Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Comparision of LCA and JF-17

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Break the Silence, Apr 22, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Break the Silence

    Break the Silence FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    14

    Friends , I have seen many vs threads on PDF like su-30mki vs F-16 or jf-17 , jf-17 vs fulcrum, But there are not so much to compare among those aircrafts as they are of different class... It will be more realistic comparison, If We compare tejas and Jf-17 thunder, Coz both are suppose to fill the role of Interceptor in respective airforces... I am not a defence expert, But I would like to hear your valuable views on both fighters..

    Here below is some of their characterisics..

    LCA- TEJAS.

    [​IMG]

    Facts:

    Role: Multirole fighter
    National origin: India
    Manufacturer: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
    Designed by: Aeronautical Development Agency
    First flight; 4 January 2001
    Introduction 2011 (projected)
    Status: Under development / pre-production
    Primary users: Indian Air Force
    Indian Navy
    Number built: 8 Prototypes
    Program cost: US$1.2 billion[1]
    Unit cost: US$22.6 million
    US$31.09 million (Naval version
    )




    General characteristics

    Crew: 1
    Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
    Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
    Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
    Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
    Empty weight: 5680kg[63] (14,330 lb)
    Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,945 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (31,967 lb)
    Internal fuel capacity: 3000 liters
    External fuel capacity: 5×800 liter tanks or 3×1,200 liter tanks, totaling 4,000/3,600 liters

    Performance:
    Maximum speed: Mach 2+ (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m
    Range: 3000 km (1,840 mi (without refueling))
    Service ceiling: 16,500 m (54,000 ft (engine re-igniter safely capable))
    Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft²)

    Armament:
    Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.
    Hardpoints: 8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of >4000 kg external fuel and ordnance

    Missiles:
    air-to-air missiles:
    Python 5
    Derby
    Astra BVRAAM
    Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: AA-12 Adder)
    Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name: AA-11 Archer)
    Air-to-surface missiles:
    Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile
    Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile
    Anti-ship missile
    Kh-35
    Kh-31

    Bombs:

    KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
    FAB-500T dumb bombs
    OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
    OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
    RBK-500 cluster bombs
    Avionics
    EL/M-2052 AESA radar


    [​IMG]

    Tejas carrying R-73 missile and drop tank



    JF-17 THUNDER

    [​IMG]

    FACTS:

    Role: Multirole combat aircraft
    National origin: People's Republic of China
    Pakistan
    Manufacturer: Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation
    Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
    First flight: 25 August 2003
    Introduction: 12 March 2007
    Status: Operational with the Pakistan Air Force since 18 February 2010, undergoing avionics and radar development.
    Primary user: Pakistan Air Force
    Produced In China: June 2007–present
    In Pakistan: January 2008–present
    Number built: Prototypes: 6
    Production: 14
    Program cost: US$ 500 million
    Unit cost: US$ 15 million (estimated)


    General characteristics

    Crew: 1
    Length: 14.0 m (45.9 ft)
    Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) (31 ft)
    Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
    Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
    Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
    Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles
    (20,062 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
    Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan
    Dry thrust: 49.4 kN (11,106 lbf)
    Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN (18,973 lbf)
    G-limit: +8.5 g
    Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb)

    Performance:
    Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph)
    Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
    Ferry range: 3,000 km (2,175 mi)
    Service ceiling: 16,700 m (54,790 ft)
    Thrust/weight: 0.99

    Armament:
    Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2)
    Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance
    Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods

    Missiles:
    Air-to-air missiles:
    Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C
    Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10
    Air-to-surface missiles:
    Anti-radiation missiles : MAR-1
    Anti-ship missiles: AM-39 Exocet
    Cruise missiles: Ra'ad ALCM

    Bombs:

    Unguided bombs:
    Mk-82, Mk-84 general purpose bombs
    Matra Durandal anti-runway bomb
    CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye anti-armour cluster bomb
    Precision guided munitions (PGM):
    GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2 laser-guided bombs
    H-2, H-4 electro-optically guided,[7] LS-6 satellite-guided glide bombs
    Satellite-guided bombs

