Thread: Indian Air Force vs. US Air Force

PLaAF is way ahead of the IAF. You cannot talk about LCA as well. It's an average performing aircraft, probably equivalent or less than the JF-17 if you can compare the two, and not headed anywhere for production for another 10 years at least by which time the technology will be outdated. JF-17 will be inducted within a year in comparison with plenty of scope for upgrades. Another point is that the JF-17 is developed from the same era technology as the Mig-29, so you might expect it to be performing at a higher level than this.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

PLaAF is way ahead of the IAF. You cannot talk about LCA as well. It's an average performing aircraft, probably equivalent or less than the JF-17 if you can compare the two, and not headed anywhere for production for another 10 years at least by which time the technology will be outdated. JF-17 will be inducted within a year in comparison with plenty of scope for upgrades. Another point is that the JF-17 is developed from the same era technology as the Mig-29, so you might expect it to be performing at a higher level than this.

I'm not too sure of LCA's specs, but JF-17 specs are really not all that impressive. JF-17 in its original form is expected to have 70 to 80% of the capability of F-16A/B. Either way, it definitely seems to be progressing much smoother than LCA. It should be ready for mass production by 2007.

hmmm... ur post is quite informative though sources of your knowledge is what i doubt .
Lets starts from ur first sentence

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

PLaAF is way ahead of the IAF.

In what ways . ?? They ahve better aircraft better numbers or will win hands on in a war between india and china / are much better trained ? please be more specific about it ?

You cannot talk about LCA as well. It's an average performing aircraft, probably equivalent or less than the JF-17 if you can compare the two,

Please care to show your comparison ?? i would like to debate on that.. its surely not a good idea to close the discussion announcing your view as a final one.

Some news peices about LCA you might have missed.
1. the site for production has already been selected
2. three test planes are flying reguarly with 4 more to join tests in a year .
3. order for 40 has already been placed.

. JF-17 will be inducted within a year in comparison with plenty of scope for upgrades.

Oh well then with what features/capabilities ?? Please care to explain whats coming in this version produced within a year.

Another point is that the JF-17 is developed from the same era technology as the Mig-29, so you might expect it to be performing at a higher level than this.

Oh year but which version of Mig29 ?? For what i recall the latest one contains a 3D TVC apart from many more features..

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

PLaAF is way ahead of the IAF. You cannot talk about LCA as well. It's an average performing aircraft, probably equivalent or less than the JF-17 if you can compare the two, and not headed anywhere for production for another 10 years at least by which time the technology will be outdated. JF-17 will be inducted within a year in comparison with plenty of scope for upgrades. Another point is that the JF-17 is developed from the same era technology as the Mig-29, so you might expect it to be performing at a higher level than this.

Yeah the LCA sucks...happy now. Move on.

Originally Posted by tphuang

You should notice in the recent China-Russia military exercise, China intentionally hid its most advanced weapons like 052C, 054, yuan sub and J-10 and missiles like SD-10 and YJ-85.

Reports and discussions on the exercise it is learn't that the Russians fielded about 1500 personnel while PLA fielded about 10,000. Looks like they hid more 'things'.

As for SD-10, it's already finished testing and is equipped on J-10. Just because it has not seen battle action, that doesn't mean it's not good. So, we agree that some version of J-8 has BVR capability.

I never said that the SD-10 is ineffective, just that the world is not sure that it is ready yet or the PAF (Pak air force) would have been the first ones to brag about it.

Can I get an approximate number of each type of planes you have (not counting the mig21 and 23)?

Its not the numbers that you have, but what damage they can inflict in a given theater of operations. We are counting on the fact that PLAAF will not pull out all their high performance ac regiments/ sqdns away from their eastern coast to deploy them against the IAF.
PLAAF inventory- Aircraft 2950

J-11 (Wpns) AA-11(Qty)48 range - fighter1500 attack? 1000
J-8 (Wpns)PL-2/PL-7/PL-9 (Qty)150 range - fighter 800 attack? 550
J-7 (wpns)PL-2 / PL-7 (Qty)500 range - fighter600-850 attack 400-550
J-6 (Wpn)PL-1 / PL-2 (Qty)1800 range - fighter 685 attack?450
Q-5 (won) -NA- (Qty) 450 range - attack 400-600

You think the above PLAAF inventory and their ranges can make a dent in the IAF.

Some J-10 vs the Mig29A/B/C and remaining J-10 and su-30mkk/mk2 vs su-30mki. You can make your own judgement on which one is better. Since some of you think su-30mki is better than F-15C with AESA and F-16 block 50/52 is worse than Mig-29, I don't think any kind of argument would work on you.

