alternative comparative analysis: LCA vs JF-17 / FC-1

[aaaditya]

well field marshal you seem to know a lot about lca project ,but i dont agree with you ,lca project is too advanced to go back now.even iaf has pinned its hopes on it,the current fighter(mrca) order is just meant,to maintain the force balance,iaf plans to acquire 60 combat aircraft squadrons(originally 80),and lca forms a major part of it.

here are the first 6 lines of my first post,i have cleearly stated that--the current fighter order is just meant to maintain the force balance.

where does it mention that lca will replace mirage2000's ,lca's were mever developed for that role,they are meant to replace the mig series of aircrafts,they are not meant to be a medium weight air superiority of nuke strike fighters ,but are meant to be used for air defence and ground attack roles.even if they come in large numbers india would still have to go for mirage2000-5 or other medium tech aircrafts to fulfill the strike roles.

 

[vedang]

aaditya firstly welcome back.

admin - text deleted. note the topic title. this is not a thread about small arms.

 

[dabrownguy]

:mrgreen
Sorry to interupt but a number things are wrong in the esay and a number of things said on this thread a stupid.

First off tphuang, you can say the LCA, and JF-17 are crap but this is coming from the guy who believes the J-10 is better than Su-30MKK.:

I'd like to add a number of things. The LCA won't hold a single type of BVR AAM! The Mirages in the InAF can carry Archers like the Falcrums who can carry Matra 530 AAM! InAF probabily will get the Derby. It's the size of Python 5 which both the InN and InAF are evaluting (don't ask). It's speculation but I think the Derby can be carried on dual launchers if required. The Magic II in serivice can. The LCA won't get a single BVR missile but a few so it can be versitile. So like before the fighter would be capable with R-77's, Astra's???, Derby's, Python 5's???, R-73's, R-27's???, Magic II's, Matra 530's and a variety of air to surface missiles and bombs. Also i'd like to add that the Astra is lighter than the R-77. Heres a link if you need information. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Astra.html
Also I don't see how the LCA could be underpowered when the Gripen uses the same powerplant but weighs more and can achieve greater speeds.:fly

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also I don't see how the LCA could be underpowered when the Gripen uses the same powerplant but weighs more and can achieve greater speeds.:fly

Thats relevant on issues of thrust to weight. It has little bearing on flight behaviour and assoc parameters.

Once you go beyond TW, then you have to start looking at design, requirements, handling profiles etc... eg a mini mirage concept like LCA will handle very differently than a canard equiped short delta design like Gripen.

saying all of that, no one has any idea about LCA's absolute handling parameters until more info goes public. ditto for J-10. One would assume that J-10 is going to exhibit similar handling to Lavi, Gripen, late F-16's even the Mitsubishi F2. (although its probably a bit more "sluggish" as it appears to be a heavier design)

 

[aaaditya]

:mrgreen
Sorry to interupt but a number things are wrong in the esay and a number of things said on this thread a stupid.

First off tphuang, you can say the LCA, and JF-17 are crap but this is coming from the guy who believes the J-10 is better than Su-30MKK.:

I'd like to add a number of things. The LCA won't hold a single type of BVR AAM! The Mirages in the InAF can carry Archers like the Falcrums who can carry Matra 530 AAM! InAF probabily will get the Derby. It's the size of Python 5 which both the InN and InAF are evaluting (don't ask). It's speculation but I think the Derby can be carried on dual launchers if required. The Magic II in serivice can. The LCA won't get a single BVR missile but a few so it can be versitile. So like before the fighter would be capable with R-77's, Astra's???, Derby's, Python 5's???, R-73's, R-27's???, Magic II's, Matra 530's and a variety of air to surface missiles and bombs. Also i'd like to add that the Astra is lighter than the R-77. Heres a link if you need information. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Astra.html
Also I don't see how the LCA could be underpowered when the Gripen uses the same powerplant but weighs more and can achieve greater speeds.:fly

airforce lca's will definitely not carry the derby .maybe the nlca will when it gets ready,derby and python5 are meant only for the navy.
lca' will be able to carry atleast 2-4 bvr missiles.

 

[aaaditya]

Thats relevant on issues of thrust to weight. It has little bearing on flight behaviour and assoc parameters.

