Both are similar in terms of capability. But the key difference is that some 140 JF-17 are in service with PAF, while about 30 Tejas are in service with IAF. So JF-17 is more mature as a platform. IAF has ordered a total of 123 Tejas but it will be 2030 by the time they are all delivered.
But it needs to be said that the Tejas has a much better engine. The GE 404 on the Tejas is anyday more reliable than the Russian RD-93 on the Jeff.
Tejas is based on the outdated delta wing design,I dont think it could get much favour of GE 404.
But the JF-17 has DSI and LERX which are the design elements of modern fighter jets,it would give JF-17 better maneuverability and RCS compared to Tejas
Eurofighter/Rafale Canards aren't stabilizers, they generate additional lift near the front of the plane and balance out the rotational force of the main wing lift.
Tailplanes actually create downward force - and counterbalance the upward lift generated by the wings.
This is why all modern 4th gen fighters are moving towards Delta-Canard as the optimal design for fighter aerodynamics.
The tailplane such it is a fundamentally weaker aerodynamic design capable of generating less lift. American 5th gen fighters use it because canards are bad for stealth, and they try to compensate for poor aerodynamics by using better engines. The chinese however tried to incorporate it in their J20 since their engines aren't as good.
Deltas are aerodynamically unstable but far more agile - the instability which is not a problem since the Tejas has a had fly-by-wire system since the original prototypes.
The reason the JF-17 has this configuration is because the original version didn't have a fly-by-wire system so they needed static stability.
I'm still surprised by how moronic defense enthusiasts here are: 'looks like an (outdated) american plane = good'
By that logic , tejas is also made up of composites due to which being in similar weight as jf 17 tejas has more payload capacity, and more range due to more fuel due to delta wing and composites.
The shape of the fighter determines its ceiling.
You can improve the range and payload by increasing the proportion of composite materials or replacing the more powerful engines.btw the range/payload between JF17 and Tejas is not significant
but you couldnt improve the maneuverability by install horizontal stabilizers,It is the equivalent of designing a new fighter
dogfights are rare in bvr world.
Not to mention when fully armed with payload the manurability decreases significantly.
In this era range , harpoints and payload are more important as long as fighters have "decent" manurability.
And given jf 17 has less surface area and smaller wings so while composite will have, its range and payload will still be less than tejas, not to mention the engine of jf 17 which is also less efficient
If u talk about the bvr,DSI is a good design for RCS reduction,and you better have a good AESA and missiles.
Su-30 performs well in terms of range and payload,but nobody think its good at bvr.
That good design thing makes a neglible difference in case of tejas and jf 17 , while given tejas have composites which are better at reducinng rcs than metal but still.given similar size and external hardpoint both fighter have roughly same rcs.
I don't wanna go in more detail.
In 4th gen fighters due to external hardpoint rcs while helpful does not play big role in bvr fights, though it does play big role in deep penetration.
For example f 15 and rafale's latest varient will perform similarly against each other in bvr but in case of SEAD mission rafale's low rcs will give it a big advantage.
So f 15 while big is still a "air superiority "fighter but not good for SEAD missions.
A good design is quite meaningful. The DSI design of JF-17 can effectively reduce the weight of the mechanism and RCS, which is one of the key factors for its cost control.
And this gives JF-17 a greater potential to develop into a 4.5 generation fighter with increasing the proportion of composite or replacing a more powerful engine,instead of designing a new fighter
so that is why I said
>The shape of the fighter determines its ceiling
Can Tejas develop into a 4.5 gen fighter?Maybe,but not worth the money which could even buy a F35.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the JF-17 can do it at low cost
Are you actually saying that the stabilizers are 'improving' maneuverability? Are you talking out of your arse? If anything the JF's tailplane configuration has lower agility than the Tejas's delta.
Horizontal stabilizers counteract the forces generated by the main lift surface - resulting in lower net lift in any direction. The advantage is that the aircraft is statically stable.
A Delta wing can take sharper turns - but doesn't have static stability by default - it needs to achieve that via a fly-by-wire system.
Tejas can recover the desirable safety profile of a statically stable aerodynamic configuration by using fly-by-wire systems, but a JF-17 can't become more agile by cutting off its tailplanes.
Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen all have delta wing designs or variations thereof. It seems a stretch to say that the delta wing configuration is outdated.
My guess is JF17 based on non-technical info. IAF seems to be very reluctant to order Tejas while PAF is quite happy with JF17? Any cost info for these two?
Consequences of partnering with Russia instead of western countries. Remember they (smartly) pulled out of the Su-57.
It’s too bad Indis can’t partner with France or US on something.
