doing the job of heavier, more com*plex, and more costly approaches being used for because intake is one of the three major forward scatters of an aircraft (30%-35% contribution to aircraft forward Radar Cross Section (RCS)). In order to fully exploit the potential of the aircraft fly-by-wire system and improve the aircraft per*formance, JF-17 design has a wing fore body strike which is about 9% of the Wing area. This has resulted in better matching of the aerodynamic focus with the Center of Gravity (CG) and better harmonization of the air-to-air and air-to-ground CG vari*ations by taking advantage of the pitch digital fly-by-wire Flight Control Systems (FCS). This has improved not only the controllability but has also enhanced the performance through reduction of the supersonic drag. The salient features of "Thunder or Xia Long" enable it to outfit many competitors in the world. As a light weight, all weather, multi-role aircraft with maximum speed of Mach 1.6 (700 knots), high thrust*-to-weight ratio and hybrid flight con*trols, JF-17 gains comparative agili*ty and maneuverability in all regimes vis-a-vis fighters of the same class. Moreover, a state-of-the-art avionics package comprising modern concept of Man Machine Interface (MMI) with full Hands On Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) and glass cockpit make it comparable with even fourth generation fighters. This specific feature enhances its ability in all operational scenarios.

This multi-role, third generation air*craft is designed to be highly maneuverable with fly-by wire flight controls in pitch axis and stability augmentation system in the "Role and Yaw" axis. It will have the capa*bility to perform air defence, inter*diction, airfield strike, precision strike, and escort missions. It will allow long Combat Air Patrol (CAP) time at low level, thus affording large radius of action and thereby exceeding the PAF Air Staff require*ments in surface attack mode.

The aircraft is powered by reliable RD-93 engine, which like any other modern aircraft engine, is equipped with a Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC). Besides enhancing the engine performance, this makes engine handling carefree under all conditions and at all altitudes. Low Specific Fuel Consumption (LSFC) turbofan engine and low drag aero*dynamic design ensure its longer endurance and range. Because of its single point pressure refueling sys*tem, the aircraft has overall reduced turn around time. Modular mainte*nance design of the aircraft makes accessibility of the components quick and easy. All maintenance panels and components are installed at man's height for ease of mainte*nance. Computer-controlled fault diagnosis and analysis system not only reduce maintenance cost but also introduces the concept of "maintenance on fault only".

Long range radar and Active aircraft Beyond Visual Range (Active BVR) missile through effective integration with on board avionics provide pilot with a first shot capability. An elec*tro-optical self-protection suite with Missile Approach Warning system (MAWS) enhances its survivability under combat situations. Tactical datalink, with Track-While-Scan (TWS) and Dual Target Track (DTT) modes of the radar provide the pilot, an excellent Situation Awareness (SA) in all conditions. An integrated IFF interrogator along with colored displays provides easy cues for criti*cal decision-making.

JF-17's air combat capability is aug*mented by helmet-mounted display and all-aspect missiles affording high off-boresight launches. With its embedded data link and secure radios, the aircraft is expected to remain viable in future hostile bat*tles, and would prove to be an effec*tive low-cost high performance air defence fighter. It provides an affordable and efficient air-to-air mission capability. On the other hand, due to its advanced aerody*namic design, weapons carriage capability and avionics suite, it can strike the enemy, where it hurts him most in an offensive counter-air campaign. JF-17 thus would not only be lethal but will also be highly survivable.

Long range radar with multi-track and multi-target capabilities make Thunder a good choice for strike escort role. It can target the CAP air*craft while pushing the enemy away from the strike package. Its fire and forget capability reduces time on tar*get and thus ensures better surviv*ability. With the integration of AEW&C, JF-17 will have excellent SA even in enemy area to make crit*ical engagement and exit decisions. Furthermore, under hostile conditions, automated self-protection sys*tem of the aircraft affords high sur*vivability rate.

Large Radius Of Action (ROA) of Thunder and its weapon system capability make it an excellent light surface attack aircraft. Ring Laser Gyro (RLG) based Inertial Navigation System (INS) with embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) provides the capability of precision navigation over the entire ROA. It can carry multitude of external stores including conven*tional general purpose bombs, clus*ter bomb units, anti-runway bombs, anti-ship missiles and precision guided weapons that exist today. JF-*17 provides employment flexibility to suit the tactical conditions. JF-17's payload options make it airfield, pre*cision or maritime strike capable. It can be employed even for interdic*tion, armed reconnaissance, battle*field interdiction and close support roles.

It is designed to ensure effective MMI in all types of missions. Its efficient HOTAS controls and col*ored Smart Multi-Function Displays (SMFDs) provide ease of comprehension and control. The aircraft has a wide 24 degree Field Of View (FOV), Smart Head-Up-Display (SHOD) and Helmet-Mounted Display (HMD) provide the requisite menu based controls and displays to the pilot. The symbologies are designed to ensure high SA of the pilot both in air-to-air and surface attack missions. Its Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) interrogator for both air-to-air and air-to-surface applications is available to avoid fratricide in hostile conditions. This advanced MMI concept affords com*puter-controlled capability diagnosis and failure monitoring system to reduce the pilot's work-load. Therefore, the performance index of JF-17 is much higher than that of a second or third generation aircraft, both in air-to-air and air-to-surface scenarios. It would therefore not only meet the objectives for which it is being developed but would also truly prove to be a "Giant Leap" for our progressing aviation industry, thus paving the way for future growth in related fields.

 

[farhan_9909]

----------------------------------space left for updates--------------------------------------

For the avionics and weapons qualification phase of the flight testing, PT-04 was fitted with a 4th generation avionics suite that incorporates sensor fusion, electronic warfare suite, enhanced man-machine interface, Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) for the RD-93 turbofan engine, FBW flight control, day/night precision surface attack capability and multi-mode pulse doppler radar for beyond visual range air-to-air attack capability, making the aircraft a modern multi-role fighter.

The EFIS is made up of three colour multi-function displays (MFD) providing basic flight information, tactical information and information on the engine, fuel, electrical, hydraulics, flight control and environment control systems. The HUD and MFD are "smart", meaning they can be configured by the pilot to show any of the available information.

The JF-17 has a defensive aids system (DAS) made up of various integrated sub-systems. A radar warning receiver (RWR) gives data such as direction and proximity of enemy radars to the pilot and electronic warfare (EW) suite, housed in a fairing at the tip of the tail fin for greater coverage, that interferes with enemy radars. The EW suite is also linked to a missile approach warning (MAW) system to help it defend against radar-guided missiles.







The avionics also include a health and usage monitoring system (HUMS). Automatic test equipment is supplied by Teradyne.

There has been a progression towards centralized control of the multiple complex systems fitted to aircraft, including engine monitoring and management. Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) are integrated with aircraft management computers to give maintainers early warnings of parts that will need replacement.

Computer-controlled fault diagnosis





The fuel system comprises internal fuel tanks located in the wings and fuselage, with capacity for 2330 kg (5,130 lb) of fuel, that are refuelled through a single point pressure refuelling system

 

[farhan_9909]

Sorry my brother since early 2007 avionics package was full complete..i am nt sure whether LCa has been yet integrated with radar or nt.

if you would have said weapon package was nt complete before induction.that was indeed true.
bt avionics suite..complete BS

 

[farhan_9909]

JFT avionics and integration took less time because many system onboard were already developed for j-10..

 

[farhan_9909]

http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-114.html#post812455
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-114.html#post812470
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-115.html#post813305
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-123.html#post848325
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-125.html#post852463
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-125.html#post853092
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-125.html#post857739
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-127.html#post860496
http://www.-----------/forums/jf-17...tirole-fighter-thread-3-a-128.html#post863288

till page129/thread3

 

[ersakthivel]

The LCA is a fully relaxed static stability platform comparable in tech level to any other modern 4.5th gen fighter in the world.it can be modularly upgradable with higher powered engines and asea radars and longer range BVrs carried by any contemproary 4.5th gen fighter.It can hold it's own even against conventional stable flight profile fighters with much higher TWr and twin engines.It can be upgraded in MLU with AMCA engine as both are going to have same form fit.For example the single engined F-16 has a far higher range and payload than the twin engined Mig-29 which has lesser range.Because it had all the state of art tech of that time like Relaxed static stability ,FBW and higher thrust more technologically advanced engine which mig-29 lacked.

Mig-29 also was as a fast interceptor and capable of operating from forward areas with lower flight time like tejas.
Because of the conventional layout (stable flight profile opposed to unstable profile of F-16)to get the equivalent air superiority performance without the relaxed static stability ,FBW and mig-29 went for very high installed thrust with two engines.Also the reliability issues of RD series engines are well known so it made better sense to go with twin engines.

Since it did not have relaxed static stability it went for more heavier weighing conventional stable flight profile which always try to move the plane into level flight whenever the pilot maneuvers it.So it needed very large wing and higher empty weight and two engines to power all these heavy loads with enough agility.So twin engined planes need not necessarily be superior over single engined planes all the time automatically.

Of course if mig-29 too had relaxed static stability and far higher speed control surfaces adjustments like other fbw planes it would be far superior to F-16 in combat performance validating the conventional notion that twin engined planes with higher twr can club all the single engined planes.

But the truth is despite having higher thrust twin engines factors like
1. lack of relaxed static stability and

2.Fbw very fast adjustment of control surfaces

made it having only closer or bit lesser performance level of F-16.

But even F-16 had grown in weight leading to heavier wing loading over the time with each upgrade taking it's toll on agility.

So the ada choose the more complex way of unstable fly by wire tech based relaxed static stability model for tejas to make it relevant for the 21st century.So there is no reason to blindly believe that every conventional stable platform with higher powered twin engine configuration can easily out maneuver FCS controlled relaxed static stability platform like tejas automatically.

So range, payload and maneuverability does not automatically mean that a bigger plane with higher T:W ratio lacking relaxed static stability and FBW controls can always beat a smaller single engined relaxed static FBW plane with adequate TWR.

The Mig-29's low fuel fraction is the inherent limitation due to the configuration of stable flight profile . Excess thrust with twin engines was an attempt to rectify the disadvantage of not having relaxed static stability fbw contraption.

,IF the empty weight as a percentage of a comparable single engine plane is higher that cuts into the fuel fraction of twin engined planes.
F-18 hornet , another twin engine plane similar to the F-16 again has a low fuel fraction and small legs compared to the F-16 , though it is has FBW controls. F-18 is understandable because it needs two engines for carrier and open sea operations and reliability.


Tejas with an empty weight of 6.5tons, a nearly 85KN and HMDS and off boresight heat seeking and active radar missiles still gets crucified because it does not meet the Sustained Turn Rate requirements of the IAF ASR new improved mk-2 is ordered with GE414 engines,eventhough sustained turn is not so critical anymore.

So if at all ADA ventured out to build a mig-21 replacement with russian type tech with no FBW controllable relaxed static stability platform the result would be the one sitting on the turmac across the border JF-17, debuting as an obsolete fighter. SO the ADA,s choice was right in tejas.

That is the reason why tejas will remain state of the art for a long time because it has the FBW based Relaxed static stability with capacity to carry 5 ton loads with higher fuel fraction built into it.A higher thrust engine engine will only enhance it's performance. In contrast however much you try to upgrade the Mig-29 or any other conventional layout static stability platforms they can never become state of the art.

