LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[pankaj nema]

In BVR combat the plane has not only to first see and fire but it has also got to escape the incoming missile which has been fired on him

LCA has a low RCS because of carbon composites and a EW suite for self protection and jamming the enemy radar

Elta radar and Derby missiles too are quite capable .Now only the 404 engine has to be soon upgraded to 414 . Additional power is a must for more speed and making quick and sharp turns

Till that time 414 is installed on LCA it would be used only for point defence and Combat air patrol
ie it wont go across the boder

 

[JHA]

Its just that Range of DERBY is on lower side..only 50 Km..
BTW as LCA has open architecture i believe it should be able to fire METEOR and R-series as well..

 

[Neil]

Comparing Light Combat Aircraft with Gripen, JF-17 and FC-1

India's much awaited supersonic fighter jet, Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas was inducted into the IAF yesterday. LCA Tejas is India's first indigenously built light combat aircraft and its induction has highlighted India's defence aviation and self sufficiency capabilities to the world. We have to wait and watch if LCA TEJAS matches other multirole fighters like Gripen, JF-17 and F-CK-1. So lets go ahead and compare the features of LCA TEJAS with the rest.

Lets start with the LCA TEJAS which is a single-seat, single-engine, lightweight, high-agility supersonic fighter aircraft. The LCA TEJAS can speed upto Mach 1.4 and is capable of carrying assorted weapon load along with dropping tanks up to four tons. It has some of the latest avionics and digital flight control systems. The Tejas, presently is powered by American General Electric Engine. The HAL TEJAS is designed with a single vertical fin with no tailplanes or foreplanes and has a delta wing configuration.

The HAL TEJAS integrates modern design concepts and state-of-art technologies such as fly-by-wire Flight Control System, Advanced Digital Cockpit, Multi-Mode Radar, Integrated Digital Avionics System and a Flat Rated Engine.Other salient features of TEJAS include short takeoff and landing, excellent flight performance, safety, reliability and maintainability.

The aircraft is also fitted with a night vision compatible glass cockpit with Martin Baker (UK) zero-zero ejection seats. The aircraft's electronic warfare suite, developed by the Advanced Systems Integration and Evaluation Organisation (ASIEO) of Bangalore, includes a radar warning receiver and jammer, laser warner, missile approach warner, and chaff and flare dispenser. The LCA's design has been configured to match the demands of modern combat scenario such as speed, acceleration, maneuverability and agility.

The next aicraft we will be talking about is Gripen which is a lightweight single engine multirole fighter aircraft manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab.The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the General Electric F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine.As compared to LCA TEJAS , the Gripen will have a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1. The combination of delta wing and canards gives the Gripen significantly better takeoff , landing performance and flying characteristics. It also has a built-in electronic warfare unit, making it possible to load more ordnance onto the aircraft without losing self defence capabilities.

The Gripen uses the modern PS-05/A pulse-doppler X-band radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi. The radar is capable of detecting, locating, identifying and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air, in all weather conditions.One interesting feature is the Gripen's ability to take off and land on public roads, which was part of Sweden's war defence strategy.

The next aircraft we would talk about is JF-17 Thunder, also known as Chengdu FC-1. It is a single-engine, light-weight multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Chengdu Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAC) of China, the Pakistan Air Force and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC).

The JF-17 airframe is of semi-monocoque structure and its airframe is designed for a service life of 4,000 flight hours, or 25 years.The aircraft has a composite flight control system (FCS), comprising conventional controls with stability augmentation in the yaw and roll axis and a digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system in the pitch axis. The JF-17 is powered by a single Russian Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine, which is a variant of the RD-33 engine used on the Mig-29 fighter.JF-17 can be armed with up to 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance.

Finally we will be talking about F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, commonly known as the Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF). The IDF jet fighter project was designed and built by the Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) based in Taichung, Taiwan, with assistance from American defense corporations.