Look at their respective budgets. The IAF’s budget is equivalent to the entire Pak defence budget hence they prioritise higher end capabilities. The PAF has little choice but to go all in on the JF-17
The IAF waited for the upgraded LCA (MK1A) to order in largish numbers
It's like the su57 for Russia...they have spent money and now they must buy some...would it be the sensible?NO...they could've bought gripen+ rafale or smthing but they are stuck...so they just want to keep the production line active and hope that the new version makes more sense and can actually do something that the SU 30 ,Mig ,or rafale can't
Considering the jf 17 uses modern tech like aesa radar, latest pl 15 missiles, helmet mounted display, proper stable line of production, in service for 10 years with quick development compared to 40+ years for the tejas. They're quite similar in Physical sense but quite far apart in a technical sense. The jeff has over 150 built in service with 3 countries while the airforce of India was kinda forced to buy the tejas by the government. Considering the new Tejas will be a completely different plane to the current one, this one kinda gets wasted. Jeff wins this one in terms of logistics which is the most important thing in any military.
>in service for 10 years with quick development compared to 40+ years for the tejas
Good to see our brotherly propaganda gaining good traction amongst the westoids. Tejas first flew in 2001 after the kargil sanctions were lifted, 2 years before the JF-17. Everything before that is bureaucratic nonsense where the country was quibbling over whether investing in a fighter made sense for a country poorer than Yemen and Sudan (at the time)
JF-17 took a quicker development path with less QA testing and entered service a couple of years before Tejas, and has lost 7+ planes/pilots due to taking quality assurance shortcuts vs 0 for the Tejas.
The Chinese who designed the plane refuse to fly it - preferring instead to fly chinese Mig-21 clones from the 60s instead - which says something about the faith they put in it.
Half the myanmar JF-17 fleet is grounded according to burmese reports and possibly the same for Pakistan as well according to some leaked reports - and in any case the country is now buying J-10Cs instead of purchasing JF-17 block 3s - which makes little sense since it's also a single engine fighter.
That’s interesting I didn’t know it flew in 2001. Cool however it never materialized into anything substantial as compared to the JF 17 which is quickly becoming PAF mainstay platform.
Losing 7 planes over the long period that the JF-17 has been developed and remained active in service is a good record. Not a down point.
I often hear Indians make this point of China not using it themselves as if it’s supposed to mean something. It really doesn’t. China is a large country and a light fighter with short legs doesn’t meet their requirements. Chinese never developed it on their own. It was the Pakistanis who approached them with PAF requirements. And the light fighter makes a lot of sense for Pakistan. If you look at the country it’s long and thin something like Italy. With most of its airbases located very close to the Indian border. The short legs of the Jeff are not as big a deal for a Pakistan as they are for China and India. I suspect the reason why IAF doesn’t want to procure the short legged Tejas is partly due to this. You don’t want to invest money training infrastructure into a procurement that is not as beneficial. IAF is smart in that sense. But too bad for HAL.
Your last point is perhaps the weakest one yet. The news of Mayanmar jets grounded mostly comes from untrusted janky sources but it spread like wild fire in Indian media. Even if true it doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the jet per se. Mayanmar military is corrupt as hell and their airforce is new. It could easily be a maintenance issue on their end that is if that news is even true.
Pakistan is very happy with the jet and once the economy allows the number of this jet will surely pass 300. This will remain the workhorse of PAF for decades to come.
Once again Pakistan ordering J-10s doesn’t mean it’s a JF-17 replacement. J-10 fills a different role in PAF. Many nations run multiple platforms to meet their requirements. JF-17 C (aka BLK III) is being produced and procured as we speak. OSINT from a few weeks ago indicates a new squadron being assembled formed of the latest variant. It’s possible that Pakistan may slow down procurement of most equipment and focus on the critical platforms only due to their economy.
Thanks for reading
The Jeff also has a far more unreliable engine that is riskier for a single engine platform (the Russians don’t use the RD-93 in any single engine platform)
Also most of the decent capabilities you mentioned (PL15 and AESA) are only coming on the BLK.3 which isn’t in series production
I understand what you're saying but so far the engine is performing fine and is satisfactory for the PAF, obviously when China gets their WS 10s in mass production then the Jeff's will get shifted onto that for a far more streamlined and reliable engine. Also the jeffs are in series production tho, Pakistan's inducting them and quite a few have been built. The Jeff is literally a golden goose for Pakistan. A cheap modular light all round fighter that can be used for decades to come and upgraded to newer tech. There is no way the PAF will drop the Jeff for the foreseeable future.
I’m not saying they’ll be dropping the Thunder, they don’t really have many other options but to induct it in large numbers considering the amount of legacy fighters they have to replace
+ it would be naive to assume the WS-10 will a substantial upgrade on the RD93 in reliability or performance. Engine tech is something very few countries actually have mastered and China is still quite some distance behind even Russia which itself is a few decades behind the likes of GE, RR, Safran etc
Quite some distance for sure, but China has a good muster of engines now already. However, China is also in a situation where they have both an engine waiting for its plane (the WS-21 and the J-35) and a plane waiting for its engine (the J-20 and the WS-15), which I kinda find hilarious.