Once you go beyond TW, then you have to start looking at design, requirements, handling profiles etc... eg a mini mirage concept like LCA will handle very differently than a canard equiped short delta design like Gripen.

saying all of that, no one has any idea about LCA's absolute handling parameters until more info goes public. ditto for J-10. One would assume that J-10 is going to exhibit similar handling to Lavi, Gripen, late F-16's even the Mitsubishi F2. (although its probably a bit more "sluggish" as it appears to be a heavier design)

the test pilots who flew lca claimed that it handled much better than the mirage2000 and had much lower cockpit noise as compared to the mirage2000's.

 

[tphuang]

:mrgreen
Sorry to interupt but a number things are wrong in the esay and a number of things said on this thread a stupid.

First off tphuang, you can say the LCA, and JF-17 are crap but this is coming from the guy who believes the J-10 is better than Su-30MKK.:

LCA and JF-17 are rubbish. If they came out say 5 years ago, they'd be barely alright. However, they are not expected to join service until 2008-2011 range. By then, the only planes they can face will be each other.

As for J-10 being better than su-30mkk, it's quite true. The flankers in plaaf has yet to score a kill against J-10 in a2a combat. If you actually do a comparison between J-10 and mkk, you would notice that J-10 beats mkk on pretty much every a2a related categories. Then again, I would say that's more of a statement of how bad the mkks are than anything else. You posted in CDF a few times, you probably have got the sense that plaaf is not that satisfied with the performance of mkk/mkk2.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the test pilots who flew lca claimed that it handled much better than the mirage2000 and had much lower cockpit noise as compared to the mirage2000's.

and I reinforce the point (again) that there is a paucity of info released into the public domain about the LCA's handling characteristics.

lower cockpit noise refers to what? ambient noise? white noise? either way, all modern aircraft should be relatively quiet - especially when nearly every modern headset features noise cancelling technology anyway.

cockpit noise (unless it was horrific - and you'd expect that out of a radial engine - not a jet engine) should have little impact on performance. Thats a noise and vibration issue anyway - and has little influence (in real terms) on overall handling issues. You might expect some noise on the hand built prototypes, but not on production line models.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As for J-10 being better than su-30mkk, it's quite true. The flankers in plaaf has yet to score a kill against J-10 in a2a combat. If you actually do a comparison between J-10 and mkk, you would notice that J-10 beats mkk on pretty much every a2a related categories. Then again, I would say that's more of a statement of how bad the mkks are than anything else.

/partial hijack.

I'd be interested in seeing anything that relates to J-10 performance and handling issues - is there anything related to what you've said above in the public domain?

If you've got a few articles it would be worth starting a new topic as I'm sure that it will grow.

 

[dabrownguy]

airforce lca's will definitely not carry the derby .maybe the nlca will when it gets ready,derby and python5 are meant only for the navy.
lca' will be able to carry atleast 2-4 bvr missiles.

Is this speculation? Because the last time I checked the InAF was looking at a mix of Python 5/Derby for quick reaction SAM's for base protection. Why not purchase the AoA versions?

the test pilots who flew lca claimed that it handled much better than the mirage2000 and had much lower cockpit noise as compared to the mirage2000's.

I remember him saying that but I aslo remember that the cockpit noise had been reduced not beter than the Mirage.

LCA and JF-17 are rubbish. If they came out say 5 years ago, they'd be barely alright. However, they are not expected to join service until 2008-2011 range. By then, the only planes they can face will be each other.

You make me laugh!:lol3
China still produces J-8,J-7's and Pakistan will keep on operating J-7's till 2020 and China will have both FC-1 and J-10. It doesn't seem the LCA will be rubbish.

The flankers in plaaf has yet to score a kill against J-10 in a2a combat. If you actually do a comparison between J-10 and mkk, you would notice that J-10 beats mkk on pretty much every a2a related categories. Then again, I would say that's more of a statement of how bad the mkks are than anything else. You posted in CDF a few times, you probably have got the sense that plaaf is not that satisfied with the performance of mkk/mkk2.

