Compare capabilities and data - LCA & JF-17

[highsea]

Ajay, no need. I imagine if India wants to foot the bill for an air-launched Brahmos, it will depend on the TU-22 deal.

Even the Brahmos on the Flanker is not easy. It may get there, but it will have to be dependent on a cut-down Brahmos with no solid propellant booster. So you ditch 800kg at best.

As it stands right now, the thing is just too big to put on a fighter. Best for India to seal the TU-22 deal, lose the solid fuel booster, and use the TU-22 as the air-launch platform. Just trying to be realistic...

/hijack off

edit to add: the topic is: Compare capabilities and data - LCA & JF-17

Let's get back to that, shall we?

 

[highsea]

Now, having said all that, I will start a new controversy. I vote for the LCA.

Reason: the JF-17, when all is said and done, is a revamped Mig-21 airframe. It's a tube that holds an engine. This all started out with the deal between China and Grumman to upgrade the J-7 (Mig 21) under the Super-7 project. Stop and Start, it's still basically an extension of that project.

LCA is more modern, more composites, smaller, lighter, and will have (theoretically) the same missile capabilitiies. e.g. BVR at the same distances. So unless the JG-17 sports some fancy avionics, the LCA will get the first look, because it's smaller and uses more composites and more advanced (presubably) designing software.

So let's talk about the JF-17. Okay, proven airframe (if you can live with my Mig 21 comparison), bigger loadout, possibly better avionics if the Israelis and the French are willing. It'll be sporting Chinese copies of Russian R-77's, but the LCA will have the originals (theoretically). BVRAAM shootout goes to the LCA.

When it comes down to engines, we are equal. The Kaveri crashed big-time in the last test series, and Russia says they will not permit RD-93's to Pak. So we're even, neither jet has an engine (but each program has 100 or so engines to play with, 404's for LCA and RD-93's for JF-17).

Okay, I didn't proofread trhis, so send your flames to my PM box, where they will be deleted before I read them. :

 

[umair]

Ahem! High, get one thing straight.The super7(grumman upg) and the JF-17 are two different designs(this from someone who's working on the project from PAF's side the design according to him is based more on the lawndart than anything else.It still validates you'r proven airframe point )
Major metal construction(80%) only on the first 50 fighters, for the rest the % of composites is to go upto 65%-70%(both Pakistan and China have the rquisite tech).
RD-93, well there is something not many people know.That is there is a 3 way contract for the supply of these engines between China Russia and Pakistan.The relevant provision of the contract stipulates that no party can unilaterally end the contract without incurring hefty financial penalties(so if Russia wants to part with it's $$$$$ :roll ).
Avionics,Chinese on the first 50 only to speed up service entry.The rest please read the whole thread and you'll find some posts by me detailing the available options.As for the radar it's gonna be either an RC-400-4 or a Griffo S-7(improved and enhanced variant of the Griffo-2000 ie APG-68 of the LawndartC.ROSEI mirages in PAF use the APG-68 with the name being Griffo-M).IRST to be fitted to serial production aircraft(after the first 50 familiarisation types) as well as a retrofit of an inflight refeuling system.(ceartianly of the HDU type)
5 cockpit displays.2 being reserved for fuelflow, engine and threat monitoring.The rest 3(of which one is colored) for displaying the usual stuff.A HOTAS full glass cockpit on the production version(likely to be supplied by SAgem).An HMD&S system for the pilot and an integrated wide spectrum active airborne active jammer.(Also French in origin.)
JF-17 also designed using CAD software(most likely European in origin) giving it a more efficient design.RCS reduction features employed in the design from the start.(again possible only due to CAD).
SD-10 no matter what is written on the net is not the R-77.It's design philosophy is an amalgam of the AMRAAM and the Alamo.Besides this the Pakistani variant may also carry the T-Darter(A southafrican improved version of the Derby, license made in Pakistan by AWC and known as the V-4 in the PAF.DFon't confuse it with H-2 and H-4 which are pgms).I don't have the range for the Darter but the SD-10 is probably able to engage out to 80 klicks ie almost 44 nautical miles.
The Thunder is also an open architecture design allowing improvements to be made to already produced aircraft in avionics and weapons as they become available in production aircraft(sort of like block production).
As far as flight control is concerned, the design has been made unstable(note the difference in the pictures of the first prototype and the third prototype in the gallery) and the flight control system used is a digital quadruplex FBW system with a hybrid for backup(like the flight control system in the JAS-39.An older post over here or at another forum explained how this works).
Hope this helped.
For more about the electronic systems ask adsh.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Even the Brahmos on the Flanker is not easy. It may get there, but it will have to be dependent on a cut-down Brahmos with no solid propellant booster. So you ditch 800kg at best.