The IDF is equipped with a GD-53 Golden Dragon multi-mode monopulse Pulse-Doppler radar, which is based on the General Electric AN/APG-67 X band. The radar can simultaneously track 10 targets and engage two of the 10 targets tracked with TC-2 active radar seeker BVRAAMs. After the F-CK-1 Ching-kuo basic variant was finalized, the next step involved an upgrade with systems improvement, new technologies, and adjustments of material and weight.

It would be interesting to see how the LCA Tejas will compete with these three aircrafts over a period of time.The induction of LCA Tejas into the IAF has launched India into an exclusive club of nations that include the US, Russia, France and Britain that can produce combat aircrafts.Thus only time will tell if LCA Tejas is a better match than GRIPEN , JF-17 or F-CK-1 Ching-kuo.



http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011...aign=Feed:+DefenceAviation+(Defence+Aviation)

 

[joe81]

The HAL TEJAS integrates modern design concepts and state-of-art technologies such as fly-by-wire Flight Control System, Advanced Digital Cockpit, Multi-Mode Radar, Integrated Digital Avionics System and a Flat Rated Engine.Other salient features of TEJAS include short takeoff and landing, excellent flight performance, safety, reliability and maintainability.

How can you mention safety, reliability and maintainability as an attribute of LCA? It has not proved itself on any of these fronts. Maybe with time it will but as of now dont mention all these attributes against LCA.

 

[Neil]

How can you mention safety, reliability and maintainability as an attribute of LCA? It has not proved itself on any of these fronts. Maybe with time it will but as of now dont mention all these attributes against LCA.

well if u compare against JF-17 or any other chinese airplane it is far more safer and reliable....and also since last 10 years of its development not a single aircraft was lost during the test[that speaks a lot]

 

[slenke]

The Gripen NG has a SC speed of >M1.2 and the current PS-05/A radar is not intended for the NG, that would be the ES-05 AESA.

 

[warriorextreme]

well if u compare against JF-17 or any other chinese airplane it is far more safer and reliable....and also since last 10 years of its development not a single aircraft was lost during the test[that speaks a lot]

there are many things that china hides from world...

 

[gogbot]

there are many things that china hides from world...

they also bluff a great many things , with the perception that it is hidden.
Don't confuse the two.
Cold war tactics in the modern day world.

 

[RebateKing]

Yeap, often when they show their strength, they might actually be bluffing to buy them more time to come up with some real stuff.

 

[smartindian]

this is only way jf-17 can defeat lca

 

[sayareakd]

this is only way jf-17 can defeat lca

may this one run on lead free petrol and air pressure checked free of cost just like they do in India

 

[smartindian]

may this one run on lead free petrol and air pressure checked free of cost just like they do in India

but the problem is until it reachs the border , our army would had reached Rawalpindi, destroying pakistan

 

[ace009]

I would advise people NOT to underestimate any fighter from the enemy. If it can fly, radar-seek and fire missiles, it is a threat. If PAF can launch a hundred of these fighters against 50-60 LCAs, even a 3:1 kill-rate (which is a lot, considering we do not know the combat performance of the LCA or the JF-17), would still severely deplete our defenses. Together with F-16s, Mirage5s and SAMs, the JF-17 is definitely a threat. Even losing 1 pilot or 1 airplane to the JF-17 will be a loss for India.

 

[smartindian]

I would advise people NOT to underestimate any fighter from the enemy. If it can fly, radar-seek and fire missiles, it is a threat. If PAF can launch a hundred of these fighters against 50-60 LCAs, even a 3:1 kill-rate (which is a lot, considering we do not know the combat performance of the LCA or the JF-17), would still severely deplete our defenses. Together with F-16s, Mirage5s and SAMs, the JF-17 is definitely a threat. Even losing 1 pilot or 1 airplane to the JF-17 will be a loss for India.