What comparison? We don't know anything about the avonic suites of the J-10 or anything at all!

although its probably a bit more "sluggish" as it appears to be a heavier design)

You have that feeling too when looking at it? It does look overweight and I have yet to see a picture of the J-10 with its landing gear retracted.

 

[tphuang]

If you want to compare a new plane to J-7 and J-8, that plane seriously needs help. And in any case, J-8F isn't all that bad, it can take on LCA and JF-17.

To gf0012-aust:
I have a lot of stuff that's from Kanwa, JDW and in Chinese.
For the matter of manuverability, I think it was pretty telling when a pla flight demonstration officer said that it has better manuverability than su-27/mkk.
http://mil.news.sohu.com/20050622/n226033376.shtml
This is all in chinese, but the verse regarding j-10 and its superior manuverability is:
是的，曾经考虑过换装某新型歼击机。不过空军对我们表演队换装非常慎重，考虑到一般的表演队用的都是双发飞机，而我们想换装的某新型歼击机采用的是单发布局，作为一个新型飞机来讲可靠性肯定不如双发飞机。当初我建议选两个飞行员先到生产部门那里适应性地飞一下，到时候换装的时候可以少走弯路。不过某新型歼击机的安全性还是没问题的，虽然采用单发布局，不过发动机停车的情况下还能够利用某方案持续飞行半小时以上，这都是为了在甲板上起降而准备的。 不过换装某新型歼击机后后勤维护保养压力很大。原来我们的飞机无论哪里损伤马上就可以修理，但是现在这种新型歼击机由于机翼和机身蒙皮是采用整体制造技术，要是撞坏了很难修，不像我们用一块铝板几个铆钉就能解决。　　不过新型歼击机机动性能还是相当不错的，要明显优于苏27和30。现在部队飞得还是比较谨慎，但是试飞员飞得很不错，把飞机性能都发挥了出来。
I actually found a scanned picture of the article too, but the website took it down because it was posted a few months back.
And recently, you probably saw the article about J-10 getting TVC AL-31FN engines, so that should only give it better manuverability.

I'm guessing it's RCS is probably the same as later models of F-16.

As for AAM, it is equipped with PL-12 right now. I got the kanwa article that stated that (unfortunately, it's in Chinese, but you can see the picture of j-10 being equipped with PL-12).

As for the effectiveness of this missile, I'd say it's probably better than the R-77s that China got. You can get a sense from this Kanwa article:

<Kanwa News Sept 10, 2003> China put on display the full-size SD10 AMRAAM model and disclosed more details about this weapon system. SD10 AMRAAM has a length of 3850mm, diameter 203mm, wing span 674mm weight 180kg, whiles for R77, these measurements are 3600mm, 200mm and 175kg respectively. Its operation altitude is 0-25km (0.02-30km for R77), maximum launching range 70km (50km for R77, some other documents say it is 70km), maximum speed M4 (M3 for R77) maneuverability 38g.

A source claims the design of the seeker was completed in cooperation with Russia. R77 adopts J band seeker. The overall designs of R77 and SD10 are significantly different. As far as the pneumatic shape of the missiles is concerned, SD10 is closer to AIM120A, suggesting that the production of SD10 started in later years of 1980s. It was after that that Russia and China started to cooperate in the areas of seeker technologies. SD10 uses radio command guidance plus strap-down inertial and active radar guidance. CATIC says SD10 is capable of attacking 4 targets simultaneously, while R77 can attack two air targets simultaneously. With reference to the diameter of SD10 AAM, its radar diameter is very likely larger than that of R77.<Kanwa News>

I think the part about attacking 4 targets simultaneously is more about the radar than anything.

Finally, the avionics: It has all the basics - 3 MFD, HUD, HMS, HOTAS, quadriplex FBW and other stuff. You can check sinodefense on this. It's one of the few things it actually got right.)

As for the radar - this is probably the most mysterious part of J-10. We know that it currently uses type 1473 (referred to as KLJ-3 by many people). We also know that it beat out Zhemchug and Elta-2035 due to its superior performance. We know that it started out as a slotted array radar. The image I have for Zhuk-ME (Zhemchug based on this) is a little too big to be attached, so I will just state that it's a slotted array radar that tracks 10, engages 4, with lookup head on detection range of 120KM vs 5m^2 targets. There are two common sources for the capability of 1473, the first one is from JDW:
"JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - DECEMBER 11, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China launches new stealth fighter project
YIHONG CHANG JDW Correspondent
Zhuhai

The Shenyang Aircraft Company has been selected to head research and development of a new heavyweight fighter for China's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), according to a senior source at the China Aviation Industry Corp I (AVIC I).