But India is looking to arm Su-30MKI with Air-Launched version of brahmos.Probably the Indian Navy wants its Su-30MKI to carry Brahmos.

Reason: the JF-17, when all is said and done, is a revamped Mig-21 airframe. It's a tube that holds an engine. This all started out with the deal between China and Grumman to upgrade the J-7 (Mig 21) under the Super-7 project. Stop and Start, it's still basically an extension of that project.

Can anybody tell me how many flights has been completed by JF-17? :help
Recent news is that LCA has completed 313 flights.
2000 Flights are required for initial operations clearance
http://www.ada.gov.in/others/Curren...-Dec-04_Tejas-LCA_/_10-dec-04_tejas-lca_.html
One thing is sure both aircraft are for same purpose,to replace old fleet and for air-defence missions.

When it comes down to engines, we are equal. The Kaveri crashed big-time in the last test series, and Russia says they will not permit RD-93's to Pak. So we're even, neither jet has an engine (but each program has 100 or so engines to play with, 404's for LCA and RD-93's for JF-17).

It is said that Initial LCA squardons will be having American GE F-404 engines.
And JF-17 is getting engines of chinese origins i think.
Engine is one of the complex things in a fighter plane,So India will have teething problems with Kaveri.

As for Capabilities,they are twins nearly similar.
JF-17 is having slightly more ceiling than LCA.
LCA has composite material structures
Both have same payload.
Nearly Similar Avionics,
LCA has HOTAS controls and also has Radar Warning reciever,powerful Flight Control System.FAS website says that LCA has a EW suite.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/lca.htm

Both LCA and Jf-17 has HUD,IRST,RLG(ring-laser gyro inertial navigation system),Multimode Doppler RADAR,FLIR,LASER target designator.LCA also has a MFD.
Kaveri and RD-93 have same thrust.
Both LCA and JF-17 have Digital Fly by Wire system.

It'll be sporting Chinese copies of Russian R-77's, but the LCA will have the originals (theoretically). BVRAAM shootout goes to the LCA.

It will have SD-10 MRAAM.I think Complete specs of SD-10 are not released.
But LCA will have advantage as it can carry AA-10 Alamos of 130km might outrange SD-10.

 

[adsH]

Anybody know what the Radar Detection rage is for the LCA's Radar, there's no point placing a Missile on LCA that out ranges the Radars detection range.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Anybody know what the Radar Detection rage is for the LCA's Radar, there's no point placing a Missile on LCA that out ranges the Radars detection range.

The LCA's RADAR detection range is not mentioned anywhere.
May be its Classified.
It is being said that LCA has a BVR capability.
I made a mistake in my previous post.It is still not sure whether LCA can carry AA-10 Missiles.
I found picture of LCA radar.

 

[XEROX]

The chief air-to-air missile arming the LCA will be the Astra,

Radar: Indigenous MMR
Detection/Scan Range 150-170 Km
Tracking Range 80-120 Km
Engagement range 70-100 Km

Those this data seem right??, i'll re-find the link and post it!!

 

[highsea]

...the design according to him is based more on the lawndart than anything else.

Umair, can you be a little more specific? Which lawn dart are you referring to? F-104, F-5, F-16? Ignore the nosecone, canopy, intakes, etc. Those don't matter. Look at the fuselage and center box.

...SD-10 no matter what is written on the net is not the R-77.It's design philosophy is an amalgam of the AMRAAM and the Alamo.

Okay, you are right here, but the SD-10 does use a lot of R-77 components, possibly even the same seeker (or a chinese copy). It does look a lot like the AIM-120 though.

...As far as flight control is concerned, the design has been made unstable(note the difference in the pictures of the first prototype and the third prototype in the gallery)

You will have to point out the picture for me, I am not sure which one is the third prototype. But making a design unstable vs. designing it that way from the start are not quite the same thing. Not being critical, just an observation. To destabilize the plane, you have to change the COP:CM:roll axis relationships (COP forward of CM). You can improve the pitch and yaw rates (COP can be changed by the shape of the wing and tail surfaces), but to improve the roll rate, you have to move the CM up to (or above) the longitudinal roll axis, this is a little more difficult. This represents a lot of messing around with the design, and I'm not sure how successful you can be at it.

I'm not knocking the JF-17. And I'm not knocking the Mig 21 airframe. It's a great airframe that can take a hell of a lot of abuse. As Ajay pointed out, both AC are virtually twins. I just happen to think the LCA is a little more modern in design.

(edited for clarity)

 

[adsH]

I'm sure ive read this somewhere the Pakistanis are working on the seeker of the SD-10, Not too sure about that. It was mentioned on one of the news Articles. And ofcource it would use the Basic components of the R-77 its proven Missile and its technology is available it wont make sense designing newer Components to serve similar purposes.