A Delta-Winged aircraft excells over conventional compound straight wing fighter , because of it's high wing-area (thus low wing-loading) in suited for high-speed, high elevation, transonic/supersonic flight profile.

For low level ground bombing role, you need a lower area wing so that you can have better control of the plane due to extensive buffeting encountered below a certain altitude.because density of air changes more frequently in the lower altitudes due to various factors like induction heating of the air layers from the earth's surface, localized land breeze disturbing the inherent tendency of lighter and hotter air rising and getting replaced by the cooler higher altitude

SO for ground bombing role deltas rely on FBW to overcome this lack of control, because the FBW adjusts control surfaces 10/15-times-a-sec ,which is impossible for humans.That's the reason nowadays why even carrier borne fighters like rafale are low wing loading deltas unlike the older FA-18 hornets because this minute adjustment let rafale do carrier landing with the same ease of FA-18 due to 10/15-times-a-sec control surface adjustments by FBW.That's the reason why F-16 has much higher STR than the supposedly better twin engined FA-18.

In the absence of relaxed static stability FBW tech ,the SU-27 was USSR attempt to solve this problem by having a delta shape profile (lower drag at high speed etc.) in the higher altitudes by swinging it back and make it swing it out to a lower-swept angle staight wing for lower altitude, facilitating slower but stable handling at lower altitude.BUt this arrangement itself added considerable dead weight to the platform, due to the weight needed to move the wings.

So with the absence features like low wing loading delta shaped wings and fully relaxed static stability in all axis ,JF-17 can not match the tejas (once it is upgraded to exploit it's full potential with higher thrust engines). Jf-17 too can get a higher thrust engines but it can never be altered to low wing loading delta which gives superior transonic lift to drag specs as it will require a design of a completely new platform.

Any fighter can get asea and long range BVR missiles , but when it comes to close combat and agility the low wing loading (higher lift to drag ratio in trans sonic flight regime )lighter weight (due to extensive use of composites) and higher fuel fraction(longer range) tejas will be more than a match for JF-17.Since high off boresight wvr missiles make higher STR irrelevant in close combat the higher ITR of tejas will help it to adapt better evasive tactics against long rangeBVrs.

 

[farhan_9909]

In your following post you posted LCA's and JF-17's weight specs. JF-17 weighs 6586Kg, could be the latest since your aircraft is operational

well the latest weight figure of JFT is 6411kg.bt i posted the one from wiki.

. Comparatively LCA's weight figure is not the latest. It is around 6400Kg today and will reduce further to ~6200Kg I think IAF wants weight to be lower, but that may be too unrealistic.

I guess when the weight is reduced we should consider it than.as even JFT II is suppose to be 700kg light.bt i dnt consider that

So, that will bring the T/W to around the JF-17 with the 91KN engine. Btw, LCA Mk1s empty weight adds the weight of all the electronics that are available or being developed for it, including a full assortment of EW suite minus the jammer. JF-17 B1 does not have everything and B2 won't be a radical redesign of the aircraft like B3 will be.

No.it wont.

JFT block 1 does has everything except HMD.posted above already.

For the sake of early induction, B1's development was delinked from avionics. Just get the FBW, engine and airframe working and PAF was happy.[2] There was no weapon integration, radar integration, nor was there any of the core electronics integrated that could set itself apart from a regular trainer. The weight of the JF-17 is also for the B1, without many of these electronics present. I think only the first version of KLJ-7 was present on it, maybe not.

*Proved wrong,sources posted above.with complete avionics suite.A to Z everything
*[2]Do you have any source to support this?..weapons tests were nt done.bt Radar/complete avionics suite were integrated since later 2005-early 2006.
*Yes early variant of klj-7 had a lesser range and problems with radar integration..even though now the first squarden(including the first 8 SBP) still has problem with integration of SD-10.since they still has the older klj-7(info from feb 2012)

Comparatively LCA's FBW is far more advanced, the engine is far more advanced (the most advanced F-404 version ever made) and so are the electronics which is currently undergoing their 2nd and 3rd generation upgrades.

*Engine Agreed bt with less thrust.
*Rd-93 was upgraded than the older rd-33.(less smoke and 3-4kn more thrust)

LCA's EW suite is a solid state suite, Mig-29 may carry something similar but also equipped with an AESA jammer. MKI and Jaguar may carry a further developed version of what's going inside the LCA Mk1, all internal suites. At the same time, LCA Mk1's suite will itself undergo more upgrades before induction, though it won't carry an AESA jammer like other aircraft, only receivers. This will include a LWS, MAWS, RWR and chaff dispenser.

JF-17 may not get any of these until B3 is out. Maybe, RWR and a chaff dispenser, but no LWS and MAWS for quite sometime, let alone solid state electronics. Surprise me if you can though.

*Proved wrong.Complete detail about avionics posted above.
*no LWS and MAWS.very funny statement indeed.again posted abvoe
*otherwise now your turn to prove me wrong that JFT dnt have MAWS and LWS

Apart from that LCA Mk1 will carry the DASH 4/5 HMDS which is a generation ahead compared to DASH 3 or the JHMCS on your F-16 B52s, mated to Derby and R-73. No idea whether Python V or RVV-MD will be chosen since we don't have an indigenous WVR AAM program from what we know. But it is highly likely there will be an upgrade requirement to latest gen digital missiles compared to the old R-73. I am simply stating the obvious here. Python V is already an option that has not yet been exercised according to ADA's director and is the most likely option.

*future tense,when done we wil talk
*anyway PAF has also signed deal for MAA-1b wvr with brazil..MAA-1b is considered to be almost comparable to python-4

JF-17 B2 won't be impressive, internally or externally.