    Others:
    Up to 3 external fuel drop-tanks (1× under-fuselage 800 litres, 2× under-wing 800/1100 litres each) for extended range/loitering time

    Avionics:
    NRIET KLJ-7 multi-mode fire-control radar
    NVG compatible glass cockpit
    Helmet Mounted Sights/Display (HMS/D)
    Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST)
    Externally mounted avionics pods:
    Self-protection radar jammer pod
    Day/night laser designator targeting pod
    Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) pod.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2010
    3 people like this.
  2. Dark_Prince

    Dark_Prince 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    20
    Stats speak for itself!! :)
     
  3. Sgt.uday

    Sgt.uday FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    JF-17's airframe is similler to that of MiG 21!
    it's better to compare JF-17 to MiG 21 Bisons. Because our 21's are equipped with BVR!
     
  4. Break the Silence

    Break the Silence FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    14
    Uday, jf-17 looks more of fulcrum design...but where fulcrum is a twin engine plane, it is powered by single engine.. and also , jf- 17 design has been sold to china by russians after they had financial troubles in 90s..
     
  5. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Comaprison of JF-17 and LCA.

    Please don't compare anything copy pasting specs from wikipedia. This is just waste of time and thread. All those specs don't make one superior to the other.

    Let compare them fairly.
    JF-17
    Engine:
    The engine used in JF-17 is RD93, a modification of RD33, the same engine used in older Mig29. The engine though powerful enough is known to be lazy and not good at acceleration. Also the engine is very old and newer Migs use a newer variant RD33MK of the engine.

    The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low.

    The thrust to weight ration comes out to be 0.78 for an empty aircraft and 0.55 for a loaded aircraft which is a SERIOUS drawback. Its the biggest problem with the current batch of JF-17 aircraft. Even with the afterburners on the aircraft fails to exceed a ratio of 0.94 for a loaded aircraft, which is poor to say the least.

    Airframe:
    The airframe of the aircraft seems to be good enough. The stabilizers are good enough and shaped perfectly. The nose is also carved nicely to direct air to enter the engines. The intakes are also nicely shaped to hide engine blades from radar waves. The airframe is good enough and nothing seems wrong with it.

    The only problem with the airframe is the material. The airframe is made completely from metal and a little use of some alloys. There has been no use of composites at all. This increases the weight as well as the rcs of the plane.

    Avionics:
    This is another field JF-17 is lacking in. The chinese avionics are just not enough. Although PAF is negotiating with France and now even Italy for an avionics upgrade, nothing is surfacing as of yet. The radar in use now is KLJ-7 which is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10 radar used in the J-10 of Chinese Air Force.

    The range of the radar is 75 kms in look-up mode and 35 km for look-down mode for a target of rcs 3 square meters. Also the radar can monitor upto 10 targets in TWS(Track While Scan) mode and engage two in BVR mode.

    The radar is obsolete by today's standards and it would need serious backing by AWACS in order to put up a fight. Also the missile that the plane will use for its BVR engagements would be SD-10 which is a chinese missile with a range of 65 kms. And the radar is limited to 75 km for 3 square meter rcs target, so for smaller targets, the extra range of the missile won't come in handy.

    The newer aircraft coming up have rcs of 1 square meter or below. The KLJ-7 would not be able to detect these targets at ranges beyond 30-40 km. In combat with these aircraft, the JF-17 would be shot down even before it can detect what hit it.

    It is only after an avionics upgrade that we can analyze the true capabilities of the aircraft.

    Weapons:
    The only BVR missile compatible with JF-17 for now is the SD-10 missile. As of now, not much information is available about the missile. Even the range is speculative at best. Wouldn't want to comment on it.

