# Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight



## EagleEyes

Discuss here.. instead of using every thread.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awesome

JF-17 will need a better radar. Current it cannot even be used against the Su-30 in a BVR mode. The R-77 has a higher range and they can track the JF-17 much before the JF-17 can do the same.

JF-17 would need to play the numbers game and will need it's Thrust Vectoring. It will be fired upon once before it gets a chance to fire back.

This is not a scenario the PAF will pit against the IAF. Unless the Su-30's already close by when the JF-17s are sent for interception. The SD-10 is a damn good missile given that it's in range.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## saber

*The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rahman

saber said:


> *The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.*



of course they need funding for their F-22 raptors; they will say anything to scare the congress into giving them billions of dollars

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Adux

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Read Up that, and please do your comparison in both WVR as well BVR.

*Sukhoi Su-30 Derivatives *

The early history of the Su-27 family of fighters has been widely documented, and some excellent references exist (Andrei Fomin's Su-27 Flanker Story published by RA Intervestnik is arguably the single best printed reference, while Easy Tartar's reference at the Fighter Tactics Academy is the best website). 

The original design aim of the Perspektivnyy Frontovoy Istrebitel (PFI - Future Tactical Fighter) was to kill the US Air Force's then new F-15A, and both the Sukhoi and Mikoyan bureaus submitted designs. The Sukhoi T-10 concept emerged in the early 1970s, and was conceptually closest to a fusion of the fixed wing Grumman VFX-404 configuration with the blended strake/wing/body configuration of the GD LWF demonstrator, later to become the F-16A. From the outset the design was to use various combinations of mechanical-hydraulic and Fly By Wire (FBW) controls with some reduced static stability to achieve exceptional manoeuvrability. The early T-10-1 demonstrator evolved into the current T-10-15/Su-27 configuration through an almost complete but necessary redesign during the early eighties. The result has been the most aerodynamically refined of all of the third generation fighters. Like the MDC F-15A, the basic design was devised from the outset to accommodate both single and dual seat configurations. The Su-27UBK tandem dual trainer airframe became the basis of the Su-30 series.

The Soviets made good use of sample Iranian Grumman F-14A Tomcats and their AN/AWG-9/AIM-54A weapon system.

Introduction into PVO-S (Protivo-Vozdushnaya Oborona Strany - air defence force) and FA (Frontovaya Aviatsia - tactical air force) service was protracted, especially due to problems with manufacturing an airframe with a substantial amount of titanium alloy and honeycomb laminates, but also due to difficulties with the complex F-15-like avionics package. 

To demonstrate the aircraft's potency as an F-15 killer, the Sovs in 1986 stripped and modified the T10-15 prototype, redesignated it the P-42 and promptly took out no less than 22 FAI records, mostly in the time to height categories previously held by the F-15A. Such impressive basic performance results from the exceptionally clean aerodynamic design and the pair of large Lyulka AL-31F series afterburning turbofans - the P42 would have used early variants of the engine.

*Chinese PLA-AF Su-27SK Flanker B*

The baseline Su-27 airframe resulted in two nearly identical variants for the PVO and FA, the Su-27 and Su-27S Flanker B, with a common dual trainer in the Su-27UB Flanker C. The single seat Su-27/Su-27S was manufactured by the KNAAPO plant at Komsomolsk-on-Amur and the dual Su-27UB was manufactured by the IAPO plant at Irkutsk, with design authority remaining at the Sukhoi bureau. The principal distinction in the Frontal Aviation Su-27S was a capability to deliver **** bombs and rockets - not unlike the F-15A/B/C/D models. Both types were to carry the large pulse Doppler Myech air intercept radar, which was to use a mechanically steered planar array antenna with electronic vertical beam steering, but production aircraft with the NIIP N001 used a simple mechanically steered cassegrain antenna. 

Several early derivatives of the Su-27 are of much interest since they paved the way for the production Su-30 subtypes new seen in the Asian export market. 

The navalised Su-27K Flanker D, K for 'Korabl'ny', was developed for the Project 1143.5 55,000 tonne class aircraft carrier, of which four were to have been built. The Su-27K had beefed up undercarriage with twin nosewheels, upgraded hydraulics, a tailhook, enlarged flaperons, a modified ejection seat angle, folding outer wings and stabs, upgraded FBW, modified LERX (Leading Edge Root Extensions) with canards, enlarged leading edge slats and a deployable aerial refuelling probe. The refuelling probe modification included a pair of deployable floodlights in the nose, used to illuminate the tanker aircraft, here intended to be either an Il-78 Midas or another Su-27 buddy tanker carrying a centreline UPAZ hose-drogue pod. The probe permits a fuel transfer rate into the fighter of up to 4,000 lb/min. Another notable Su-27K feature to migrate to later variants was the right offset IR Search and Track housing, this improving the pilot's downward view over the aircraft's nose. Production Su-27Ks operated by the Russian Navy are often designated the 'Su-33'. Perhaps the most important feature of the Su-27K/Su-33 are the enlarged LERX/canards which increase the available body lift of the aircraft, and the centre of pressure forward thus enhancing achievable pitch rates. The Su-27 series shares with the F-14 series a large body lift capacity resulting from the wide fuselage tunnel - as a result the aircraft's effective wing loading is much lower than that of aircraft with different configurations. This is reflected in superb high alpha handling and sustained turn rates.

An Su-27K prototype performs a dry hookup during buddy refuelling trials using the UPAZ-1A Sakhalin series centreline refuelling store. Most late build Flankers are equipped with a retractable aerial refuelling probe and floodlights (RuAF photo).

The side-by-side dual navalised trainer was so successful it evolved into the F-111 like Su-32/34 Fullback series bombers, intended to replace the Su-24 Fencer. [Click for more] 

The Su-33 Flanker D has now been ordered by the PLA-N for trials on the refurbished former Soviet Project 1143.5 carrier Varyag. It is expected that around 50 aircraft will eventually be acquired to equip an air wing.

The Su-27K/Su-33 Flanker D was recently ordered by the PLA-N Air Arm to equip the Varyag air wing (RuN). Further images.

The dual seat Su-27KUB/Su-33UB is a mulirole naval variant suitable for carrier conversion training, but also a wide range of strike and air defence roles. It retains the existing avionics of the Su-27K/Su-33 Flanker D (Sukhoi). [Click for more]

While the navalised Sukhois spawned key aerodynamic design innovations in the series, the land based variants accounted for most of the avionic and propulsion improvements. The most important early derivative was the dual role single seat Su-27M strike fighter, frequently labelled as the Su-35. Initiated in 1982, the baseline Su-35 best compares to the F-15C in basic capabilities. It was to be the initial platform for the then new Vympel R-77 AMRAAM-ski active radar guided AAM. The Su-35 was to carry a complete EWSP package, a cockpit wide angle Head Up Display (HUD), triple MFDs, an improved RSLU-27/N011 fire control radar package using a new slotted planar array antenna rather than the N001 design, an N012 tail warning radar, an improved OLS-27K Infra-Red Search/Track (IRST), the Schchel-3UM Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS), ShO-13A Doppler nav, an inertial nav package, air/air and air/ground GCI (Ground Control Intercept) datalinks, two additional inboard wing hardpoints to permit up to 12 external stores, and the aerial refuelling probe.

Su-27M/Su-35 Flanker E and Il-78 Midas tanker. Note the UPAZ-1A pods (RuAF). Further images.

Rollout of the first Su-35BM Mid Life Upgrade configuration Flanker E, January 2007 (MilitaryPhotos.net)

Structural changes were required to the forward fuselage to accommodate the larger radar aperture, relocated IRST, aerial refuelling probe and revised avionics. The additional 3,000 lb of empty weight required strengthened undercarriage, dual nosewheels, detail structural changes, and the Su-33's canards were later incorporated. To offset the loss of combat radius due to additional weight the wet portion of the wing was extended to the 13th rib, from the 9th, and a 360 litre tank was added to each vertical tail thus providing a total internal capacity of 22,630 lb (10,250 kg). The dual combat trainer variant designed by KNAAPO is designated the Su-35UB. Twelve pre-production Su-35s were built, and tail number 711 became the Su-37 demonstrator. 

The Su-37 was to incorporate two important advancements over the Su-27M/35. These were thrust vectoring nozzles and the new NIIP N011M passive shifter technology ESA (Electronically Steered Array - phased array). In addition, an electrical sidestick controller was mounted in the right side of the cockpit. The Lyulka bureau designed the first axisymmetric two dimensional thrust vectoring (2D TVC) nozzle ever deployed during this demonstration program - the nozzle Time Between Overhauls (TBO) is reported at 250 hours vs the 1,000 hr TBO for the AL-31FP core.

Su-37 Demonstrator '#711' The KNAAPO sponsored Su-37 demonstrator was an advanced derivative of the Su-27M/Su-35, incorporating digital fly-by-wire, thrust vectoring nozzles, canards and the NIIP N-011M phased array radar. Much of the technology developed in this program has since migrated into the Indian Su-30MKI and will most likely be seen in its Irkut sibling, the Malaysian Su-30MKM.(Sukhoi)

The all important Flight Control System (FCS) in the Su-27 family evolved incrementally, with the first generation hybrid analog system running in parallel with the conventional hydro-mechanical design. The Su-37 introduced a genuine redundant digital system, similar in concept to its contemporary Western designs. 

The Su-30 series is not directly evolved from the Su-27M line, but has incorporated many design features demonstrated in the Su-27M/35/37 line. The origins of the Su-30 lie in the last years of the Soviet era, when the PVO sought a combat capable derivative of the existing Su-27UB conversion trainer. The dual variant was to be equipped for aerial refuelling and used as a long range / long endurance interceptor and combat command and control fighter to lead long range CAPs. The aircraft was initially designated the Su-27PU (Perekhvatchik - Uchebnoy) and later relabelled the Su-30. The Su-30 was developed in part by the Irkutsk plant, responsible for manufacturing the Su-27UB. The export variant of the Su-30 was designated Su-30MK and unveiled in 1993 - as a multirole strike fighter rather than interceptor. 

*Irkut/Sukhoi Su-30MKI Flanker H. Further images.

The hard sell by the Irkut (formerly IAPO) and Sukhoi paid off in late 1996 when the Indian Air Force signed for an advanced derivative of the baseline Su-30, the Su-30MKI (M-Improved, K-Export, I-India) Flanker H. In a complex deal which saw initial deliveries of basic Su-30K and progressive development and later delivery of full configured and licence build Su-30MKI, India negotiated a deal which will see around 180 of these aircraft deployed with IAF squadrons. 

The Su-30MKI is a fusion of technology from the Su-37 demonstrator and Su-30 program, with additional Indian designed and built processor hardware in the Mission Computers, Radar Data Processor provide under the Vetrivale (Lance) industry program, and some items of Israeli and EU hardware. The aircraft has a Sextant Avionique HUD and RLG (Ring Laser Gyro) INS/GPS, glass cockpits, NIIP N011M phased array, AL-31FP TVC engines, enlarged rudders, Su-33/35/37 canards and aerial refuelling probe, and an improved OLS-30 IRST package. The Indian developed Tarang RWR is used in the EWSP suite. The TVC system in the Su-30MKI has evolved beyond the Su-37 system, which deflected only in the vertical plane. The Su-30MKI variant has a 32 degree canted TVC plane to introduce a lateral and vertical vectored force component, and is driven by the engine's fuel system rather than main aircraft hydraulic loop.

Since 2003, more details have also been revealed about the N-011M BARS ('Panther') hybrid phased array radar designed for the Su-35/37 and supplied on the Su-30MKI and likely the Su-30MKM. The BARS phased array assembly is mechanically steerable to +/-55 degrees off-boresight, providing a total field of regard in azimuth of +/-100 degrees off-boresight - in effect the combination of mechanical array steering and electronic beam steering provides full forward hemispherical coverage. NIIP claim a 3 dB noise figure three channel receiver, and an average transmit power of 1.2 kW, with 1 kW in illuminator mode for semi-active missiles. Air-air modes include Track While Scan for 15 targets and concurrent engagement of four, raid assessment and Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). Air-surface modes include real beam mapping, Doppler beam sharpening, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging, Ground/Maritime Moving Target Indicator (GMTI/MMTI), target position measurement and GMTI tracking of two concurrent targets. Aerial fighter sized targets have been acquired at 76 NMI, and moving tanks at 25 NMI. While reports of an Active ESA (AESA) have surfaced, details are as yet not available to the public.

The Indian Su-30MKI is to date the most advanced Su-27 derivative to enter production and with the exception of mission avionics and software is a credible equivalent to the F-15E/I/K/S family. It also underscores the 'no holds barred' international arms market, in which an export customer is supplied with a product which is half a generation ahead of the Russian air force - the IAF designates it as its Air Dominance Fighter.*
*Irkut/Sukhoi Su-30MKI Crew Stations.

However, the greatest Sukhoi export success to date has been KNAAPO's deal to supply and licence build Su-27SK Flanker Bs and Su-27UBK Flanker Cs for the Chinese PLA-AF - also the very first export deal for the aircraft. The initial order was for 20 x Su-27SK and 4 x Su-27UBK, essentially the same configuration as Soviet Frontal Aviation units flew but claimed to be fitted with Phazotron Zhuk rather than the NIIP radars. A second batch of aircraft was, numbering 16 x Su-27SK and 6 x Su-27UBK. was supplied in 1996, bringing the fielded total to 46. That same year KNAAPO were awarded a contract to set up licence production of the Su-27SK at the Shenyang plant in the PRC - these are designated as the J-11 and up to 250 may be built. An additional buy of twenty or more imported Su-27UBK dual trainers was reported in 2002.

India's buy of the Su-30MKI triggered a response in Beijing - the PLA-AF ordered around 50 Su-30MKK Flanker G fighters from KNAAPO. The KNAAPO Su-30MKK is not the same as the Irkut Su-30MKI in configuration, despite the shared Su-30MK designation. The baseline Su-30MKK the Su-35/37 vertical tail design, no canards, no TVC capability, Russian avionics and a variant of the Phazotron Zhuk planar array radar. An improved OEPS-31E-MK IRST package is fitted. There are reports the aircraft has an increased maximum takeoff weight against the Su-30/Su-30MKI, requiring structural changes. Like the PLA-AF Su-27SK the Su-30MKK uses the original analogue FCS. The Su-30MKK is a KNAAPO development which is closest in concept to a dual seat Su-35 without the canards added to the production Su-35. It is like the Su-35 a dual role fighter, occupying the same niche as the F-15E but less accurate and less capable in the air-air role as the Su-30MKI. *
KnAAPO/Sukhoi Su-27SKM Multirole Flanker Prototype. Further images. 
The PLA-N Air Arm was evidently not satisfied with the domestically built JH-7 Flying Leopard strike fighter, and opted to expand its fleet by acquiring the Su-30MK2, a derivative of the Su-30MKK, with a rated maximum takeoff weight of 85,000 lb. The Su-30MK2 has an enhanced weapon system optimized for maritime strike, built around the N-001VEP radar. The radar will target the Kh-31A ramjet supersonic anti-shipping missile, and a radar seeker equipped variant of the Kh-59, designated the Kh-59MK2. A radar guided derivative of the Kh-59M, the Kh-59Mk, was also developed for the PLA-N Flanker G. Chinese sources claim that 36 Su-30MK2 aircraft were ordered, with deployment as yet undisclosed. Venezuela is acquiring this variant.

The Russians were reported to have been developing a third PLA variant of the Su-30, the Su-30MK3. The Su-20MK3 was to incorporate the 'Panda' upgrade package for the N-001 radar, including a signal processor upgrade based on COTS software and a Ts-100 processor, and the new Pero phased array. The Pero, developed by NIIP and Ryazan GRPZ, is a reflective passive phased array antenna, replacing the legacy cassegrain design. It is lighter than the legacy design, but offers similar beamsteering agility to the latest Western AESAs. Recent reports suggest this program is no longer funded.

The PLA-AF was dissatified with the limitations of the Su-27SK/J-11 and renegotiated the licence arrangement to have the latter 100 aircraft delivered as the Su-27SKM (also reported as SMK) variant. The principal improvement is that the Su-27SKM incorporates all of the refinements of the multirole Su-30MK variants, and can thus support guided munitions, making it equivalent to proposed but never built single seat multirole derivatives of the F-15E. As such the Su-27SKM can carry the full suite of air to ground munitions now carried by the Su-30MKK series. The radar configuration has not been disclosed but may include the Pero passive phased array. Another possible alternative is a derivative of the developmental Phazotron AESA, reported to have been tested with a 0.7 metre array size on the MiG-29.

The Chinese also recently unveiled the 'indigenised' J-11B, incorporating Chinese technology, specifically the Woshan-10A (WS-10A) engine replacing the AL-31F, the Shedian-10 radar replacing the N-001, and the PL-12 (SD-10) BVR missile replacing the R-77 and R-27, and a range of indigenous guided munitions replacing the Russian types. It is likely that the J-11B will be introduced to production on completion of the J-11 build.

*KnAAPO/Sukhoi Su-30MKK Crew Stations.*

Russian sources put the current total supplied to the PLA-AF as 76 x Su-27SK/UBK, 50 x Su-30MKK with outstanding orders for 19 more, and a commitment for licence production of around 200-250 aircraft. Russian estimates of the ultimate size of the PLA-AF Su-27/30 fleet fall between 350 and 500 aircraft. For comparison, the US Air Force fielded around 400 F-15Cs and 200 F-15Es, putting the PRC's orders into a similar force structure size bracket - and almost twice the size of the Indian Su-30MKI fleet. 

Malaysia committed in 2003 to purchase 18 Su-30MKMs beating the Boeing F/A-18F bid - evidently Malaysia's bilateral MiG-29 support relationship with India exposed the RMAF/TUDM to Indian Su-30MKI program and they liked what they saw. The Su-30MKM is being supplied by Irkut and will therefore be close in configuration to the Su-30MKI, although as yet no details are available on the specific fit of the MKM variant - it is known that some French avionics will be used. The aircraft were to be delivered from 2006, but reports in 2006 indicated the aircraft remained parked in Russia pending payment. It is likely that a large portion of the deal will be financed by barter of Malaysian industrial and consumer goods. 

Indonesia's TNI-AU has had a long standing interest in the Sukhoi fighters and prior to the Asian economic crisis committed to purchase the Su-30KI. This aircraft was to be supplied by KNAAPO and was derived from the single seat Su-27SMK, a Mid Life Upgrade design package for the baseline Su-27S. The Su-30KI is thus an improved single seat Su-27S, with the improved N001E radar and cassegrain antenna, aerial refuelling probe, centreline OLS-27 IRST, ILS-31 HUD, and provisions for the R-77 Adder missile. This variant is more the air superiority fighter than dual role strike fighter and is essentially a low cost upgrade of the basic production KNAAPO Su-27 line - the use of the early configuration centreline IRST installation suggests the Su-30KI may be built from refurbished low time PVO Su-27 airframes. 

In late April 2003, Indonesian President Megawati signed an MoU with Russia for the supply of four Sukhoi fighters, two Su-27SK and two Su-30MK (some sources claim Su-35, others Su-30KI) to the Indonesian TNI-AU later this year. Media reports from Jakarta indicated that the TNI-AU intends to acquire between 48 and 54 of these aircraft over this decade, and often report the inclusion of an aerial refuelling capability - part of the Su-30KI configuration. Whether the TNI-AU aircraft are Su-27SKs, Su-35s, Su-30KIs or Su-30MKs is immaterial in the longer term, since the basic KNAAPO/Irkut T-10 family of designs permits incremental retrofits, and cash permitting any of these variants can over time morph into a more advanced model.