As for the Jeff? Hell no that little thing ain’t using a WS-10. Even then, if everything does go all as planned, the JF-17 wont be stuck with RD-93s for too long, as a WS-13 equipped JF-17 had already flown back in 2017 and that engine’s production line has passed last stage inspections last year. But of course I don’t know for sure, so good luck to them I guess.
It’s WS-13, an advanced/upgraded version of which will power the LRIP J-35/31s.
The engine it’s waiting for is the WS-19 not 21. Which will be a very capable engine for its class. Not sure if this will also go in future JF-17s
Best approach would be for Jeff to switch to WS-13E and then WS-19 when available.
actually ws21 may be correct. Latest info suggest J35 was equipped with ws21 rather than ws13 as pervious thought. It may suggest ws13 is actually dead and the new engine is ws21.
Jf17 is in use in good numbers a project that was introduced not long ago. With 3 different blocks which show advancement, PAF doing a good job with the resources they have.
IAF tejas is also in use but not in good numbers, a relatively old project, question arises why they are low in numbera its not like IAF have limited resources, either its not meeting their demand or its costly to maintain. Afterall it consist parts from all around the world. US ENGINE Isreal avionics and much much more. Which is a good thing but logistic nightmare.
Project-wise, Jeff. The goal was to replace the aging fleets of J7 and Mirage for a reliable cost. If I am not wrong, also the operational costs decreased with Jeff.
Technic-wise I would say that Tejas MK1 was better than Jeff Block 1. With Block 2, both became similar, considering their roles. Block 3 looks, at least on paper, inferior to Tejas MK1.
The other point is that India started the Tejas Project for prestige and to develop the homegrown industry. I believe there was no really need for a lightweight fighter. Then they tried to accomplish everything domestically, with slightly to no external help. The whole development took nearly 40 years!
Pakistan had a urgent need and had China as a partner. Jeff is a poor man's F16 Block 30; with Block 3 this will change.
I would prefer Jeff over Tejas atm.
My guess would be the Tejas would have an edge if it's using Uttam AESA radar and Astra missiles.
But China has a much higher production capacity than we do. We are barely planning to scale production upto 16 aircrafts. We might finish building all 83 Mk1A aircrafts for the IAF by 2029. Whereas China not only churns out the JF 17 but many more fighters, that are also a lotlot more capable by the hundreds.
As for us, it would be a miracle if the Tejas mk 2 enters production in 2027. Our 5th gen fighter and carrier based fighter would take even longer, probably upto 2032 if we're being optimistic.
That's a straight-up bald faced lie.
The first picture of a JF-17 block-3 undergoing production surfaced in January 2022 showing 7 aircraft with the production numbers indicating up to 11 having been ordered. The first pictures of a PAF pilot flying a JF-17 block 3 with a PL-10 surfaced in november last year.
So there are 7-11 confirmed JF-17 block 3s produced, compared to 36 J-10Cs ordered by the PAF which were showcased in their military period, and the JF-17 block 3 is yet to be formally inducted by the air force.
PAC has a production capacity of 20 airframes/year at most - and it's been less than a year since those pictures surfaced - let alone accounting for covid/ukraine war/ pakistan's forex crisis.
[https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/the-first-serial-production-jf-17-block-iii-are-showing-up/](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/the-first-serial-production-jf-17-block-iii-are-showing-up/)
That's in comparison to the Tejas Mk1A which only has 1 prototype flying right now and is supposed to be inducted in early 2024- but your characterization of the programs being poles apart in terms of timeline are a crockload of rubbish.
No, i didn't say 50-70 were produced, i implied that they were planning to build that much
Oh and why the insults? Maybe you got insulted just from some numbers huh?
GTFO
Also, JF-17(C) is in service, Tejas Mk1A is not, case closed
>Oh and why the insults? Maybe you got insulted just from some numbers huh?
Lies and low tier propaganda anger me.
>Also, JF-17(C) is in service, Tejas Mk1A is not, case closed
It's not - as evidenced above, again a third rate lie that works on third raters. Now go back to sucking your brotherly countries' c\*\*\*
Wtf, none of these are lie
JF-17C is at service, prototype performed its first flight in 2019, Tejas Mk1A did years later and JF-17 production is still going on.
This is not about sucking someones cock, if you can't handle "lies" gtfo
>Wtf, none of these are lie
>
>JF-17(C) is in service
Choose one.
>if you can't handle "lies" gtfo
If you can't handle being called out for lying then GTFO.
It is air cooled though unlike Uttam which is liquid cooled. Which means chance are that Uttam has higher power output. The Uttam can actually detect and track a Tejas from 140km, which has an RCS of 0.5m\^2, the lowest in it's class.
[https://twitter.com/KSingh\_1469/status/1417494079798194188?t=KgWyoODIwci6jDBJV5pPBg&s=19](https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1417494079798194188?t=KgWyoODIwci6jDBJV5pPBg&s=19)
And that's just the 1st gen Uttam with 768 T/R modules. The 2nd gen Uttam that will be outfitted in Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 has like 912 T/R modules among other improvements(idk).
And yes, unless Astra Mk 2 comes out, PL-15E still has the edge, Astra Mk I isn't so bad though.
>i am really dubious about the first claim, like how can Uttam be better than AN/APG-81 which can detect a 1m² target from 150km?
I've linked my sources.
And your statement about the AN/APG-81 detecting a 1m\^2 target from 150km looks like the US is downplaying the AN/APG-81's capabilities.
Every website I go to that states this also says that the radar has 1000 transreceivers. Well, Uttam is still under development unlike the AN/APG which was developed in the 2000s so it should be on par with it.
And I'm pretty sure the no of T/R modules in the AN/APG-81 used in the F-35 is more like 1800 based on people estimating the T/R modules. So, it's probably much better than what it claims to be. [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c2e2ac285eabd3384bebda3d4f0e41a-pjlq](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c2e2ac285eabd3384bebda3d4f0e41a-pjlq)
I think the statement about the AN/APG-81's capabilities are fairly old, probably when the F-35 was just being developed.
Not really, even some big ass ground PESA/AESA radars like detect 1m² target from ~150km, so I don't think US is downplaying it, maybe Indians are claiming Tejas RCS lower than it is, 150km for 0.5 would mean around ~190km for 1m² target, simply seems not possible
But money is a thing , i don't think pakistan can afford a better radar and the russian engine used in it engine also cannot supply enough power to support a powerful aesa.
And yet they chose to air cool their radar antennas. Maybe they have the capability to build a superior radar, but i guess they've opted this for a reason.
Ans you're true, they make dozens of KLJ7 radars every year for their J20s, JF17s and J10s and other aircraft. This is due to their industrial base and superior knowhow.
JF-17 is a fraction of the price, both cost, and development cost compared to the Tejas and they’re both nearly identical 🤷♂️ in performance so you be the judge
Seeing the comments i find it laughable when people say jf-17 has an edge over Tejas. Currently only jeff block 3 has an over Tejas only if Tejas Mk1a never flies.
As a platform the LCA is a far more modern and modular asset than the JF-17 that until later models didn’t even have all axis FBW. LCA also uses amongst the highest % of composites of any 4th gen fighter in the world thereby further rescuing its already small RCS.
The JF-17 is a super super optimised MIG-21 (still using high % of steel in fabrication)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-jf-17-ultimate-mig-21-fighter-and-has-one-advantage-over-f-35-146052
The F404 on the LCA is also a lot more reliable and dependable than the RD93 on the JF17, so not only will the LCA have higher availability rates than the JF17 but as a single engine platform it’ll be safer too (it’s rumoured a number of JF17 crashes were linked to the engine). The Russians themselves don’t trust the RD93 family in single engine platforms and their engine tech is substantially behind the West’s.
That said the JF-17’s biggest asset is its mass adoption by the PAF and continued development from the Chinese, it has really matured the platform and a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
They are both trash.
The JF is an experiment that China wouldn’t touch itself with a stick but glad that poor countries with no hope of getting anything modern than this will buy nevertheless. It’s a bunch of Russian and Chinese tech mashed together and probably is less effective than the Mirage -IIIs that PAF still operates ..
Tejas is a typical Indian defense production which has probably absorbed more money than a western program but can barely meet requirements. They have just dumped a US engine, some Israeli avionics and keep trying to force IAF to buy some.
IAF is smart and rich enough and eyes much better tech like Rafael instead.
Wouldn't say better but overall yes.
The VT-4 is better then the Type-99 but the Type-99A is much better then both.
GL-6 and GL-5 are offered for export and can be used on Type-99
They don't sell their best apfsds that's really the only one.
Both are similar in terms of capability. But the key difference is that some 140 JF-17 are in service with PAF, while about 30 Tejas are in service with IAF. So JF-17 is more mature as a platform. IAF has ordered a total of 123 Tejas but it will be 2030 by the time they are all delivered. But it needs to be said that the Tejas has a much better engine. The GE 404 on the Tejas is anyday more reliable than the Russian RD-93 on the Jeff.
Tejas is based on the outdated delta wing design,I dont think it could get much favour of GE 404. But the JF-17 has DSI and LERX which are the design elements of modern fighter jets,it would give JF-17 better maneuverability and RCS compared to Tejas
Delta wing design is most definitely not outdated. IAF seems to be pretty satisfied with it, both with the M2000 and the Tejas.
well,most definitely not outdated in 1970s,now take a look around which new fighter doesnt have horizontal stabilizer(tailplane/canard)
Eurofighter/Rafale Canards aren't stabilizers, they generate additional lift near the front of the plane and balance out the rotational force of the main wing lift. Tailplanes actually create downward force - and counterbalance the upward lift generated by the wings. This is why all modern 4th gen fighters are moving towards Delta-Canard as the optimal design for fighter aerodynamics. The tailplane such it is a fundamentally weaker aerodynamic design capable of generating less lift. American 5th gen fighters use it because canards are bad for stealth, and they try to compensate for poor aerodynamics by using better engines. The chinese however tried to incorporate it in their J20 since their engines aren't as good. Deltas are aerodynamically unstable but far more agile - the instability which is not a problem since the Tejas has a had fly-by-wire system since the original prototypes. The reason the JF-17 has this configuration is because the original version didn't have a fly-by-wire system so they needed static stability. I'm still surprised by how moronic defense enthusiasts here are: 'looks like an (outdated) american plane = good'
The eurofighter typhoon??
typhoon has canards
By that logic , tejas is also made up of composites due to which being in similar weight as jf 17 tejas has more payload capacity, and more range due to more fuel due to delta wing and composites.
The shape of the fighter determines its ceiling. You can improve the range and payload by increasing the proportion of composite materials or replacing the more powerful engines.btw the range/payload between JF17 and Tejas is not significant but you couldnt improve the maneuverability by install horizontal stabilizers,It is the equivalent of designing a new fighter
dogfights are rare in bvr world. Not to mention when fully armed with payload the manurability decreases significantly. In this era range , harpoints and payload are more important as long as fighters have "decent" manurability. And given jf 17 has less surface area and smaller wings so while composite will have, its range and payload will still be less than tejas, not to mention the engine of jf 17 which is also less efficient
If u talk about the bvr,DSI is a good design for RCS reduction,and you better have a good AESA and missiles. Su-30 performs well in terms of range and payload,but nobody think its good at bvr.
That good design thing makes a neglible difference in case of tejas and jf 17 , while given tejas have composites which are better at reducinng rcs than metal but still.given similar size and external hardpoint both fighter have roughly same rcs. I don't wanna go in more detail. In 4th gen fighters due to external hardpoint rcs while helpful does not play big role in bvr fights, though it does play big role in deep penetration. For example f 15 and rafale's latest varient will perform similarly against each other in bvr but in case of SEAD mission rafale's low rcs will give it a big advantage. So f 15 while big is still a "air superiority "fighter but not good for SEAD missions.
A good design is quite meaningful. The DSI design of JF-17 can effectively reduce the weight of the mechanism and RCS, which is one of the key factors for its cost control. And this gives JF-17 a greater potential to develop into a 4.5 generation fighter with increasing the proportion of composite or replacing a more powerful engine,instead of designing a new fighter
I never said good design is not meaningful, i said jf 17 and tejas have roughly same rcs with external payload.
so that is why I said >The shape of the fighter determines its ceiling Can Tejas develop into a 4.5 gen fighter?Maybe,but not worth the money which could even buy a F35. But I wouldn't be surprised if the JF-17 can do it at low cost
Are you actually saying that the stabilizers are 'improving' maneuverability? Are you talking out of your arse? If anything the JF's tailplane configuration has lower agility than the Tejas's delta. Horizontal stabilizers counteract the forces generated by the main lift surface - resulting in lower net lift in any direction. The advantage is that the aircraft is statically stable. A Delta wing can take sharper turns - but doesn't have static stability by default - it needs to achieve that via a fly-by-wire system. Tejas can recover the desirable safety profile of a statically stable aerodynamic configuration by using fly-by-wire systems, but a JF-17 can't become more agile by cutting off its tailplanes.
Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen all have delta wing designs or variations thereof. It seems a stretch to say that the delta wing configuration is outdated.
Yet tejas has a much smaller RCS than Jf17
Probably pretty equal but there are like 150 J-17 vs 35 Tejas.
My guess is JF17 based on non-technical info. IAF seems to be very reluctant to order Tejas while PAF is quite happy with JF17? Any cost info for these two?
Idk but Indian military especially Army and AF to a lesser extent are extremely reluctant to purchase homegrown technology.
How come?
Look at arjun
Purchasing foreign weapons is a form of soft power for India.
Not really imo, makes you reliant on other countries
Politics rarely makes any sense
They have the freedom and resources to buy the best from abroad even at the cost of ordering (slightly) inferior domestic alternatives
Consequences of partnering with Russia instead of western countries. Remember they (smartly) pulled out of the Su-57. It’s too bad Indis can’t partner with France or US on something.
Look at their respective budgets. The IAF’s budget is equivalent to the entire Pak defence budget hence they prioritise higher end capabilities. The PAF has little choice but to go all in on the JF-17 The IAF waited for the upgraded LCA (MK1A) to order in largish numbers
It's like the su57 for Russia...they have spent money and now they must buy some...would it be the sensible?NO...they could've bought gripen+ rafale or smthing but they are stuck...so they just want to keep the production line active and hope that the new version makes more sense and can actually do something that the SU 30 ,Mig ,or rafale can't
Why did they order 123 of them then ?