    LCA - Tejas

    Engine:
    The engine in use for the first batch of aircraft will be GE F404IN, which is a modified F404 engine, being used on F18. The engine has a max thrust of 85KN with afterburners on and 50-55 KN without afterburners. The engine is not powerful enough to allow Tejas to carry out combat maneuvers with its full load. This is the reason a new engine is being evaluated for Tejas. The new engine will have a thrust of 100KN with afterburner and 60KN without afterburner.

    That would make it powerful enough and would increase the thrust to weight ratio from 0.95 with afterburner at full load to 1.07 with afterburner at full load and 0.64 at full load without afterburners.

    Add to that an unstable delta wing configuration and that makes Tejas a really good maneuverable machine. The fly by wire does a great job at making it agile at high speeds. Speaking of speeds, the new engine might also enable supercruise for LCA. Also TVC can be seen if EJ200 is selected.

    Airframe:
    The LCA has a delta wing configuration without horizontal stabilizers which makes its configuration unstable. This means that it would require powerful computers and fly by wire controls to make it stable in its flight. Without these computers, it would be impossible to control the plane.
    The airframe is inspired from Mirage 2000 and is a proven one. The huge wing span will add to the maneuverability. The Y-shaped intakes guarantee reduced rcs and there is nothing spectacularly contributing to the rcs of the plane.

    The LCA uses a lot of composites to reduce the weight and radar detection of the plane. The size of the plane is another factor that contributes to its low rcs. This leads me to believe the rcs of LCA would be a lot less than that of JF-17.

    Avionics:
    The radar in use for the first batch will be a PESA multi mode radar ELTA EL/2032 radar. The air to air mode of 2032 radar has a range of upto 150 km for 5 square meter rcs and in air to sea mode has a range of 300 kms.
    The missiles that this radar support are currently R77 and R73. The R77 has a range of upto 90 kms and it believed to be extremely maneuverable.

    Also Astra Missile can be supported with the ELTA radar. DRDO believes its indigenous radar would be ready in a couple of years and its supposed to be better than 2032 radar.


    So all in all, its Tejas which is more advanced and capable, but its not ready yet. In future, if JF-17 wants to match up to Tejas, an avionics upgrade is desperately required.

    Tejas > JF-17
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
    32 people like this.
  6. Indian

    Indian FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jagjitnatt,
    Really very informative comparision you have kept here. But i have some query regarding Tejas's new engine. Eurojet engine has providing 90kN in its current configuration, And IAF requirement is also 90kN thrust engine. Donot know why just for 5kN they are following full process for 3-4 hrs. If GE 414 engine is selected then thrust problem will be solved but issue will be with re-designing of Fuelsage and again delay.
    I think they should have gone for some 100-110 kN and that should have coverup future requirement also.
    Regarding upgrades required for Jf-17 are concerned, I think same goes with Tejas too, like New engine, new aerodynimics design, new radar etc.
     
  7. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    The engines which we are negotiating for ie F414 and EJ200 are both compatible with our airframe and they fit without any major restructuring.

    The bigger engines although would be good will require changes to airframe which are not feasible.

    The upgrades for Tejas are already being developed, like the radar and the engine. Other than that its the final design.

    Its just a matter of an engine, as soon as we get the engine, LCA would be rolling down the production lines.
     
  8. AVADI

    AVADI Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    117
    Why are we comparing 3.5gen(JF17) aircraft with 4th(Tejas) gen soon to be 4.5th(Tejas MK II) gen aircraft.:confused:
     
  9. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Ask this to guys at PDF, especially Taimikhan. They'll answer it for you.
     
    4 people like this.
  10. Devianz

    Devianz 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    29
    ^^^
    I would love to see the look on taimi's face when you tell him that jf-17 is a 3.5 gen:D
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    I saw that look and now I am suspended. :rolleyes:

    You sure you wanna see that look?
     
  12. Devianz

    Devianz 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    29
    Well im not a member of PDF so i wouldn't mind seeing it.;)
     
  13. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
  14. Devianz

    Devianz 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    29
  15. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Click the link I put in, and enjoy.
     
    1 person likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page