Since then the TNI-AU had its four aircraft delivered. In 2006, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visited Moscow and ordered an additional six aircraft, as part of a larger arms package. 

*Su-30 Growth Paths* 

The Su-27/30 series is by far the aerodynamically most refined of the third generation fighters in the market and is a direct equivalent to the late build F-15E/I/K/S variants. While it does not offer quite as good top end supersonic performance and handling to the F-15, it makes up for this with exceptionally good low speed high alpha handling and performance. 

From an 'information age' warfighting perspective, the basic Su-30 series airframe has some very attractive features absent in competing Western third generation fighters.

The NIIP N011M BARS phased array is the most capable fighter radar produced by Russian industry and is designed to support the R-77M family of ramjet missiles. The depicted detection range curves are based on publicly disclosed Russian performance figures for co-altitude BVR engagements. It is evident that inside the 10-20 nautical miles envelope the radar will be able to challenge aircraft with quite good stealth characteristics. The curves for the Agat 9B-1103M and 9B-1348E seekers are based on the most recent Agat data release, and include the TMS320 equipped digital variant. The 9B-1101K has not been included (Author - NIIP, Phazotron, Agat data).

*Radar*

The first of these is its massive radar bay, capable of fitting a 1 metre class X-band phased array antenna. In the long range BVR combat game, radar range is a key factor and for any given radar technology, the larger the aperture the better. While the current N011M/ME BARS (Panther) and Pero (Plume) upgrades use passive array technology which delivers less peak power than competing active arrays (AESA) it is only a matter of time before NIIP and Phazotron adapt commercial GaAs MMIC technology (98% of the total GaAs chip market) to build an AESA variant competitive against the AESAs in the latest Western evolved 3rd Gen fighters. 

With similar TR (Transmit-Receive) module performance, the fighter with the largest aperture size wins in this game - for instance the N011M has around twice the aperture size of the JSF AESA and F/A-18E/F's APG-79 and even with inferior TR module technology will be highly competitive. It is worth noting that India is only the fourth nation worldwide to field a phased array equipped aigile air combat fighter, after France, the US and Russia.

Electrical power and liquid cooling have been issues for the integration of AESAs in Western fighters, especially so with smaller types like the F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F and Joint Strike Fighter. This is not an issue given the sheer size of the Flanker.

While the existing N011M has limitations in its older technology back end processing, the future is the path India has followed, retrofitting third party hardware with better performance than the Russian processor hardware. With widely available commodity processor chips in the 1 to 2 GHz class, we can expect to see many other Sukhoi users emulate the Indians in coming years, be it in MLUs or new build aircraft.

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.

*NIIP Irbis E Prototypes* (above, below)

*NIIP Irbis E Components *(above)

The follow on to the BARS is the new Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) hybrid phased array, in development since 2004 and planned for the Su-35 block upgrade, and as a block upgrade or new build radar for other Flanker variants. The Irbis-E is an evolution of the BARS design, but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, the noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kiloWatts. The radar is cited at an average power rating of 5 kiloWatts, with 2 kiloWatts CW rating for illumination. NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and better ECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS. A prototype has been in flight test since late 2005.

The performance increase in the Irbis-E is commensurate with the increased transmitter rating, and NIIP claim a detection range for a closing 3 square metre coaltitude target of 190 - 215 NMI (350-400 km), and the ability to detect a closing 0.01 square metre target at ~50 NMI (90 km). In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targets simultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M. The Irbis-E was clearly designed to support the ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M missile in BVR combat against reduced signature Western fighters like the Block II Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Curiously, NIIP do not claim superiority over the F-22A's APG-77 AESA, yet their cited performance figures exceed the public (and no doubt heavily sanitised) range figures for the APG-77. 

The existing N011M series lacks a Low Probability of Intercept capability, in part due to antenna bandwidth limits and in part due to processor limitations. This is likely to change over the coming decade, with the Irbis-E, as customers demand an ability to defeat or degrade Western ESM equipment and the technology to do this becomes more accessible. 

The N012 tail warning radar has been reported to be part of the Su-30MKI suite and is offered as a retrofit to other models.

In terms of block upgrades, of the two competing radar houses in Russia, NIIP (http://www.niip.ru/) and Phazotron, the former has been the most active of recent. A block upgrade package, designated 'Panda' was recently developed for the baseline N-001-01 radar carried by Su-27S/SK. The first stage is the N-001V back end upgrade using C/C++ COTS software and a Ts-100 processor. 

Of more interest however is a low cost phased array block upgrade package designated Pero ('Plume'), designed jointly with Ryazan GRPZ. This lightweight design avoids the cost and complexity of the backplane fed BARS (N-011M) phased array, instead using a space (optical) feed scheme, and reflective rather than transmissive phase elements, a technique used with the 64N6E Big Bird SAM system radar. The design incorporates the phase element array, and a strut supported boom which mounts the X-band waveguide and radiating horn. Cost is comparable to the existing Su-27S/SK Cassegrain antenna, weight is lower. The launch customer is the RuAF, but reports indicate one of the two prototypes was sent to China for evaluation. The Pero will provide the beam steering agility of modern Western AESAs, but with lower cost and transmit power ratings, and is likely to appear in regional MLUs later this decade. An open question is whether a future Pero based block upgrade would include the 20 kiloWatt Irbis-E transmitter, as engineering the space feed for a 20 kiloWatt rated transmitter is neither difficult nor expensive. While a 20 kiloWatt Pero system would have inferior receiver sensitivity due to the space feed loss, compared to the BARS hybrid array, it would be significantly cheaper to build and deploy en masse.

In summary, near term we can expect to see the Irbis-E and Pero appear in new build and upgrade packages, in the longer term an AESA is an inevitability.

*Electro-Optical Systems *

Another attractive design feature of the Flankers is the large IRST housing, which can fit an aperture larger than competing Western IRST systems - the more photons the IRST can capture, the greater its detection range potential. The baseline OLS-27 IRST can scan a 120x75 degree field of regard, and cover as field of view as narrow as 3x3 degrees but has poor sensitivity with a head on detection ranges cca 8 nautical miles. The integrated laser rangefinder is effective to about 1.5 nautical miles. Specifications for the OLS-30 have not been disclosed - it is known that further development is under way on an IRST/FLIR design similar in concept to the Eurofighter's Pirate system. As with radars, IRST and FLIR aperture size matters, and the Sukhoi is in a commanding position with the existing OLS-27/30 package. With commercial technologies such as Quantum Well longwave/multiband imagers of 800x600 pixel resolution in the EU market, it is only a matter of time before this technology finds its way into an OLS-30/31 derivative. Current US IRSTs using older MCT imaging arrays have detected fighters at distances of many tens of miles.

The advent of HDTV compatible CCD and CMOS daylight imaging devices in COTS applications opens up the possibility of a dual band derivative of the OLS-27/30 package, longer term.

*Cockpits, Computers and Networking *

The cockpit of the existing Su-30 series provides plenty of opportunities for further growth, both in display technology and back end processing. With militarised commodity AMLCD display panels becoming increasingly available, the trend we have observed with the Sextant displays in the MKI is likely to grow over time, driven by the need to compete against US and EU cockpit designs. We should not be surprised to see India and Israel become prominent in the Sukhoi MLU market. The same will be true of mission computer equipment.

Upgrades available for Su-27/30 include the encrypted TKS-2/R-098 (Tipovyi Kompleks Svyazi) Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) which permits the networking of up to 16 Sukhoi fighters. It is not known whether the 5U15K-11 datalink designed for networking the A-50 AWACS and MiG-31 has been adapted to the Su-27/30, or whether a unique equivalent design is used. The TKS-2 was used effectively during the 2004 Cope India exercise against US F-15Cs.

Maturity in flight control software has seen aggressive improvements in types such as the F/A-18E/F, and it is reasonable to surmise that the adoption of digital FBW controls in recent Su-30 variants will see similar evolution in the Sukhoi types - especially given the Russian obsession with close in manoeuvre performance.

*Propulsion - Supercruising Al-41F *

In terms of propulsion, we have seen incremental improvements in the AL-31F series, with the F-3 model cited at 28,250 lbf cf the baseline F-1 at 27,600 lbf. KNAAPO/Irkut are offering TVC kits as retrofit items to existing models, as they are offering seamless engine upgrades. 

Engine makers NPO Lyulka-Saturn and MMPP Salyut are now actively competing with block upgrades to the basic AL-31F turbofan. Salyut have described a three phase block upgrade to the AL-31F, with components for the first phase already flight tested. The -M1 upgrade sees the addition of the KND-924-4 0.924 m dia front end and SAU-235 FADEC, pushing the engine to 18,320 lb (75.21 kN) dry and 29,180 lb (129.8 kN) wet thrust. The -M2 upgrade phase implements a new cooling system for the turbine stages, pushing the engine to 31,082 lb (138.26 kN) wet thrust. The third -M3 upgrade stage sees the addition of a three stage blisk technology KND-924-3 front end boosting the compression ratio from 3.55 to 4.2, and wet thrust to 32,186 lb, competitive against the latest US F100 and F110 variants. NPO Lyulka-Saturn's competing upgrade, including hot end changes, is to increase wet thrust to 31,473 lb (143.17 kN). Salyut and Klimov are also working on a second generation TVC nozzle design. 

It is unclear when the 33,000 to 44,000 lbf class NPO Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F family will find its way into the Su-30 series. The AL-41F is the Russian equivalent to the F-22's F119-PW-100 engine, designed for supersonic cruise and improved performance across the full fighter envelope. Originally developed for the MiG MFI, the engine was built around the 'big bore' geometry already used in the AL-31F series, making it compatible with existing airframes.

The AL-41F is reported to have recently entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) the intent being to equip the Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback which recently entered LRIP. In 2004 an Su-27M/Su-35 Flanker E was flown with the prototype AL-41F1, a derated variant of the baseline AL-41F, intended to increase the performance of the Flanker across all flgiht regimes, and enhance dry supersonic thrust (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/03/23/179164/Su-27M+flies+with+power+upgrade.html). The derated AL-41F1 is claimed to deliver 33,000 lb (145kN) of SL static thrust.

*Al-41FU supercruise powerplant.*

In terms of avionic systems and propulsion we can expect to see ongoing incremental growth in the Su-30 series, as market pressures drive KNAAPO and Irkut to integrate newer technologies in the aircraft. As the Su-30 is the primary export revenue earner in Russia's defence industry, and a primary means of exporting Russian guided munitions, it is apt to continue to be the platform for the deployment of the latest domestic and imported technologies. The unknown factor is how much modern EU and Israeli technology will find its way into the Sukhois over the next decade. With Germany, France and Israel active in the MiG MLU market the existence of Asian aggregrate fleet numbers around 600 or more aircraft will present an irresistable attraction for the sale of avionic and systems upgrades, be they incremental or major block upgrades.

*Air to Air Weapons *

Air to air weapons are one area where the Russians have been very aggressively developing and marketing new products. The baseline Su-27S was armed with the R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) semiactive radar homing BVR missile and the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) WVR missile. The thrust vectoring R-73 (refer AA 4/97) was a trend setter and we have since seen an improved R-73M marketed, as well as a digitised seeker equipped R-74E variant credited with 75 degree off boresight capability and kinematics to kill 12 G targets. Indian press reports suggest the Rafael Python 4 has been offered to India and it is not inconceivable that this missile will find its way on to Indian and other regional Sukhois - India is currently negotiating for the Phalcon AEW&C system fitted to the Ilyushin A-50E airframe and has acquired ballistic missile defence radars from Israel. 

The Vympel R-27 is the Russian equivalent to the late model US AIM-7 Sparrow series BVR missiles, but the similarity ends there since the R-27 is available in a plethora of variants. The basic airframe is supplied in long and short burn variants with differing range performance, and with heatseeking or datalink aided inertially midcourse guided semi-active radar seekers. The R-27R1 and R-27ER1 are the radar guided long and short burn versions, respectively, credited with F-pole ranges of 70 nautical miles and 43 nautical miles. The R-27T1 and R-27ET1 are the respective heat seeking equivalents, credited with slightly lower engagement ranges. The X-band anti-radiation seeker equipped R-27P/EP has been reported, designed to kill emitting fighters in the forward quarter by homing on their radar emissions. More recently Agat have offered new build or retrofit active radar seekers as the R-27A/EA, the AGAT 9B-1103M/9B-1348E, derived from the R-77 seeker. 

The most recently exported missile in the region is the Vympel R-77 RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder), the AMRAAMski. This missile, with unique lattice controls, is a modern BVR weapon designed to kill 12G targets, and credited with an A-pole range of 54 nautical miles, although some reports suggest early production rounds are not delivering the kinematic performance advertised, not unlike early AIM-120A AMRAAMs. As the R-77 has AMRAAM-like capabilities, it permits an Su-30 to launch multiple rounds and guide these concurrently, engagement geometry permitting. As the R-77 matures, we can expect to see refinements in propellants, autopilot kinematics and seeker jam resistance. 

We have yet to see reports of regional deliveries of the Vympel R-77M RVV-AE-PD (Povyshlenayya Dal'nost') ramjet adder, credited with an A-pole range around 80 nautical miles. This missile is a direct derivative of the R-77. 

Alternate seekers for the R-77 have been advertised - the heatseeking R-77T using an MK-80M seeker from the R-73M and R-27T, and the antiradiation R-77P. The deployment of the new F/A-22A later in the decade will see significant pressure on Vympel to supply heatseeking, anti-radiation and electro-optical imaging seekers on the R-77/R-77M in an attempt to counter the combined kinematics and all-aspect stealth of the F/A-22A. While such seekers may do little to offset the overwhelming advantages of the supercruising F/A-22A, they are likely to prove quite effective against inferior types such as the JSF, F/A-18E/F, late model F-15E and F-16C/B50. If the Su-30 can close to a range where an advanced longwave IRST can track the target, an optical seeker equipped R-77 variant can be used to effect an engagement, defeating the RCS reduction measures on these aircraft. The anti-radiation R-77P could be used to engage at maximum missile range. 

In the long range missile domain, the Vympel R-37 (AA-X-13) series of AIM-54 Phoenix look-alikes have been proposed - a developmental R-37 successfully engaged a target at 162 nautical miles of A-pole range in 1996. A more interesting proposal has been the use of the Novator R(KS)-172 RVV-L (AAM-L) missile, a 215 nautical mile range 1,650 lb launch weight long range AAM. The R-172 uses datalink/inertial midcourse guidance and an active radar terminal seeker, and Russian sources claim a snap-up capability to 100,000 ft and snap-down capability to 10 ft AGL. KS-172 mockups have been photographed on Su-30 displays but its production status is unclear at this time, although India is negotiating licence production.

Of no less interest is the Kh-31P (AS-17 Krypton) family of ramjet anti-radiation missiles, offered as a standard store on the Su-30/35 subtypes. This missile, in basic anti-radiation and dual mode seeker variants is often dubbed the AWACS killer and would be used to destroy opposing AEW&C aircraft, or surface based radars. Sukhoi advertise a load of up to six rounds, two on the inlet stations.

*Russian missiles either carried by or proposed for Flanker variants *(Author).

Notes: O/B - seeker off-boresight acquisition angle; IRH - heatseeking, single or dual colour scanning seeker; SARH - semi-active radar homing seeker; DL - datalink for midcourse guidance corrections - either analogue or digital; IMU - inertial package for midcourse guidance; Passive RF - passive radio frequency anti-radiation seeker; ARH - active radar homing seeker; Acquisition Range is that at which the seeker can acquire its target; Kinematic Range is A-pole or F-pole; Target G - max load factor of target vehicle; Launch G - max load factor of launch aircraft; APU - Aviatsionnaya Puskovaya Ustanovka (rail launcher); AKU - Aviatsionnaya Katapultnaya Ustanovka (ejector); This is a current open source compilation based on manufacturers' and third party data therefore figures should be treated with appropriate caution (Author).

The dominance of US ISR capabilities is producing an increasing demand for hard kill 'counter-ISR' weapons and the Sukhoi fighter equipped with missiles like the Vympel R-77M, R-37, Novator KS-172 and Zvezda-Strela Kh-31 variants qualifies exactly as that. 

It is clear that the Su-30 has at least two decades more of yet to be exploited technological growth capacity, especially in systems and weapons. The excellent kinematics, large airframe and large apertures give it a decisive long term advantage in growth potential against all teen series types, and with an increasingly borderless international upgrade market, regional users with the cash required will be able to fit some very capable upgrades over time.

We can summarise growth options thus (IASC, 2006):

*1.* Supersonic cruise 40,000 lbf class AL-41F engines replacing the AL-31F. 

*2.* Thrust vectoring (TVC) engine nozzles with 2D or 3D capability. 

*3. *Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) becoming standard for late build Flankers. The Su-37 included redundant sidestick controls for the pilot. 

*4.* Canard foreplanes for enhanced high alpha agility. Production hardware on Su-33 and Su-30MKI. 

*5.* An active phased array (AESA) fire control radar replacing the N-001 and N-011/011M series. 

*6.* A two color band FLIR/IRST sensor replacing the OLS-30, using QWIP imaging array technology. 

*7.* COTS based computer hardware running COTS based software. 

*8.* A Helmet Mounted Display with FLIR projection capability. Such an upgrade was being discussed some years ago, and would be easily accommodated with a FLIR/IRST sensor. 

*9.* Full glass cockpit based on digital technology. Given the current delivery of first generation glass cockpits in Su-30MK and Su-27SKM, this is a natural progression. 

*10.* Heatseeking and anti radiation variants of the R-77 Amraamski, and extended range ramjet powered variants of the R-77. All are in advanced development and actively being marketed. 

*11.* Advanced digital variants of the R-73/74 Archer close-in air to air missile. These have been actively marketed. 

*12.* AWACS killer long range missiles in the 160 to 200 nautical mile range category. The R-37/AA-X-13 Arrow remains in development for the Su-35, the R-172 was recently reported as the subject of licence negotiations with India. Su-35 upgrade marketing literature depicts the use of such missiles. 

*13.* Cruise missiles for standoff attacks. China acquired Kh-55SM/AS-15 Kent cruise missiles from the Ukraine, and is manufacturing indigenous designs. India intends to use the supersonic Brahmos on its Su-30MKIs.

*14.* Advanced jam resistant fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalinks and networks. Further evolution of protocol software will see this technology grow to match current US capabilities. 

*15.* Radar absorbent materials for radar observables reduction. Numerous Russian unclassified papers detail a range of technologies for surface wave suppression and edge signature reduction, with a specific aim of reducing legacy aircraft observables. 

*16.* Aerial refuelling probes, pylon plumbing for drop tanks, and buddy refuelling stores. Production hardware available off the shelf.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Awesome

Sure I'm going to read all that...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Adux



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Adux



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Adux



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Awesome

I've heard that maneuver cannot be done right without the flanker having to jettison all extra payload.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Adux

Well if you cant read, or dont have the time, Take a look at the pictures, Hopefully you get the point

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adux

Cobra, Super Cobra, Kulbit There are Pictures of the Su-30 doing it with 4 air-air missiles, 
Anyways I dont think much about the manoever, Lets talk about all the other qualities of MKI


----------



## JK!

In light of the information you have presented the need for Chinese JXX or super 10 becomes more clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awesome

The 20km range advantage that the R-77 holds over the Aim-120 seems like the easiest thing to beat the Su-30 at. It's rumored that the SD-10 can do a range of 70km and the R-77 a range of 90 (For both I'm assuming no maneuvers and just a straight line path). Of course this range of the SD-10 was of it's first version and its said to have undergone changes... It needs matching or more range.

Su-30 also gives off a nice solid and large cross-section when hit with the signals from the radar if the JF-17 is able to fire a missile it is sure to get a nice solid lock.

Thrust vectoring on the JF-17 should also take away the Su-30MKI's advantage to run circles around the JF-17. Espcially if its a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Adux

Longer Radar Range will make the 30MKI see the JF-17 first, and Fire First, JF-17 has to come close to have a chance.
SD-10 has 70Km range, What is the use of 70Kms in a straight line. When 30MKI will see it on launch and will take evasive manoever. While India is already in negotition for Meteor, Python 5, The newest varient of the R-series and also the home grown Astra, Which are all beyond 100Kms.. Super manoverbility is the speciliaity of Su-30MKI and Russian Planes in general. 
https://defence.pk/forums/showthread.php?t=5296

Thrust Vectroing in Jf-17 ?????????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Adux

Asim,

Try the J-10..maybe we can have a match up


----------



## HAIDER

maneuvering is plus point.....but plane has to reduce the speed at very low, first which is harmful..takes time to comback in momentum and burn lot of fuel....


----------



## IceCold

Adux said:


> Longer Radar Range will make the 30MKI see the JF-17 first, and Fire First, JF-17 has to come close to have a chance.
> SD-10 has 70Km range, What is the use of 70Kms in a straight line. When 30MKI will see it on launch and will take evasive manoever. While India is already in negotition for Meteor, Python 5, The newest varient of the R-series and also the home grown Astra, Which are all beyond 100Kms.. Super manoverbility is the speciliaity of Su-30MKI and Russian Planes in general.
> https://defence.pk/forums/showthread.php?t=5296
> 
> Thrust Vectroing in Jf-17 ?????????


 There isnt any thrust vectroing in jf17 as for the comparision u done well su r definetly more advance and more capable then the jfs till now but PAF has plans to upgrade the fighter plan every 5 years and for the radar the PAF is already looking for new type of radar for the jfs possibly a phased array which will enhance the capability of the jfs.


----------



## Hayreddin

Cockpit
Advanced 4.5th generation EFIS with cockpit displays that are compatible with western systems such as those built by Rockwell Collins and Honeywell. 
The current MIL-STD-1553B data bus can be readily replaced by MIL-STD-1773 fiber optics data bus upon customer's request. 
Control panel conChinese Weapons


The SD-10 is the primary Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Missile (AAM) for the JF-17PL-9C for within visual range combat 
SD-10 BVRAAM for beyond visual range combat. 
Non-Chinese Weapons

R-Darter BVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan) 
A-Darter WVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan) 
IRIS-T WVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan) 
AIM-9L/M SidewinderWVR-AAM 
AIM-7F Sparrow BVR-AAM 

Air-to-ground weaponry
In addition to unguided bombs and rockets, the aircraft is adopted to deploy a wide range of precision guided munitions, including:

Non-Chinese weapons:

DPGM (Precision Guided Bomb) 
Raptor-I precision-guided long-range glide bomb (60km) 
Raptor II precision-guided long-range glide bomb (120km) 
Anti-ship missile such as Exocet and Harpoon missile. 
Russian KAB series laser guided bombs (These Russian bombs can not be directly mounted onto weaponry pylons like western or Chinese munitions, instead, additional special adoptation rails are required for JF-17 when using these Russian bombs) 
sisting of 3 color screens (20.3 cmÃ20.3 cm) only 
All information is processed and displayed on them 
The functions of each screen are exchangeable 
Brightness & contrast can be adjusted either automatically or manually 
Displays can also be adjusted to be compatible with night vision goggles. 
Each screen can be re-defined 
The current CRT display can be readily replaced by LCD upon customer's request, and touch screen option is also available (However, neither the Chinese Air Force nor the Pakistani Air Force has shown any interests in the touch screen options, and there is no known successful export either). 
HUD is a state-of-the-art system developed by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) 
Many images/information can be displayed at the same time 
All HUD and head-down displays are compatible with the standard electro-optical targeting pod that is carried externally. 
Radar has strong ECCM capacity and multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air-to-ground, air-to-sea, terrain avoidance, etc. Terrain following mode is not standard, but can be added upon customer's request by either incorporating an external pod such as the Chinese Blue Sky navigational and targeting pods, or alternatively, the direct integration of the radar itself. 
It can simultaneously detect 40+ targets, simultaneously track 10 of 40 detected targets, and simultaneously engage 2 of the 10 tracked targets by guiding 2 semi-active radar homing BVR missiles to attack two separate targets. Alternatively, two missiles can be fired at the same target to insure the kill probability. 
When active radar homing air-to-air missiles are used, the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged are increased to 4. 
The detection range for a typical air target of RC 3 mÂ² is 125+ km; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km. 
When engaging land targets, the Chinese radar can lock on to individual vehicle like American radars do, instead of only being able to lock on to a large group of vehicles like the Russian Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar onboard MiG-21-93. 
Easy to access LRUs with fully digitized solid state electronics and built-in self test functions. 
Plenty of room for improvement is incorporated in the design so that the current plannar slotted array that can be readily replaced by a passive phased array. 
Reporgrammable digital processor with open architecture design. 
Option to incorporate IFF. 
The internally mounted electro-optics is not standard for JF-17, but the radar is compatible with them for their rapid integration upon customer's request.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keysersoze

Asim Aquil said:


> The 20km range advantage that the R-77 holds over the Aim-120 seems like the easiest thing to beat the Su-30 at. It's rumored that the SD-10 can do a range of 70km and the R-77 a range of 90 (For both I'm assuming no maneuvers and just a straight line path). Of course this range of the SD-10 was of it's first version and its said to have undergone changes... It needs matching or more range.
> 
> Su-30 also gives off a nice solid and large cross-section when hit with the signals from the radar if the JF-17 is able to fire a missile it is sure to get a nice solid lock.
> 
> Thrust vectoring on the JF-17 should also take away the Su-30MKI's advantage to run circles around the JF-17. Espcially if its a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 scenario.



Asim you guys are not gonna be able to get the NEZ details so the whole Kinematic range thing is really moot. The R-77 listed range is only the Kinematic range for the missile and thus is not a good starting point to base nay discussion upon. Also the R-77 range comes from a launch at speed (I will have to dig up the launch parameters from somewhere) whereas the AIM120 uses a parabolic launch.

THEN there is the seeker issues which it is also hard to find information on easily.


----------



## Adux

We get Radar Range and Detection ranges above even without a Radar in post 23 ....lol


----------



## Keysersoze

Adux said:


> We get Radar Range and Detection ranges above even without a Radar in post 23 ....lol



post 23 was about missiles not radars. Dunno where you got radar ranges from?


----------



## Awesome

Adux said:


> Thrust Vectroing in Jf-17 ?????????



Google around they are tweaking up the RD-93 or the Chinese version would come with that tweak.

Probably someone else can help post that article up here.


----------



## Awesome

Keysersoze said:


> Asim you guys are not gonna be able to get the NEZ details so the whole Kinematic range thing is really moot. The R-77 listed range is only the Kinematic range for the missile and thus is not a good starting point to base nay discussion upon.


Aren't the ranges mentioned on the Aim-120 pretty much the same?

I don't think the R-77 is a superior missile, especially since I read somewhere (I think FAS) that it doesn't match up in ECCM capability. But its not so bad. It can home-on-jam. While we would be trying to jam the missile, we'd only be serving as a beacon for that missiles.

I hope our ECM employs the 'weak when strong, strong when weak' technique of jamming. Jamming signals should be intelligently used to avoid serving as that beacon for the R-77.


----------



## Keysersoze

Asim Aquil said:


> Aren't the ranges mentioned on the Aim-120 pretty much the same?
> 
> I don't think the R-77 is a superior missile, especially since I read somewhere (I think FAS) that it doesn't match up in ECCM capability. But its not so bad. It can home-on-jam. While we would be trying to jam the missile, we'd only be serving as a beacon for that missiles.
> 
> I hope our ECM employs the 'weak when strong, strong when weak' technique of jamming. Jamming signals should be intelligently used to avoid serving as that beacon for the R-77.



All the searching I Have done states that the AIM120 has a more effective range than the R-77. Apparently the kinematic range of late model AIM120's has been grossly understated. this discussion then falls into radars etc. Also it is Dependant upon the conditions of the missile being fired for example.


----------



## BATMAN

> Su-30 also gives off a nice solid and large cross-section when hit with the signals from the radar if the JF-17 is able to fire a missile it is sure to get a nice solid lock.



Can quoted disadvantage is also help full for ground fire.
What if JF-17 are operated in conjection with AWACS, does this put JF-17 in advantageous position.
There must be a plan to intercept SU-30, which invalidate the conventional 1 to 1 comparison.



> Thrust vectoring on the JF-17 should also take away the Su-30MKI's advantage to run circles around the JF-17. Espcially if its a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 scenario.



What happens in scenario, multiple JF-17 (having thrust vectoring) intercepts multiple SU-30 or fire BVR simultaneously.


----------



## Contrarian

HAIDER said:


> maneuvering is plus point.....but plane has to reduce the speed at very low, first which is harmful..takes time to comback in momentum and burn lot of fuel....



This is PRECICELY why Thrust Vectoring exists. Check out the 3-D thrust vectoring of MiG 35. Su-30MKI has 2-D TVC.


----------



## Contrarian

BATMAN said:


> Can quoted disadvantage is also help full for ground fire.
> What if JF-17 are operated in conjection with AWACS, does this put JF-17 in advantageous position.
> There must be a plan to intercept SU-30, which invalidate the conventional 1 to 1 comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in scenario, multiple JF-17 (having thrust vectoring) intercepts multiple SU-30 or fire BVR simultaneously.



Yes, but i think it was posted by adux that the MKI can track around 15 or 16 targets.

The scheduled MLU for the MKI involves upgradation of the radar to ATLEAST Passive Phased Irbis-E radar. It can track an RCS 3 sq m at around 350-400 kms. OTOH, IAF might just go for a AESA like the Elta 2052. No need to comment on that.


----------



## Skull-Buster

Su 30 is definitely more superior than the JF-17, the only case where the JF-17 might have a chance is in a 3 on 1 scenario. i think it will be better to compare the J-10 with SU-30.


----------



## Owais

Skull-Buster said:


> Su 30 is definitely more superior than the JF-17, the only case where the JF-17 might have a chance is in a 3 on 1 scenario. i think it will be better to compare the J-10 with SU-30.



F-10 with a good AESA radar with TVc(will be in WS10-A) can easily compete with MKI. 
so the only issue remians for PAF is to get superior radar and avionics.


----------



## Contrarian

Yes, a souped up J-10 can compete with the Su-30MKI. But J-10 itself is a lo combination to the Chinese Su-30MKK.


----------



## BATMAN

malaymishra123 said:


> Yes, but i think it was posted by adux that the MKI can track around 15 or 16 targets.


Yes but there are not that many BVR's on one MKI and if MKI did fire its BVR from 50KM than there is enough time for JF-17 to fire his own.
I remember seeing a video clip on another thread showing animated combat of various JF-17 with various SU30 in which JF-17 came as winner because both fire there BVR simultaneously, thats exactly my question is, if a jf-17 is equiped with a better radar and BVR it is possible to defeat SU30.
I think SD10 is not that bad either and it is also possible to arm JF-17 with AIM.


----------



## Adux

LondoMolari animated thing....Oh god...is that little idiotic yet brilliantly done piece still floating around.

Dude, JF-17 cant do jack against the MKI's. So just leave it and go buy some J-10's or j-XXXXX


----------



## Contrarian

But the thing is, Su-30MKI will ALWAYS fire its BVRAAM first. It will house a larger radar, and currently a longer distance AAM.


----------



## EagleEyes

I will disagree. JF-17 with AESA configuration and housed with Western/French missiles can fire missiles too. Not to forget that it can just turn off the radar and communicate with the AWACs which in return can not track 15 targets or so but around 300 targets. Plus, a bigger Su-30MKI RCS only gives more advantage.

Payload, Thurst Vectoring, and Range is not to be talked about anyways. So useless.


----------



## Contrarian

Yes, but the AWACS will not be guiding the missile it will have to be the fighters own radar
And IAF will also have AWACS coverage mate.

And JF-17 is yet to be inducted in PAF in sizeable numbers, it will take a LOONG time before AESA radars are fitted on JF-17.


----------



## Awesome

Currently India has longer ranged missile, but yet susceptible to simple ECMs. The Su-30 won't have such a simple task to avoid the Aim-120 once its fired.


----------



## Adux

Yes, IAF dont have AWACS or Data-linking it is an advantage, Heck Sukhoi's can data-link and fire missiles, While the JF-17 cant.....
, Sukhoi are far superior. By the time JF-17 are inducted, Sukhoi's will already undergo their MLU, that is already slated for 2010. Its a stupid comparison,


----------



## Contrarian

India has always catered for avionics and ECCM components very seriously Asim. The ECM, etc is developed with Israel, plus India is very good in this field. I doubt the AIm 120 would have a very easy task. 

And when the Su's come, they will be in plenty, 230 are on order mate 
And it remains to be seen, which a/c is chosen for the MRCA


At the end of the day, JF-17 is useless in face of the Su-30. a couped up J-10 would be a better match.


----------



## Adux

Asim Aquil said:


> Currently India has longer ranged missile, but yet susceptible to simple ECMs. The Su-30 won't have such a simple task to avoid the Aim-120 once its fired.


Now that is youre refuge.
India has very good sets of BVR, And it already in negotiations for meteor, Python 5, home-grown astra, if they pick up MMRCA American, you can see the Amraam too. ITs a no contest


----------



## EagleEyes

malaymishra123 said:


> Yes, but the AWACS will not be guiding the missile it will have to be the fighters own radar
> And IAF will also have AWACS coverage mate.



I would like to know about that actually. As far as i know. The helmet mounted cuing system is the one which guides the missile, radar only detects the plane. Missile can be fired via data link with AEW&Cs.

Of course IAF will have AWACS coverage too, but again will it operate in the enemy's territory? Or does AWACS justify that it will be the Su-30MKI which will only have the first kill? It seems pretty ludicrous to deny such that.



> And JF-17 is yet to be inducted in PAF in sizable numbers, it will take a LOONG time before AESA radars are fitted on JF-17.



Agreed, but in the scenario we are discussing. It has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Contrarian

WebMaster said:


> I would like to know about that actually. As far as i know. The helmet mounted cuing system is the one which guides the missile, radar only detects the plane. Missile can be fired via data link with AEW&Cs.


Theoretically, it can be done, however its not been done till now. 
Even if it was, it is unlikely that SD-10 would be compatible with the Erieye. At max, only the AIM's would be able to use the Erieye.
So for all practical purposes, let us say that the AWACS cannot guide the missile.

HMCS, only locks on to the missile using the radar, it only helps save the pilots cruicial time by not having him turn the plane or whatever to lock on. The pilot can lock on, then say as soon as the plane turns, the misisle fires. It also gives increased situational awareness.

It alone cannot guide the missile. It only depends on teh data passed from the radar.



> Of course IAF will have AWACS coverage too, but again will it operate in the enemy's territory? Or does AWACS justify that it will be the Su-30MKI which will only have the first kill? It seems pretty ludicrous to deny such that.



That is the reason that India has gone with the Phalcon, it comes under a different category of AWACS than the Erieye. Its like the weight difference between F-16's and Su-30's. One a heavy and one a medium.

India wanted VERY high detection ranges, thus they went for SUCH an expensive platform, because, India is a large country, and secondly, so that it can look VERY deep inside Pakistan, while the Phalcon itself remains in Indian border. Pakistans small width also helps in this case immensely.



> Agreed, but in the scenario we are discussing. It has nothing to do with anything.


It has a lot to do with everything. We are not wishing that let this plane have this upgrade or that upgrade. We'r talking what is actually going to be bought or might be bought in the near future.


----------



## BATMAN

Adux said:


> LondoMolari animated thing....Oh god...is that little idiotic yet brilliantly done piece still floating around.
> 
> Dude, JF-17 cant do jack against the MKI's. So just leave it and *go buy some J-10's* or j-XXXXX



J-17 has highly maneuvrable frame, and as explained above, ASEA and AIM can make it as leathal as any late 4th gen. aircraft.
J-10 I believe is a different horse, primarily for strike role and JF-17 is more of interceptor.
In a one choice senario JF-17 should be prefered because inherintly it is a multirole role, with conformal tanks or in-air fuel probes it can undertake strike role very effectively.


----------



## Contrarian

BATMAN said:


> J-17 has highly maneuvrable frame, and as explained above, ASEA and AIM can make it as leathal as any late 4th gen. aircraft.
> J-10 I believe is a different horse, primarily for strike role and JF-17 is more of interceptor.
> In a one choice senario JF-17 should be prefered because inherintly it is a multirole role, with conformal tanks or in-air fuel probes it can undertake strike role very effectively.



J-10 is in a different LEAGUE than the JF-17. It can undertake every task better than the JF-17. The only thing is, that its more expesive than th JF-17, and the costs will only go up, should PAF modify the J-10 for good avionics. And even after all that, J-10 remains the low end companion to the hi of Su-30MKK.

No matter how manouverable JF-17 is, it is nearly not enough to match the inherent manouverability of the MiG 29, let alone planes with TVC.
J-10 is multirole as well, it will perform a2a as well as strike missions better than JF-17.

Jf-17 is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, its like the role for MiG 21's. It is good when it will be used defensively, and dont expect AIM's to be used on the JF-17. It will be the chinese missiles only. 

It is good ONLY when you flood the skies of the defending country with these planes. The lay of the land will be known to the pilots, the SAM's, radar network of the dending country will aid the fighters.
That is when the JF-17 will be very effective, else not. And that is just what PAF plans for them. Thus the reason for procuring them in good quantities. As a stand alone fighter, JF-17 is a non starter.


----------



## Adux

Good Post malay


----------



## con

Asim Aquil said:


> Currently India has longer ranged missile, but yet susceptible to simple ECMs. The Su-30 won't have such a simple task to avoid the Aim-120 once its fired.



You need to remember that Israel has using Aim-120 for ages.Plus Jordon has recieved Aim-120 as well. Hence there is every possibility that Israel already has a ECM for Aim-120. I would say IAF has already asked the ECM for Aim-120.

Beside Pakistan isn't recieving the latest version anyway.
Just observe there has no noise from IAF regarding Aim-120 induction other than the usual "will increase combact capability stuff". Ever wondered why?

It helps to have allies in the right place


----------



## PakSniper

con said:


> You need to remember that Israel has using Aim-120 for ages.Plus Jordon has recieved Aim-120 as well. Hence there is every possibility that Israel already has a ECM for Aim-120. I would say IAF has already asked the ECM for Aim-120.
> 
> Beside Pakistan isn't recieving the latest version anyway.
> Just observe there has no noise from IAF regarding Aim-120 induction other than the usual "will increase combact capability stuff". Ever wondered why?
> 
> It helps to have allies in the right place



You know how stupid you sound, you ever wonder why we don't complain about your arms buying spree and all. Get real and wake up instead of making yourself look like an idiot.

Oh, and their was noise from IAF reason they right away started to look for LRAAM, talked to US for stopping arms supply like you tried for the TOWS and all.


----------



## con

PakSniper said:


> You know how stupid you sound, you ever wonder why we don't complain about your arms buying spree and all. Get real and wake up instead of making yourself look like an idiot.
> 
> Oh, and their was noise from IAF reason they right away started to look for LRAAM, talked to US for stopping arms supply like you tried for the TOWS and all.



Please enlighten me why do you think Israel would not have a ECM for Aim-120? and IAF has not asked for it? 

I may be stupid but then let me learn from the pearl of wisdom. Let me hear it from you how much protection a LRAAM would give over Aim-120 rather than a ECM? 
I am all waiting.

And yes every nation will try it's level best to stop it's adversery from obtaining a single bullet! This is no different for India either.


----------



## PakSniper

> Beside Pakistan isn't recieving the latest version anyway.
> Just observe there has no noise from IAF regarding Aim-120 induction other than the usual "will increase combact capability stuff". Ever wondered why?
> 
> It helps to have allies in the right place



I was responding to the above not the first paragraph. Making noise is one thing and constantly kissing someone else's *** for something to get done is another.


----------



## Adux

PakSniper said:


> You know how stupid you sound, you ever wonder why we don't complain about your arms buying spree and all. Get real and wake up instead of making yourself look like an idiot.
> 
> Oh, and their was noise from IAF reason they right away started to look for LRAAM, talked to US for stopping arms supply like you tried for the TOWS and all.



You'd think wont you????


----------



## con

PakSniper said:


> I was responding to the above not the first paragraph. Making noise is one thing and constantly kissing someone else's *** for something to get done is another.



Every one kisses everyone's *** for get one hand upper over their adversery. This is how the world is and this is how the world will be.

But then it is better than just making noise! It might taste bitter but then you will live to see another day.


----------



## EagleEyes

malaymishra123 said:


> J-10 is in a different LEAGUE than the JF-17. It can undertake every task better than the JF-17. The only thing is, that its more expesive than th JF-17, and the costs will only go up, should PAF modify the J-10 for good avionics. And even after all that, J-10 remains the low end companion to the hi of Su-30MKK.
> 
> No matter how manouverable JF-17 is, it is nearly not enough to match the inherent manouverability of the MiG 29, let alone planes with TVC.
> J-10 is multirole as well, it will perform a2a as well as strike missions better than JF-17.
> 
> Jf-17 is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, its like the role for MiG 21's. It is good when it will be used defensively, and dont expect AIM's to be used on the JF-17. It will be the chinese missiles only.
> 
> It is good ONLY when you flood the skies of the defending country with these planes. The lay of the land will be known to the pilots, the SAM's, radar network of the dending country will aid the fighters.
> That is when the JF-17 will be very effective, else not. And that is just what PAF plans for them. Thus the reason for procuring them in good quantities. As a stand alone fighter, JF-17 is a non starter.



Your post goes like this malay. Total speculation, the way you want it. Wishful thinking. Not even worth to waste my time. Really! No offence. You dont know anything about PAFs doctrine and tactics.


----------



## Owais

malaymishra123 said:


> Jf-17 is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, its like the role for MiG 21's. It is good when it will be used defensively, and dont expect AIM's to be used on the JF-17. It will be the chinese missiles only.
> 
> .



If you think that a plane with ferry range of 3000km & combat radius of 1350km is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, I have no words to desCribe your intelligence!  keep dreaming!
here are some links for you to study more.
http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp


----------



## Bull

Owais said:


> If you think that a plane with ferry range of 3000km & combat radius of 1350km is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, I have no words to desCribe your intelligence!  keep dreaming!
> here are some links for you to study more.
> http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html
> http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp



JAS Grippen is classified as a point defence fighter and has a ferry range of 3000km and a combat radius of btw 750(hi alt) -1250 km( A2G)

Isnt that almost as same as the JF-17.


----------



## Adux

Owais said:


> If you think that a plane with ferry range of 3000km & combat radius of 1350km is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, I have no words to desCribe your intelligence!  keep dreaming!
> here are some links for you to study more.
> http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html
> http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp



When did Range become the ONLY criteria for Combat Role"


----------



## Adux

WebMaster said:


> Your post goes like this malay. Total speculation, the way you want it. Wishful thinking. Not even worth to waste my time. Really! No offence. You dont know anything about PAFs doctrine and tactics.



Actually it is your post that is full speculation and wishlists; While Malay is comparing the CURRENT capabilities of MKI to that of the DReamList/Specualted capabilities of JF-17. I think he knows more than you, and has actually defined the role it will play

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanbhai

Adux said:


> When did Range become the ONLY criteria for Combat Role"



you killed it bro


----------



## EagleEyes

Adux said:


> When did Range become the ONLY criteria for Combat Role"



When did he say that range is the ONLY criteria to compare combat planes?


----------



## Bull

WebMaster said:


> When did he say that range is the ONLY criteria to compare combat planes?



He didnt say that. But he said this. That range is the only criteria to decide whether its a pt defence fighter or not.



Owais said:


> If you think that a plane with ferry range of 3000km & combat radius of 1350km is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, I have no words to desCribe your intelligence!  keep dreaming!
> here are some links for you to study more.
> http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html
> http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp


----------



## EagleEyes

Adux said:


> Actually it is your post that is full speculation and wishlists; While Malay is comparing the CURRENT capabilities of MKI to that of the DReamList/Specualted capabilities of JF-17. I think he knows more than you, and has actually defined the role it will play



Point something that is full speculation or wishlist? Your a ******* **** ***.

It is no dream list or speculation. It is a word from Tanveer Mehmood, ACM of Pakistan Air Force. 

Malay is calling JF-17 a point defence fighter, which in terms of PAF (who has kicked IAF behind in all wars) can be used as an offensive fighter with different configurations.

J-10 may be used in Chinese Air Force as a low combination of Su-30MKK (I still have to see the link) but it will be used as an offensive aircraft with better configuration than the Su-30MKI in PAF.

Dont give me a **** of what i know and what i dont.



> should PAF modify the J-10 for good avionics. And even after all that, J-10 remains the low end companion to the hi of Su-30MKK.



In what terms? It is plain bullshit. The PAF J-10 will be better than anything China have or may be India (It is all dependent on which avionics package is picked).



> No matter how manouverable JF-17 is, it is nearly not enough to match the inherent manouverability of the MiG 29, let alone planes with TVC.



How do you know that JF-17 is not able to match thurst vectoring of Mig-29? JF-17 is a single engine aircraft, more light weight, and has improved RD-93 engine initially and will have way better Chinese engine later on if needed, but RD-93 with close eyes is meeting the requirements of the air force.



> Jf-17 is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, its like the role for MiG 21's. It is good when it will be used defensively, and dont expect AIM's to be used on the JF-17. It will be the chinese missiles only.



Says who? ACM has said that JF-17 needs French/US origin missiles which Pakistan is looking for. Now should anyone listen to malay or ACM of PAF?  

Now there you go.. i wasted 10 minutes to educate a **** ***!


----------



## EagleEyes

Bull said:


> He didnt say that. But he said this. That range is the only criteria to decide whether its a pt defence fighter or not.



He didn't say that. Read again. He is highlighting one more fact that if you call a fighter with 3000km range & combat radius of 1350km a point defence fighter. It is ludicrous. Only is the key word here.

The distance between India and Pakistan is not much. The range of the plane is enough to support the ground troops and dedicated missions given to the various squadrons of the PAF during the war.


----------



## Bull

WebMaster said:


> He didn't say that. Read again. He is highlighting one more fact that if you call a fighter with 3000km range & combat radius of 1350km a point defence fighter. It is ludicrous.
> 
> The distance between India and Pakistan is not much. The range of the plane is enough to support the ground troops and dedicated missions given to the various squadrons of the PAF during the war.



Well Owais didnt mention anything other than the range.

I had a doubt and im no expert, so i googled and found out grippen which is a pt fighter had the same range as JF-17.

And so i refuted, thats it.


----------



## EagleEyes

Bull, do you know what JAS stands for? Google it, if you can google what you need to know, i know you can google this too.

Anyways, JAS stands for.

Jakt, Attack, Spaning which means (Fighter, Attacker, Surveillance). Now use some common sense and think. If IAF procures Gripen for its MRCA tender, does it mean that Gripen will not enter Pakistan Air Space? 

And will only act as a point defence fighter, merely for defence?


----------



## Bull

WebMaster said:


> Bull, do you know what JAS stands for? Google it, if you can google what you need to know, i know you can google this too.
> 
> Anyways, JAS stands for.
> 
> Jakt, Attack, Spaning which means (Fighter, Attacker, Surveillance). Now use some common sense and think. If IAF procures Gripen for its MRCA tender, does it mean that Gripen will not enter Pakistan Air Space?



I didnt know the expansion.

Can i ask you something? i sincerly dont know the answer ok. Just answer this. A pt fighter is suppose to defend from just one pt right. It cant do A2G but only A2A, right?
Now this A2A can be anywhere ,right? It can be over Pak airspace also under the AWACS or as part of a bigger team. Cant it be.


----------



## EagleEyes

Take a read on this.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/gripen.htm

Should help.

Gripen and JF-17 both are multirole aircrafts and can perform any role. They can be in Indian Air Space, perform any mission possible as long as configuration doesn't limit them (for example they cannot go deep inside Indian territory, however Air-To-Air refuellers will help to a certain extent.)

Gripen and JF-17 can do A2G, A2A, Anti-ship and various other roles!


----------



## Neo

A good question Bull, to my knowledge it can be both.
Here's the definition of point defence from wiki:



> Point-defence (or point-defense, see spelling differences) is the defence of a single object or a limited area, e.g. a ship, building or an airfield, usually against air attacks and guided missiles. Point-defence weapons have a smaller range in contrast to area-defence systems and are placed near or on the object to protect.
> 
> Point-defence may include:
> 
> short-ranged interceptor aircraft
> Close-in weapon systems on ships
> land-based short-ranged anti-aircraft guns or surface-to-air missile systems
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_defense


----------



## Bull

Neo said:


> A good question Bull, to my knowledge it can be both.
> Here's the definition of point defence from wiki:



Ok so it basically means just one predefined role. It cant double up as anything else. Ok so that explains what a multi role is. 
God i learnt something today.


----------



## Neo

Notice that short range is mentioned for this role but almost any modern aircraft can be used as a point defence fighter.

I know that even PAF's F-16's have been trained to defend Kahutta.


----------



## con

would JF-17's radar be powerful enough to provide high resolution mapping of the target area?

what makes F-16 so good for A2G is it's radar has very good resolution for mapping target mapping. The ability of SAR.


----------



## Neo

KLJ-7 is selected for the first batch of 50 (block I) JF-17's and the radar is reported to be better than the APG-66 used in F-16A/B's as per PAF's evaluation.
We're looking into AESA radar from various countries for the block II, obviously it will be even better option.

Btw, I'm unaware of F-16's role in SAR operations. Which country is using it for SAR role?


----------



## con

Neo said:


> Btw, I'm unaware of F-16's role in SAR operations. Which country is using it for SAR role?



Neo,I think you got confused with SAR. I was talking about Synthetic Aperture Radar,using for high resolution ground mapping.
The need for better A2G ability.

Also I wonder why change the radar just after having 50 birds? 
It does not make economic sense. You would to change lot of things and it would very expensive.
Add to this need to change the production line to implement the new radar type.Remeber AESA is not just a upgrade,it is a different type of radar.

Wonder if PAF has the budget for such a sudden change?


----------



## EagleEyes

The modifications in the JF-17 was especially done in order to accomodate various radars and engines. Not a big deal.


----------



## con

WebMaster said:


> The modifications in the JF-17 was especially done in order to accomodate various radars and engines. Not a big deal.



What kind of modifications?


----------



## Neo

con said:


> Neo,I think you got confused with SAR. I was talking about Synthetic Aperture Radar,using for high resolution ground mapping.
> The need for better A2G ability.


Thanks mate, I wasn't thinking clear I guess...  



> Also I wonder why change the radar just after having 50 birds?
> It does not make economic sense. You would to change lot of things and it would very expensive.
> Add to this need to change the production line to implement the new radar type.Remeber AESA is not just a upgrade,it is a different type of radar.
> 
> Wonder if PAF has the budget for such a sudden change?


Chinese radar and avionics is part of the original agreement, we're bound to buy best of chinese goodies for the first batch. 
AESA is a possibility, we're looking into several options according to the 7 page special report in AFM June edition but might aswell stick to the Chinese KLJ-7 as we're very satisfied about its performance.


----------



## Owais

Bull said:


> He didnt say that. But he said this. That range is the only criteria to decide whether its a pt defence fighter or not.



I thought the links I have provided explain you about wat I said!


----------



## Contrarian

WebMaster said:


> Point something that is full speculation or wishlist? Your a ******* **** ***.
> 
> It is no dream list or speculation. It is a word from Tanveer Mehmood, ACM of Pakistan Air Force.
> 
> Malay is calling JF-17 a point defence fighter, which in terms of PAF (who has kicked IAF behind in all wars) can be used as an offensive fighter with different configurations.


Any plane can be used as an offensive fighter with different configurations. Whats so different about JF-17?

Our MiG 21's can be used as an offensive fighter in Pakistani Airspace.
When i say a point defence fighter, i mean that it does not have the adequate radar, it does not have adequate payload, it does not have the adequate airframe(read the need for composites) to penetrate a highly defended or guarded airspace(read India).

Having range does not mean that it can or will be used in offensive roles.


> J-10 may be used in Chinese Air Force as a low combination of Su-30MKK (I still have to see the link) but it will be used as an offensive aircraft with better configuration than the Su-30MKI in PAF.
> 
> In what terms? It is plain bullshit. The PAF J-10 will be better than anything China have or may be India (It is all dependent on which avionics package is picked).



The Su-30MKI will have the Irbis PESA radar at the VERY LEAST. I hope for PAF's sake that Elta 2052 radars are not bought. EW suites JV'ed with Israel, etc, etc, etc. You are aware of both their capabilities. You dont need me to elaborate.

Dont give me the "whatever we have will be better than yours" statement.



> How do you know that JF-17 is not able to match thurst vectoring of Mig-29? JF-17 is a single engine aircraft, more light weight, and has improved RD-93 engine initially and will have way better Chinese engine later on if needed, but RD-93 with close eyes is meeting the requirements of the air force.



*Thats because JF-17 is not a god sent aircraft.*

Light weight? In terms of what? It doesnt even use composites. Its a metal airframe. Its light weight(relatively) just because it uses one engine.

TVC is a technology. With out imlementing TVC, JF-17 cannot even DREAM to match the monouverability of a Su-30MKI, let alone a MiG 35.

JF-17 will have this in the future, will have that in the future, etc, etc. What it does have now is what is important. Chinese engine incidentally right now is under development. Whether its way better or way worse is not upto you.



> Says who? ACM has said that JF-17 needs French/US origin missiles which Pakistan is looking for. Now should anyone listen to malay or ACM of PAF?


You listen to whatever you feel like.

And please, do tell me, it would be indeed a grand day when a US missile would be fitted on JF-17. This is precicely what is called 'wishful thinking'.

It would be Chinese missiles, and French missiles at max, and even that is yet to see.

All i see for comparison is b/w what JF-17 WILL have to what there is now.



> Now there you go.. i wasted 10 minutes to educate a **** ***!


Do remind me, what is the purpose of this forum?


----------



## EagleEyes

malaymishra123 said:


> Any plane can be used as an offensive fighter with different configurations. Whats so different about JF-17?



The point was to classify it as an offensive fighter not just a fighter with defensive role.



> Our MiG 21's can be used as an offensive fighter in Pakistani Airspace.
> When i say a point defence fighter, i mean that it does not have the adequate radar, it does not have adequate payload, it does not have the adequate airframe(read the need for composites) to penetrate a highly defended or guarded airspace(read India).



Are you saying that APG-69 radar equivalent is not adequate? or AESA radar for the future batch is not adequate? Payload is 3,800 kg with 7 hardpoints, quite adequate to perform a given mission which can include multiple sidewinder and air to ground weapons dependent on the mission. What is wrong with the air frame? The air frame is same as what is used in dozens of other fighters. There is no need to put crappy composites which in a result make a plane rejected by an air force.

(Need the link for composites needing in JF-17. I dont think PAF would like it with composites.)



> Having range does not mean that it can or will be used in offensive roles.



True, however it is ONE of the things which support the role of an offensive aircraft. Are you still suggesting that the aircraft cannot be used in an offensive role?  



> The Su-30MKI will have the Irbis PESA radar at the VERY LEAST. I hope for PAF's sake that Elta 2052 radars are not bought. EW suites JV'ed with Israel, etc, etc, etc. You are aware of both their capabilities. You dont need me to elaborate.
> 
> Dont give me the "whatever we have will be better than yours" statement.



Nobody is underestimating Su-30MKI, but somebody is underestimating JF-17. During the comparison "it will have" will always be used since the aircraft is fairly new and is already being evaluated and customized compare to an already many years old Su-30 aircraft.




> *Thats because JF-17 is not a god sent aircraft.*
> 
> Light weight? In terms of what? It doesnt even use composites. Its a metal airframe. Its light weight(relatively) just because it uses one engine.
> 
> TVC is a technology. With out imlementing TVC, JF-17 cannot even DREAM to match the monouverability of a Su-30MKI, let alone a MiG 35.



No aircraft is a god sent aircraft, hence it can be shot down regardless of already damage it can give. The aircraft is doing fine without the composites and is still a light weight aircraft. We dont want to further delay the project like LCA.

As far as TVC is concerned. Neither F-16, F-18, or majority of aircrafts doesn't have TVC but still they are capable of engaging and shooting down any aircraft.



> JF-17 will have this in the future, will have that in the future, etc, etc. What it does have now is what is important. Chinese engine incidentally right now is under development. Whether its way better or way worse is not upto you.



Your wishes for not being better doesn't make worst either. Like i have mentioned above. Dont expect JF-17 to be already developed. It is still in the initial stage and not an already developed plane like Su-30.




> You listen to whatever you feel like.
> 
> And please, do tell me, it would be indeed a grand day when a US missile would be fitted on JF-17. This is precicely what is called 'wishful thinking'.
> 
> It would be Chinese missiles, and French missiles at max, and even that is yet to see.



Of course. You can listen to yourself who has never flew a plane or Air Cheif Marshal who has full command of an air force.  Grand Day! Aint it! RD-93 was a grand day too wasn't it!  

I dont understand why are you refuting your claim that United States missiles will not be equipped on JF-17? I just simply dont understand the source with which your trying to support the argument. When we can have an engine of your most trusted ally in your most rivaling enemy's plane. I dont see who is going to stop us in buying missiles from our ally, United States.

For you it may be a bad thinking, but no one should actually call a wishful thinking since it is coming straight from the authority of the Pakistan Air Force and not from some kiddo on the Internet.

We have variety of options. French, Chinese, American, South African. Only the best will be equipped in it with looking at the cost efficiency.

All the Chinese planes with Pakistani configuration in the Pakistan inventory are equipped with American weapons, and i dont see why we cant equip it in our own plane.  



> All i see for comparison is b/w what JF-17 WILL have to what there is now.
> 
> Do remind me, what is the purpose of this forum?



The purpose is not the make another shitty forum and being realistic and accepting what needs to be accepted.


----------



## EagleEyes

con said:


> What kind of modifications?



Design. See the old design and the recent design.


----------



## Contrarian

WebMaster said:


> The point was to classify it as an offensive fighter not just a fighter with defensive role.


Offensve fighters are the high end of any airforce. Unless the airfleet is short of planes at the moment or in the area, defensive fighters are not sent over for strike.



> Are you saying that APG-69 radar equivalent is not adequate? or AESA radar for the future batch is not adequate? Payload is 3,800 kg with 7 hardpoints, quite adequate to perform a given mission which can include multiple sidewinder and air to ground weapons dependent on the mission.


WHO has said that the KLJ-7 is an equivalnt to the APG 69?
Correct me if i am wrong here..but doesnt the KLF-7 track 10 while engage 2?
And whether or not it will have AESA is a decision that is going to be taken a LLONG time later. JF-17 is not even inducted in more than token numbers, an upgrade, a massive one if an AESA were to be put in, is a LONG way off.

The payload is not enough is you were to attack say India. Planes like J-10 or the Su-30 series are made for that purpose. If and when the PAF do decide to strike India, they would use nothing short of their F-16's and J-10, if they have that. 

It might look to you that 3800kg is sufficient to perform strike tasks, but its not, heavy payload planes are essential for that task in a highly guarded environment, where there would be need to take out the defences at the border itself before progressing to strike missions in the near interior.

Like i said, even MiG 21's can be used as an offensive plane, but what matters is what the plane was designed for.


> What is wrong with the air frame? The air frame is same as what is used in dozens of other fighters. There is no need to put crappy composites which in a result make a plane rejected by an air force.
> (Need the link for composites needing in JF-17. I dont think PAF would like it with composites.)



Crappy composites? Are u joking with me? PAF would not *LIKE* composites in their planes?? They would KILL TO HAVE IT AT ANY COST. I dont need to enlighten you on the need for composites if you make such childish comments. Composites are essential in any new plane.

This is a plain attitude of denial, or that since JF-17 does not have it, then surely PAF does not WANT them!



> True, however it is ONE of the things which support the role of an offensive aircraft. Are you still suggesting that the aircraft cannot be used in an offensive role?


I already said, even MiG 21's can be used in an offensive role. But they would not be effective. JF-17's wont be even nearly as effective as F-16's, J-10s, etc in an offensive role. *That is WHY PAF wants to get J-10's also in a small number.*

JF-17 are just for defence. Which is a very good decision of the commanders. It is to overwhelm the attacking force with numbers. Its an excellent and cheap platform for that purpose, and the commanders need to be lauded for that choice. However, for an attacking role, JF-17 would be the worst mistake.



> Nobody is underestimating Su-30MKI, but somebody is underestimating JF-17. During the comparison "it will have" will always be used since the aircraft is fairly new and is already being evaluated and customized compare to an already many years old Su-30 aircraft.


The Su-30 in IAF will also undergo upgradation, have newer things installed as technology progresses.



> No aircraft is a god sent aircraft, hence it can be shot down regardless of already damage it can give. The aircraft is doing fine without the composites and is still a light weight aircraft. We dont want to further delay the project like LCA.


It is doing fine without composites, hell it can do fine without loads of other things, so why install them. Composites, etc are there for many reasons, but using them makes the plane more expensive.. Its a light weight a/c cuz its single engined, and for a single engined plane of such specifications, it has trremendous scope for imprvoment, that is it could do with SOME composites atleast. Composites also reduce RCS quite a bit incidentally. It is one of the hallmarks of stealth, using composites that is.



> As far as TVC is concerned. Neither F-16, F-18, or majority of aircrafts doesn't have TVC but still they are capable of engaging and shooting down any aircraft.


Yeah, but they dont and cant match have the monouverability of other planes like Su-30 or MiG 35 that was being talked about. And thus such planes(Su-30MKI/MiG 35) have that particular advantage against their enemy.
You said JF-17 can be more manouverable than the MiG 35. Now that is not possible, unless god made the JF-17 himself.
Why do you think that hte F-22 has 2-D TVC then?



> Your wishes for not being better doesn't make worst either. Like i have mentioned above. Dont expect JF-17 to be already developed. It is still in the initial stage and not an already developed plane like Su-30.


It has developed enough to have its specificatiions frozen for the first batch, and those specs will remain frozen for a LONG time.



> Of course. You can listen to yourself who has never flew a plane or Air Cheif Marshal who has full command of an air force.  Grand Day! Aint it! RD-93 was a grand day too wasn't it!
> 
> I dont understand why are you refuting your claim that United States missiles will not be equipped on JF-17? I just simply dont understand the source with which your trying to support the argument. When we can have an engine of your most trusted ally in your most rivaling enemy's plane. I dont see who is going to stop us in buying missiles from our ally, United States.


I doubt the Russians would be selling you attacking or offensive equipment in a hurry.
Didnt know the US was your 'ally', wonder why they offer India more advanced equipment then?



> For you it may be a bad thinking, but no one should actually call a wishful thinking since it is coming straight from the authority of the Pakistan Air Force and not from some kiddo on the Internet.
> 
> We have variety of options. French, Chinese, American, South African. Only the best will be equipped in it with looking at the cost efficiency.


Please do tell me when the US missiles are integrated with the JF-17.




> The purpose is not the make another shitty forum and being realistic and accepting what needs to be accepted.


Oh, i thought it was not for people to accept some others statement blindly, but actually debate on it.


----------



## blain2

con said:


> You need to remember that Israel has using Aim-120 for ages.Plus Jordon has recieved Aim-120 as well. Hence there is every possibility that Israel already has a ECM for Aim-120. I would say IAF has already asked the ECM for Aim-120.
> 
> Beside Pakistan isn't recieving the latest version anyway.
> Just observe there has no noise from IAF regarding Aim-120 induction other than the usual "will increase combact capability stuff". Ever wondered why?
> 
> It helps to have allies in the right place



That is not true. IDFAF does not even have all of its aircraft converted to AIM-120 as of yet. They were hoping to use Rafael Darby in large numbers but have scaled down that order and gone for additional AIM-120s.

IAF asking for ECM and getting it is a laughable matter. ECM codes are not so easy to decipher and Raytheon is not stupid to let these secrets out because India happens to be friends with Israel. Lets get some corporate smarts in your head before proposing such things.

Pakistan is receiving the latest version in use by the NATO AFs and the one which is in operational status with the USAF. AIM-120C7 and D are the only ones which are not available as of yet. 

IAF can't say anything about the sale of AIM-120 to the PAF since they have no say in the matter. Let me just end my post by stating that there is not one pilot in your IAF who would like to have an AIM-120C5 on his ***...on this I am willing to put my money on so lets not discount the C5 so easily...after all its not you who is going to be sitting in the cockpit and facing a PAF aircraft armed with these BVRAAMs.


----------



## EagleEyes

Please read the ACM interview in the Air Force Monthly.

http://www.paf.gov.pk/News/Pdfs/Pakistans_pride.pdf

Thanks.


----------



## con

blain2 said:


> That is not true. IDFAF does not even have all of its aircraft converted to AIM-120 as of yet. They were hoping to use Rafael Darby in large numbers but have scaled down that order and gone for additional AIM-120s.
> 
> IAF asking for ECM and getting it is a laughable matter. ECM codes are not so easy to decipher and Raytheon is not stupid to let these secrets out because India happens to be friends with Israel. Lets get some corporate smarts in your head before proposing such things.
> 
> Pakistan is receiving the latest version in use by the NATO AFs and the one which is in operational status with the USAF. AIM-120C7 and D are the only ones which are not available as of yet.
> 
> IAF can't say anything about the sale of AIM-120 to the PAF since they have no say in the matter. Let me just end my post by stating that there is not one pilot in your IAF who would like to have an AIM-120C5 on his ***...on this I am willing to put my money on so lets not discount the C5 so easily...after all its not you who is going to be sitting in the cockpit and facing a PAF aircraft armed with these BVRAAMs.



Derby also has input from Raytheon in it's development. It is nothing but a Aim-120 customized by Israel. They would go additional Aim-120 as the production of Derby will not be able to keep the demand for a while.
You would agree with me that Israel is always in a fight.

I would not say Raytheon would part with destruction code for Aim-120.But then when I say Jordan is receiving Aim-120,it means Israel would already started working/worked out a ECM for Aim-120. As far as corporate IP is concerned,in strategic relation there is not substitute for money. I pay enough money,I get the IP simple as that if both side agree.
French provide the Brits deflection code for Excoert ASHM in Flakands,Lavi stock and barrel to China etc etc...
And yes as you said IAF would not want a Aim-120 on it's a**.This precisely is the reason they will twist the world upside down to get a CM for it. The budget for India's EW programs rival that it spends on it's ballistic missile programs. 
The threat from PAF is not it's F-16 or JF-17.It is Aim-120. You can imagine the height IAF would go to get CM with such a budget.


----------



## EagleEyes

malaymishra123 said:


> Offensve fighters are the high end of any airforce. Unless the airfleet is short of planes at the moment or in the area, defensive fighters are not sent over for strike.



Though!




> WHO has said that the KLJ-7 is an equivalnt to the APG 69?



Air Cheif Marshal



> Correct me if i am wrong here..but doesnt the KLF-7 track 10 while engage 2?



Have no idea!




> And whether or not it will have AESA is a decision that is going to be taken a LLONG time later. JF-17 is not even inducted in more than token numbers, an upgrade, a massive one if an AESA were to be put in, is a LONG way off.



Hehehe. Stop capitalizing words to show your emotions. It only hurts.  

Due to the signature now days the fighters provide, it is essential for the PAF to have an AESA radar, but of course here we are talking about wide range of configurations in the JF-17.



> The payload is not enough is you were to attack say India. Planes like J-10 or the Su-30 series are made for that purpose. If and when the PAF do decide to strike India, they would use nothing short of their F-16's and J-10, if they have that.



There is something called deeeeeep strike and normal strike role. Nobody is suggesting to go into the bangladesh in the first weeks or so.  



> It might look to you that 3800kg is sufficient to perform strike tasks, but its not, heavy payload planes are essential for that task in a highly guarded environment, where there would be need to take out the defences at the border itself before progressing to strike missions in the near interior.



Actually, with the Pakistan Army doctrine. Supposedly, there will be no Indian air defence at the border. 

Also 3800kg is not enough to bombard 2-3 bases i agree, but we are sticking with 1 for now, but i do agree that proper measures should be taken to increase the payload. 




> Like i said, even MiG 21's can be used as an offensive plane, but what matters is what the plane was designed for.



Though!




> Crappy composites? Are u joking with me? PAF would not *LIKE* composites in their planes?? They would KILL TO HAVE IT AT ANY COST. I dont need to enlighten you on the need for composites if you make such childish comments. Composites are essential in any new plane.
> 
> This is a plain attitude of denial, or that since JF-17 does not have it, then surely PAF does not WANT them!



Actually it is not in PAF interest to cope with planes like Su-30, Mig-29, Mirage-2000 with a plane made up of composites. It will be like paper vs scissors.



> I already said, even MiG 21's can be used in an offensive role. But they would not be effective. JF-17's wont be even nearly as effective as F-16's, J-10s, etc in an offensive role. *That is WHY PAF wants to get J-10's also in a small number.*



They will not be effective as F-16s and J-10s, of course but they can be used for ground attack. F-16s and J-10s will play main bombardment roles i agree, but denying that JF-17 will not be used in ground attack missions is simply RETARDED.



> JF-17 are just for defence. Which is a very good decision of the commanders. It is to overwhelm the attacking force with numbers. Its an excellent and cheap platform for that purpose, and the commanders need to be lauded for that choice. However, for an attacking role, JF-17 would be the worst mistake.



Actually F-86 Sabre with only 2000 payload destroyed major bases of the IAF. Hello!!!

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-86_sabre.pl

The point again is proven. JF-17 can be used for strike roles if it wants to be, and there is a reason why it is a Multirole Aircraft, but of course it will not be able to carry enough payload to bomb extra extra.  

Lets not kid ourselves with patriotism, shall we.  




> The Su-30 in IAF will also undergo upgradation, have newer things installed as technology progresses.



Good for you.




> It is doing fine without composites, hell it can do fine without loads of other things, so why install them. Composites, etc are there for many reasons, but using them makes the plane more expensive.. Its a light weight a/c cuz its single engined, and for a single engined plane of such specifications, it has trremendous scope for imprvoment, that is it could do with SOME composites atleast. Composites also reduce RCS quite a bit incidentally. It is one of the hallmarks of stealth, using composites that is.



Good luck with composites mate. I believe 1 shot of machine guns will tear LCA apart.




> Yeah, but they dont and cant match have the monouverability of other planes like Su-30 or MiG 35 that was being talked about. And thus such planes(Su-30MKI/MiG 35) have that particular advantage against their enemy.
> You said JF-17 can be more manouverable than the MiG 35. Now that is not possible, unless god made the JF-17 himself.
> Why do you think that hte F-22 has 2-D TVC then?



Twin engine mate. Twin engine. Its for twin engine aircrafts who cannot match the maneuverability of fighters like F-16, JF-17, and JSF.




> It has developed enough to have its specificatiions frozen for the first batch, and those specs will remain frozen for a LONG time.



How much time? 40 years more?



> I doubt the Russians would be selling you attacking or offensive equipment in a hurry.
> Didnt know the US was your 'ally', wonder why they offer India more advanced equipment then?



Lets not go off topic. Tit for tat can be done easily. The point has been proven that JF-17 can be equipped with western missiles.



> Please do tell me when the US missiles are integrated with the JF-17.



That will be upto PAF.



> Oh, i thought it was not for people to accept some others statement blindly, but actually debate on it.



I will accept a word from our Air Cheif Marshal any day, any night. There is no need to debate on it and going around in circles. It doesn't fit my mentality.


----------



## Averroes

sorry for going off topic, but I like the fact that it's basically accepted that the LCA can't do **** against the JF-17 since it's JF-17 vs su-30 mki.


----------



## EagleEyes

Averroes said:


> sorry for going off topic, but I like the fact that it's basically accepted that the LCA can't do **** against the JF-17 since it's JF-17 vs su-30 mki.



Sorry to burst your bubbles, but LCA is a capable aircraft.

It can deter against JF-17 if it ever makes into IAF.


----------



## Averroes

but is LCA going to be exported? because ppl are showing interest in JF-17 but brush of LCA. I met an iranian **** involved in this business, and he was praising JF-17 and talking **** of LCA


----------



## con

Averroes said:


> but is LCA going to be exported? because ppl are showing interest in JF-17 but brush of LCA. I met an iranian ambassador involved in this business, and he was praising JF-17 and talking **** of LCA



Really.
How did this "Iranian Ambassador" come near JF-17 and LCA that he know so much about it?

Let these aircraft first get inducted in their respective countries,then we can talk about exports.


----------



## Averroes

There is substantial interest international interest in the JF-17 whereas the LCA... well it won't be leaving India for a while.


----------



## EagleEyes

In conclusion. Su-30MKI will be shot down by the JF-17 and JF-17 will be shot down by the Su-30MKI depending on the fighter pilots ability.


----------



## Contrarian

WebMaster said:


> Due to the signature now days the fighters provide, it is essential for the PAF to have an AESA radar, but of course here we are talking about wide range of configurations in the JF-17.




Yes, but that still does not negate the fact that JF-17 wont be getting AESA radars any time soon.



> There is something called deeeeeep strike and normal strike role. Nobody is suggesting to go into the bangladesh in the first weeks or so.


Ofcourse JF-17 CAN be used for a strike role just near the borders. But it cant go more than that. For after that you need planes like the F-16 and the J-10.

QUOTE]Actually, with the Pakistan Army doctrine. Supposedly, there will be no Indian air defence at the border. [/QUOTE]
How do you propose that, the IAF has many many more planes than the PAF. And IAF's doctrine proposes close air support to the Army.
Technologically, IAF is ahead atm as well.



> Also 3800kg is not enough to bombard 2-3 bases i agree, but we are sticking with 1 for now, but i do agree that proper measures should be taken to increase the payload.


Again, this is a make do arrangement. Like i said, JF-17 can be used for strike. Though that is not its intended purpose. Its an air defence fighter.



> Actually it is not in PAF interest to cope with planes like Su-30, Mig-29, Mirage-2000 with a plane made up of composites. It will be like paper vs scissors.


Webby i dont think your really getting what composites mean here. Your statements like the plane will 'tear' eeasily as its made of composites, etc are plain nonsensical. Composites make any new plane now. The fact that JF-17 uses no composites at all is a serious drawback. It affects, stealth, payload, manufacturing, repair, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is endless. 
Understand that a plane which has no composites has a major problem.



> Actually F-86 Sabre with only 2000 payload destroyed major bases of the IAF. Hello!!!
> 
> http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-86_sabre.pl
> 
> The point again is proven. JF-17 can be used for strike roles if it wants to be, and there is a reason why it is a Multirole Aircraft, but of course it will not be able to carry enough payload to bomb extra extra.


I do believe that IAF bases will have more protection since those days.




> Good luck with composites mate. I believe 1 shot of machine guns will tear LCA apart.


Like i said, read up on composites . Your just not getting it. This is no macho thing that the plane is made up of metal alloys so it will be sturdy, strong etc, etc. Composites make the plane even stronger, if the material science of the country that made it is as developed.



> Twin engine mate. Twin engine. Its for twin engine aircrafts who cannot match the maneuverability of fighters like F-16, JF-17, and JSF.


Are you seriously sugegsting that planes like JF-17 or F-16 can match the manouverability of TVC equipped planes and 3-D TVC at that! Webby, if you want, we can take this to keypub, you will be laughed at for such a statment.



> How much time? 40 years more?


I dont know, the next upgrade for the Jf-17 wont be any time before one decade atleast.



> Lets not go off topic. Tit for tat can be done easily. The point has been proven that JF-17 can be equipped with western missiles.


If you believe that.


----------



## Contrarian

WebMaster said:


> In conclusion. Su-30MKI will be shot down by the JF-17 and JF-17 will be shot down by the Su-30MKI depending on the fighter pilots ability.



Not at all, in a one on one fight, a JF-17 would be mad to go head to head with a Su-30MKI, either in Neutral territory, let alone in Indian skies. Stop glorifying a plane like that. In a defensive role, with the ground network facouring the JF-17 and when in numbers, it can seriously dent any oncomming force of any plane.


----------



## zer0

JF-17 will be bombed to hell before SU-30 even shows up on its radar...
J-10/F-16 might stand a chance against it...


----------



## EagleEyes

zer0 said:


> JF-17 will be bombed to hell before SU-30 even shows up on its radar...
> J-10/F-16 might stand a chance against it...



Go figure out the meaning of bombed.


----------



## Owais

malaymishra123 said:


> Not at all, in a one on one fight, a JF-17 would be mad to go head to head with a Su-30MKI, either in Neutral territory, let alone in Indian skies. Stop glorifying a plane like that. In a defensive role, with the ground network facouring the JF-17 and when in numbers, it can seriously dent any oncomming force of any plane.



Tell me why a light weight agile JF-17(backed by AWACs) cannot match against a heavy and highly unstealthy MKI in neutral territory??


----------



## Bull

Owais said:


> Tell me why a light weight agile JF-17(backed by AWACs) cannot match against a heavy and highly unstealthy MKI in neutral territory??



Weight yes, agile i doubt? Anyways i dont think neither is as important as the avionics and armaments the plane carries or cany carry.


----------



## Contrarian

Owais said:


> Tell me why a light weight agile JF-17(backed by AWACs) cannot match against a heavy and highly unstealthy MKI in neutral territory??



What makes you think that the MKI, or any other Indian plane for that matter wont be backed by AWACS. And AWACS only do as much as give you the awareness. It doesnt lock onto the target for you.

Not to mention a heavy plane carrier more armaments, more payload, more avionics, bigger ECM/ECCM pods, etc, etc.

In neutral territory, this discussion is a nonissue. In pakistani territory, it makes some sense.


----------



## Owais

malaymishra123 said:


> What makes you think that the MKI, or any other Indian plane for that matter wont be backed by AWACS. And AWACS only do as much as give you the awareness. It doesnt lock onto the target for you.
> 
> Not to mention a heavy plane carrier more armaments, more payload, more avionics, bigger ECM/ECCM pods, etc, etc.
> 
> In neutral territory, this discussion is a nonissue. In pakistani territory, it makes some sense.



I think you forgot that it take only one AAM to blow the whole plane. if both of them were backed by AWACS then where is the radar advantage of MKI over thunder remains??
also, In order to take sure shot, both palnes should come at the distance of about 50-60km Instead of firing missile from its full range. 



> Anyways i dont think neither is as important as the avionics and armaments the plane carries or cany carry.



you are overestimating the MKI. I agree that JF-17 have inferior radar than MKI but it will carry SD-10 BVR AAM(Range: At least 70 Km) with KL-J7 Radar(The detection range for a typical air target of *RC 3 mÂ² is 125+ km*; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km). its enough to give a tough time


----------



## Bull

Owais said:


> you are overestimating the MKI. I agree that JF-17 have inferior radar than MKI but it will carry SD-10 BVR AAM(Range: At least 70 Km) with KL-J7 Radar(The detection range for a typical air target of *RC 3 mÂ² is 125+ km*; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km). its enough to give a tough time



Im not overestimating MKI or underestimating JF-17. Im just not ready to glorify JF-17. With all these radars you yourself state that 'it can give a tough time'..it just can give a tough time or has a outside chance.


----------



## Contrarian

Owais said:


> I think you forgot that it take only one AAM to blow the whole plane. if both of them were backed by AWACS then where is the radar advantage of MKI over thunder remains??


The advantage remains that the plane cannot guide its missile through the AWACS. The plane must guide the missile using its own radar. And MKI's radar needs no introduction. 

Not to mention within 3 years time, the new radar Irbis will be installed at the very least. There are also talks of putting in Elta 2052 AESA radars. I dont need to tell you of both these radar's capabilities.

Go read up on Irbis's detection and tracking ranges. It puts many AWACS to shame.



> also, In order to take sure shot, both palnes should come at the distance of about 50-60km Instead of firing missile from its full range.


That depends on the 'no escape envelope' of the missile in use.



> you are overestimating the MKI. I agree that JF-17 have inferior radar than MKI but it will carry SD-10 BVR AAM(Range: At least 70 Km) with KL-J7 Radar(The detection range for a typical air target of *RC 3 mÂ² is 125+ km*; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km). its enough to give a tough time


Yes, in its home environment, it will definitely give a very very tough time to the MKI. But on neutral territory, it will have an outside chance.


----------



## malik ateeq

Aslam O Alikum
hi friends, how are you.Dear coz stop your comminte on Jf 17 thunder jet fighter.
Dear if you want to knew Jf 17 who capble in againt indian su 29 and su 30 mk1.then Plz see that video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567240139778117126&pr=goog-sl


----------



## zer0

malik ateeq said:


> Aslam O Alikum
> hi friends, how are you.Dear coz stop your comminte on Jf 17 thunder jet fighter.
> Dear if you want to knew Jf 17 who capble in againt indian su 29 and su 30 mk1.then Plz see that video.



that is a sweeet animation ... if I was to confront two SU-30s I would launch at least 5 JF-17s just to stand a chance....
i'm not a huge fan of JF-17.. but I think its a decent step forward for PAF to develop its own fighters.


----------



## JK!

What you need to take out a MKI is an AWAC and a killer missile to assist the JF17.

AWACs are being dealt with so for a missile with decent BVR capability and the abilty to totally destroy a MKI would be the joint European missile Meteor featuring a ramjet giving it a speed of Mach 4+. 

I'd like to see a MKI or for that matter any aircraft deal with such a missile.

As for Pakistan getting such a missile is a different issue.


----------



## joey

Air Warfare is never 1 versus 1, it is just fanboy-ism to think jf17 can take on MKI or MKI can take on jf17 for that matter, hundreds of things determines air combat but ofcourse MKI was far advanced technologically to exploit the airspace better than jf17 which can only be concluded.


----------



## ali786

i agree the jf-17 is no match for the jf-17, the sukois that india have are described by western Analysts as one of the most technologically advanced fighter planes in the world today, its definitely at the top along with eurofighter


----------



## ali786

malik ateeq said:


> Aslam O Alikum
> hi friends, how are you.Dear coz stop your comminte on Jf 17 thunder jet fighter.
> Dear if you want to knew Jf 17 who capble in againt indian su 29 and su 30 mk1.then Plz see that video.
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567240139778117126&pr=goog-sl



hello brother. the facts speak for themself, im a pakistani id like to that the jf-17 is as good as the indian sukoi but its not, just look at its specs, 

and as for the video i just have to say this, anyone can make a video and make any plane he wants better then the opposiotion - what do i mean? well for example if i made an animation of f-22 raptor V mirage III and the mirage beat the f-22 raptor it dosent mean it will in real life. see what i mean?


----------



## Chukkar

There were 10 engagements between the MKI and RSAF F-16 Block 50/52 at KKD during the RSAF-IAF exercise. The MKIs won all 10 of them. The RSAF did somewhat ok against MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s and better against the Bisons, which didnt pose such an upset as they had, as against the USAF at Gwalior in Phase 1, Cope India.
The MKIs as far as the subcontinent is concerned, are peerless. Within another 8 years time, India will have a fleet of 230 MKIs, one of the largest heavy fighter concentrations in the world.


----------



## Titanium

Lets put into perspective this SICKO-30: 

What makes it so special? no doubt it is pleasing to look at, apart from that...
oh yes its the radar thingy...which will evaporate with new AESA Radars, 

TVC----oh ya good to look at aero shows but......then no one is dueling in gun fighting these days... its not karate kingfu days that agility and sharpness of brce lee is needed.

Whats next...it is not Sicko-30 but MKI is what makes special, what are the contribution of french, Israel, India IN MKI Thingy- Display, Navigation, Targeting and Electronic warfare systems. Is any of these path breaking in avaiation world? No, this is what every decent fighter has in western country......so whats the big deal.

Now how is Sicko-30 MKI better than anything.......ya it is 8000 km range...but why do you wanna go that long when any decent fighter can cover whole pakistan .......by the way most pak targets are on the border region leass than 1000 Km max.

The cope India was on BS excersise designed to rather rigged to put fear in the paks mind.

As far as air combat, now the only thing that matters is look first shoot first and disengage quickly. I have a feeling that small aircraft will have a edge in the future air combat with the advancement of AVIONICS and longer range BVR Missiles being order of the day.


----------



## melb4aust

Titanium said:


> As far as air combat, now the only thing that matters is look first shoot first and disengage quickly. I have a feeling that small aircraft will have a edge in the future air combat with the advancement of AVIONICS and longer range BVR Missiles being order of the day.



Ur forgetting Stealth....ability to perform reconnaissance.....speed...accuracy(far most important factor)........there is much more.....apart from the aircrafts actual performance....its maintenance etc....etc.
ECM/ECCM suites does comes into avionics though.


----------



## Titanium

Accepted Stealth is the mother of all tech...only Uncle has it for now.

Just a note: What if the stealth is nothing more than a propaganda? Who independantly has seen the F-22. All are just relying too much on the handouts of LM. 

Bythe way Sicko-30 is no stealthy ...it is a big bird seen from long distances with big signature.


----------



## melb4aust

Titanium said:


> Accepted Stealth is the mother of all tech...only Uncle has it for now.
> 
> Just a note: What if the stealth is nothing more than a propaganda? Who independantly has seen the F-22. All are just relying too much on the handouts of LM.
> 
> Bythe way Sicko-30 is no stealthy ...it is a big bird seen from long distances with big signature.



No matter what u say....still heck of a deadly fighter......every aircraft has drawbacks.....but to merely rule it out due to its size.... completely... it is totally unfair. It is still a potential threat to any airforce fighter jet in the world.

And i dont say...that no other fighter can actually compete this machine....nor i wanna argue over it....there has been a lot of discussion already happnened.


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> Accepted Stealth is the mother of all tech...only Uncle has it for now.
> 
> Just a note: What if the stealth is nothing more than a propaganda? Who independantly has seen the F-22. All are just relying too much on the handouts of LM.
> 
> Bythe way Sicko-30 is no stealthy ...it is a big bird seen from long distances with big signature.



Stealth is not propaganda. It is based upon sound scientific theory. Actually there are members of the forum (who shall remain nameless) who will get to see said aircraft in the flesh.


----------



## joey

Stealth is neither invisible either, What is stealth infrotn of Massive Passive sensor fusion or Bi-static radars?

Stealth should be aeronautically referred as LO, to bring out the same in all main 6 fronts and integrate them and run them as a system is a unique challenge in itself.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi, for some of you who don't belive in stealth--- When a person wants to select a 'steak', they take the butcher's word for it. They don't stick their head in the 'bulls' ar- --se to be sure.


----------



## Titanium

It is not stealth a technolgy I questioning, but rather the propganda of 144-0 kill and all BS, equivalant to Changis khan's force invincibility. Babers took stand ....... rest as they say is History. 
Just don't stomach all the crap of supiriority of F-22 or Sicko-30, evrything can be brought down, just think a little.


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> It is not stealth a technolgy I questioning, but rather the propganda of 144-0 kill and all BS, equivalant to Changis khan's force invincibility. Babers took stand ....... rest as they say is History.
> Just don't stomach all the crap of supiriority of F-22 or Sicko-30, evrything can be brought down, just think a little.



It's not bs.....actually recently in mock dogfights a F-22 was shot down by a f-16 so the figures are slightly different now. And comparing a modern fighter aircraft with the Berbers and the Mongols is spurious.
Everything can be brought down the numbers merely indicate how hard it would be.


----------



## Titanium

double post


----------



## Titanium

Again you missing the whole point, I drawn babers not for he slobber mongols, but he belived it can be done. The belief in oneself and to work towards the objective is what should really matter. 

If you have the same belief, then you see totally different picture your whole paradigm changes....one from shock and awe of its performance to hey that is big bird I can sneak and take it down.


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> Again you missing the whole point, I drawn babers not for he slobber mongols, but he belived it can be done. The belief in oneself and to work towards the objective is what should really matter. Bytheway,



I think you are missing the point. You seem to think that force of will and belief are enough to overcome technology. If that were true then I am sure top air forces would still be flying Bi-planes. Like it or not technology plays a huge part in todays world. Self belief will take you part of the way. Self belief and a F-22 will take you a lot further.


----------



## niaz

Titanium said:


> It is not stealth a technolgy I questioning, but rather the propganda of 144-0 kill and all BS, equivalant to Changis khan's force invincibility. Babers took stand ....... rest as they say is History.
> Just don't stomach all the crap of supiriority of F-22 or Sicko-30, evrything can be brought down, just think a little.




Sorry to set the record straight. Changez Khan died in 1226 AD. Battle of Ain Jalut between Sultan Baibers ( Mumluk) and the Mongols led by Kitbuqa in 1260. Thus it is incorrect to say that Changez army was defeated by Baibers. Mongol army were fighting more than 1000 miles from their power base in Iran, both armies were approx equal strength, Mamluke slaves were also of central Asian/ Turkic origin thus of similar race as Mongols. Where is the a-symmetry here??


----------



## Titanium

Niaz .nice to know you have better historical grasp, belive me we can learn a lot( even if we are talking of Fighter AC). The assemtry was that Heavy Memulks cavelry fought the mongol light cavalry close combat which no one prviosly attempted. 

Sicko-30 is as you know is very heavy fighter.... you can call it a war elphant... how do you fight it in close combat? Diffcult right.... but it was ddone before and it can be done again.

As master Sun Tzu has said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb
in every battle."


----------



## Adux

An Elephant did not have thrust vectoring, and HMS


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> Niaz .nice to know you have better historical grasp, belive me we can learn a lot( even if we are talking of Fighter AC). The assemtry was that Heavy Memulks cavelry fought the mongol light cavalry close combat which no one prviosly attempted.
> 
> Sicko-30 is as you know is very heavy fighter.... you can call it a war elphant... how do you fight it in close combat? Diffcult right.... but it was ddone before and it can be done again.
> 
> As master Sun Tzu has said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb
> in every battle."



Great maybe you can throw quotes at the enemy. I suggest rather than looking at Sun Tsu look at modern air combat and the deciding factors.


----------



## TexasJohn

Keysersoze said:


> Great maybe you can throw quotes at the enemy. I suggest rather than looking at Sun Tsu look at modern air combat and the deciding factors.



Key, I wonder if that was a "BVR quote"...


----------



## blain2

Adux said:


> An Elephant did not have thrust vectoring, and HMS



But it did have a keen sense of smell (EW), long trunk (BVR) and insane tusks (WVRAAM)  

I am sure those who had to face the Elephant on the battlefield felt the same as a pilot would if he had to face TV and HMS. It all depends on the situation and times you are in.


----------



## Keysersoze

Well I would suggest that chariots are fighters. Elephants were heavy armour. flaming pigs the AT rockets of their day


----------



## Neo

I'm lost here...are we still talking about combat aircraft and warfare?


----------



## Titanium

Certainly Neo we are still talking of combat aircraft and just want to get some perspective with historical background.

As we compared Sick0-30 with war Elephant, lets see some characterstics, it is big aircraft, has TVC hence you get mauled in close combat large payload and stamina 8000 Km.

How do you fight the elphant..... bring another elephant.....if you afford or have one. Can pakistan afford? How many aircraft are ther with comparable specs.....what are the prices for them.

Now Master Sun's doctrine comes into effect. Know yourself, know you enemy: Just visit history India always fielded war elephants...... how many invaders had War elehants? None!! Then how did they bring down the war elehants let lose on the enemy ranks?

Could anyone come with history?


----------



## Marathaman

Titanium said:


> Certainly Neo we are still talking of combat aircraft and just want to get some perspective with historical background.
> 
> As we compared Sick0-30 with war Elephant, lets see some characterstics, it is big aircraft, has TVC hence you get mauled in close combat large payload and stamina 8000 Km.
> 
> How do you fight the elphant..... bring another elephant.....if you afford or have one. Can pakistan afford? How many aircraft are ther with comparable specs.....what are the prices for them.
> 
> Now Master Sun's doctrine comes into effect. Know yourself, know you enemy: Just visit history India always fielded war elephants...... how many invaders had War elehants? None!! Then how did they bring down the war elehants let lose on the enemy ranks?
> 
> Could anyone come with history?



Whatever makes you guys feel better about the Sukhois....if its history...then so be it!!


----------



## Bull

blain2 said:


> But it did have a keen sense of smell (EW), long trunk (BVR) and insane tusks (WVRAAM)



Lovely line.


----------



## blain2

Marathaman said:


> Whatever makes you guys feel better about the Sukhois....if its history...then so be it!!



Not a matter of feeling good about anything here. Su-30MKIs are good platforms however they are not the end of it all. Pakistan is in the process of getting very decent capabilities which can hold their own.


----------



## Marathaman

blain2 said:


> Not a matter of feeling good about anything here. Su-30MKIs are good platforms however they are not the end of it all. Pakistan is in the process of getting very decent capabilities which can hold their own.



Well yeah...it would be silly to assume that Pakistan would sit and watch the Su's fly by wouldn't it?
I don't really know much bout planes....but the Sukhois do look damn sexy!


----------



## blain2

Marathaman said:


> but the Sukhois do look damn sexy!



Appreciating a thing of beauty is not a bad thing... 

I still like the Mirage III for that matter..


----------



## melb4aust

blain2 said:


> Appreciating a thing of beauty is not a bad thing...
> 
> I still like the Mirage III for that matter..



What about F-16A....i love the shape and look

Later models like F-16C/D or even block-60 lacks such beauty


----------



## blain2

melb4aust said:


> What about F-16A....i love the shape and look
> 
> Later models like F-16C/D or even block-60 lacks such beauty



I like F-16B a lot.

Blk52s look sick! Check this out:

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item21958.html


----------



## con

blain2 said:


> I like F-16B a lot.
> 
> Blk52s look sick! Check this out:
> 
> http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item21958.html



Isn't that F-16I? with Conformal tanks?
Does any other AF operates F-16 with conformal tanks?


----------



## Adux

UAE, Singapore, Israel, US etc does use'em.

F-16I is a modified F-16 Block 52+


----------



## blain2

con said:


> Isn't that F-16I? with Conformal tanks?
> Does any other AF operates F-16 with conformal tanks?



That is a Hellenic AF block 52. UAEAF, RSAF, IDFAF all fly F-16s with CFTs as will PAF. USAF does not. There is such a significant IFR capability available to the USAF F-16 fleet that its considered an expensive upgrade especially when F-35s are on the horizon.


----------



## blain2

Adux said:


> UAE, Singapore, Israel, US etc does use'em.
> 
> F-16I is a modified F-16 Block 52+



F-16I is not a modified blk 52, its simply a customized blk 52. Its actually a version of the blk52 with Israel's own systems integration and weapons mating. The radar is the same as the one on every other blk52+. They use different ECM suit and other indiginous capabilities.

The only massively modified blk 52 is the blk 60 (many say its a whole new aircraft).


----------



## Chukkar

Titanium said:


> Accepted Stealth is the mother of all tech...only Uncle has it for now.
> 
> Just a note: What if the stealth is nothing more than a propaganda? Who independantly has seen the F-22. All are just relying too much on the handouts of LM.
> 
> Bythe way Sicko-30 is no stealthy ..*.it is a big bird seen from long distances with big signature.*



Thats only if the Sukhois (name calling an aircraft is rather silly, dont you think- its not like it makes the aircraft bad or good?) have not undergone signature reduction measures. Take a look at the ITAE conference papers at which the Russian unit describes what its achieved for the Flanker family. Pretty interesting stuff since it lowers the RCS especially, the frontal RCS of the Flankers, substantially.


----------



## Titanium

Chukker,

Are we talking of the current inventory or the future to be designed aircraft? The current Sukhois of whatever nomenclature have 10 square meter RCS and the russians claim of reducing it to 1 square meter is to be seen to belive. 
Till then my above opinion holds true...............what do you say?


----------



## blain2

Chukkar said:


> Thats only if the Sukhois (name calling an aircraft is rather silly, dont you think- its not like it makes the aircraft bad or good?) have not undergone signature reduction measures. Take a look at the ITAE conference papers at which the Russian unit describes what its achieved for the Flanker family. Pretty interesting stuff since it lowers the RCS especially, the frontal RCS of the Flankers, substantially.



The only problem with such papers is that they are written and compiled by Russians with a vested interest in showing their own products as superior. The same cannot be said of the western hardware (especially US) as it is in use by various countries who may not be averse to calling a spade a spade if they find issues and flaws.


----------



## su-47

MKI vs JF-17 is an unfair comparison as they are both of a different class and generation.

JF-17 is a 4th gen plane whereas an MKI is a 4.5 gen air superiority aircraft thats rated amongst the best in the world. As such it'll be better to compare JF-17 with J-10s and LCAs


----------



## Chukkar

blain2 said:


> The only problem with such papers is that they are written and compiled by Russians with a vested interest in showing their own products as superior. The same cannot be said of the western hardware (especially US) as it is in use by various countries who may not be averse to calling a spade a spade if they find issues and flaws.



I think this is a very subjective view, which ignores the fact that Russian products are in service with many countries around the world, who routinely call a spade a spade, and hold the Russians responsible when the latter s*crew up.
That apart, the first line doesnt really make much sense- scientific papers presented at academic conferences and seminars are invariably of a certain quality, and the ITAE presentation was comprehensive. The work was seen and commented upon by multiple industry sources. And Russias strengths in experimental physics, radar calculations are world reknowned. The infrastructure and work began long back, but the breakup of the Soviet Union caused huge problems and hence a hiatus. The fact is that while Russia is lagging in certain areas, it can and does produce items which are very competitive against other systems produced elsewhere.


----------



## Chukkar

Titanium said:


> Chukker,
> 
> Are we talking of the current inventory or the future to be designed aircraft? The current Sukhois of whatever nomenclature have 10 square meter RCS and the russians claim of reducing it to 1 square meter is to be seen to belive.
> Till then my above opinion holds true...............what do you say?



