The LCA and the J-10 are dawn of the aerospace industry of the two countries, China and India. Some people claim that the Chinese J-10 is better and some claim that the Indian LCA is better. This is an analysis of their capabilities from a technical point of view.
Aircraft technical characteristics, its flight performance and tactical capabilities are primarily determined by a design concept which develops from specified aircraft roles, tasks and mission environment. One can see the similarity between the LCA and the J-10 here.
The LCA evolved out of a requirement to replace India's large fleet of MiG-21 and MiG-27. It is a light fighter that primary mission is Air Defense with information delivered from ground based command and control centers. It also features the ability for Close Air Support and Air Interdiction, which was mission that the MiG-27 performed.
The J-10 evolved out of the Lavi fighter of Israel. Israel needed a light fighter to replace its F-4 and Mirage III/V fleets (contemporaries of the MiG-21). This airplane's primary requirement was that of Air Interdiction and CAS. However, China's requirement was somewhat more akin to that of India's. It had to replace its enormous fleets of J-7s and Q-5s. Hence, it would require an emphasis on Air Defense as well as Strike. Both the LCA and the J-10 were designed as theater aircraft, meaning that they are of the same class.
The comparison of these aircraft is largely theoritical because, these aircraft seldom move far away from the battlefield and rarely engage in deep penetration strike missions. However, there are a number of objective factors which can be used to compare these aircraft and rate their technological perfection: aircraft performances, and the characteristics of avionics and armament suites.
The LCA utilizes a clean aerodynamic profile with its tailless delta wind and its monofin. It features high roll rates and can progress from level to vertical flight in seconds due to its large elevons. The LCA is a very stable aircraft and is controlled largely by its quadruple redundant digital fly by wire system. It has a very low wing loading that gives it superb maneuverability. The LCA also has short takeoff and landing ability.
The J-10 features a tapered deltawing with tails and canards. This combination provides extremely high lift, thus providing short takeoff and landing ability. It is quite unstable and requires manipulation by the Iron bird flight control system which is a quadruple redundant digital fly by wire system to stay in the air.
Both these fighters fly conventionally and lack thrust vectoring engines.
Both fighters have similar aceleration and altitudes. The LCA has a top speed of mach 1.7 whereas the J-10 has a top speed of Mach 2. The LCA has a combat radius of about 850km and the J-10 has one from anywhere between 550 to 1100km (according to latest data). The LCA is more suited for the interceptor role because its delta wing is very efficient at transonic to supersonic speeds required for interception. The J-10, being based on the Lavi is more efficient at subsonic speeds required for CAS.
The LCA's payload of 4000kgs is quite similar to the J-10's payload of 4500kgs. Both fighters carry essentially the same amount of ordinance for a strike mission. The J-10 is however more efficient at very low level flight required for a CAS mission. However both aircraft are equally efficient at Interdiction missions.
The LCA uses the Kaveri engine at 20,200 lbs, which provides it a thrust to weight ration of 1.7. The J-10 uses the WS-10 engine that provides a thrust of 27,000lbs and provides it a thrust to weight ratio of 1.75. Both engines are very fuel efficient. The Kaveri engine has advanced features that allow it to start with ease in high altitudes or very hot conditions without any fall in engine efficiency. It also has advanced protection against foreign object damage. On the other hand, it is doubtful that the WS-10 has such protective features.
The role of avionics in aircraft combat employment is ever growing. Let us look at the avionics subsystems of the aircraft under comparison. Both airplanes run on Mil 1553b standard buses.
The LCA radar is a lightweight pulse doppler that has the ability to tract 10 targets at ranges of over 100km and engage 4. The J-10's radar choice has not been determined yet. But its choices are the Elta 2035 radar (originally meant for the Lavi) that tracks 6 targets at ranges over 100km and engages 4 targets and the Phazotron N010 radar that equips the later versions of the Su-27 that can tract 6 targets at ranges up to 160km and engages 2 targets. Some sources suggest that there is a Chinese radar under development that is similar to the Phazotron N010 radar. The LCA radar more modern than the N010 aswell as the Elta 2035 radar in terms of tracking ability and jamming immunity. When operating against ground targets, all the afformentioned radars are similar in ability.
The LCA uses an indigenous EW system that is based on the latest technology, and is similar to the one in the Indian Su-30MKI. THe J-10 in comparison will use either the standard Su-27 EW suite or an indigenous version of it. The LCA suite is more advanced than the standard Su-27 EW suite, which was rejected for use in the Su-30MKI. RWR system, jammer and chaff & flare dispensers are used in both aircraft.
The LCA utilized a FLIR along with other OLS whereas the J-10 lacks this. THey both use target seeker/designator pods for ground attack missions with PGMs. The LCA uses a inbuilt designator pod, whereas the J-10 will utilize a Chinese version of the Litening pod.
A number of the LCA's onboard equipment (navigation and communications equipment, cockpit instruments) are versions of those on the Su-30MKI and are quite close to the best in world technology. The onboard systems on the J-10 are either indigenous chinese developments or are Chinese versions of cockpit instrumentations of the Su-27. The LCA utilized a HUD, HMS and 2 color MFDs and HOTAS controls. The J-10 utlizes a HUD, HMS, 1 color MFD and 2 monochrome ones and HOTAS controls.
Both fighters feature high survivability, provided by a wide range of assets. Systems protecting from fuel loss and hydroshock, as well as the firefighting system (which also protects airframe compartments) make both aircraft very survivable.
In terms of weapon load, both these fighters are quite similar.
Both use HMS for their SRAAMs. The LCA uses the AA-11, which is quite possibly the best SRAAM in service along with the Python 4. The J-10 uses a Chinese version of the Python 3 missile in their aircraft. The J-10 could also use the AA-11 aircraft that were procured with the Su-27.
The LCA uses the AA-12/Astra active radar guided missile for its BVR engagements. The J-10 might use either the AA-10 semiactive guided missile or the Chinese version of the Italian apside missile.
The LCA uses Kh-59ME for Interdiction and the Kh-31 for SEAD missile, along with American LGBs and French air to surface weapons. The J-10's guided missiles are Russian LGBs, Kh-31 for SEAD and the Kh-31 for Interdiction. Both airplanes use indigenously made unguided weapons.
The LCA and the J-10 use the same Russian 23mm gun which have similar characteristics.
On the whole, aircraft combat capability is usually assessed by some complex indices, defining an aircraft's overall performance.
The advantages that the LCA posessed over the J-10 is its more up to date radar, EW, cockpit instrumentation systems and its greater weapon choice. The advantage that the J-10 has is its marginally greater thrust to weight ratio and its high efficiency at low level flight.
Both aircraft as as previously mentioned are theater aircraft and are typically used for air defense missions in the near zone or, possibly, against ground targets lacking air defense cover. Both are truly excellent aircraft and are superior to their main opponents - the F-16A fighters of Taiwan and Pakistan.