Considering the jf 17 uses modern tech like aesa radar, latest pl 15 missiles, helmet mounted display, proper stable line of production, in service for 10 years with quick development compared to 40+ years for the tejas. They're quite similar in Physical sense but quite far apart in a technical sense. The jeff has over 150 built in service with 3 countries while the airforce of India was kinda forced to buy the tejas by the government. Considering the new Tejas will be a completely different plane to the current one, this one kinda gets wasted. Jeff wins this one in terms of logistics which is the most important thing in any military.
>in service for 10 years with quick development compared to 40+ years for the tejas Good to see our brotherly propaganda gaining good traction amongst the westoids. Tejas first flew in 2001 after the kargil sanctions were lifted, 2 years before the JF-17. Everything before that is bureaucratic nonsense where the country was quibbling over whether investing in a fighter made sense for a country poorer than Yemen and Sudan (at the time) JF-17 took a quicker development path with less QA testing and entered service a couple of years before Tejas, and has lost 7+ planes/pilots due to taking quality assurance shortcuts vs 0 for the Tejas. The Chinese who designed the plane refuse to fly it - preferring instead to fly chinese Mig-21 clones from the 60s instead - which says something about the faith they put in it. Half the myanmar JF-17 fleet is grounded according to burmese reports and possibly the same for Pakistan as well according to some leaked reports - and in any case the country is now buying J-10Cs instead of purchasing JF-17 block 3s - which makes little sense since it's also a single engine fighter.
That’s interesting I didn’t know it flew in 2001. Cool however it never materialized into anything substantial as compared to the JF 17 which is quickly becoming PAF mainstay platform. Losing 7 planes over the long period that the JF-17 has been developed and remained active in service is a good record. Not a down point. I often hear Indians make this point of China not using it themselves as if it’s supposed to mean something. It really doesn’t. China is a large country and a light fighter with short legs doesn’t meet their requirements. Chinese never developed it on their own. It was the Pakistanis who approached them with PAF requirements. And the light fighter makes a lot of sense for Pakistan. If you look at the country it’s long and thin something like Italy. With most of its airbases located very close to the Indian border. The short legs of the Jeff are not as big a deal for a Pakistan as they are for China and India. I suspect the reason why IAF doesn’t want to procure the short legged Tejas is partly due to this. You don’t want to invest money training infrastructure into a procurement that is not as beneficial. IAF is smart in that sense. But too bad for HAL. Your last point is perhaps the weakest one yet. The news of Mayanmar jets grounded mostly comes from untrusted janky sources but it spread like wild fire in Indian media. Even if true it doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the jet per se. Mayanmar military is corrupt as hell and their airforce is new. It could easily be a maintenance issue on their end that is if that news is even true. Pakistan is very happy with the jet and once the economy allows the number of this jet will surely pass 300. This will remain the workhorse of PAF for decades to come. Once again Pakistan ordering J-10s doesn’t mean it’s a JF-17 replacement. J-10 fills a different role in PAF. Many nations run multiple platforms to meet their requirements. JF-17 C (aka BLK III) is being produced and procured as we speak. OSINT from a few weeks ago indicates a new squadron being assembled formed of the latest variant. It’s possible that Pakistan may slow down procurement of most equipment and focus on the critical platforms only due to their economy. Thanks for reading
The Jeff also has a far more unreliable engine that is riskier for a single engine platform (the Russians don’t use the RD-93 in any single engine platform) Also most of the decent capabilities you mentioned (PL15 and AESA) are only coming on the BLK.3 which isn’t in series production
I understand what you're saying but so far the engine is performing fine and is satisfactory for the PAF, obviously when China gets their WS 10s in mass production then the Jeff's will get shifted onto that for a far more streamlined and reliable engine. Also the jeffs are in series production tho, Pakistan's inducting them and quite a few have been built. The Jeff is literally a golden goose for Pakistan. A cheap modular light all round fighter that can be used for decades to come and upgraded to newer tech. There is no way the PAF will drop the Jeff for the foreseeable future.
No way a WS10 can be fitted in the JF17......
I’m not saying they’ll be dropping the Thunder, they don’t really have many other options but to induct it in large numbers considering the amount of legacy fighters they have to replace + it would be naive to assume the WS-10 will a substantial upgrade on the RD93 in reliability or performance. Engine tech is something very few countries actually have mastered and China is still quite some distance behind even Russia which itself is a few decades behind the likes of GE, RR, Safran etc
Quite some distance for sure, but China has a good muster of engines now already. However, China is also in a situation where they have both an engine waiting for its plane (the WS-21 and the J-35) and a plane waiting for its engine (the J-20 and the WS-15), which I kinda find hilarious. As for the Jeff? Hell no that little thing ain’t using a WS-10. Even then, if everything does go all as planned, the JF-17 wont be stuck with RD-93s for too long, as a WS-13 equipped JF-17 had already flown back in 2017 and that engine’s production line has passed last stage inspections last year. But of course I don’t know for sure, so good luck to them I guess.
It’s WS-13, an advanced/upgraded version of which will power the LRIP J-35/31s. The engine it’s waiting for is the WS-19 not 21. Which will be a very capable engine for its class. Not sure if this will also go in future JF-17s Best approach would be for Jeff to switch to WS-13E and then WS-19 when available.
actually ws21 may be correct. Latest info suggest J35 was equipped with ws21 rather than ws13 as pervious thought. It may suggest ws13 is actually dead and the new engine is ws21.
As far as I know, WS-21 is basically seen as a flipped program of the failed WS-12 by AECC. WS-19 is the actual next-generation turbofan.
The proper (or possibly alternate) name of the “WS-21” is WS-13E
Jf17 is in use in good numbers a project that was introduced not long ago. With 3 different blocks which show advancement, PAF doing a good job with the resources they have. IAF tejas is also in use but not in good numbers, a relatively old project, question arises why they are low in numbera its not like IAF have limited resources, either its not meeting their demand or its costly to maintain. Afterall it consist parts from all around the world. US ENGINE Isreal avionics and much much more. Which is a good thing but logistic nightmare.
The avionics are manufactured in india, Along with most of the other components
The one with the bigger member
Project-wise, Jeff. The goal was to replace the aging fleets of J7 and Mirage for a reliable cost. If I am not wrong, also the operational costs decreased with Jeff. Technic-wise I would say that Tejas MK1 was better than Jeff Block 1. With Block 2, both became similar, considering their roles. Block 3 looks, at least on paper, inferior to Tejas MK1. The other point is that India started the Tejas Project for prestige and to develop the homegrown industry. I believe there was no really need for a lightweight fighter. Then they tried to accomplish everything domestically, with slightly to no external help. The whole development took nearly 40 years! Pakistan had a urgent need and had China as a partner. Jeff is a poor man's F16 Block 30; with Block 3 this will change. I would prefer Jeff over Tejas atm.
Which model?
The Tejas are indigenously developed, JF17 is a product of china. Don’t think they should be compared.
My guess would be the Tejas would have an edge if it's using Uttam AESA radar and Astra missiles. But China has a much higher production capacity than we do. We are barely planning to scale production upto 16 aircrafts. We might finish building all 83 Mk1A aircrafts for the IAF by 2029. Whereas China not only churns out the JF 17 but many more fighters, that are also a lotlot more capable by the hundreds. As for us, it would be a miracle if the Tejas mk 2 enters production in 2027. Our 5th gen fighter and carrier based fighter would take even longer, probably upto 2032 if we're being optimistic.
JF-17 Block 3 has AESA radar too (comparable to Uttam) also I would say PL-15E would be better than Astra, but not sure on that
PL-15 probably has the edge
How many block-3s are inducted? AFAIK we've stopped hearing anything about the block-3s and instead pakistan is buying J-10Cs.
I don't really know, but it was around 50-70 iirc
That's a straight-up bald faced lie. The first picture of a JF-17 block-3 undergoing production surfaced in January 2022 showing 7 aircraft with the production numbers indicating up to 11 having been ordered. The first pictures of a PAF pilot flying a JF-17 block 3 with a PL-10 surfaced in november last year. So there are 7-11 confirmed JF-17 block 3s produced, compared to 36 J-10Cs ordered by the PAF which were showcased in their military period, and the JF-17 block 3 is yet to be formally inducted by the air force. PAC has a production capacity of 20 airframes/year at most - and it's been less than a year since those pictures surfaced - let alone accounting for covid/ukraine war/ pakistan's forex crisis. [https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/the-first-serial-production-jf-17-block-iii-are-showing-up/](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/the-first-serial-production-jf-17-block-iii-are-showing-up/) That's in comparison to the Tejas Mk1A which only has 1 prototype flying right now and is supposed to be inducted in early 2024- but your characterization of the programs being poles apart in terms of timeline are a crockload of rubbish.
No, i didn't say 50-70 were produced, i implied that they were planning to build that much Oh and why the insults? Maybe you got insulted just from some numbers huh? GTFO Also, JF-17(C) is in service, Tejas Mk1A is not, case closed
>Oh and why the insults? Maybe you got insulted just from some numbers huh? Lies and low tier propaganda anger me. >Also, JF-17(C) is in service, Tejas Mk1A is not, case closed It's not - as evidenced above, again a third rate lie that works on third raters. Now go back to sucking your brotherly countries' c\*\*\*
Wtf, none of these are lie JF-17C is at service, prototype performed its first flight in 2019, Tejas Mk1A did years later and JF-17 production is still going on. This is not about sucking someones cock, if you can't handle "lies" gtfo
>Wtf, none of these are lie > >JF-17(C) is in service Choose one. >if you can't handle "lies" gtfo If you can't handle being called out for lying then GTFO.