Development of the engines and weapon subsystems for the fourth-generation fighter has been under way for some time, according to the source, who revealed that a number of design concepts have already been created. Wind-tunnel tests of these are about to start, including the two configurations pictured here. They show a twin-engine aircraft sharing some design traits with Lockheed Martin's stealthy F/A-22 multirole fighter, now undergoing tests with the US Air Force, such as the internal carriage of its weapon systems. The Chinese designs retain a more conventional wing, however, and use a single vertical tail fin.

AVIC I officials told Jane's Defence Weekly that the new aircraft - tentatively dubbed the J-X and possibly to receive the service designation J-13A - could use the WS10A turbofan engine designed by the Shenyang Liming Motor Company during its development and trials process.

In development for more than a decade, the WS10-series power plant completed air trials earlier this year with an Su-27SK (NATO reporting name: 'Flanker-B') fighter. The WS10A is scheduled for introduction with the PLAAF's new J-10A fighter, which has yet to be formally unveiled.

Continuing research into advanced control techniques is expected to in time allow the air force to field WS10A-powered J-10A and J-X fighters equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzles offering improved aircraft manoeuvrability.

Chinese television has shown images of President Jiang Zemin inspecting this project. The concepts indicate that the thrust-vectoring nozzle can be deflected by up to ±15º in any direction. Perfecting thrust-vectoring flight is one of the key aviation development programmes within Beijing's current five-year plan - a cap ability tipped to "improve the J-10A's short take-off and landing performance and [enable it to] attain the manoeuvrability standard of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter", said one industry source.

An assessment of potential multi-function fire-control radar systems for the new stealth fighter is also under way, with candidates including China's indigenous Type 1473 design. According to an industry source, this has a search distance of 150km and can track up to 15 targets, attacking between six and eight of them simultaneously. The design is currently undergoing upgrade to allow for the integration of a phased-array antenna.

Another option is the Russian Zhemchung system, which could allow a future naval variant of the J-10A to deploy advanced weapons such as the Kh-31A (AS-17: 'Krypton') medium-range anti-ship missile. In addition to planning its own active and passive phased-array antenna design, China is giving consideration to Russia's Pero active antenna, and has also already received 20 980mm slotted antenna sets from Russia.

While AVIC I sources will not speculate when the new fighter might make its first test flight, a debut around the end of the decade could be expected if the project matches the development process for China's J-10A and J-8D projects. Further impetus has been placed on the new programme, however, through Zemin's encouragement that relevant weapons and technologies be acquired from Russia and Ukraine. Zemin has also committed future funding for the J-X concept's continued development.

In a related development, an authorative source within China's military industry has also confirmed to JDW that the air force's first 10 AL-31FN-engined J-10A fighters were deployed with the country's Nanjing Military Command during August 2002 for training activities. The PLAAF's first two-seat J-10B fighters will enter manufacture next year, featuring enhanced air-to-ground and maritime attack capabilities."

another is from richard fisher:
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm
This one talks about 150KM search range, tracks 20/engages 4.

Note, the Chinese ranges are measured against 3m^2 targets. The engagement range is normally speculated to be around 100-110 KM head on look up vs 3m^2 targets.

 

[webmaster]

http://mil.news.sohu.com/20050622/n226033376.shtml

This is all in chinese, but the verse regarding j-10 and its superior manuverability is:

是的，曾经考虑过换装某新型歼击机。不过空军对我们表演队换装非常慎重，考虑到一般的表演队用的都是双发飞机，而我们想换装的某新型歼击机采用的是单发布局，作为一个新型飞机来讲可靠性肯定不如双发飞机。当初我建议选两个飞行员先到生产部门那里适应性地飞一下，到时候换装的时候可以少走弯路。不过某新型歼击机的安全性还是没问题的，虽然采用单发布局，不过发动机停车的情况下还能够利用某方案持续飞行半小时以上，这都是为了在甲板上起降而准备的。 不过换装某新型歼击机后后勤维护保养压力很大。原来我们的飞机无论哪里损伤马上就可以修理，但是现在这种新型歼击机由于机翼和机身蒙皮是采用整体制造技术，要是撞坏了很难修，不像我们用一块铝板几个铆钉就能解决。　　不过新型歼击机机动性能还是相当不错的，要明显优于苏27和30。现在部队飞得还是比较谨慎，但是试飞员飞得很不错，把飞机性能都发挥了出来。

Translation of the above from one of the online translation tools:

Yes, considered replaced some new fighter plane. But the air force replaces extremely prudently to our theater troupe, considers the common theater troupe uses all is 双发飞机, but we want to replace some new fighter plane uses is the single shot layout, takes one new airplane says reliability definitely is inferior to 双发飞机. Initially I suggested elected two pilots first to arrive the production department there compatibly flies, to time replacement time was allowed little to walk the tortuous path. But some new fighter plane security or does not have the question, although uses the single shot layout, but the engine stops under the situation also can use some plan continues to fly above half hour, this all is for the take off and landing prepares in the deck. But after replaces some new fighter plane the rear service maintenance maintenance pressure is very big. Originally our airplane regardless of where damages immediately may repair, but now this kind of new fighter plane because the wing and the fuselage outer covering is uses the whole manufacture technology, if collided and damaged very 难修, did not like us uses together the aluminum sheet several rivets to be able to solve. But new fighter plane maneuvering performance or quite good, must obviously surpass Soviet 27 and 30. Now the army flies or quite is discrete, but the test pilot flies is very good, all displayed the aircraft capability.

tphuang,

I have attached the image to your post so it doesn't go away anymore.

 

[dabrownguy]

Topic Jack On

If you want to compare a new plane to J-7 and J-8, that plane seriously needs help. And in any case, J-8F isn't all that bad, it can take on LCA and JF-17.

The same can be said for J-10.
Topic Jack Off

But is it just me but do I see the LCA in the near future capable of carring the Pope eye lite. Is it possible for the LCA?
the combined weight of the missile and pod is roughly 1575 kgs. That leaves enough for some AAM missiles too. I remember reading InAF testing Popeye lite on Mirages but for some reason failed. Rumored to be over heating. Can anyone confirm?
And it's likily that the Mirage 2000-5 will win the 124 MRCA tender since the USAF pilots in India have already commented that the Indian Mirages were simulating Mica AAM in its exerices. Its likily the MRCA order will come MICA's.

 

[aaaditya]

Topic Jack On

The same can be said for J-10.
Topic Jack Off

But is it just me but do I see the LCA in the near future capable of carring the Pope eye lite. Is it possible for the LCA?
the combined weight of the missile and pod is roughly 1575 kgs. That leaves enough for some AAM missiles too. I remember reading InAF testing Popeye lite on Mirages but for some reason failed. Rumored to be over heating. Can anyone confirm?
And it's likily that the Mirage 2000-5 will win the 124 MRCA tender since the USAF pilots in India have already commented that the Indian Mirages were simulating Mica AAM in its exerices. Its likily the MRCA order will come MICA's.

the popeye failed 2 out of 2 tests india is also looking at the scalp,jassm and the taurus missiles.lca will be able to carry them but most likely the responsibility of carrying these missiles will be entrusted to the mca as and when it gets developed(project definition phase completed).

 

[wp2000]

Translation of the above from one of the online translation tools:



tphuang,

I have attached the image to your post so it doesn't go away anymore.

Let me try the translation: (This is an interview with PLAAF's flight demonstration team officer)

Yes, (we) did consider to equip with that new fighter. But PLAAF(high level) is very cautious on equiping us with new planes. Their main concern is that usually flight demonstration teams would choose twin engine planes. But what we want to equip is a new single engine fighter plane. As a brand new plane, it's definitely not as reliable as twin-engine plane. At first I suggested to send 2 pilots to the factory and do some trial flights so that when we start to equip with the new plane, we can reduce the mistakes that we may make. Anyway, actually this new fighter plane's reliablility is not a problem. Although it uses a single engine, even if the engine stops working, an emergency solution can be started to keep the plane flying for up to half an hour, this is designed to prepare for flight deck landing and taking off. (*Note, the last sentence triggered hot and lengthy debates in china's mil forums) But this new plane would put very big pressure on our logistics and maintenance. Our old planes can be repaired immediately not matter where the damage is. But this new plane's wings and body are manufactured as one piece (I don't know how to translate this techy term), if it's damged, it would be very hard to fix, we can't just use some pieces of aluminum to repair it.