 

[ajay_ijn]

I'm sure ive read this somewhere the Pakistanis are working on the seeker of the SD-10, Not too sure about that. It was mentioned on one of the news Articles. And ofcource it would use the Basic components of the R-77 its proven Missile and its technology is available it wont make sense designing newer Components to serve similar purposes.

Now i don't want to hear the news "No Russian Missiles to Pak" Saying that Chinese are selling SD-10 missile which is almost Based on R-77 and Russia won't allow to do that. :

However LCA is to be armed with original R-77 and also Astra BVRAAM.
So it would be interesting to compare capabilities of Astra and SD-10.
But Astra is still in development stage.

 

[adsH]

the seaker is the tricky bit other parts can be reversed engineered i think china has licensed production of the R77 correct me if i am wrong (which i probably am), the most tricky bit is building the seeker which probably comes form Russia. So i guess thats why its takeing so long. Pakistan/China

 

[adsH]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-12.htmPL-12

About the PL-12 Similar to the R77 in some aspects but a better part of the missile and its seeker is Indigenous note: Pakistani's are working on the seeker too.

The PL-12 [Pili = Thunderbolt, or Pen Lung = Air Dragon] SD-10 (PL-12) active radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile program is now in the test phase. This air-to-air missile program, also called Project 129 or R129, was previously thought to be associated with the purchase or possible license-production of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) medium-range radar-guided air-to-air missile.

While Project 129 will use technologies from the Vympel R-77, it will have a Chinese developed airframe and a Chinese propulsion unit. The missile is thought to correspond to the PL-12 designation, which is also associated with the SD-10 designation, possibly for export purposes. Like the basic R-77, Project 129 appears to have a body diameter of 200 mm., with a length of around 3.7 meters (12.1 ft.). Unlike the R-77, which has narrow-span mid-body wings and rectangular lattice control fins at the rear, the Project 129 airframe configuration is more orthodox. It has four triangular mid-body wings and four triangular fins at the rear.

China initially tried to address its beyond visual range [BVR] needs by reverse-engineering the semiactive AIM-7 Sparrow, in a program designated PL-10. This effort proved unsuccessful. China then purchased around 100 Aspide missiles from Italy--the eventual intent being the license-manufacture of the missile, to be known as PL-11. This deal collapsed as a result of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Sino Defence says that Much of the SD-10 Missile is based on AA-12 adder
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/sd10.asp

According to the Chinese officials, the effort of developing the SD-10 has been underway since 1997. The missile was developed indigenously, but also with helps from foreign manufacturers. Several Russian missile and subsystem developers are reportedly supporting the program, with much of the missile utilizing components from the R-77 (AA-12 Adder). Ground-test firings have already been carried out, as have captive-carry and safe-clearance trials using a J-8B testbed aircraft.

So no wonder If Russia again says "No Air-air Missiles To pak"

 

[ajay_ijn]

I never knew astra AAM was tested.
It is tested two times in the year 2003.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2003/05/12/stories/2003051204440100.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/12astra.htm

Its says"The astra's range is 25-40km".May be they will increase the range in the future

 

[aaaditya]

that was surface to air range ,air to air rance is likely to be higher due to less air density at higher altitudes.astra is designed to have a range of 80-120kms.a ram jet propulsion is also being developed which is expected to give the missile a range of 160kms.israel invited india for its python5 derby missile projects.dont know if india accepted it or not.but indian army officials and drdo officials visited russia to seek help on the indian missile programme the problems in the trishul missile were fixed by the israelis.

 

[umair]

Which lawn dart are you referring to? F-104, F-5, F-16?

The Falcon.I took you'r point and looked at the fuselage and it's centre box.They appear to be an amalgam of sorts of both the Falcon and the mig.The dominating influence being the Falcon.
About unstabling the design , give me a few days.I need to talk with someone about that particular point.

 

[highsea]

It would be the Mig-33 (Product 33) then, because the US NEVER gave the F-16 airframe to China!

The name MiG-33 was used twice. Once for a single engined light strike fighter intended to be a direct competitor of the F-16, and more recently for the heaily upgraded version of the MiG-29.

The first design of a very light new-generation fighter was prepared by Mikoyan in the early 1980s, when design work also began on the heavy fighter, the MFI (sometimes known as the 1-42). The result was 'Product 33' powered by a single RD-33 engine from the MiG-29. It was of conventional design, appearing similar to the US Lockheed Martin F-16.

Although work on Product 33 became well advanced, it was not ordered due to the air force's reorientation towards multi-role aircraft - the lightweight Product 33 could be used for close air combat only. The basic Product 33 design was offered by Mikoyan to China as the FC-1 fighter.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-33.htm

edit to add: Now that I have had another look at this, I do recall having this discussion before. The upshoot was that it was agreed that China ditched the Super-7 (Mig 21) airframe for the "Mig-33", and that it did go through a redesign.