*How and why?

The thread was a comparative index between the two aircraft. Also you wrongly suggested T/W will be greater than 1. It won't unless you discard weapons.

JF-17
W = 6.56+2.3+0.9 = 9.76 tonnes
T = 9.28 tonnes with 91 KN engine.

T/W = ~0.95:1

Empty weight of jft is 6.4t.
why 0.9t?for weapons?

LCA (today)
W = 6.4+2.46+0.7 = 9.56 tonnes
T = 8.67 tonnes with 85KN engine.

T/W = ~0.90:1

ok

LCA (final)
W = 6.2+2.46+0.7 = 9.36 tonnes
T = 8.67 tonnes

T/W = ~0.92:1

*future tense..even though stll below jft

So, you see how it is.

]JF-17s weapons load is higher because I have considered two R-73 class missiles at 100Kg each and 4 SD-10A class missiles at an estimated 150Kg. Compared to LCA's 100 Kg Derby and R-73. Along with 100Kg for margin of error. Crude assessment, but this is the lightest both aircraft can get.[



Btw, the excess weight of LCA primarily comes from the landing gear and extra requirements for EW systems and not the composite airframe. Even the engine is slightly heavier than what was originally planned for Kaveri, but it won't make a difference now. Take out the EW systems and LCA will be even lesser in weight. As for the undercarriage, that's what they are currently working on before IOC. So, add EW systems to your JF-17 that is at the same level as the LCA and there won't even be a decent comparison

JFT has all the system from start.again check the above post.

i will post about JFT twr with 91.2kn thrust next time..i am sure that is over 1(or as per tempest 0.99)

 

[farhan_9909]

So with the absence features like low wing loading delta shaped wings and fully relaxed static stability in all axis ,JF-17 can not match the tejas (once it is upgraded to exploit it's full potential with higher thrust engines). Jf-17 too can get a higher thrust engines but it can never be altered to low wing loading delta which gives superior transonic lift to drag specs as it will require a design of a completely new platform.

Sorry brother.bt i have watched performance of LCA and JFT both...

*JFT in international airshow(izmir turkey)
*LCA at home in aero india

Note:Excuse of LCa being nt pushed to maximum are good against kids.even jft pilot interview extract mentioned that JFT is nt a mature bird and has been nt pushed to its extreme yet.

Any fighter can get asea and long range BVR missiles , but when it comes to close combat and agility the low wing loading (higher lift to drag ratio in trans sonic flight regime )lighter weight (due to extensive use of composites) and higher fuel fraction(longer range) tejas will be more than a match for JF-17.Since high off boresight wvr missiles make higher STR irrelevant in close combat the higher ITR of tejas will help it to adapt better evasive tactics against long rangeBVrs.

Agility?LCA?

well i am yet to see a full 360 turn by LCA.

i will post a video of JFT.
*seeing is believing.you can post any lca performance video and compare
*JFT performance can be very easily compared to fighter of its class like gripen..even F-16

 

[farhan_9909]

Fourth Prototype of Jf-17 'Thunder' Successfully Completes Inaugural Flight
(10 MAY 2006)

The fourth Prototype (PT-4) of JF-17 'Thunder' aircraft, jointly produced by China and Pakistan, successfully completed its inaugural flight in Chengdu, China today. Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed was the chief guest on the auspicious occasion. Other members of the CAS high profile delegation included Air Marshal Farhat Hussain Khan CPD JF-17 and various high ranking officials of PAF and the MOD. The Chinese side was represented by Vice Minister of CONSTING, Presidents of Aviation Industries Corporation–1 (AVIC-I), CATIC, Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (CADI), Chengdu Aircraft manufacturing Center (CAC) and other high ranking officials.

Speaking at the occasion the Air Chief congratulated all members of Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Chengdu Aircraft Corporation and PAF contingent deployed at Chengdu, on the successful flight of PT-4. He expressed his complete satisfaction on the milestones achieved for JF-17 programme so far. He termed that the success of the joint programme would usher a new era of strategic relationship between the two old friendly countries. The Air Chief also termed the JF-17 programme as one of the most successful programmes in the recent aviation history.

PT-4 of JF-17 is exclusively developed for avionics & weapons qualification flight testing phase. The advanced 4th generation avionics package of JF-17 aircraft integrates data from multiple sensors using weapons and mission computers and has the ability to evade and degrade the enemy's sensors using on-board advanced Electronic Warfare suite. It would greatly enhance the lethality and survivability of JF-17 aircraft. The advanced man-machine interface helps in presenting the sensors' information in an integrated and effective manner, reducing the pilot's work load and improving combat efficiency. The aircraft is powered by a reliable RD-93 engine which is equipped with Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) system. High thrust to weight ratio and hybrid flight controls provide enhanced agility and maneuverability in all flight regimes.

JF-17 has a strong day and night surface attack capability including the delivery of PGMs. Its air to air capability includes all aspect Short Range as well as Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles by utilizing Multimode Pulse Doppler Radar.
Addressing the gathering on the occasion, Chief of the Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force said, "The Avionics and weapon qualification flight testing phase on PT-4 would optimize its mission capability aspects in different flight regimes and conditions. The finalization of this phase will herald a new era of serial production of aircraft in China and Pakistan".
The first batch of operational JF-17 aircraft would arrive in Pakistan in early 2007, while serial production in Pakistan at PAC, Kamra would start in 2008.

PAKISTAN AIR FORCE - Official website

 

[p2prada]

well the latest weight figure of JFT is 6411kg.bt i posted the one from wiki.

Is this from an official source?