But, the new plane's manuvability is really good, clearly better than Su27/30. Currently combat units flights are relatively prudent. But test pilots flights are really good. They really demonstrated this plane's capabilities.


:gun That's it.

As of the scores between J10 and Su27/30/J11, at least one of them was publised on CAC's own newspaper. (Yes, believe it or not, those huge chinese SOE's got their own newspapers, one of the B&W picture showing 2 workers woking on FC1 prototype 04 was scanned from this newspaper)

 

[tphuang]

Let me try the translation: (This is an interview with PLAAF's flight demonstration team officer)

Yes, (we) did consider to equip with that new fighter. But PLAAF(high level) is very cautious on equiping us with new planes. Their main concern is that usually flight demonstration teams would choose twin engine planes. But what we want to equip is a new single engine fighter plane. As a brand new plane, it's definitely not as reliable as twin-engine plane. At first I suggested to send 2 pilots to the factory and do some trial flights so that when we start to equip with the new plane, we can reduce the mistakes that we may make. Anyway, actually this new fighter plane's reliablility is not a problem. Although it uses a single engine, even if the engine stops working, an emergency solution can be started to keep the plane flying for up to half an hour, this is designed to prepare for flight deck landing and taking off. (*Note, the last sentence triggered hot and lengthy debates in china's mil forums) But this new plane would put very big pressure on our logistics and maintenance. Our old planes can be repaired immediately not matter where the damage is. But this new plane's wings and body are manufactured as one piece (I don't know how to translate this techy term), if it's damged, it would be very hard to fix, we can't just use some pieces of aluminum to repair it.

But, the new plane's manuvability is really good, clearly better than Su27/30. Currently combat units flights are relatively prudent. But test pilots flights are really good. They really demonstrated this plane's capabilities.


:gun That's it.

As of the scores between J10 and Su27/30/J11, at least one of them was publised on CAC's own newspaper. (Yes, believe it or not, those huge chinese SOE's got their own newspapers, one of the B&W picture showing 2 workers woking on FC1 prototype 04 was scanned from this newspaper)

interesting, do you know where I can find a copy of this article?

 

[wp2000]

interesting, do you know where I can find a copy of this article?

Which one are you talking about? The FC1 ? That's only a B&W picture showing 2 guys working on a section of 04 prototype, which does not give you any clue but an indication that 04 probably won't fly this year because they would've shown up the whole plane instead.

 

[SABRE]

Which one are you talking about? The FC1 ? That's only a B&W picture showing 2 guys working on a section of 04 prototype, which does not give you any clue but an indication that 04 probably won't fly this year because they would've shown up the whole plane instead.

He means the artical of interview of PLAAF's flight demonstration team officer not a pic my frined. He wants to see url Link to it from where u have copy paisted it.

On the other hand I would like to see that B&W pic of FC-1/JF-17. So can u attach it here.

 

[wp2000]

He means the artical of interview of PLAAF's flight demonstration team officer not a pic my frined. He wants to see url Link to it from where u have copy paisted it.

On the other hand I would like to see that B&W pic of FC-1/JF-17. So can u attach it here.

But he posted the link and the chinese text in his post, why would he ask me for the article. I don't get it. I checked his link and my translation was based on the chinese text posted by him.

After reading his post again, I think he wants to know whether I have the scanned picture of the article on the magazine. I've seen that scanned picture as well, but I don't keep pictures. I only view these things for fun, never bothered to keep them.

I'll look for the B&W picture, but trust me, nothing interesting.

 

[Deeps_Terminato]

t the mca as and when it gets developed(project definition phase completed).

MCA is just a concept. When did its project defenition phased completed ? (url)