 

[viper007]

...the design according to him is based more on the lawndart than anything else.

Umair, can you be a little more specific? Which lawn dart are you referring to? F-104, F-5, F-16? Ignore the nosecone, canopy, intakes, etc. Those don't matter. Look at the fuselage and center box.

...SD-10 no matter what is written on the net is not the R-77.It's design philosophy is an amalgam of the AMRAAM and the Alamo.

Okay, you are right here, but the SD-10 does use a lot of R-77 components, possibly even the same seeker (or a chinese copy). It does look a lot like the AIM-120 though.

...As far as flight control is concerned, the design has been made unstable(note the difference in the pictures of the first prototype and the third prototype in the gallery)

You will have to point out the picture for me, I am not sure which one is the third prototype. But making a design unstable vs. designing it that way from the start are not quite the same thing. Not being critical, just an observation. To destabilize the plane, you have to change the COP:CM:roll axis relationships (COP forward of CM). You can improve the pitch and yaw rates (COP can be changed by the shape of the wing and tail surfaces), but to improve the roll rate, you have to move the CM up to (or above) the longitudinal roll axis, this is a little more difficult. This represents a lot of messing around with the design, and I'm not sure how successful you can be at it.

I'm not knocking the JF-17. And I'm not knocking the Mig 21 airframe. It's a great airframe that can take a hell of a lot of abuse. As Ajay pointed out, both AC are virtually twins. I just happen to think the LCA is a little more modern in design.

(edited for clarity)

Well how about the Mirage-2000 being unstable. It was a pure messing around with Centre of Gravity and lift, with lift in fron of gravity. So it is unstable in pitch.

Since deltas traditionally have a high roll-rate, is there a need to make it unstable in roll as well ??? And LCA is a cranked-delta as well, so it also has a high roll-rate.

I think it is JF-17 that needs increasing of roll-rate more than LCA. And if it was not designed with this in mind, it will be hard to do.

VIPER

 

[highsea]

Just to clarify a couple things...we were discussing the JF-17, I believe the LCA is already designed to be aerodynamically unstable.

Aerodynamic stability is defined in three axes.

Center of Pressure and Center of Lift are not really synonymous. The Center of Vertical Pressure is the Center of Lift. There is a Center of Horizontal Pressure also, which determines yaw stability. These are usually referred to COP's, as they are a really combination of lift and drag.

The COP can be changed by shape, i.e. adding or subtracting fins.

Center of Gravity and Center of Mass are synonymous. CM is a factor of the weights and materials used in the AC.

It's easy to adjust the COP's, but much more difficult to adjust the CM.

Stability

Yaw stability requires that the center of horizontal pressure is behind the center of mass as seen from the sides of the airplane. (easy to adjust by increasing/decreasing the area of the vertical fin) If you move the COP forward of the CM, the AC will want to flip around so the tail is in front.

Pitch stability requires that the center of vertical pressure (lift) is approximately at the center of mass, as seen from above (or below) the airplane. (easy to adjust by increasing/decreasing the area of the horizontal stab or canard) If you move the COP forward of the CM, the AC will want to pitch up. If you move it aft, it will want to pitch down.

Roll stability requires that center of vertical pressure (lift) is above roll axis, as seen from the front (or tail) of the airplane. The roll axis is a line that goes from the nose to the tail and through the center of mass. (not so easy to adjust, because you either have to change the anhedral/dihedral of the wing, the weight if the materials used in the airframe, or the point where the wing attatches to the fuselage)

Roll rate

On any unstable aircraft, if the wing is a mid or high wing, it will need some anhedral to lower the center of vertical pressure (lift) below the roll axis. This is how you get the high roll rate. The higher the wing is, the more anhedral is required.

A high wing with dihedral (like a Cessna) does not have a quick roll rate, because the center of lift is way above the roll axis. In fact, you cannot even roll the plane without losing altitude unless you pitch the nose up before the manouver. Aerobatic aircraft are almost always mid-wing with little or no dihedral. (they want positive stability, but not very much!)

It's not really the shape of the wing that determines the roll rate, it's the balance. You can get very high roll rates with conventional wings if you are unstable in the roll axis, because the plane naturally wants to flip over. But the smaller and lighter the plane, the less inertia you have to overcome, so smaller planes are usually more agile.

 

[diving-J10]

why india want to buy so many weapond for themselves???

mod edit: diving-j10, please do not derail the discussion. This thread is about JF-17 and LCA, not the social situation in India.

If you would like to discuss the social situation in India, please open a new thread in the proper forum.

Welcome to DT, please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php