Birds and cockroaches both can fly , it does'nt mean cockroaches will become birds

 

[ace009]

Your attitude in these posts is surprisingly like the Pakistanis. Go to Pak def forum and you will find people with as narrow views and bad humor as your last post.
For your reference, in case of a nuclear winter, the birds will die and the cockroaches will live on!
I think a head to head comparison of any pair of aircrafts is moot. Air combat strategy, pilot training, technology upgrades etc would be WAY more important for any real combat situation than anything else.

 

[civfanatic]

I would advise people NOT to underestimate any fighter from the enemy. If it can fly, radar-seek and fire missiles, it is a threat. If PAF can launch a hundred of these fighters against 50-60 LCAs, even a 3:1 kill-rate (which is a lot, considering we do not know the combat performance of the LCA or the JF-17), would still severely deplete our defenses. Together with F-16s, Mirage5s and SAMs, the JF-17 is definitely a threat. Even losing 1 pilot or 1 airplane to the JF-17 will be a loss for India.

JF-17s are effectively point-defence fighters, with limited CAS capabilities. The LCA has a similar role.

Since neither JF-17s nor LCAs are likely to enter enemy airspace in case of hostilities, combat between the two is also unlikely. Much better to compare IAF air superiority fighters like MiG-29s and Su-30MKIs with the JF-17, as they will be the ones doing the fighting in enemy airspace.

 

[Armand2REP]

this is only way jf-17 can defeat lca

roflmao... I laughed so hard my fart drove my girl out the room.

 

[gazi2202]

Birds and cockroaches both can fly , it does'nt mean cockroaches will become birds

with all due respect, the jf 17 is designed to be a light weight capable fighter meant to replace vintage f 7 class fighters (a job it does very well). a decent number of jf 17's combined with upgraded f 16's are good enough to deny air superiority to even the USAF for long enough to end the war let alone the IAF. Do you think the Pakistani military has been snoozing while india prepares "cold Start" doctrines? The Azm e Nau series of exercises are ment to prepare the pak military for a quick mobilization and a joint army af operation to achieve battlefield objectives.

about your second comment on "the indian army taking Rawalpindi" i would advise you think again, you would be fighting on our soil, and besides the pakistani army has been training for decades to deal with any indian advance to the west. this includes demo'd bridges, mine fields, coordinated artillery and air attacks, as well as a large number of mllitia and irregular forces.
you have to remember, all it takes to take out a $ 2 million tank is a $ 25,000 ATGM. the difference between india and any other industralised nation is in its industrial capacity, india lacks the capacity to produce 100's of tanks, aircraft and ships at a rapid pace (attrition) like lets say germany or the US can. this is simply because of the fact that the countries listed above have had "private" companies (boeing, lokheed martin, GM, Rheinmetall , airbus etc) producing their military hardware for hundreds of years and have the infrastructure and know how to do so at a rapid rate. this capability takes many decades to develop and india wouldnt be able to make this magically appear over time......

my point is, in order to fight a long drawn out conflict and occupy a nation, you need a basic industrial, financial and resource base and also international influence. as soon as a conflict breaks out in the subcontinent, the first thing to happen would be international sanctions. barring the sale of everything but second grade Russian weapons. all pakistan has to do in that case is prolong the conflict long enough so the initial indian momentum in eroded and the war turns into a war of attrition. the indian forces would have nothing else to do but turn back after a year or so of intense fighting, which would cause massive equiptment loss and finanial burden, and most likely fail to achieve any meaningful political, economic or strategic goal.

think about that!

 

[SHASH2K2]

with all due respect, the jf 17 is designed to be a light weight capable fighter meant to replace vintage f 7 class fighters (a job it does very well). a decent number of jf 17's combined with upgraded f 16's are good enough to deny air superiority to even the USAF for long enough to end the war let alone the IAF. Do you think the Pakistani military has been snoozing while india prepares "cold Start" doctrines? The Azm e Nau series of exercises are ment to prepare the pak military for a quick mobilization and a joint army af operation to achieve battlefield objectives.

Very tall claim. care to elaborate how? When PAF donot have answer to Sukhoi 30 MKI you dream that It can take on F22 , F35 and F117 ?

about your second comment on "the indian army taking Rawalpindi" i would advise you think again, you would be fighting on our soil, and besides the pakistani army has been training for decades to deal with any indian advance to the west. this includes demo'd bridges, mine fields, coordinated artillery and air attacks, as well as a large number of mllitia and irregular forces.
you have to remember, all it takes to take out a $ 2 million tank is a $ 25,000 ATGM. the difference between india and any other industralised nation is in its industrial capacity, india lacks the capacity to produce 100's of tanks, aircraft and ships at a rapid pace (attrition) like lets say germany or the US can. this is simply because of the fact that the countries listed above have had "private" companies (boeing, lokheed martin, GM, Rheinmetall , airbus etc) producing their military hardware for hundreds of years and have the infrastructure and know how to do so at a rapid rate. this capability takes many decades to develop and india wouldnt be able to make this magically appear over time......

Well pakistani army has been training for almost more than 6 decades to beat India but were they able to do it . Letme tell you a very basic fact. In each of Indo Pakistan war it was pakistan which had better weapons system of Americans and were still beaten comprehensively. Now after very long time India is having quantity as well as quality. With strengthening of economy this gap will only widen. Pakistan will go USSR way and disintegrate if it dreams it can match India in conventional warfare .

my point is, in order to fight a long drawn out conflict and occupy a nation, you need a basic industrial, financial and resource base and also international influence. as soon as a conflict breaks out in the subcontinent, the first thing to happen would be international sanctions. barring the sale of everything but second grade Russian weapons. all pakistan has to do in that case is prolong the conflict long enough so the initial indian momentum in eroded and the war turns into a war of attrition. the indian forces would have nothing else to do but turn back after a year or so of intense fighting, which would cause massive equiptment loss and finanial burden, and most likely fail to achieve any meaningful political, economic or strategic goal.

think about that!

Who was the fool who told you that India wanted to occupy Pakistan? If India wanted it it could have occupied eastern Pakistan or I would say Bangladesh. Also Entire POK and most of Pakistan would havebeen under Indian control if we wished so . Bottomline is that India donot want to occupy Pakistan.

 

[gazi2202]

Very tall claim. care to elaborate how? When PAF donot have answer to Sukhoi 30 MKI you dream that It can take on F22 , F35 and F117 ?



Well pakistani army has been training for almost more than 6 decades to beat India but were they able to do it . Letme tell you a very basic fact. In each of Indo Pakistan war it was pakistan which had better weapons system of Americans and were still beaten comprehensively. Now after very long time India is having quantity as well as quality. With strengthening of economy this gap will only widen. Pakistan will go USSR way and disintegrate if it dreams it can match India in conventional warfare .



Who was the fool who told you that India wanted to occupy Pakistan? If India wanted it it could have occupied eastern Pakistan or I would say Bangladesh. Also Entire POK and most of Pakistan would havebeen under Indian control if we wished so . Bottomline is that India donot want to occupy Pakistan.

sure, to answer these questions..

