Race between Jf17 block 3 v Tejas mark1a,

Roland55

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
77
Likes
276
Country flag
JFT Block-3 is much advanced than LCA Mk1A, true. But Block-1 is useless and Block-2 is trash.
Block 1 and 2 are what can be considered "the basics" for a light multirole aircraft, they have access to guided munitions (both WVR and BVR), the engine is pretty much a slightly modified RD-33 (with some improvements). Again their avionics are the basics for what is a support aircraft, its not great but not terrible, in regards to its life cycle its not great, 3000hs for the airframe and 800/1200 for the engine (could be more) is mediocre when compared to other designs. The Block 3 is more of what the "proper version" is, having an AESA radar, access to more advanced weaponry and a complete revision fixing the problems of its predecessors (more powerful engine, and more airframe life). Still fairly limited, but its a step on the right direction.

On the other side we have the Tejas, witch is the one i believe that has more potential, as it gets multiple arms providers (Rusia, India, Israel) and it also its Airframe has by far more life, same thing to its engine and it also gets a naval version (important for nations that have carriers or participate on carrier exercises with other nations). Where is the problem with tejas? probably the opposite with the JF-17, the Pakistanis settled with the Block 1 and made almost a 100 of them, although the aircraft was mediocre they settled with that and continued developing the B2 and B3, while the tejas did small series until they got the Mk.1A witch is in fact the "proper version" of the aircraft, with 83 ordered india could get deals for them and secure a more stable and respectable reputation.

As far as we see them both Mk.1A and Block 3 are right on par, both have modern armament (BVR and WVR, designator pods, guided bombs, etc), both have AESA Radars, and relatively modern avionics and and relatively close flight performance (although i might want to check how they perform at high and low alts loaded with armament). But in the end The Mk.1A has a bit of an advantage, since its more on the quality side (+ that it can be purchased as the customer wants, with israeli radar or even in the future with the Indian one!)

I like both aircraft, but the Tejas more than the Jeff !
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,101
Likes
4,716
the Pakistanis settled with the Block 1 and made almost a 100 of them, although the aircraft was mediocre they settled with that and continued developing the B2 and B3, while the tejas did small series until they got the Mk.1A witch is in fact the "proper version" of the aircraft, with 83 ordered india could get deals for them and secure a more stable and respectable reputation.
Did they actually develop the aero, avionics or software and radar e.t.c or is it all Chinese bheek? They don't seem to have base to do anything from scratch as far as I know
 

Roland55

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
77
Likes
276
Country flag
Did they actually develop the aero, avionics or software and radar e.t.c or is it all Chinese bheek? They don't seem to have base to do anything from scratch as far as I know
As far as i know all avionics are Chinese, the only thing the Pakistanis produce are the Airframe and maybe other parts (hydraulics, landing gear, etc).
 

Roland55

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
77
Likes
276
Country flag
Ya, I don't think they have disciplines to create a culture at that level...even those may just be producing on tech rather than design their own and produce?
Considering that Pakistan lacks the funds to set the design and development of things like a Radar, RWR receivers and other electronic hi-tech that requieres years of work and millions of dollars, its easier for them to co-produce other parts (that are a lot simpler) while getting chinese electronics. Its a good deal for them
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,101
Likes
4,716
Considering that Pakistan lacks the funds to set the design and development of things like a Radar, RWR receivers and other electronic hi-tech that requieres years of work and millions of dollars, its easier for them to co-produce other parts (that are a lot simpler) while getting chinese electronics. Its a good deal for them
ya first US and now China, they are lucky one could say....no country in current world can adopt a hopeless scum country like Pakistan with 200 million people most of which are radicalized and can't read anything other than the rut they learn. Not even China can do that for long...
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,242
Likes
20,234
Country flag
Not much advanced , define much advanced
Your sarcasm (assuming) aside.. If Block3 gets the 95kN engine then it'll have T/W ratio of 1.1!.. Meaning we'll have to wait until 110kN on MWF for us to match it.

Other than that the few fields in with JF-17 is ahead are right now, compared to FOC, not the Mark1A (especially if ot really had weight reduced & aerodynamic improvements).
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,680
Likes
14,484
Country flag
Demeaning JF 17 won't do us any good..
Thing is they got 150 Jets capable of launching BVR and SAW.
While we are stuck at 20 ( 6 with HAL) odd LCA of IOC variety.
And out of those 150, not even one came to counter Mirage 2000, Su 30 MKI or even Mig 21.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,680
Likes
14,484
Country flag
That's exactly the point.. even after signing the Deal for 83 MK1A we don't have a clue about MK1A structure and other aspects.
So won't t it be better if HAL come up with a brand new PT ?
It is going to be same except few tweaks for aerodynamic improvements. The main changes shall be Radar, electronics, sensor fusion. EW, communication link, etc with weight reduction etc.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,680
Likes
14,484
Country flag
Think of Devil and Devil comes:


Tejas versus JF-17 Thunder: the Indian fighter is well ahead of the Chinese-Pak one
India and Pakistan’s approach to light fighters is a study in contrast with lessons for indigenisation

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 7th May 21


Since its first flight in 2001, India’s homegrown Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) has faced two decades of unrelenting opposition from the Indian Air Force (IAF). For long, the fighter pilots who make all the key decisions in the IAF opposed the indigenous fighter’s entry into service, arguing that it lacked the performance needed for surviving in the highly-contested airspace that would prevail in an Indo-Pakistan or Sino-Indian war. Only last year was the Ministry of Defence (MoD) able to push through an order for 83 Tejas Mark 1A fighters – an improved version of the aircraft that will start being delivered in a couple of years. With this endorsement from the IAF, there is interest in the fighter from other regional air forces, including those of Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

In sharp contrast to the IAF, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) wholeheartedly supported its own fighter – the JF-17 Thunder, which Pakistan and China co-designed as a no-nonsense, light fighter that met unambitious performance benchmarks without endless scrutiny and comparisons with the cutting edge in military aviation. Consequently, the JF-17 is already inducted in numbers into the PAF and is encountering interest from other countries (though, notably, not from China) who are encouraged by the PAF’s enthusiastic endorsement.