I guess when the weight is reduced we should consider it than.as even JFT II is suppose to be 700kg light.bt i dnt consider that

I would like to wait for JF B2 specs being released, if we are to know the weight of B2. For obvious reasons it will be the B2 which will have the 93KN RD-93 engine.

No.it wont.

91KN won't give your aircraft a T/W greater than 1 regardless of the fact that the Chinese source gives loaded weight at 9.1 tonnes. Of course, it was JFT B1 for which the info was released in 2006-07 for empty weight.

*Proved wrong,sources posted above.with complete avionics suite.A to Z everything

It was both your govt and the Chinese govt which delinked avionics fro the JF-17 program. Yes, avionics were being made, but when the first JF-17 was made operational and the first weight specs were released, it is obvious it was for an incomplete aircraft. The 6560 Kg empty weight is from that time.

*[2]Do you have any source to support this?..weapons tests were nt done.bt Radar/complete avionics suite were integrated since later 2005-early 2006.

The Chinese radar was stated to be replaced with French and later Italian. Finally, PAF decided on Chinese radars. Of course there were iterative modifications to what the JF-17 was actually tested with. Meaning the first set of radars weren't operational radars meant for warfighting.

*Yes early variant of klj-7 had a lesser range and problems with radar integration..even though now the first squarden(including the first 8 SBP) still has problem with integration of SD-10.since they still has the older klj-7(info from feb 2012)

Of course, and open source info point at these aircraft when it comes to specs that we find on the internet. Whether your latest JF-17s B1s are of the same empty weight and still carry EW and other electronics or not is still debatable. Whether the newer B1s are actually lighter than before while carrying EW and other electronics, is not known here.

*no LWS and MAWS.very funny statement indeed.again posted abvoe

Do you have the pics of aircraft from the Black Spiders squadron for their oldest aircraft, first delivered? If you can get the pics with visible EW antennas that will help progress the discussion further.

*otherwise now your turn to prove me wrong that JFT dnt have MAWS and LWS

Pics will tell a thousand words.

It was actually when the first squadron was raised that the JF-17 had some level of electronics like the tail fin antennas.

*anyway PAF has also signed deal for MAA-1b wvr with brazil..MAA-1b is considered to be almost comparable to python-4

Let's not make it a contest here. Python IV, R-73 etc are outdated by many years. But I am willing to bet it will be better than anything the Chinese can make within the timeframe PAF would want the missiles in.

*How and why?

Nothing impressive planned for it. I guess only MAR is an extra on it. The program is mostly dealing with fixing whatever flaws exist on B1. Like an improved FBW, better handling, slightly more engine power etc. Maybe even, better internal estate. Internal estate has to do with the way fuel tanks and avionics bays spaces are utilized for maximum efficiency. LCA also saw a major overhaul only recently. Overall, PAF's current plan is to exceed the F-16 A/B in capability, maybe even F-16 A/B MLU, with the B2. So, nothing great there. If you have followed my posts in the LCA thread, I have said many times even Gripen C is obsolete for the current timeframe, let alone achieving less advanced Mirage-2000-5 Mk2, F-16 B52 or Mig-29Smt standards. So, setting standards just below F-16 B52 is nowhere close to the word "impressive" in a technology level PoV.

According to your own air force, JF-17 gives you a quantum leap. But they always mention it gives a quantum leap over aircraft like A-5, F-7 and Mirage-3. That's nothing particularly great.

Empty weight of jft is 6.4t.

For which aircraft, prototype or operational aircraft? Obviously won't be for an operational aircraft. Operational aircraft can only get heavier from here on out, unless you send them out for massive MLUs.

why 0.9t?for weapons?

I already explained. It is a crude approximation. SD-10 is heavier than Derby, hence I gave it a modest 150Kg compared to Derby's 100Kg. 4 SD-10s are 600Kg, add 2 100Kg WVR missiles and the weight is 800Kg. Add another 100Kg for margin of error and pilot.

*future tense..even though stll below jft

Just pointing out that neither aircraft have a T/W above 1. Mk1 will never have a T/W of greater than 1. Neither will JF-17 B1 and neither on the JF-17 B2.

JFT has all the system from start.again check the above post.

JF-17s first pic for operational squadrons will have the answer. I cannot find it or I would have posted it.

i will post about JFT twr with 91.2kn thrust next time..i am sure that is over 1(or as per tempest 0.99)

For full fuel load and 6 (4+2) missiles, JF-17's empty weight should be 6.08 tonnes if it is to have a T/W of "nearly" 1:1. This is not even considering the extra load from other fluids and oils. If JF-17 weighs more than 6100Kg, then forget it. The math simply won't add up. Of course, definitely more than 1:1 if you completely omit weapons.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sorry brother.bt i have watched performance of LCA and JFT both...

*JFT in international airshow(izmir turkey)
*LCA at home in aero india

Note:Excuse of LCa being nt pushed to maximum are good against kids.even jft pilot interview extract mentioned that JFT is nt a mature bird and has been nt pushed to its extreme yet.

well tejas has just got ioc,while jf-17 is already in PAF service.So you ought to know that there will be some flight envelope opening between iIOC and FOC .air to air roles are the last one to be fully opened up with further opening of AOA.it is an open source info that tejas that flew in aeroindia was limited to 6 gs by fbw and 22 degree AOA,opposed to 26plus degree in FOC and 8G.LSP-6 hasn't yet started to fly in full stream.The slow rate of lsp production from hal and grounding of lca fleet due to fuel links and helmet issue in most of the 2012 have slowed down the flight envelope opening further.LCA was designed to be flyable with close to 35 degree AOA in design phase.future engine upgrades will push the lca specs even further.

Other than that it has radar and missile integeration in a much more advanced stage than jf-17.The ADA chief himself has said that mk-2 will have asa radar and interfaces for firing meteor from lca tejas.

