LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[sukhish]

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.

well trade, dialog, joint projects would be good steps. but is pakistan ready for trade, you guys want the core issue of kashmir to be resolved first and foremost, even through you hold half of kashmir. but no pakistan wants full kashmir. next they will have problems with delhi also, it will soon be put into the list of disputed territories. the dispute list will keep growing longer and longer. eventually india will have declare balouchistan and pashtunistan as disputed territories. if pakistan is ready for trade and joint projects it would be a welcomes sign. but I'm really not sure if you guys are ready, at some point of time I would also like to visit pakistan to see my ansistoral land.

 

[sayareakd]

stay on topic, if you guys want to discuss other things start new topic.

 

[jat]

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......

with all due respect, india does make t-72s and can build a lot of them on short notice.
they are liecensed, but
the parts, build is all indian in hose.
as far as jets are concerned, no one can really build 50 jets in one year during wartime to make a difference.
12 or 24 a year, doesn't count.
and if you knock out the factories
you put them out
its not what you will have but
what you have.

 

[Neil]

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.

1st.you seriously think you can fly even a single aircraft if US attacks you....dream on.....B-2 will be taking your air basses, you cant fly F-16 because you have no spares or limited and JF-17 is like a junk for F-16 and F-18 in BVR fighting.....

2nd.you think India is not prepared for that...even we are practicing it[not to occupy you but to give you a befitting reply for your strike]
there is not much difference between are terrain-we live on Indian subcontinent not different continents.
oh yeah we will forget your ground base radars,your SAM, and other air defenses right.....you think we are like your generals....it will be taken out the minute the war has started so...
true it wont be easy....but war is never easy.....but with proper planning we can take on anyone anywhere for sure!!

 

[mki]

It doesn't matter what ever update you do in your JF17. you can not convert a cart (JF17) in a car (Tejas).....
to compete you need to make car not cart......

 

[mki]

Rahul sir can i give answer?

Pakistan contributed their pockets for this planes and going to contribute their pilots in the cockpit of JF17 to sacrifice for pakistan. I dont think pakistan can do more then this.

 

[Armand2REP]

I heard it can destroy entire planets

 

[pmaitra]

I cannot believe someone would name a plane F-CK-1.

 

[ace009]

I cannot believe someone would name a plane F-CK-1.

u know why?

All that is missing is "u" ...

 

[agentperry]

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]

this is because tejas is not in operation the tests are conducted with full assurance of not crashing, they are pampered with what all drdo and hal can provide. this is not the case with the planes in IAF operations. moreover they are not doing any maneuvering and low altitude flights on regular basis. these flights are from 2 pv, 5 lsp and 2 td. so 9 planes clocking 1200 hrs of flight in 10 years. no way anyone of them will crash. also the tech consultancy from dassault over the design wont make it fall like migs.

 

[ace009]

this is because tejas is not in operation the tests are conducted with full assurance of not crashing, they are pampered with what all drdo and hal can provide. this is not the case with the planes in IAF operations. moreover they are not doing any maneuvering and low altitude flights on regular basis. these flights are from 2 pv, 5 lsp and 2 td. so 9 planes clocking 1200 hrs of flight in 10 years. no way anyone of them will crash. also the tech consultancy from dassault over the design wont make it fall like migs.

Actually in some other thread, we did discuss the test flight of the Tejas and the Gripen and it was found that in the same flight hours, with similar test regime, the Tejas indeed had no crashes, while the Gripen had one crash and one "accident".
Now this might have to do with the fact that DRDO/ HAL is extra careful since they have only a couple of prototypes available for flight testing at any time, while SAAB maybe using less rigorous care - but it still is impressive for a third world country with little/ no previous experience in Jet design.

 

[no smoking]

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]

Excuse me, how many LCA have been put into service in last 10 years?

 

[p2prada]

The Gripen is in a class of it's own.

JF-17 is a replacement for the Mirages in PAF, quite like LCA being a replacement for Mig-21s in IAF while the F-CK-1 fulfills Taiwan's F-16 requirements.

F-CK-1 (wow) is equivalent to the JF-17 and Mig-21Bison when it comes to electronics. They say JF-17 may have a better radar, but that is yet to be seen. The current one isn't supposed to be that great. I am guessing the flight characteristics of the F-CK will be closer to JF-17 or even F-16 rather than the Mig-21 or LCA as the thrust and wing loading along with aerodynamic design match the capability required to fly at low speeds and low altitudes. LCA and Mig-21 are more to do with high speed, high altitude interception quite like the Mig-29. F-CK-1 and JF-17 can do interception as well albeit not as well as the Mig and LCA in certain situations. However it will suffice to say the the F-CK-1 is more mature and more proven than the JF-17 or LCA.

JF-17 can accomplish more roles than the LCA, namely in deep penetration and even CAS. But it's engine is sh!tty and not entirely reliable. It is the same as the Mig-29A's engine, but at least the Mig-29 has 2 of them. Failure of one will still keep it in the air unlike the JF-17. I guess an engine upgrade is more important for the JF-17 than a radar upgrade. LCA's and Gripen's engines are the most reliable among the four.

Gripen's sensors, aerodynamics etc is simply superlative compared to these aircraft even the F-16-Block 50/52. It is capable of subsonic flight superior to the JF-17 and high altitude flight superior to the LCA. Only the Block 2 versions of JF and LCA "may" match the Gripen, but by then Saab will come out with a NG version and floor them again with AESA, new engines and trons. A Block 2 planned version of the F-CK-1 may outclass the current version of Gripen but the NG will still stay ahead.