Current inventory. The Russians reduced the RCS of a MiG-29 from the 5Sq Mtr range and upwards to 1 many years back. Its now in production for serial MiG-29s, including MiG-29Ks for the Indian Navy. The Sukhoi has a RCS of anywhere between 12 -16 Mtr square depending upon the source. The Russian ITAE treatments bring it to the 3 Sq Mtr class, a fairly significant achievement. According to reports, some 100 VVS Flankers are being modified per year. And there are other reports that these RCS reduction techniques were exported to India for the Bison and Su-30 MKI programs as well. If the former is true, it would partly explain why even the AWACS during Cope II at KalaiKunda AFB had a hard time tracking the Bisons. 

This is from 4 years back.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/081103top.xml

The Su-35 of course, involves extensive LO modifications.

I quote some excerpts from a Janes article on the issue.



> A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200ºC. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets.





> The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22 m3 vacuum chamber.







> ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.





> ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards and treating or shrouding other components. One of these is to design a radome that can be switched from RF-transparent to RF-reflective. The interior of the radome would be coated with a cadmium sulphide or cadmium selenide thin-film semiconductor material which changes conductivity when illuminated with visible or ultra-violet light.







> A second technique that is also described in Western literature is to place a frequency selective surface screen in front of the antenna. This is a foil-like metal screen etched with small apertures which allow RF energy to pass within a narrow waveband, corresponding to the radar's own operating frequency. This reduces RCS, according to ITAE, but at the expense of radar performance.



Its interesting to note that India itself has either already developed/or is developing several of these technologies- RAM, treated cockpit canopies and Radio selective radomes. What this means is that it could go be going it alone to reduce the RCS or that if it takes technology from the Russians, it could absorb it fairly quickly and apply it to its fleet.

To sum it up- I wouldnt think that the Indians would ignore the Sukhoi signature issue. Everything I have read so far indicates that they have done all they could to maximize the strengths of the Sukhoi airframe and minimize its weaknesses.


----------



## Titanium

Chukkar said:


> And there are other reports that these RCS reduction techniques were exported to India for the Bison and Su-30 MKI programs as well. If the former is true, it would partly explain why even the AWACS during Cope II at KalaiKunda AFB had a hard time tracking the Bisons.



Would you care to point out the reports to that effect, which imply RCS reduction is done way back 4 years!!!

The russians are not providing SU-30 agreed upon and they are providing RCS reduction technique... which by all accounts recent development!!!!





> Its interesting to note that India itself has either already developed/or is developing several of these technologies- RAM, treated cockpit canopies and Radio selective radomes.


Please either you say India has developed or developing.......if you do not know DON'T BS here . 



> What this means is that it could go be going it alone to reduce the RCS or that if it takes technology from the Russians, it could absorb it fairly quickly and apply it to its fleet.
> 
> To sum it up- I wouldnt think that the Indians would ignore the Sukhoi signature issue. Everything I have read so far indicates that they have done all they could to maximize the strengths of the Sukhoi airframe and minimize its weaknesses.



See you first started with Russian exported the technique now India going it alone!!! What kind of credibility you and your DODO spreading for the last 30 years. 

P.S: Next time if you do have to say anything technical please think over before posting.


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium I suggest you deal with facts alone and do not take the sneering undertone with your posts. It does not help your argument. Allow your facts to stand or fall on their own


----------



## Titanium

kEYSERSOZE,

I do understand you are mod here, I would be more than willing to rectify anything which you deemed " sneering undertones " but care to point out. I have seen ugly slug feast here, which gone unnoticed.


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> kEYSERSOZE,
> 
> I do understand you are mod here, I would be more than willing to rectify anything which you deemed " sneering undertones " but care to point out. I have seen ugly slug feast here, which gone unnoticed.



Titanium It is the curse of South Asia that a simple technical discussion cannot remain civil.......

I suggest you look to senior posters from both sides as to how to post. Blain,Malay,Joey (to name a few)for example have the ability to argue their corner well without the usual silliness that can affect other south Asian fora. 

This is merely a matter of presentation. Simply present your argument in a different manner.


----------



## Titanium

What exactly did I mentioned in my previos post, I asked him to backup his claim of RCS reduction measures supposed to have been in india for 4 years...........is it bad?

I asked him either he know whether India developed or developing ..no inbetween ...that is if he know...............is it tooo much to ask ?

Russia is supplying the RCS reduction technique.........when 4 years back or in the future.... can i know that from the Mr.Realiable source?

Do you see sillyness in this?????
My sillyness wouldl be to learn from your so called seniors like Joey, Adux and party


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> What exactly did I mentioned in my previos post, I asked him to backup his claim of RCS reduction measures supposed to have been in india for 4 years...........is it bad?
> 
> I asked him either he know whether India developed or developing ..no inbetween ...that is if he know...............is it tooo much to ask ?
> 
> Russia is supplying the RCS reduction technique.........when 4 years back or in the future.... can i know that from the Mr.Realiable source?
> 
> Do you see sillyness in this?????
> My sillyness wouldl be to learn from your so called seniors like Joey, Adux and party



Titanium i have said my part in this and will stand by it...If you choose not to take it on board then it will be to your own detriment.


----------



## Adux

Ram coating has been done in India for the past one decade.


----------



## Titanium

Adux said:


> Ram coating has been done in India for the past one decade.



Great !!!! If that reduces the flankers RCS to 1 square meter congrats on the job well done.


----------



## Adux

I have heard they reduced MKI to 3 m2. while they made it better on jaguars and other mirage's.


----------



## Chukkar

Your disgusting behaviour stands testament to the futility of discussing things with you. Suffice to say this will be my last post to you, since you are more interested in asinine name calling versus information exchange.

I request the *admins* to deal with this individual before he drags down the forum to his rather pathetic standards.

And here I thought this was one forum, where one could post on India or Pakistan without either side indulging in stupid name calling.



Titanium said:


> Would you care to point out the reports to that effect, which imply RCS reduction is done way back 4 years!!!



Look up reports in Janes defence weekly under the byline of Robert Hewson and ITAE.



> The russians are not providing SU-30 agreed upon and they are providing RCS reduction technique... which by all accounts recent development!!!!



Recent development? Please. The report I posted is from 4 years back and at the time itself, over 100 Flankers had been modified with LO treatment. 




> Please either you say India has developed or developing.......if you do not know DON'T BS here .



I think it should be clear to everyone here who is BS'ing. In thread after thread and with constant abuse. Grow up and learn to talk in a civilized manner like an adult.

The terms I used mean exactly what they said. That India has developed certain items (RAM, and canopy treatment) already while it is researching others (frequency selective radomes). Anyone with access to IEEE or industry standard seminar workshops can confirm the above, as I have.




> See you first started with Russian exported the technique now India going it alone!!! What kind of credibility you and your DODO spreading for the last 30 years.



Your name calling reflects on both your upbringing and lack of maturity. I dont have anything further to say to you.

It should be clear to ANYONE that ANY country will constantly evaluate what it makes vs what is available to it from international collaboration. Just because India has developed these items does not mean that it will ignore Russian RCS reduction methods which could bring in new alternatives that they may not have considered. Or that the Russians had already done the job and the Indians would seek their input before proceeding on their own, saving time, effort and money.




> P.S: Next time if you do have to say anything technical please think over before posting.



Quite rich coming from you. I do think that you dont even deserve to be debated with.


----------



## Chukkar

Adux said:


> I have heard they reduced MKI to 3 m2. while they made it better on jaguars and other mirage's.



This is from 2004 itself.



> Sukhoi Flanker aircraft benefit from low-observable modifications
> 
> More than 100 aircraft in the Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker family have been equipped with a set of low-observable (LO) modifications that reduce head-on radar detection range by 50 per cent, according to Dr Vladimir Kisel of the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.
> 
> Speaking at the IQPC Defence conference on Stealth in 2004, Dr Kisel said that he was unable to say which air forces had received the LO modifications, which were carried out over the past 10 years. However, the Sukhoi has generated most of its revenues in that time through sales of the Su-27 series to India and China, raising the possibility that some of the Indian Air Force aircraft that performed unexpectedly well against US Air Force F-15Cs in last year's Cope India exercise may have been LO-modified.
> 
> The suite of LO modifications includes radar absorbent material (RAM) sprayed on to the inlet duct walls; RAM applied to the compressor face of the AL-31 engine; and the installation of a frequency-selective-surface (FSS) screen inside the radome, in front of the radar dish. (Similar modifications have been applied to the F-16 under the Have Glass and Have Glass II programmes.)
> 
> ITAE and Sukhoi make extensive use of real-world hardware in LO testing. Dr Kisel's presentation showed outdoor radar cross-section (RCS) ranges using a modified aircraft (not an RCS model) and a line-up of operational air-defence radars rather than a specialised instrumentation radar. Signatures from the inlet ducts were measured with the engine running, to model the effects of rotating engine stages.



That the MKIs in particular have received LO modifications has been stated by an European defence analyst writing for the Journal of Electronic Defense in 2005.


----------



## joey

heh India has FULL FLEDGED RCS Reduction/Measurement courtesy NAL besides IIT-Roorkee has developed a special type of RAM material and Some other institution is doing the same and as chukkar has pointed out Frequency Selected Radome etc.

MKI's RCS is definitely not 1^m but a weaponised EF/Rafales RCS is not less than 1^m as well, now do some quick RCS - Range equation the fourth square law to find the gain in range advantage for the amount of reduction in RCS, you will see a 3^m~5^m and a 1^m++ RCS objects dont offer too much Range differences in their detection spectras.


----------



## Titanium

Chukkar said:


> This is from 2004 itself.
> 
> 
> 
> That the MKIs in particular have received LO modifications has been stated by an European defence analyst writing for the Journal of Electronic Defense in 2005.



Dio you know what is the RCS of flankers? and reducing it by 50% makes how much RCS?

Do you also give some credibility to word "may be".


----------



## Keysersoze

Titanium said:


> Dio you know what is the RCS of flankers? and reducing it by 50% makes how much RCS?
> 
> Do you also give some credibility to word "may be".



Well in answer to your question it is roughly 10 sq metres apparently the RCS reduction features have reduced it to approx 3 sq metres.


----------



## Chukkar

Titanium said:


> Dio you know what is the RCS of flankers? and reducing it by 50% makes how much RCS?
> 
> Do you also give some credibility to word "may be".



You should learn to read the source carefully before coming up with questions which make no sense! The article states that the range of detection was reduced by 50%- use the 4th square law and calculate, by what ratio the RCS would have to be reduced by. Its far more than 50%! And the Russians state this for the frontal aspect.


----------



## mxiong

In post-2010 PLAAF, J-10A/B will be used as air superiority fighter, whereas J-11B/Su-30MKs will be multirole fighters mainly for ground attack, now you tell me J-10 is a low-end companion for Su-30MKs? Give me a break!

J-10>>>>>Su-30MKI, and JF-17>=Su-30MKI, regarding air superiority.


----------



## su-47

mxiong said:


> In post-2010 PLAAF, J-10A/B will be used as air superiority fighter, whereas J-11B/Su-30MKs will be multirole fighters mainly for ground attack, now you tell me J-10 is a low-end companion for Su-30MKs? Give me a break!
> 
> J-10>>>>>Su-30MKI, and JF-17>=Su-30MKI, regarding air superiority.



Please be serious man! The Su-30 series is considered to be among the best in the world, whereas the J-10 is considered a capable fighter in the league of an f-16. The MKI is the best of the Su-30 series so to compare MKI vs J-10 is not even doing it justice.


----------



## mxiong

su-47 said:


> Please be serious man! The Su-30 series is considered to be among the best in the world, whereas the J-10 is considered a capable fighter in the league of an f-16. The MKI is the best of the Su-30 series so to compare MKI vs J-10 is not even doing it justice.


God, tell me how blind people could be to see the truth and how reluctant they could be to accept it...


----------



## su-47

mxiong said:


> In post-2010 PLAAF, J-10A/B will be used as air superiority fighter, whereas J-11B/Su-30MKs will be multirole fighters mainly for ground attack, now you tell me J-10 is a low-end companion for Su-30MKs? Give me a break!
> 
> J-10>>>>>Su-30MKI, and JF-17>=Su-30MKI, regarding air superiority.




Just because PLAAF is using J-10 as air superiority fighter and Flankers as multi-role doesnt mean flankers are weaker than J-10 in air-to-air combat. In that case F-15C should be superior to F-22in aerial engagements, since USAF uses F-15C for Air-to-air only and use F-22as multirole aircraft.

Even the USAF accepts the Chinese Flankers as a threat whereas they dont accept the J-10 as such a threat. the only reason they are wary of the J-10 is coz it can be mass produced.

If u think u know better than the USAF generals, then obviously nothing i say will convince u, so i'm not gonna bother.


----------



## Titanium

su-47 said:


> Please be serious man! The Su-30 series is considered to be among the best in the world, .



According to who? Could you please care to tell!!! The Su-30 when evaluated by indians airforce had so much good to say, do you know what? In one word crap. Why the IAF persued? the option were limited, so they chose to provide them with shiney avionics. But you know how pain in the AS** it is to maintain?


----------



## EagleEyes

The Wisdom Tree,

Please dont post your "crap" here. If you were a little more experienced you would have realized that those comments are made by Indian trolls, much similar to what is being done in Youtube. The only people visit Strategy Page are trolls.

If you want to get happy, keep reading, but DONT post it here.

Thanks.


----------



## Contrarian

Su 47. You should be able to understand that there is no point in talking about this. You dont need to defend this. This guy titanium is an utter troll who does not grasp the first thing about the Su-30 which he likes to call " Sicko-30". This should show you the level of his maturity and age. 

You ought not to waste time with him at all regardless of what he says. You know what is right. This Mixiong guy appears to be cut of the same cloth as titanium, When he wrote his comparisons of the planes in question, at that moment it should have struck you how intelligent he is.

Regards


----------



## Keysersoze

Well it seems that you have forgotten that true wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing........I don't think you have realised that yet....


----------



## mxiong

Bump...

Anyone still believing Su-30MKI is better than J-10 regarding air superiority?


----------



## ali786

mxiong said:


> Bump...
> 
> Anyone still believing Su-30MKI is better than J-10 regarding air superiority?



i do, china still has to develope there avionics more to be at the standerds of the west and russia, and of course this is expected since they have less experiance, but they will make it in the end.

Ive seen photos of next gen chinese cockpit desighns/software and it looks comparable to the cockpit in the JSF. So they are getting there, but currently no the j-10 isnt as good or better then the sukhoi 30 mki, but it can be compared to the f-16.

im sure future upgrades of the j-10 will be as good or better then the sukhoi planes


----------



## mxiong

Avionics at the standards of Russia? LOL

Thanks for the flag though.


----------



## EagleEyes

mxiong said:


> Avionics at the standards of Russia? LOL
> 
> Thanks for the flag though.



I think Russia will soon claim its edge when it flies the T-50 prototype.


----------



## mxiong

WebMaster said:


> I think Russia will soon claim its edge when it flies the T-50 prototype.


I don't think so. Russia doesn't have a competitive semiconductor industry compared to China whose electronic R&D and manufacturing capability are growing rapidly thanks to the booming economy and foreign investment.


----------



## ali786

WebMaster said:


> I think Russia will soon claim its edge when it flies the T-50 prototype.



all im saying is that the russians do have quite good avionics, do you guys remember when the indian airforces SU 30s were up against USAF F-15s, the Su 30 won (not my a large margin) but they won, so there avionics must be as capable as the avionics produced by america, for theyre f-15


----------



## EagleEyes

ali786 said:


> all im saying is that the russians do have quite good avionics, do you guys remember when the indian airforces SU 30s were up against USAF F-15s, the Su 30 won (not my a large margin) but they won, so there avionics must be as capable as the avionics produced by america, for theyre f-15



Dude, India uses Isreali avionics not Russian.


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> Dude, India uses Isreali avionics not Russian.



Avionics proporation of Indian Su-30MKI comprises of Indian, Isreali, French as well as Russian avionics.


----------



## su-47

WebMaster said:


> I think Russia will soon claim its edge when it flies the T-50 prototype.



doubt it. the T-50 might be superiro to the f-35, but i really doubt it can measure up to the raptor. Unless the russians perfect plasma stealth, it wont be possible. 

even stealth aside, raptor is the deadliest aircraft in the world. its avionics, armaments, man-machine interface etc are the best the United Stated can afford. They have pumped in tens of billions of dollars over several years into the raptor. the T-50 meanwhile, is less well fundd and developed over a lesser period of time. its unlikely that it would be as good as the raptor


----------



## MOSABJA

The real thread was about the comparison of JF 17 thunder and SU 30 Mki.

I dont think that Thunder can come any way near to Flanker in terms of capability.Su30 Mki should be compared with J 10.We should see whether J10 matches with Su 30 mki or not.It stands a chance but for thunder Su 30 Mki is surely better


----------



## su-47

MOSABJA said:


> The real thread was about the comparison of JF 17 thunder and SU 30 Mki.
> 
> I dont think that Thunder can come any way near to Flanker in terms of capability.Su30 Mki should be compared with J 10.We should see whether J10 matches with Su 30 mki or not.It stands a chance but for thunder Su 30 Mki is surely better



Personally i dont think J-10 will match up to MKI. I think J-10s more around the league of a Mig-29. I think the only aircrafts in asia that match up to the MKI are the israeli F-15I Ra'am.


----------



## EagleEyes

KENT said:


> Avionics proporation of Indian Su-30MKI comprises of Indian, Isreali, French as well as Russian avionics.



What components are they? Other than avionics design structure i haven't heard anything that is Russian. Buttons may be?


----------



## MOSABJA

su-47 said:


> Personally i dont think J-10 will match up to MKI. I think J-10s more around the league of a Mig-29. I think the only aircrafts in asia that match up to the MKI are the israeli F-15I Ra'am.




Well i dont think that J10 with Aesa Tvc would be any way lesser than SU 30 Mki.The problem with J10 is that its performance is not yet fully known so we cant say that it is BETTER or NOT.

But an upgraded J10 will surely take out Sukhois.


----------



## EagleEyes

su-47 said:


> Personally i dont think J-10 will match up to MKI. I think J-10s more around the league of a Mig-29. I think the only aircrafts in asia that match up to the MKI are the israeli F-15I Ra'am.



Thats just your opinion, but the fact is that JF-17, F-16 or any BVR capable fighter can take on MKI. MKI just has the radar show off, and that too is negated by the big RCS of the plane.


----------



## ali786

WebMaster said:


> Dude, India uses Isreali avionics not Russian.



my bad


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> What components are they? Other than avionics design structure i haven't heard anything that is Russian. Buttons may be?




*Avionics:*

A new FBW system that made the best use of the canards and thrust vectoring

The main sensor on the Su 30 MKI is the N011M Phased Array radar. It is a multi-mode dual frequency (X- and L-band channels, NATO I and D band) radar. 


OLS-27 laser-optical locator system devloped by UMOZ company of russia to include a day and night FLIR capability and is used in conjunction with the helmet mounted sighting system. The OLS-27 (Izdeliye 36Sh) is a combined IRST/LR device using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor.


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> Thats just your opinion, but the fact is that JF-17, F-16 or any BVR capable fighter can take on MKI.



Definetly JF-17 and F-16 are BVR capable, but excuse care to point out the range and radar capability of these fighter versus MKI. I hope once you realise it then you would not make any of such statements




WebMaster said:


> MKI just has the radar show off,



May be! but it can track its target much before its opponents even know about MKI exitance in their immediate periphery. On the top of that it can aim 8 target simultenously. Range of this radar is kind of thatm MKI can even act as Mini-awacs




WebMaster said:


> and that too is negated by the big RCS of the plane.



MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.


----------



## EagleEyes

Source please.


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> Source please.