I am not thick headed I can understand the performance aspects of aircraft if explained.

I just said if you think J-10 is rubbish, just check out some of its result. J-10 hasn't gone up again su-30mki, so I don't know how it will fare. Make no mistake, J-10 is China's best a2a fighter jet. And we are going to be making 50 of them a year.

You can excuse the lack of enthusiasim since most of the J-6/J-7/J-8 were just modified Mig-19/21s. Its capabilities will remain a mystery till it shows its punch.

As for Tankers, you obviously haven't heard. China is buying 30 IL-76 transports and 6 to 10 IL-78 tankers from Russia when the two sides meet later this month. They are expected to be delivered in 2 to 5 years. I wonder how many fully upgraded su-30mkis will India have by then. The way this is going, Russia will crack soon and actually offer something to China equal to the mkis.

Do you want to go through the attackers and bombers?

You have to understand the problems faced by the PLAAF in Tibet. For one the aircraft pens on the current airfields make the PLAAF fighter sitting ducks to air-raids. See the open ac pens of the airfields in Suzhou, Xingning, Fuzhou and Nanchang-Xangtang.

As for J-10 vs LCA, does it matter whether or not J-10 got some head start with Lavi? every plane gets some head start from other projects. The most important part is that J-10 is done and LCA is not.

Has the engine been decided for the J-10?

Originally Posted by lemontree

Reports and discussions on the exercise it is learn't that the Russians fielded about 1500 personnel while PLA fielded about 10,000. Looks like they hid more 'things'.

I never said that the SD-10 is ineffective, just that the world is not sure that it is ready yet or the PAF (Pak air force) would have been the first ones to brag about it.

Its not the numbers that you have, but what damage they can inflict in a given theater of operations. We are counting on the fact that PLAAF will not pull out all their high performance ac regiments/ sqdns away from their eastern coast to deploy them against the IAF.
PLAAF inventory- Aircraft 2950

J-11 (Wpns) AA-11(Qty)48 range - fighter1500 attack? 1000
J-8 (Wpns)PL-2/PL-7/PL-9 (Qty)150 range - fighter 800 attack? 550
J-7 (wpns)PL-2 / PL-7 (Qty)500 range - fighter600-850 attack 400-550
J-6 (Wpn)PL-1 / PL-2 (Qty)1800 range - fighter 685 attack?450
Q-5 (won) -NA- (Qty) 450 range - attack 400-600

You think the above PLAAF inventory and their ranges can make a dent in the IAF.

I am not thick headed I can understand the performance aspects of aircraft if explained.

You can excuse the lack of enthusiasim since most of the J-6/J-7/J-8 were just modified Mig-19/21s. Its capabilities will remain a mystery till it shows its punch.

You have to understand the problems faced by the PLAAF in Tibet. For one the aircraft pens on the current airfields make the PLAAF fighter sitting ducks to air-raids. See the open ac pens of the airfields in Suzhou, Xingning, Fuzhou and Nanchang-Xangtang.


Has the engine been decided for the J-10?

PAF probably won't get the SD-10s until they get the first 50 JF-17s (so, 2007). I don't really think India will go to war against China again, so all of these comparisons are just based on hypothetical arguments around the quantity/quality of the ACs. I personally do think it helps to have a lot of cannon fodders. It distracts enemy from the main force. But yeah, China definitely would not pull its most advanced ACs from Taiwan strait. It will probably send over a bunch of its latest J8IIs.

As for J-10, if you do read over more articles on it, you would realize it's quite a fine plane and has excellent potential. In fact, its experience is already helping China in developing it's 4.5 generation aircraft.

As for the engine, they are using AL-31FN for probably at least the first 100 J-10s. Maybe more, China would like to use WS-10A, but that engine probably won't start production until early next year. Even then, J-10 will have to fight for the engine with J-11B. Since SAC (producers of J-11B) have better connection with PLAAF, they might get more of WS-10As. I'm not sure whether WS-10As have the TVC nozzle yet, but in the near future, it will have it, since China already showed that it has developed TVC nozzles. It would be stupid to not put it on your best jet engine.

Originally Posted by tphuang

I'm not too sure of LCA's specs, but JF-17 specs are really not all that impressive. JF-17 in its original form is expected to have 70 to 80% of the capability of F-16A/B. Either way, it definitely seems to be progressing much smoother than LCA. It should be ready for mass production by 2007.

Cant find all the specs for the JF-17 either. But JF-17 is considered to be 70% as manoeverable as the F-16 (not sure which block, but probably original designs of each), however, it has a high climb rate which allows it to intercept fourth generation fighters. I have read its airframe is third generation but again, its airframe is supposedly based on the product 33 design of the eighties from the same era as the modern day Mig-29 which should make it fourth generation at least. It's certainly a fourth generation fighter, a bit lacking on top speed, but for interception it's not required. F-16s have a better payload than the JF-17 though. I dont think LCA has would have the same climb rate for interception as the JF-17.

SD-10s are probably already with the PAF if it's a co-development with China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD-10

SD-10 is the official armament of the JF-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Cant find all the specs for the JF-17 either.

Yeah, becoz the fighter is still being tested.

But JF-17 is considered to be 70% as manoeverable as the F-16 (not sure which block, but probably original designs of each),

70%...this is ridiculous. How do you calculate 70%?? does JF-17 has 70% turn radius or turn rate??

however, it has a high climb rate which allows it to intercept fourth generation fighters.

F-16, at the min has a initial climb rate of about 50000 ft (15239 m) / min, you think a JF-17 can outrun this, given the fact that JF-17 climb rates are still unknown?? Though we have thrust to weight ratio (>=0.9, gotta believe what the Chinese say), when you toss in fuel and a load of armamments, I dont get a pretty picture.

I have read its airframe is third generation but again, its airframe is supposedly based on the product 33 design of the eighties from the same era as the modern day Mig-29 which should make it fourth generation at least.

If we go by your popular source, it still says 3rd Gen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-9

BTW, Airframe isnt the only paramater to classify a plane's generation. JF-17 avionics, less said is better.

I dont think LCA has would have the same climb rate for interception as the JF-17.

Why not? Even before Tejas gets an engine, how can you decide that Tejas will not have a climb rate similar to JF-17?

Originally Posted by Jay

Yeah, becoz the fighter is still being tested.


70%...this is ridiculous. How do you calculate 70%?? does JF-17 has 70% turn radius or turn rate??


F-16, at the min has a initial climb rate of about 50000 ft (15239 m) / min, you think a JF-17 can outrun this, given the fact that JF-17 climb rates are still unknown?? Though we have thrust to weight ratio (>=0.9, gotta believe what the Chinese say), when you toss in fuel and a load of armamments, I dont get a pretty picture.


If we go by your popular source, it still says 3rd Gen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-9

BTW, Airframe isnt the only paramater to classify a plane's generation. JF-17 avionics, less said is better.


Why not? Even before Tejas gets an engine, how can you decide that Tejas will not have a climb rate similar to JF-17?

Although, its overall maneuverability is 70% that of the F-16 Falcon but its high climb rate makes the aircraft able to challenge early fourth generation fighters
http://www.defencetalk.com/air_syste...thunder_4.html

The climb rate and turn rate of the JF-17 is enhanced by the position of the wings way behind the canopy. The LCA is a small aircraft so the wings arent going to be as far back behind the canopy.

Avionics of the JF-17 are supposedly pretty good actually.
Fire-control radar Italian FIAR Grifo S-7
Navigation system GPS system
Other Head up display (HUD), infra-red search-and-track system, night-vision goggle capability and a digital dual Fly by wire (FBW).

JF-17 is a fourth generation fighter according to this

The JF-17 (Joint Fighter-17), aka "Thunder" is a Single Seat Multirole Day/Night fourth generation fighter aircraft and will be inducted into the Pakistan Air Force and Chinese Air Force (the PLAAF) in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Although, its overall maneuverability is 70% that of the F-16 Falcon but its high climb rate makes the aircraft able to challenge early fourth generation fighters

It depends on how they classify fighters. One such classification says F-16 A/B are 3rd Gen. In a simple world, do you think JF-17 will be able to outrun a F-16 A/B or may be a Mirage 2000??

The climb rate and turn rate of the JF-17 is enhanced by the position of the wings way behind the canopy. The LCA is a small aircraft so the wings arent going to be as far back behind the canopy.

That doesnt mean that you can climb and outrunt he rest of the aircrafts. Fuel load, dry weight, load with full weapons, Thrust to Weight ratio are directly responsible for higher climb rate. And I dont think JF-17 has a TWR more than 1.

Avionics of the JF-17 are supposedly pretty good actually.
Fire-control radar Italian FIAR Grifo S-7
Navigation system GPS system
Other Head up display (HUD), infra-red search-and-track system, night-vision goggle capability and a digital dual Fly by wire (FBW).

Is it a joke or for real? Those are basic avionics for any fighter jet. It pales when compared with LCA's avinoics that are already integrated and tested.

Check this out...
Flight Control - Digital quadruplex redundant architecture

Cockpit environment - 3x 5x5 inch and 2x 3x3 MFDs/SSDUs, displays for comm. and nav., HOTAS and VTAS (voice), HUD with UFCP, centralised warning, mission planning and retreival unit, FCP for emergency flight control, HMS (Elbit's JHMCS tech), digital video recording (DVR).

Core avionics features - Sensor fusion with Power PC/VME 64 core avionics computer, digital weapons systems management with front end weapons management computer (32 bit,single chip,dual redundant arch), digital pylon interface boxes. 5x MiL-STD-1553B avionics and weapons databuses with fibre optic databus in development.

Comm and Nav. - RCI Ring lase gyro based INS with GPS/GLONASS correction. Comm system in V/UHF with Frequency hopping, Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum technology and Secrecy. High speed multi-point air-to-air air-to-ground datalink.

Self-protection - Tarang HADF Mk.II 4th gen RHAWS, Internal solid state software intensive jammer with the ability to capture unknown emissions for later exploitation and analysis and internal CMDS. The system can also cue the pilot to initiate additional evasive maneuvers while working in automatic conjunction with ECM/CMDS action.

Sensors - MMR Radar (By spec, this seems better than the Zhuk-M but both of them are not phased arrays like the RBE-2) DSP and Radar computer.

Others: Elta Litening-II LDP, IRST, FADEC for engine control etc etc.

JF-17 is a fourth generation fighter according to this

With a 3rd gen airframe (J-9) and a mix of analog and digital avionics is defintely not 4th Gen.

Originally Posted by Jay

It depends on how they classify fighters. One such classification says F-16 A/B are 3rd Gen. In a simple world, do you think JF-17 will be able to outrun a F-16 A/B or may be a Mirage 2000??


That doesnt mean that you can climb and outrunt he rest of the aircrafts. Fuel load, dry weight, load with full weapons, Thrust to Weight ratio are directly responsible for higher climb rate. And I dont think JF-17 has a TWR more than 1.


Is it a joke or for real? Those are basic avionics for any fighter jet. It pales when compared with LCA's avinoics that are already integrated and tested.

Check this out...
Flight Control - Digital quadruplex redundant architecture

Cockpit environment - 3x 5x5 inch and 2x 3x3 MFDs/SSDUs, displays for comm. and nav., HOTAS and VTAS (voice), HUD with UFCP, centralised warning, mission planning and retreival unit, FCP for emergency flight control, HMS (Elbit's JHMCS tech), digital video recording (DVR).

Core avionics features - Sensor fusion with Power PC/VME 64 core avionics computer, digital weapons systems management with front end weapons management computer (32 bit,single chip,dual redundant arch), digital pylon interface boxes. 5x MiL-STD-1553B avionics and weapons databuses with fibre optic databus in development.

Comm and Nav. - RCI Ring lase gyro based INS with GPS/GLONASS correction. Comm system in V/UHF with Frequency hopping, Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum technology and Secrecy. High speed multi-point air-to-air air-to-ground datalink.

Self-protection - Tarang HADF Mk.II 4th gen RHAWS, Internal solid state software intensive jammer with the ability to capture unknown emissions for later exploitation and analysis and internal CMDS. The system can also cue the pilot to initiate additional evasive maneuvers while working in automatic conjunction with ECM/CMDS action.

Sensors - MMR Radar (By spec, this seems better than the Zhuk-M but both of them are not phased arrays like the RBE-2) DSP and Radar computer.

Others: Elta Litening-II LDP, IRST, FADEC for engine control etc etc.


With a 3rd gen airframe (J-9) and a mix of analog and digital avionics is defintely not 4th Gen.

A lot of those avionics you've bunched up are in the JF-17, but here it says the LCA doesnt have as good avionics as the JF-17

The aircraft is being considered as a match for the Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which is expected to form the backbone of the Indian Air Force in future. There are, however, some features like advanced and futuristic avionics and cost effectiveness that give the JF-17 an edge over the LCA. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...china/fc-1.htm

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

A lot of those avionics you've bunched up are in the JF-17, but here it says the LCA doesnt have as good avionics as the JF-17

name a single avionic planned in JF17 thats better than its counterpart in LCA. ?? Its all speculation fed by pakistani sources to show the public that they are getting comparable stuff to india.

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

A lot of those avionics you've bunched up are in the JF-17, but here it says the LCA doesnt have as good avionics as the JF-17

What are you talking about? JF-17 has Quad digital FBW? IRST? HMS?? FADEC??

I dont think so