1. F 22's most likely wont be deployed outside of us airspace (usaf f 15, F16's and US navy F 18's are good enough), F 35's havent rolled off of production lines yet and the US af has retired all f 117's. (you can check these on your own time, Im not making these up). However, getting back to point, in the past, US doctrine has been to send its navy over, do mass cruise missile attacks, send B 52's heavy bommers to flatten out entire airfields, then send mass waves of literally (many hundreds) of combined US navy and USAF fighters to take out the remaining half a dozen enemy fighters out of the sky. this happened in gulf war 1 (after the iraqi air force was badly beat from a 10 year iran iraq war). 2. in serbia (kosovo) another air force that didnt have more than a few dozen air worthy fighters in the first place. Pakistan would be a different case, we have not just gone through a 10 year war or have a few dozen aircrafts in the inventory. The number of aircrafts in PAF inventory are not enough to keep fighting indefinitely, but they are enough to fight a long enough air war to make things a bit harder than a "cake walk". also in gulf war the us had the advantage of the fifth fleet in baharain and airbases in saudi arabia that they had constructed in the 80's. they wont have the same logistical advantages in the case of pakistan.
Paf might not have an answer to the su 30, but we have capable F 16's,,, and more so you are forgetting that the IAF would fight a war over "pakistani skies". PAF would have the advantage of data link from ground based radars, ground based SAM and other air defenses, and a very good knowledge of terrain and the advantage of long prepared doctrines and plans of how to deal with enemy aircraft over home skies. this allows for a smaller number of PAF aircraft to be better coordinated to deal with larger numbers of enemy aircraft. the IAF and IN do not have the same capability as the US military to be able to take out all enemy air defenses through mass strategic bomming or cruise missile attacks. (and dont forget the PAF and army have chinese cruise missiles to disable IAF airfields also). therefore the air war would be far from easy. the IAF will proably achieve its tactical goals, but not without a very heavy cost.

2. The question is not matching india in conventional warfare, I dont think you understood my point. The idea is to prolong the war long enough that indian forces withdraw due to high attrition, high financial costs and high human casualties. There is a big difference in training to "Defeat India" and Training to "Defend Pakistan" defeating india might would be out of reach because of the massive difference of scale between the two nations (population 1.2 billion vs 170 million) but defending pakistan is something thats not that hard to do,, we have a smaller frontier to protect (unlike indo pak + indo china + indo mayanmar + indo bangla) this allows for military assets to be focused better, further more the terrain in kashmir doesnt allow for an all out invasion, which lets us focus our forces on Punjab, Baluchistan, sindh frontier.
Again my point was (india will not be able to fight a prolonged war because of a lack of military industrial infrastructure, lack of financial wealth and a lack of international influence) as long as pakistan is able to continue to fight, even if its on our own soil and prolong the war, public opinion and political will in india will gradually but surely change to end the war.

lets look at 2 of indias last military engagements on "Foreign Soil"

1. 1971 war
2. IPKF

1. 1971 war, yes the indian military was able to secure a victory, however you have to understand that East Pakistan (bangladesh) was under full armed revolt (because of many political mistakes made by the ruling parties in pakistan then) and military supply lines had to go across india, which was an impossible scenario. Indian forces also gained some victories on the western front, but these were against desperate Pak Army attempts to draw the indian army to the west such as longewala. A full scale invasion of pakistan would have been much harder to achieve. the political aim in the 71 war was to seperate bangladesh from pakistan, which took a matter of weeks and a swift war since there was already a revolt.

2. IPKF deployment in SL was another indian war fought on foreign soil, and again in a civil war scenario. but this time the rebels turned on india (which india did not forsee) and intense fighting that went on for almost a year saw hundreds of indian casualties, lots of money spent on the war effort and a stretched supply line. after a while of fighting, the indian public and government just lost all will to fight (seeing the high cost of war).

finally, what would be the point of a short quick war with pakistan again where your forces reach Rawalpindi or peshawar, only to turn back and go home? would there be any political goal behind such a war? all I see is a loss of lives, a depletion of military hardware and a drain of precious money on both sides. sending a massive indian military invasion in and out of pakistan wouldnt solve any of your problems and they wouldnt solve any of ours

the problems we see on the subcontinent today will take time, money, education and patience to solve as i see it. """"TRADE, BUSINESS, DIALOG, and JOINT PROJECTS""" can solve our problems, wars would bring both nations just where we started. do what the chinese are doing, build ports, railroads, trade poasts and factories in your neighboring countries, that would solve your problems. a fleet of su 30's most likely wouldnt.