 

[utubekhiladi]

ahh i am enjoying this already discussed dick measuring thread.... again....

 

[SPIEZ]

Waste of time thread!

Somebody wants to throw the JF17 some international light

 

[ace009]

The Gripen is in a class of it's own.

JF-17 is a replacement for the Mirages in PAF, quite like LCA being a replacement for Mig-21s in IAF while the F-CK-1 fulfills Taiwan's F-16 requirements.

F-CK-1 (wow) is equivalent to the JF-17 and Mig-21Bison when it comes to electronics. They say JF-17 may have a better radar, but that is yet to be seen. The current one isn't supposed to be that great. I am guessing the flight characteristics of the F-CK will be closer to JF-17 or even F-16 rather than the Mig-21 or LCA as the thrust and wing loading along with aerodynamic design match the capability required to fly at low speeds and low altitudes. LCA and Mig-21 are more to do with high speed, high altitude interception quite like the Mig-29. F-CK-1 and JF-17 can do interception as well albeit not as well as the Mig and LCA in certain situations. However it will suffice to say the the F-CK-1 is more mature and more proven than the JF-17 or LCA.

JF-17 can accomplish more roles than the LCA, namely in deep penetration and even CAS. But it's engine is sh!tty and not entirely reliable. It is the same as the Mig-29A's engine, but at least the Mig-29 has 2 of them. Failure of one will still keep it in the air unlike the JF-17. I guess an engine upgrade is more important for the JF-17 than a radar upgrade. LCA's and Gripen's engines are the most reliable among the four.

Gripen's sensors, aerodynamics etc is simply superlative compared to these aircraft even the F-16-Block 50/52. It is capable of subsonic flight superior to the JF-17 and high altitude flight superior to the LCA. Only the Block 2 versions of JF and LCA "may" match the Gripen, but by then Saab will come out with a NG version and floor them again with AESA, new engines and trons. A Block 2 planned version of the F-CK-1 may outclass the current version of Gripen but the NG will still stay ahead.

As of now, the Gripen is still powered by the GE 404 engines - i.e. it is "underpowered" (a la LCA) as far as IAF is concened.
The sensors and electronics is really good in the Gripen, but again, the PS-05/A Radar is older and underpowered at 1 KM max output.

The Gripen NG is still not ready, primarily because there are no customers. The European countries which had Gripen A/B were happy to upgrade to the Gripen C/D standard, which can launch the Meteor AAM, but not may takers for the Gripn E/F or Gripen NG as it is better known. Which is why SAAB is still holding onto the hope of MoD messing up the current MMRCA deal and selecting the Gripen NG for MMRCA.

 

[nimo_cn]

Well, when the name is translated from one language into another, it always losts the original meaning.

IDF is named after the son of Chiang Kai-shek(蒋介石，Jiang Jieshi), Chiang Ching-kuo（蒋经国，Jiang Jingguo), who was the president of ROC when the plance was developed, that is how the CK abbreviation comes from, I am not sure about the F.

The name of the plane aside, IDF was the best aircraft developed by Asian countries back in 1980s and 1990s. It was better than anything PLAAF was having except a handful of Su27s imported from Russia. By developing IDF, ROC also nurtured their own aviation talents, who sadly left ROC for SK after ROC gave up on the idea of developing any more indigenous planes.

 

[ace009]

Well, when the name is translated from one language into another, it always losts the original meaning.

IDF is named after the son of Chiang Kai-shek(蒋介石，Jiang Jieshi), Chiang Ching-kuo（蒋经国，Jiang Jingguo), who was the president of ROC when the plance was developed, that is how the CK abbreviation comes from, I am not sure about the F.

The name of the plane aside, IDF was the best aircraft developed by Asian countries back in 1980s and 1990s. It was better than anything PLAAF was having except a handful of Su27s imported from Russia. By developing IDF, ROC also nurtured their own aviation talents, who sadly left ROC for SK after ROC gave up on the idea of developing any more indigenous planes.

I think the F in F-CK-1 probably referes to a "Fighter" - a la F-16 - since that was the basic design it was based on.

 

[p2prada]

As of now, the Gripen is still powered by the GE 404 engines - i.e. it is "underpowered" (a la LCA) as far as IAF is concened.

We cannot say that for sure without going into the minute details, like weight distribution, point of pressure, inlet size etc. The Swedish engine has been extensively modified and goes by the name RM-12. It is made by Volvo, so they have full access to ToT, unlike India. This gives them more flexibility. The last I heard IAF pilots said the Gripen C/D alone is good enough to compete with Rafale and EF in flight characteristics. Let's not forget that Gripen's aerodynamics are superlative compared to other designs in the entire MRCA deal.

The sensors and electronics is really good in the Gripen, but again, the PS-05/A Radar is older and underpowered at 1 KM max output.

Yes, the radar is old. But it is actually better than what LCA and JF-17 carry even today.

The Gripen NG is still not ready, primarily because there are no customers. The European countries which had Gripen A/B were happy to upgrade to the Gripen C/D standard, which can launch the Meteor AAM, but not may takers for the Gripn E/F or Gripen NG as it is better known. Which is why SAAB is still holding onto the hope of MoD messing up the current MMRCA deal and selecting the Gripen NG for MMRCA.

The Swedish air force wants it. Export orders are subjective to change depending on geopolitics and availability of the F-35 and other competitors.

 

[SpArK]

Bullsh!t article.. just describes about all the aircrafts and then concludes by saying "time will tell".. so whats new.?:shocked: