New & emerging fighters from Asia. (2025)

By: RyukyuRhymer - 5th June 2008 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

did you make up the term F-3 because there is no such classification for this aircraft and no one has called it yet, its name is "Shin Shin".

In addition, Japan has stated that its not going to go anywhere. The funds for that are going to upgrading the F-15 fleet.

New

By: MiG-23MLD - 5th June 2008 at 13:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In this thread, we may discuss about new fighters like S. Korea's T-50, the Chinese J-10, the Sino-Pak FC-1.

Under emerging fighters, we may discuss about Japan's F-3, Iran's Azarakhsh, India's Tejas LCA, and China's "secretive" J-XX.

Experimental or conceptual fighters like India's MCA, and Russia's MiG 1.44 and Su-47 may also be discussed.

In my opinion only China is building fighters to western standards and in large numbers, The Ching Kuo it is too slow and underpower, India`s LCA despite is very advanced and technologically a wonderful machine, it is not an easy aircraft to put into production, the iranians and south Koreans do not seem to have created really advanced fighters, but rather light fighter trainers.

Russia is not totally Asian and has a lot of European territories, so Russia should not considered Asian, just Russian,

Japan won`t produce any stealthy design and frankly i guess they are just bluffing and their F-2 is not as advanced as the J-10 in terms of aerodynamics

New

By: EdLaw - 5th June 2008 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In terms of the Indian LCA, I have always felt that it was a mistake in terms of design - a simpler design more like the JF-17 would have been easier. They could easily have put together a competent fighter (no, not world beating, but good enough!) using off the shelf parts. Take the engines from the Mirage 2000 or Mig-29, use an off the shelf Israeli radar (EL/M-2032 or even -2052 AESA radar), and you have a pretty good start. I know the Indians wished to create indigenous design and production capacity, but pushing it too far delays things too much - notably Kaveri etc... Indian versions of foreign kit might have been the better bet!

As for Ching Kuo being underpowered, this was caused by the lack of available high thrust engines. Besides, it is not exactly a new fighter, being a design of the '80s that is now out of production. If the Chinese hadn't had access to the more modern Russian engines post '80s, they would have struggled to produce suitable engines for the likes of the J-10 and JF-17 (the Spey copy was about their most modern one until the influence of Russian engines came in).

New

By: Anonymous - 5th June 2008 at 15:25 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29

Concur, I think the biggest obstacle for the LCA is overambition. Reading about the project, you get the impression that one of the major aims is to include as many cutting edge technologies as possible, to keep in touch with the latest state of the art. To a certain degree this is fine, since the LCA is intended to develop know-how for India's aviation industry as much as it is supposed to become a deployable weapons system.

However, that state of the art is perpetually moving ahead as India strenously tries to master the technologies and instead of freezing the design they seem to revise the specifications over and over again in a neverending cycle of playing catch up. In effect, they keep moving the goal posts. Sometimes you wonder whether this is driven by actual operational requirements or if it's just a technical exercise, it looks like they often lose sight of which features are of real benefit in service in favour of having the latest and greatest.

New

By: SOC - 5th June 2008 at 16:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Hey, at least India isn't making a mockery of the aerospace industry concept by reconfiguring the F-5 and passing it off as something to be feared! :D

New

By: coldfire2005 - 5th June 2008 at 16:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

ADA has changed thier approch now towards MCA they will only go to airforce and Goverment to ask for funds only when technology and designs are perfected and no short term plans have been made on it ,so donot expect this aircraft to be flying soon ,

New

By: coldfire2005 - 5th June 2008 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

you can say that India skipped one generation in Aircraft development ,after HF-24(2nd gen fighter) ,air force wanted a simple aircraft with similar performance of any 3rd gen Migs flown by air force ,but Aerospace engineers made a brave decision to think futuristic

New

By: abrahavt - 5th June 2008 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

One of the senior people at ADA recently commented that it is easy to meet the requirements for IOC but the difficult part was to meet the ASRs of the IAF which constantly demands the latest and greatest. I guess the the only silver lining is that in trying to incorporate the latest and greatest India gets to improve its technological base and catch up with the west.

New

By: 21Ankush - 5th June 2008 at 17:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I guess the IAF's conundrum is that it wants to support indigenous programs, but at the same time, has to stay aware of what capabilities it needs to maintain superiority in the neighbourhood.

If the Tejas is to be the backbone of the IAF alongwith the MRCA and the Su-30MKI, then it needs to be a very capable fighter, considering that IAF's threats are a lot greater than most other Asian and European Air Forces. no offence meant, but India has had 4 major wars in its history with Pakistan alone, the most recent one being in 1999, where air support was crucial and has a belligerant China making claims on its territory all the time, as well as occupying territory.
that thinking is what probably makes IAF feel that it can't accept anything less than a fully multirole 4th gen fighter, although it would make sense to induct it faster with less capabilities.

but then, apart from that, testing has'nt been very quick, due to the sheer learning curve that Indian engineers have to master, and in part due to the fear that if a single LCA crashes, the entire program could be held ransom.

Wing Cmdr Rajiv Kothiyal had recieved the prestigious Ivan C. Kincheloe award for test pilots when he had presented a paper on the test flight program for the Tejas, and had surprised the world test pilots community on how complex it was- they just did'nt expect that India would be taking up such a challenging task with no prior experience.

link

A LCA test pilot was picked up for this award at a time when leading air forces of the world are propelling ahead with combat programmes such as the Joint Stirke Fighter ( JSF ),F-22 Raptor , F-28E Super Hornet of HTE US ,the Europe and the SU -37 Berkut programme of Russia.

IAF sources said Kothiyal along with Wing Commander Banerjee presented a paper on the first flight of LCA at the SETP annual symposium held at Los Angeles, USA,prior to the announcement oof the awards.

"The presentation was well received by the world community because the LCA was a programme after the Marut ( HF-24 ) flew in 1961," sources said.

those who understand the difficulty in flight testing a 4th gen all digital FBW equipped fighter do appreciate how difficult the task is.

so its likely that even if the IAF had said ok to a pure air to air role Tejas, it would'nt necessarily have entered service much faster.

New

By: MiG-23MLD - 5th June 2008 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I guess the IAF's conundrum is that it wants to support indigenous programs, but at the same time, has to stay aware of what capabilities it needs to maintain superiority in the neighbourhood.

If the Tejas is to be the backbone of the IAF alongwith the MRCA and the Su-30MKI, then it needs to be a very capable fighter, considering that IAF's threats are a lot greater than most other Asian and European Air Forces. no offence meant, but India has had 4 major wars in its history with Pakistan alone, the most recent one being in 1999, where air support was crucial and has a belligerant China making claims on its territory all the time, as well as occupying territory.
that thinking is what probably makes IAF feel that it can't accept anything less than a fully multirole 4th gen fighter, although it would make sense to induct it faster with less capabilities.

but then, apart from that, testing has'nt been very quick, due to the sheer learning curve that Indian engineers have to master, and in part due to the fear that if a single LCA crashes, the entire program could be held ransom.

Wing Cmdr Rajiv Kothiyal had recieved the prestigious Ivan C. Kincheloe award for test pilots when he had presented a paper on the test flight program for the Tejas, and had surprised the world test pilots community on how complex it was- they just did'nt expect that India would be taking up such a challenging task with no prior experience.

link

those who understand the difficulty in flight testing a 4th gen all digital FBW equipped fighter do appreciate how difficult the task is.

so its likely that even if the IAF had said ok to a pure air to air role Tejas, it would'nt necessarily have entered service much faster.

The question is practicality, if we look at the other Asian fighters, the other fighters are already operationl and have had relatively smooth programs.

The J-10, is flying already in large operational numbers, the J-10 is as good as the LCA, in my opinion better than the LCA in aerodynamics (perhaps the J-10 is not superior in stealth characteristics) and has also a domestic engine WS-10 but uses AL-31s

The Chinese might have critics of lack of originality since Russia and several other powers claim the J-10 is a Lavi, but definitively it is alredy operational and as good as the F-16 and MiG-29.

Originality is not the most important aspect, the Ching kuo is an offspring of the F-16 but the aircraft is flying since 1989, the F-2 also another offspring of the F-16, the F-2 is flying in small numbers but operational.

What India is doing is simply relying in the Su-30MKI and soon in another J-10 equivalent (perhaps the F-18E or the Gripen if a western fighter is Chosen or the MiG-35 as the real LCA equivalent) filling the duties the LCA should had filled long time ago

New

By: 21Ankush - 6th June 2008 at 04:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The question is practicality, if we look at the other Asian fighters, the other fighters are already operationl and have had relatively smooth programs.

The J-10, is flying already in large operational numbers, the J-10 is as good as the LCA, in my opinion better than the LCA in aerodynamics (perhaps the J-10 is not superior in stealth characteristics) and has also a domestic engine WS-10 but uses AL-31s

The Chinese might have critics of lack of originality since Russia and several other powers claim the J-10 is a Lavi, but definitively it is alredy operational and as good as the F-16 and MiG-29.

Originality is not the most important aspect, the Ching kuo is an offspring of the F-16 but the aircraft is flying since 1989, the F-2 also another offspring of the F-16, the F-2 is flying in small numbers but operational.

What India is doing is simply relying in the Su-30MKI and soon in another J-10 equivalent (perhaps the F-18E or the Gripen if a western fighter is Chosen or the MiG-35 as the real LCA equivalent) filling the duties the LCA should had filled long time ago

what other Asian fighters are indigenous? South Korea's T-50 is basically a Lock Mart program. China's J-10 is Lavi based, and even if the detailed design would've been done by the Chinese themselves, there is the aerodynamics that Israel and Russia helped without any doubt. and it has a Russian engine, which is the most crucial aspect. if the WS-10 were operational, the J-10 would'nt be flying with AL-31s.

although to their credit, they've completed the flight test program quite quickly, weaponised it and managed to get the J-10 into operational service. considering that the J-10s flight program would've been more complex than the more conventional FC-1s, its a pretty significant achievement.

regarding the FC-1, its not yet entered operational service even though posters show articles that say that the first FC-1s will enter PAF service by this year end. which would mean that the Tejas is about 2 years behind the FC-1, which is ok by me considering that China has been working on iterative fighter development for a few decades now.

New

By: Abhimanyu - 6th June 2008 at 05:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I disagree with the view that the Tejas project was very "over ambitious". The matter is merely that of a more powerful engine only. But the media "overhyped" this issue to hint at 'failure' and "doom". As discussed earlier, once a fighter's weight 'breaches' the 6,400 kg mark, new engines are needed above 80 kN.

Thus, Gripen chose RM-12 at the outset. The Tejas too was to go with Kaveri, but as it is incomplete, it seeks Eurojet and 2 other engines. No other issue.**

The Chinese might have critics of lack of originality since Russia and several other powers claim the J-10 is a Lavi, but definitively it is alredy operational and as good as the F-16 and MiG-29.

MiG-23MLD, I agree that J-10 is equivalent to F-16 C/D (block 52) in avionics and manoueverability. However, Tejas is also equivalent to F-16 block 52 in the same fields. But these 2 planes lack some types of advanced A2G weapons like JDAMs.

What India is doing is simply relying in the Su-30MKI and soon in another J-10 equivalent (perhaps the F-18E or the Gripen if a western fighter is Chosen or the MiG-35 as the real LCA equivalent) filling the duties the LCA should had filled long time ago

I agree with the above view. It has been reported earlier that the Tejas could have been the MRCA, had it not been for the delay in it's development.

** It is unclear what IAF plans to do with 37 GE F404 IN 20 engines that have already been ordered. Thus, the new proposal of Eurojet and 2 other engines may be for revised ASRs that may demand mach 2 for Tejas.

New

By: tphuang - 6th June 2008 at 05:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

WS-10A is operational with J-10. And WS-10A is in mass production, this is something we know from recent avic1 articles.

New

By: MiG-23MLD - 6th June 2008 at 06:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

WS-10A is operational with J-10. And WS-10A is in mass production, this is something we know from recent avic1 articles.

Can you prove it?

New

By: EdLaw - 6th June 2008 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Ankush: I agree wholeheartedly, and I appologise if I seemed to be implying there was anything wrong with the general idea. My problem was more to do with the amount of effort involved for the gains. The same basic aircraft could have been in service years ago if it had aimed to use off the shelf parts from the start. My concern is that India is putting a lot of money and effort into making a reasonably good aircraft, where it could have either saved money and had an equally good aircraft, or had a much better aircraft. One possibility might even have been to do a deal with France, buying more of the excellent Mirage 2000s and finishing the development work on the Mirage 4000, or even getting work on the Rafale project.

Personally, I think that the MRCA competition could have the potential to help a lot, especially if the Rafale is chosen. The future Indian Air Force certainly has the potential to remain an excellent force. If the future involves Flanker, Rafale, Fulcrum and Tejas, then that's a lot of capability. In a sense, it is just a pity that LCA has taken so long to come to fruition!

New

By: Abhimanyu - 6th June 2008 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

As per a news report, it may now seem that Tejas has actually been test-flown with 1 IN-20 engine last month for the first time. Thus, it may be that the IAF concluded that the latest IN-20 engines too are inadequate (though how it reached the conclusion after only 1 flight-test may be unclear).

Thus, the older Gripen which is powered by an engine that has 4 kN lesser thrust than the IN-20, may be designed more efficiently than Tejas.
This may only be concluded now, with available facts.

New

By: Nick_76 - 6th June 2008 at 21:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Always too quick to compare, always too quick to conclude.

Has it struck you that the IAFs requirements may be entirely different than the original Gripen, in terms of T2W and other parameters?

New

By: matt - 6th June 2008 at 21:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

For aerospace the state of art does not really change that quickly. Structural materials that were relevent back in the 90s are still relevent now.

Only thing that would change quickly would be the electronics side of things.

New

By: EdLaw - 6th June 2008 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

It also has to be remembered that the Gripen is a pretty advanced fighter, from a company that has many decades of producing very advanced fighters. In contrast, the Tejas is basically coming from a company that hasn't got much of a track record for design, and isn't exactly cutting edge design-wise. The Gripen is very much a 4.5th generation fighter, where the Tejas is more of a 4th generation fighter.

New

By: hallo84 - 6th June 2008 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

MiG-23MLD, I agree that J-10 is equivalent to F-16 C/D (block 52) in avionics and manoueverability. However, Tejas is also equivalent to F-16 block 52 in the same fields. But these 2 planes lack some types of advanced A2G weapons like JDAMs.

Please don't make statements you clearly know nothing about...

Here's a test flight prototype being converted into a display outside CAC headquarters. Look at the armaments. That's a JSAW type glide munition.
BTW dropping GPS guided munition does not make a plane 4.5 gen. The fact that J-10 can be used as bomb truck and wild weasel roles is much more important.

LCA being a light fighter has limited capacity to carry munitions. My question is how multi role it is in practice. Why go multi role on a point defense fighter?

New