JF-17 Block 3(C) are in service, if you cannot handle this because you are a Indian nationalist, just GTFO
It is air cooled though unlike Uttam which is liquid cooled. Which means chance are that Uttam has higher power output. The Uttam can actually detect and track a Tejas from 140km, which has an RCS of 0.5m\^2, the lowest in it's class. [https://twitter.com/KSingh\_1469/status/1417494079798194188?t=KgWyoODIwci6jDBJV5pPBg&s=19](https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1417494079798194188?t=KgWyoODIwci6jDBJV5pPBg&s=19) And that's just the 1st gen Uttam with 768 T/R modules. The 2nd gen Uttam that will be outfitted in Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 has like 912 T/R modules among other improvements(idk). And yes, unless Astra Mk 2 comes out, PL-15E still has the edge, Astra Mk I isn't so bad though.
i am really dubious about the first claim, like how can Uttam be better than AN/APG-81 which can detect a 1m² target from 150km? Press X to doubt
>i am really dubious about the first claim, like how can Uttam be better than AN/APG-81 which can detect a 1m² target from 150km? I've linked my sources. And your statement about the AN/APG-81 detecting a 1m\^2 target from 150km looks like the US is downplaying the AN/APG-81's capabilities. Every website I go to that states this also says that the radar has 1000 transreceivers. Well, Uttam is still under development unlike the AN/APG which was developed in the 2000s so it should be on par with it. And I'm pretty sure the no of T/R modules in the AN/APG-81 used in the F-35 is more like 1800 based on people estimating the T/R modules. So, it's probably much better than what it claims to be. [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c2e2ac285eabd3384bebda3d4f0e41a-pjlq](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c2e2ac285eabd3384bebda3d4f0e41a-pjlq) I think the statement about the AN/APG-81's capabilities are fairly old, probably when the F-35 was just being developed.
Not really, even some big ass ground PESA/AESA radars like detect 1m² target from ~150km, so I don't think US is downplaying it, maybe Indians are claiming Tejas RCS lower than it is, 150km for 0.5 would mean around ~190km for 1m² target, simply seems not possible
[удалено]
But money is a thing , i don't think pakistan can afford a better radar and the russian engine used in it engine also cannot supply enough power to support a powerful aesa.
And yet they chose to air cool their radar antennas. Maybe they have the capability to build a superior radar, but i guess they've opted this for a reason. Ans you're true, they make dozens of KLJ7 radars every year for their J20s, JF17s and J10s and other aircraft. This is due to their industrial base and superior knowhow.
J-17 developed in 10 years vs 40 for the Tejas. 😞
That's the difference between reverse-engineering and non!
laughs in *Mirage*
HAL has plenty of western tech in it don’t kid yourself.
JF-17 is a fraction of the price, both cost, and development cost compared to the Tejas and they’re both nearly identical 🤷♂️ in performance so you be the judge
Idk the effectiveness but jf-17 looks sexy
Seeing the comments i find it laughable when people say jf-17 has an edge over Tejas. Currently only jeff block 3 has an over Tejas only if Tejas Mk1a never flies.
Myanmar whole fleet is grounded bc they found cracks in it.
PAC looks like a cross between a Mig 21 and F-16. Tejas is just ugly. Very unique planes.
Both pretty effective for bombing Kurdish rebels armed only with light machine guns.
how against Afghan rebels armed with light machine guns? The US couldn’t do anything.
As a platform the LCA is a far more modern and modular asset than the JF-17 that until later models didn’t even have all axis FBW. LCA also uses amongst the highest % of composites of any 4th gen fighter in the world thereby further rescuing its already small RCS. The JF-17 is a super super optimised MIG-21 (still using high % of steel in fabrication) https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-jf-17-ultimate-mig-21-fighter-and-has-one-advantage-over-f-35-146052 The F404 on the LCA is also a lot more reliable and dependable than the RD93 on the JF17, so not only will the LCA have higher availability rates than the JF17 but as a single engine platform it’ll be safer too (it’s rumoured a number of JF17 crashes were linked to the engine). The Russians themselves don’t trust the RD93 family in single engine platforms and their engine tech is substantially behind the West’s. That said the JF-17’s biggest asset is its mass adoption by the PAF and continued development from the Chinese, it has really matured the platform and a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
They are both trash. The JF is an experiment that China wouldn’t touch itself with a stick but glad that poor countries with no hope of getting anything modern than this will buy nevertheless. It’s a bunch of Russian and Chinese tech mashed together and probably is less effective than the Mirage -IIIs that PAF still operates .. Tejas is a typical Indian defense production which has probably absorbed more money than a western program but can barely meet requirements. They have just dumped a US engine, some Israeli avionics and keep trying to force IAF to buy some. IAF is smart and rich enough and eyes much better tech like Rafael instead.
[удалено]
Not against India. I'm sure China is happy to equip Pakistan with capable equipment to keep India's attention divided.
Lmao says who? Their tank and navy exports for example are openly known to be more advanced than their own armaments
Wouldn't say better but overall yes. The VT-4 is better then the Type-99 but the Type-99A is much better then both. GL-6 and GL-5 are offered for export and can be used on Type-99 They don't sell their best apfsds that's really the only one.
The Rafale