With the National Democratic Alliance government setting great store by “Make in India” and “Atmanirbharta” (self reliance), it is worth comparing the Indian and Pakistani approaches to their light fighters and drawing lessons for indigenisation.

In defining the Tejas programme as it did, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) set itself the aim of leapfrogging technologies and catching up with the world. This high-risk gambit involved going straight for a fourth generation (Gen-4), state-of-the-art aircraft. Old-timers admit it was pure technological arrogance to reason: “I’ve never made an aircraft earlier, but I’ll start by developing a Gen-4 fighter”. Astonishingly, this risky strategy worked!

In contrast, China-Pakistan chose a very different, low-risk path: To utilize the technologies China already had and realise an aircraft into service quickly and cheaply. The JF-17 is a heavily re-engineered MiG-21, which allowed a more modest development trajectory. The core of a fighter development problem is technology and risk management. Since China already had the technologies, the risk was minimal. The PAF knowingly chose a less capable fighter, whose performance shortfalls could be compensated for with numbers.

In taking forward the Tejas project, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) – the DRDO agency that was made responsible for developing the Tejas – ambitiously incorporated four Gen-4 technologies into the new fighter. These were (a) Unstable design and digital flight control; (b) Building major aircraft structures (wings, fuselage, etc) with lightweight composite materials; (c) Microprocessor based controls for on-board utilities (such as fuel); and (d) An all-glass cockpit, which meant the pilots flew and fought with smart, digital control panels, enabling them to do more.

The Tejas fighter’s most advanced Gen-4 technology lay in its fully unstable design, which improves flight performance. With an unstable design, safety demands that flight control systems must be quadruplex – which means catering for three levels of failure. Ninety per cent of the design effort goes into managing failure. The Tejas was, therefore, the most advanced aircraft in the IAF’s fleet. Even the Mirage 2000, with a similar delta-wing design, is a Gen-3 aircraft with “relaxed stability”, but not a fully unstable design. That is half a generation behind the Tejas.

Tejas’ other big Gen-4 advantage comes from the use of lightweight composite materials. Over 45 per cent of the Tejas’s total weight comes from composite materials, including its fuselage, vertical tailfin, skin, spars, elevons, rudder, the air brakes and the landing gear doors. Having thus saved a significant amount of weight, the Tejas can carry more payload, increasing its operational range and strike power. In contrast, the JF-17, a Gen-3 aircraft that China developed for export, is constructed of aluminium alloy. As a result, it is almost a tonne heavier than the Tejas and, therefore, carries less fuel and armaments.

However, the Tejas has a problem with its air intakes design. This stems from initial confusion about its role, which was to replace the MiG-21 as the IAF’s light fighter. Since the MiG-21 was designed for high-speed interceptions at speeds of Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound, or 2,500 km per hour), the Tejas designers worked for a top speed of Mach 1.8. However, they chose fixed air intakes, which are suitable only for speeds up to Mach 1.4. Higher speeds require more sophisticated air intakes, incorporating moving intakes, cones, etc. The Tejas’ fixed air intakes reduce its thrust by 30-40 per cent. Even so, the fighter is good for Mach 1.2-1.4, the regime where most air battle engagements actually occur.

Lower speeds save fuel and increase mission flexibility. Experience showed that when the MiG-21 climbed at Mach 2 to high altitude and the engagement was aborted, it was left without the fuel needed for another mission and had to return to base for refuelling. For that reason, the Tejas Mark 2 will be optimised for air combat engagements at Mach 1.2. With the design skills in ADA, that can easily be done.

Both the Tejas and JF-17 have had problems in choosing engines. The Tejas was to be powered by the DRDO’s Kaveri turbofan engine but, due to development delays, ADA chose the General Electric F-404 instead. In China, the JF-17 developers chose the Russian RD-93 after-burning turbofan due to its low fuel consumption and price. However, the RD-93 delivers inadequate power – a dry thrust of 50 kiloNewtons (kN) and 81.3 kN thrust with afterburner. This is significantly lower than that of the Tejas Mark 2. Its GE F-414 engine, with 35 per cent more thrust than the F-404, will deliver a robust 60 kN of dry thrust and 98 kN with afterburner. The JF-17 is likely to be upgraded to the Chinese WS-13 engine, but its development is clouded in uncertainty.

Upgrading to a higher performance engine requires the freedom to redesign the basic aircraft. A higher thrust engine such as the F-414 or the WS-13 is heavier than the engine it replaces and, therefore, upsets the aircraft’s balance, forces design changes and, being heavier, consumes more fuel. So an upgraded engine often delivers disappointing performance.

In sum, the Tejas has emerged as a light multirole fighter with Gen-4 technology and innovation, such as its unique aerodynamic configuration, the use of composite materials and its advanced avionics. With its design in Indian hands, it can be easily modified into variants, such as a naval fighter or a lead-in fighter trainer. . It can also be tailored to suit export customers’ requirements.

The JF-17, in contrast, is a Gen-3 fighter that cannot be tailored for export customers beyond a point. On the plus side, its off-the-shelf materials, sub-systems and systems cut costs and reduce design risks, making it a cheap and reliable fighter for air-to-air combat. As a Chinese analyst summed up: “The JF-17 is the aircraft of today and the Tejas is the aircraft of tomorrow.”

 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top