Agility?LCA?

It already completed full 360 deg turn in aeroindia with restricted flight envelope,please go to google or youtube to find it.

well i am yet to see a full 360 turn by LCA.

i will post a video of JFT.
*seeing is believing.you can post any lca performance video and compare
*JFT performance can be very easily compared to fighter of its class like gripen..even F-16

comparing will wait till the foc is over and all restrictions are limited.Also all deltas have lower STRs and higher ITRs as design charecteristics .With HMDS and high off bore WVR missile this lower STR doesnot matter in the modern world.Generally ITR s what is more impotant in modern aviation to avoid a missile by changing direction quickly.As a missile is capable of 50 plus G turns in 360 deg turn ,higher STR wont help much in modern warfare.

Also deltas fly well in vertical regime than the straight wing conventional fighter .So they can change the fight to vertical plane to their advantage.And they have best handling charecteristics in trans soinc flight regime.Also higher top speeds dont tell anything about agility of the fighter as topspeed cannot be sustained longer and plane is less maneuverable during higher top speed.
Most of the time planes fly in trans sonic flight regime of 0.8 mach to 1.2 mach.

That's why rafale was chosen over higher topspeed TYPHOON in MMRCA contract despite having lower topspedd than typhoon.

 

[ersakthivel]

The current state of LCA aka Last Chance Aircraft: 1350km/h max, 6g max, 22 AoA max, several hundreds of kilos overweight, no real confirmation of working radar, only weapon tested sofar is R-73, not a single round fired from its canon

Wonder where all your optimism comes from? In its current state LCA won't even survive an encounter with J7, let along JF-17.

First of all jf-17 has no long range missile to fire at lca.The radar range of lca is 120 km detection and tracking.What is it for jf-17?G limit is 9 and due to restriction in test flight program it has been limited to 6.If you want to know whether it is the common practice or not please go to the web and check the test flight program of all fighters.

Also design AOA is 28 deg with full FBW back up and the aircraft is flyable post 35 degree in a restricted manner .Once all the test flights are over it will be limited to 26 degree in mk-1 and go further up in mk-2,

 

[farhan_9909]

comparing will wait till the foc is over and all restrictions are limited.Also all deltas have lower STRs and higher ITRs as design charecteristics .With HMDS and high off bore WVR missile this lower STR doesnot matter in the modern world.Generally ITR s what is more impotant in modern aviation to avoid a missile by changing direction quickly.As a missile is capable of 50 plus G turns in 360 deg turn ,higher STR wont help much in modern warfare.

OK.bt this is only a good excuse.i mean LCA is already in limited series production.as i said even JFT is nt pushed to its extreme yet
FOC is in 2014-15?if i am nt wrong.when by that time rd-93ma would be successfully integrated with JFT 2 already.
so that time we will compare JFT 2 with 91.2kn thrust vs LCA mk1 with 84kn thrust

Also deltas fly well in vertical regime than the straight wing conventional fighter .So they can change the fight to vertical plane to their advantage.And they have best handling charecteristics in trans soinc flight regime.Also higher top speeds dont tell anything about agility of the fighter as topspeed cannot be sustained longer and plane is less maneuverable during higher top speed.
Most of the time planes fly in trans sonic flight regime of 0.8 mach to 1.2 mach.

JFT is a cropped delta as well like f-16

That's why rafale was chosen over higher topspeed TYPHOON in MMRCA contract despite having lower topspedd than typhoon.

i believe rafale was selected because of
*lower price
*full tot
*political will

 

[farhan_9909]

@ersakthivel

*JFT radar range is 130km for 5m2(latest)
*though yet it only have the sd-10A(long range as well)

bt for JFT 2 the primary bvr expected is sd-10B.


beside this as far as i know bvr are nt fired at its maximum range
care to tell me the longest range bvr of lca?

range of sd-10b is 110km

 

[ersakthivel]

OK.bt this is only a good excuse.i mean LCA is already in limited series production.as i said even JFT is nt pushed to its extreme yet
FOC is in 2014-15?if i am nt wrong.when by that time rd-93ma would be successfully integrated with JFT 2 already.
so that time we will compare JFT 2 with 91.2kn thrust vs LCA mk1 with 84kn thrust

Many people seem to misunderstand what IOC is and what FOC is. No significant additions to engine or wing flight efficiency happens during the period between IOC and FOC. All design parameters corresponding to FOC in 2013 or 14 are right there from 2006 on every LSP. Their validation is done step by step .And only minor changes are made between IOC and FOC.That's all.But since 50 plus JF-17 is already in service, all it's flight parameters must have been tested to the limit prior to induction in service. Because if there is any need for minor redesign (for ex- LSP-7 is supposed to have an auxillary air intake and redesigned air intake to reach top speeds at flight ceiling), then it is too cumbersome to be carried out on in 50 plus service aircraft.

JFT is a cropped delta as well like f-16



i believe rafale was selected because of
*lower price
*full tot
*political will

THEN why did RAFLE came first in SWISS AIRFORCE EVALUATION?

Same full TOT, and political will perhaps? Please stop giving simplistic knee jerk reactions, search the web to have an update of what is happening in real world.

Despite having a lower top speed and lower service ceiling than typhoon IAF choose rafale over typhoon why?

Because close to 90 percent of the time fighters fly at transsonic speeds only(0.8 mach to 1.2 mach,which is what most delta wing forms excel in handling with least drag ) and they accelerate to top speeds only while firing BVRs to add some range .You cannot out run a long range BVR by flying 0.2 mach faster as BVR has a speed of aroung 4 plus mach.

another reason why overall flight profile is prefered over fancy top speed is no fighter can maneuver efficiently at it's top speed. SO if you want to dodge a missile maneuvering with agility takes precedence over fancy top speeds which are not so maneuverable.Also higher STR wont help to dodge a missile because missile has 50 g plus turn specs.

What is more important is higher ITR which help the fighter to try sharp turns to shake off the missile,which is the strong point of low wing loading deltas. But I dont mean to say that by using this tejas will dodge all the missiles and JF-17 wont. It is what today's trend is. That's why you have lower wing loading deltas like typhoon , grippen, rafales are adopting this design.Just compare the wing loading of PAKFA with SU-30 and you will get some idea.


That is where tejas will score over JF-17 , because relaxed static stability fly by wire tech will give tejas a significant edge over there. However much you upgrade JF-17 you cannot change it into fully relaxed static stability air frame like tejas.There in lies the modernity of tejas, not just fancy top speeds and higher STRs, which can be improved by having a more powerful engine during first engine change.

That is why the test pilot SUNNET KRISHNA says , "that TEJAS is ours and it is modularly upgradable.

That is why the development validation and testing is taking long while JF-17 was quick off the block.If you compare the time frame of tejas with typhoon and rafale you can notice despite decades of experience these programs too took long time to mature.
Because it is the computer that controls the actuators while taking directions from pilot. So each flight profile must be painstakingly validated because the fly by wire software adjusts control surfaces 10 to 12 times a second.

The fly by wire tech has been exported to airbus industries by india .It's writing ,evaluation,validation , and finessing will take years, for every fighter program,so there is no getting away from it.

Even if you don't take into account ASR spec rivisions that tejas has to undergo , with funding for TD build starting at 1993 to IOC at 2013 it is quite same as typhoon and rafale.Typhoon hasn't been adopted to ground bombing till today.

If you take into account the ASR revisions and US sanctions the tejas development timeframe is not as delayed as many people imply it to be.

BTW what is the name of the radar on JF-17?

 

[Defcon 1]

THEN why did RAFLE came first in SWISS AIRFORCE EVALUATION?

Same full TOT, and political will perhaps? Please stop giving simplistic knee jerk reactions, search the web to have an update of what is happening in real world.

Despite having a lower top speed and lower service ceiling than typhoon IAF choose rafale over typhoon why?

Because close to 90 percent of the time fighters fly at transsonic speeds only(0.8 mach to 1.2 mach,which is what most delta wing forms excel in handling with least drag ) and they accelerate to top speeds only while firing BVRs to add some range .You cannot out run a long range BVR by flying 0.2 mach faster as BVR has a speed of aroung 4 plus mach.

another reason why overall flight profile is prefered over fancy top speed is no fighter can maneuver efficiently at it's top speed. SO if you want to dodge a missile maneuvering with agility takes precedence over fancy top speeds which are not so maneuverable.Also higher STR wont help to dodge a missile because missile has 50 g plus turn specs.

What is more important is higher ITR which help the fighter to try sharp turns to shake off the missile,which is the strong point of low wing loading deltas. But I dont mean to say that by using this tejas will dodge all the missiles and JF-17 wont. It is what today's trend is. That's why you have lower wing loading deltas like typhoon , grippen, rafales are adopting this design.Just compare the wing loading of PAKFA with SU-30 and you will get some idea.


That is where tejas will score over JF-17 , because relaxed static stability fly by wire tech will give tejas a significant edge over there. However much you upgrade JF-17 you cannot change it into fully relaxed static stability air frame like tejas.There in lies the modernity of tejas, not just fancy top speeds and higher STRs, which can be improved by having a more powerful engine during first engine change.
That is why the test pilot SUNNET KRISHNA says , "that TEJAS is ours and it is modularly upgradable.
That is why the development validation and testing is taking long while JF-17 was quick off the block.

To clear a common confusion on this issue, it must be known to all that IAF never chose Rafale over EFT. Both Rafale and EFT met the final requirements of IAF and then both BAE and Dassault systems were allowed to bid. Rafale won because Dassault's bid was lower, and not because Rafale is better than EFT. There is no point in comparing these two aircrafts, they both have their strengths. We chose Rafale because it was better suited for us, end of story.

 

[ersakthivel]

To clear a common confusion on this issue, it must be known to all that IAF never chose Rafale over EFT. Both Rafale and EFT met the final requirements of IAF and then both BAE and Dassault systems were allowed to bid. Rafale won because Dassault's bid was lower, and not because Rafale is better than EFT. There is no point in comparing these two aircrafts, they both have their strengths. We chose Rafale because it was better suited for us, end of story.

Technically it is correct. But the important point is that IAF indicated it's readiness to accept either RAFALE or TYPHOON after fully evaluating their entire flight profile depending upon the price. That is an undeniable fact.

But the point I wanted to highlight was that RAFALE had lower topspeeds than TYPHOON . Then WHY did the IAF intimated that they can accept any one of them if top speed is so important as it the main stick used to beat tejas on all forums?

Does't the IAF see it fit that a fee extra million dollars per plane is worth it if top speeds are so important?After all Even MIG-21 has higher top speeds than rafale.So why did IAf not consider the top speed so important?


That's the point I want to raise.Why I did is TEJAS has been repeatedly criticized in all the forums because of it's design top speed of mach 1.8 at service ceiling,which incidentally is also the same as that of RAFALE.

So what I wanted to stress was that overall flight profile is more important than top speeds at service ceiling.If you have any contrarian view please post.

Because even the swiss airforce arrived at the same conclusion, that is the overall flight profile is more important than topspeeds at service ceiling.And they too gave higher marks to rafale than typhoon in this area , and if it is not for the price they would have chosen RAFALE over grippen .

 

[ersakthivel]

The latest generation of fighter aircraft often employ design elements which reduce stability to increase maneuverability.

A less stable aircraft requires smaller control deflections to initiate maneuvering; consequently drag and control surface imposed stresses will be reduced and aircraft responsiveness will be enhanced.

Since these characteristics will typically make control by the pilot difficult or impossible, an artificial stability will typically be imposed using computers, servos, and sensors as parts of a fly by wire control system.

So this is what separates modern truly 4.5th gen fighters from planes like JF-17, not radar range or missile range or combat range or higher thrust to weight ratio as it is commonly made out to be.That is what LCA tejas is and JF-17 is not.

 

[farhan_9909]

THEN why did RAFLE came first in SWISS AIRFORCE EVALUATION?

Same full TOT, and political will perhaps? Please stop giving simplistic knee jerk reactions, search the web to have an update of what is happening in real world.

Despite having a lower top speed and lower service ceiling than typhoon IAF choose rafale over typhoon why?

Because close to 90 percent of the time fighters fly at transsonic speeds only(0.8 mach to 1.2 mach,which is what most delta wing forms excel in handling with least drag ) and they accelerate to top speeds only while firing BVRs to add some range .You cannot out run a long range BVR by flying 0.2 mach faster as BVR has a speed of aroung 4 plus mach.

another reason why overall flight profile is prefered over fancy top speed is no fighter can maneuver efficiently at it's top speed. SO if you want to dodge a missile maneuvering with agility takes precedence over fancy top speeds which are not so maneuverable.Also higher STR wont help to dodge a missile because missile has 50 g plus turn specs.

Dont want to go into Rafale vs EFT debate..the world know which one is better except you

What is more important is higher ITR which help the fighter to try sharp turns to shake off the missile,which is the strong point of low wing loading deltas. But I dont mean to say that by using this tejas will dodge all the missiles and JF-17 wont. It is what today's trend is. That's why you have lower wing loading deltas like typhoon , grippen, rafales are adopting this design.Just compare the wing loading of PAKFA with SU-30 and you will get some idea.


That is where tejas will score over JF-17 , because relaxed static stability fly by wire tech will give tejas a significant edge over there. However much you upgrade JF-17 you cannot change it into fully relaxed static stability air frame like tejas.There in lies the modernity of tejas, not just fancy top speeds and higher STRs, which can be improved by having a more powerful engine during first engine change.

*So just because of full relaxed stability fbw now LCA has edge over JFT in everthing?

anyway.your wrong once again.beside this we have plan of JFT block 3 in pipe as well.with major redesigning
JFT fbw(since your knowledge is limited to the 2006 specs of JFT on PAC site.whom are nt updated yet..and might never be

Some sources state that the system has been upgraded to provide fly-by-wire flight control in the roll and yaw axis also, the serial production aircraft having a digital quadruplex (quad-redundant) FBW system in the pitch axis and duplex (dual-redundant) FBW system in the roll and yaw axis

JF-17 has quadruplex, digital, fly-by-wire flight control system and two hydraulic systems for backup

That is why the test pilot SUNNET KRISHNA says , "that TEJAS is ours and it is modularly upgradable.

JF-17 Avionics | JF-17 Thunder

That is why the development validation and testing is taking long while JF-17 was quick off the block.If you compare the time frame of tejas with typhoon and rafale you can notice despite decades of experience these programs too took long time to mature.
Because it is the computer that controls the actuators while taking directions from pilot. So each flight profile must be painstakingly validated because the fly by wire software adjusts control surfaces 10 to 12 times a second.

that is not the reason.bt many system developed for J-10 were integrated onto JF-17.and new developed as well.
if i am nt wrong as per chinese member in 2009.they quoted that apart from J-10B(in development).jft at present has the most advance avionics.

The fly by wire tech has been exported to airbus industries by india .It's writing ,evaluation,validation , and finessing will take years, for every fighter program,so there is no getting away from it.


Even if you don't take into account ASR spec rivisions that tejas has to undergo , with funding for TD build starting at 1993 to IOC at 2013 it is quite same as typhoon and rafale.Typhoon hasn't been adopted to ground bombing till today.

If you take into account the ASR revisions and US sanctions the tejas development timeframe is not as delayed as many people imply it to be.

that doesnt matter since you guys term LCA as indigenous effort despite the fact that

*For design french help taken
*For avionics a jv with israel
*engine foriegn as well
*Radar again israel
*weapons majority from israel/russia/and may be france as well
*HMD foriegn as well

dnt want to add more
bt leave this since we are only comparing the performance of fighters

BTW what is the name of the radar on JF-17?

JFT block 1
*Klj-7

JFT block 2
either
*klj-7v2
*Nriet render aesa(for export may be sri lanka/egypt not for paf)

 

[farhan_9909]

The latest generation of fighter aircraft often employ design elements which reduce stability to increase maneuverability.

A less stable aircraft requires smaller control deflections to initiate maneuvering; consequently drag and control surface imposed stresses will be reduced and aircraft responsiveness will be enhanced.

Since these characteristics will typically make control by the pilot difficult or impossible, an artificial stability will typically be imposed using computers, servos, and sensors as parts of a fly by wire control system.

So this is what separates modern truly 4.5th gen fighters from planes like JF-17, not radar range or missile range or combat range or higher thrust to weight ratio as it is commonly made out to be.That is what LCA tejas is and JF-17 is not.

lol..

J-10 and JFT both has a quadruplex fly by wire system..so does most of the 4th gen fighter
i dnt know from where you got this classification of 4.5th generation fighter..

The United States Government defines 4.5 generation fighter aircraft as fourth generation jet fighters that have been upgraded with AESA radar, high capacity data-link, enhanced avionics, and "the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armament