A multi-national avionics complex sourced from Russia, France, Israel and India which includes Display, Navigation, Targeting and Electronic warfare systems. (Wikipedia)

A new FBW system that made the best use of the canards and thrust vectoring*(wikipedia, vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html )*

Avionics: The main sensor on the Su 30 MKI is the N011M Phased Array radar. It is a multi-mode dual frequency (X- and L-band channels, NATO I and D band) radar. *(Sukhoi Su-30 MKI, wikipedia)*
OLS-27 laser-optical locator system devloped by UMOZ company of russia to include a day and night FLIR capability and is used in conjunction with the helmet mounted sighting system. The OLS-27 (Izdeliye 36Sh) is a combined IRST/LR device using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor. 

*(wikipedia, OLS-27/29 (Russian Federation) - Jane's Avionics)*


----------



## Owais

KENT said:


> Definetly JF-17 and F-16 are BVR capable, but excuse care to point out the range and radar capability of these fighter versus MKI. I hope once you realise it then you would not make any of such statements


F-16 Block 52 can detect the target having RCS of 3m2 from 130+ km and it have RCS of 1.2m2. Mki have RCS of 10.2m2 so F-16 is not inferior to Mki in any sence! as far as JF-17 is concern, it can also neutralize mki's radar advantage if its backed by AWAC.


> MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.



yes provide us source please in which it is said that composites have reduced its RCS from 10.2m2 to 3m2


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Owais said:


> F-16 Block 52 can detect the target having RCS of 3m2 from 130+ km and it have RCS of 1.2m2. Mki have RCS of 10.2m2 so F-16 is not inferior to Mki in any sence! as far as JF-17 is concern, it can also neutralize mki's radar advantage if its backed by AWAC.
> 
> 
> yes provide us source please in which it is said that composites have reduced its RCS from 10.2m2 to 3m2


*
Very nice Post!*

Correct on the dot!... MKI RCS is more than any Jet Fighter of F-16 class and cannot be reduced beyond certain range. No way to 3m2. 

*Maybe India has been given a stealth MKI.... *


----------



## MOSABJA

The biggest advantage of Su Mki is its LONG RANGE RADAR and BVRs.

It can only be taken by a 4.5 th generation air craft.WHICH PAKISTAN DOES NOT HAVE NOW.

F 16 E only falls in 4.5 category .We are purchasing D and F which are 4 th and cant compete with Su MKi .JF 17 is also 4 Gen it too cant compete.

so in 4.5 category we can only get J 10s.Rafales,Typhoons,F 16 Es,F22s are NOT AVAILABLE TO PAKISTAN.Only J10(advanced ) will be able to take out Su Mkis.JF 17 THUNDER NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

MOSABJA said:


> The biggest advantage of Su Mki is its LONG RANGE RADAR and BVRs.
> 
> It can only be taken by a 4.5 th generation air craft.WHICH PAKISTAN DOES NOT HAVE NOW.
> 
> F 16 E only falls in 4.5 category .We are purchasing D and F which are 4 th and cant compete with Su MKi .JF 17 is also 4 Gen it too cant compete.
> 
> so in 4.5 category we can only get J 10s.Rafales,Typhoons,F 16 Es,F22s are NOT AVAILABLE TO PAKISTAN.Only J10(advanced ) will be able to take out Su Mkis.JF 17 THUNDER NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED.



Kindly review all the data before sounding so depressed!....

MKI has only 1 advantage on F-16 and JF-17 and that is its Radar. 

F-16 can engage with MKI with its radar and AIM-120 since the RCS (radar cross sectional Area) of MKI is nearly 10 sq.m and the range of AIM-120 is 120+ Km with the detection range of F-16 radar upto nearly 140 Km for a Jet of MKI size. You do understand that the RCS (radar cross sectional Area) changes the range of detection...

*Hence an F-16 block 50 with AIM-120 or a JF-17 with MICA and support from AEW&C will give a evens match to MKI.*


----------



## KENT

Owais said:


> F-16 Block 52 can detect the target having RCS of 3m2 from 130+ km and it have RCS of 1.2m2.




MKI's N011m HAS A 350 KM seach range and maximum 200km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. A mig-21 can be detected at the distance of up to 135 km. And designed maxium search range for an f-16 was 140-160km.


This means that Mki will track f-16 much before owing to radar range.

Even if F-16 manage to track mki much before then which kind of missile it will going to engage MKI. Since maxium range of Aim BVR missiles is less then 100 km, whereas MKI's R-27 TE1's maxium range is 130km.

May be you can provide details about F-16 block 52 radar and range of missile of PAF to correct me if I am wrong.




Owais said:


> Mki have RCS of 10.2m2 so F-16 is not inferior to Mki in any sence!



I didn't tried to prove inferiority of F-16 versus MKI as Radar and BVR missiles of both these birds makes maximum difference.



Owais said:


> as far as JF-17 is concern, it can also neutralize mki's radar advantage if its backed by AWAC.



JF-17 will not only have to neutralise MKI's radar but also BVR, ECM suits as well. I don't even taking into account Phalcon awacs as well.



Owais said:


> yes provide us source please in which it is said that composites have reduced its RCS from 10.2m2 to 3m2



Just read my post correctly, I never bring factor of RCS from 10.2m2 to 3m2, I just advocate a marginal reduction in RCS of MKI on account of Composites as well as justied huge RCS is not an issue as long as Bar radar is concerned.


----------



## KENT

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> *
> Very nice Post!*
> 
> Correct on the dot!... MKI RCS is more than any Jet Fighter of F-16 class and cannot be reduced beyond certain range. No way to 3m2.



Right now F-16block 52 has only a single advantage in terms of RCS as far as MKI is concerned.



Proud to be Pakistani said:


> *Maybe India has been given a stealth MKI.... *



Pls read my post correctly.


----------



## KENT

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Kindly review all the data before sounding so depressed!....
> 
> MKI has only 1 advantage on F-16 and JF-17 and that is its Radar.
> 
> F-16 can engage with MKI with its radar and AIM-120 since the RCS (radar cross sectional Area) of MKI is nearly 10 sq.m and the range of AIM-120 is 120+ Km with the detection range of F-16 radar upto nearly 140 Km for a Jet of MKI size. You do understand that the RCS (radar cross sectional Area) changes the range of detection...
> 
> *Hence an F-16 block 50 with AIM-120 or a JF-17 with MICA and support from AEW&C will give a evens match to MKI.*




Pls also tell about BVR advantage of Su-30MKI vs F-16 52


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.



Maximum Extent as in maximum allowed-- 100%???? Could you quantify what is maximum extent, ala 45% by weight and 90% surface area bioler plate..


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

KENT said:


> Pls also tell about BVR advantage of Su-30MKI vs F-16 52



Kent,

*F-16 can engage MKI and that is it.*

*Who will suceed ...*

*Only an engagement will tell since it has never been seen!*


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> Maximum Extent as in maximum allowed-- 100%???? Could you quantify what is maximum extent, ala 45% by weight and 90% surface area bioler plate..



Even in the past, I had tried to locate this figures in terms of percentage of composites, but could not succed in finding it. According basic technical information that is being provided regarding Su-30MKI on the Web, it only imply that use composite is being made, since whatever Indian originated inputs that is being configured in MKI, one among these inputs is Composites.


----------



## KENT

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Kent,
> 
> *F-16 can engage MKI and that is it.*



Offcourse it can engage, I am not denying it, but F-16 will get outperform on several aspects apart from RCS due to superior Radar, BVR, as well as ECM suite.




Proud to be Pakistani said:


> *Who will suceed ...*



Su-30MKI



Proud to be Pakistani said:


> *Only an engagement will tell since it has never been seen!*




Offcourse, it has never been seen, but legacy of cutting edge technology speaks for itself, even F-22 has never seen combact but no one in the world has dare to send their fighter plane in head on in front of it, since the technology which is being used in F-22 is ultra-modern and it has no parallel.

Same with SU-30MKI.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

KENT said:


> Offcourse it can engage, I am not denying it, but F-16 will get outperform on several aspects apart from RCS due to superior Radar, BVR, as well as ECM suite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30MKI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offcourse, it has never been seen, but legacy of cutting edge technology speaks for itself, even F-22 has never seen combact but no one in the world has dare to send their fighter plane in head on in front of it, since the technology which is being used in F-22 is ultra-modern and it has no parallel.
> 
> Same with SU-30MKI.



.... 
*
Dream On ..*


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Even in the past, I had tried to locate this figures in terms of percentage of composites, but could not succed in finding it. According basic technical information that is being provided regarding Su-30MKI on the Web,* it only imply *that use composite is being made, since whatever Indian originated inputs that is being configured in MKI, one among these inputs is Composites.



Never heard of Indian input in airframe........that tooo composite. Care to provide where exactly composite is being used?? 

I don't think composite conversion is like just replace a metal panel with Composite.


----------



## KENT

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> ....
> *
> Dream On ..*



It is not dream, rather it is a reality that you want to unacknowledge.


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> Never heard of Indian input in airframe



Ever heard of simple source of knowing the information from Wikipedia, there is long list of Indian Avionics configured in MKI.



Titanium said:


> ........that tooo composite.



Yes, since that was provided in most of Technical sources of MKI



Titanium said:


> Care to provide where exactly composite is being used??



See, I had specifically mentioned that the area of composite is still unknown to me, I will definetly return with some creadiable information about use of composite in MKI and yeah regarding their location as well.



Titanium said:


> I don't think composite conversion is like just replace a metal panel with Composite.



May be! but that is what implied in most of the sources regarding MKI.


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Ever heard of simple source of knowing the information from Wikipedia, there is long list of* Indian Avionics *configured in MKI.




Hope, you can distinguish between Airframe and Avionics.....when talking in context of Composites.



> Yes, since that was provided in most of Technical sources of MKI



Provide the sources here........is it too much???



> See, I had specifically mentioned that the area of composite is still unknown to me, I will definetly return with some creadiable information about use of composite in MKI and yeah regarding their location as well.




There is age old adge,... when you don't know anything .....better keep shut.



> May be! but that is what implied in most of the sources regarding MKI



Then, it must be "Indi-Genous"


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> Hope, you can distinguish between Airframe and Avionics.....when talking in context of Composites.



Yes I can distinguished, but my response was also parallel to your skepticem about Indian parts in MKI.




Titanium said:


> Provide the sources here........is it too much???



Have you heard anything about wikipedia?




Titanium said:


> There is age old adge,... when you don't know anything .....better keep shut.



hey mate, can't you read in english as what I had said earlier to give me some time to locate it to satisfy your instinct. 

According to website of Vayu-Sena Tripod somewhere around 6% of composite have been used in MKI as well as all other sources that I had muster about its parts are likely to be Canard and Fin stablizers.




Titanium said:


> Then, it must be "Indi-Genous"



Yes it has, it is IAF's own website Vayu sena tripod.


----------



## circuitbaba

Some body mentioned the range of F-16
and how its gonna hit..Flanker even if it hits
Block 52 will carry AIm-120C5 for PAF
60 nm...convert it to km its 111.8 km
Flankers primary BVR is

R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100km ....(Check ur site Bharat Rakshak)
oR
R-27RE1/TE1 with a range of 70 km....(Check ur site Bharat Rakshak)

APG-68 (V9) radar picks up a 3m square target at 120km ....while Su-30 has a a RCS of 5m square....No.BARS radar abroad...ur Flanker....has range of 120km wit a F-16's RCS

so man i think both will see each other but F-16 will have first shot due to its C5


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Yes I can distinguished, but my response was also parallel to your skepticem about Indian parts in MKI.




When I raised the bogey of Composite..........Worlds best Tarang RWR strikes backl





> Have you heard anything about wikipedia?



NA, its monopolised by the mafia....... if you can point a source like Sukhoi, Knoppo, HAL would be better.......






> hey mate, can't you read in english as what I had said earlier to give me some time to locate it to satisfy your instinct.



What to do...........poor me not a native english speaker, But i find amusing that you list extensive composite............. 



KENT said:


> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.





> According to website of Vayu-Sena Tripod *somewhere around 6&#37; of composite *have been used in MKI as well as all other sources that I had muster about its parts are likely to be Canard and Fin stablizers




Well, well, that is extensive composite usage......... but still waiting for the source.


----------



## KENT

circuitbaba said:


> Some body mentioned the range of F-16
> and how its gonna hit..Flanker even if it hits
> Block 52 will carry AIm-120C5 for PAF
> 60 nm...convert it to km its 111.8 km
> Flankers primary BVR is




Pls can someone tell me what does this meaning of convert portion of above quote? as it is beyond my understanding.




circuitbaba said:


> R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100km ....(Check ur site Bharat Rakshak)
> oR
> R-27RE1/TE1 with a range of 70 km....(Check ur site Bharat Rakshak)




checked



circuitbaba said:


> APG-68 (V9) radar picks up a 3m square target at 120km ....while Su-30 has a a RCS of 5m square....No.BARS radar abroad...ur Flanker....has range of 120km wit a F-16's RCS




For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. It design to have maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km.




circuitbaba said:


> so man i think both will see each other but F-16 will have first shot due to its C5



I had accepted that in terms of RCS F-16 is beat the Mki, but how does it gona see MKI first and even if it track it first well before MKI does then with which missile F-16 will knock-down MKI.


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> When I raised the bogey of Composite..........Worlds best Tarang RWR strikes backl




Afterall that is your unsurprising rehotric to raise fingure over Indian product in MKI.





Titanium said:


> NA, its monopolised by the mafia....... if you can point a source like Sukhoi, Knoppo, HAL would be better.......



Once it is proved that you can't read in english, I haed stated about Vauy-sena tripod which IAF's own website.



Titanium said:


> What to do...........poor me not a native english speaker, But i find amusing that you list extensive composite.............



That is what according to all other sources other then Vayu-sena tripod like for example Wikipedia.




Titanium said:


> Well, well, that is extensive composite usage......... but still waiting for the source.



Extensive to level whereby weight reduction as well as RCS reduction can be acheived.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

*Source is awaited KENT!*


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Once it is proved that you can't read in english, I haed stated about Vauy-sena tripod which IAF's own website.



Now, that you pointed Vaysena website--which is in Hindi...........which says *rumoured to be 6&#37; composite*------which you take as fact and piss here.




> That is what according to all other sources other then Vayu-sena tripod like for example Wikipedia.



One you have site Vayusena which says rumoured to be..............and then you have Wikipedia which collaborate the same............which is now crystallised in peanut brains as facts.



> Extensive to level whereby weight reduction as well as RCS reduction can be acheived.





KENT said:


> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.




So conclusion: Rumoured to be 6% composite translated by fanboy as Maximum extent of composite--- which will result in reducing RCS-------by BIG DEAL??

Are there any more fantasy -- rumoured to be --- silent features of SU-30 you would like to share???


----------



## Owais

MOSABJA said:


> The biggest advantage of Su Mki is its LONG RANGE RADAR and BVRs.
> 
> It can only be taken by a 4.5 th generation air craft.WHICH PAKISTAN DOES NOT HAVE NOW.
> 
> F 16 E only falls in 4.5 category .We are purchasing D and F which are 4 th and cant compete with Su MKi .JF 17 is also 4 Gen it too cant compete.
> 
> so in 4.5 category we can only get J 10s.Rafales,Typhoons,F 16 Es,F22s are NOT AVAILABLE TO PAKISTAN.Only J10(advanced ) will be able to take out Su Mkis.JF 17 THUNDER NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED.



first of all J-10 is not a 4.5th gen!
You are again over estimating MKI. the primary BVR wepon of mki is R77having range of 100km where as our F-16 will be using AIM-120 C5 having range of 90+ km AND Bvr combats takes place at distance of about <80 km so it is unfair to say that F-16 Blk 52 cant take MKi down and as far as JF-17 is concern, it uses SD-10 AAM having range of 70+km(which will be upgraded in future in SD-10B/C warrants).
as I mentioned in earlier post that F-16 Blk 52 have rcs of 1.2m2. Mki will detect it from 150 km and if MKI uses RAM(which is still a rumour and it doesnt make it a "lo" aircraft), F-16 with APG 68V9 will detect it from 130+KM but both aircrafts cant take a shot at that time cz they should have to come at distance of about ~65km in order to take sure shot.


----------



## KENT

Owais said:


> first of all J-10 is not a 4.5th gen!
> You are again over estimating MKI. the primary BVR wepon of mki is R77having range of 100km where as our F-16 will be using AIM-120 C5 having range of 90+ km AND Bvr combats takes place at distance of about <80 km so it is unfair to say that F-16 Blk 52 cant take MKi down and as far as JF-17 is concern, it uses SD-10 AAM having range of 70+km(which will be upgraded in future in SD-10B/C warrants).
> as I mentioned in earlier post that F-16 Blk 52 have rcs of 1.2m2. Mki will detect it from 150 km and if MKI uses RAM(which is still a rumour and it doesnt make it a "lo" aircraft), F-16 with APG 68V9 will detect it from 130+KM but both aircrafts cant take a shot at that time cz they should have to come at distance of about ~65km in order to take sure shot.



Mate MKI also uses The R-27RE1 (AA-10 Alamo-C) which has the range of 130Km.

For you kind pursuance following is the link.

R-27RE1/TE1


----------



## Owais

KENT said:


> Mate MKI also uses The R-27RE1 (AA-10 Alamo-C) which has the range of 130Km.
> 
> For you kind pursuance following is the link.
> 
> R-27RE1/TE1



dude its a Mach 2.5 limited missile then you must know about its accuracy


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.




ASource for Composite usage in MKI is awaited.......


----------



## KENT

Owais said:


> dude its a Mach 2.5 limited missile then you must know about its accuracy



pls let me know about its accuracy since I have 100% faith in its accuracy other IAF would ordered them in large number.


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> ASource for Composite usage in MKI is awaited.......



Su-30MKI Super Flanker


vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html 


www.human-pro.com/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI.htm 

Titanium just use find button of your keyboard for word composites and get familarize yourself with validity of my claim.


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Su-30MKI Super Flanker
> 
> 
> vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html
> 
> 
> www.human-pro.com/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI.htm
> 
> Titanium just use find button of your keyboard for word composites and get familarize yourself with validity of my claim.



You are again showing fan sites with "Rumoured to be 6&#37;" composite. How about a quote from *Sukhoi, Knappo, HAL*??? or even any person connected with it for credibality???

You do have some reputation when you quote 


> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> How about a quote from *Sukhoi, Knappo, HAL*??? or even any person connected with it for credibality???



Any person!, hey titanium, whole site of IAF(Vayu-Sena tripod) isn't sound you credible?

Or Hey are you insisting me to express my sceptics to the Vayu-Sena tripod which is a sole user of this beast? 

Or weren't you the same person who express his criticism over the performance of HAL's Tejas? Will you believe whatever given by HAL about composites? 




Titanium said:


> You do have some reputation when you quote



Why I do have a reputation since I have been quoting IAF's own site which is the sole user of MKI.

There is no other credible reputation on this earth apart from Vayu-sena Tripod owned by IAF which is subtantiating my claim.


----------



## EagleEyes

KENT,

Provide a source that VayuSena website on tripod is owned by the IAF. Until then, the only people who make sites on tripod, are those without resources.

And for your information. The personal attacks in your previous posts are deleted.

Thanks.


----------



## su-47

Guys i have been skimming through the posts on the past few pages and i have to say that a lot of people were a bit confused about how BVR combat works. I myself am no expert, but let me share what i know.

1) A BVR missile, like AMRAAM or R-77, has a STATED range of 100+ km. This is at high altitude when engaging targets which are moving towards you, and you are above the target. But when at low altitude, and your target is above you, and moving away from you, the range of these missiles are about a quarter of the stated range. 

2) Just coz a plane is armed with BVR missile doesnt mean its as good as any other BVR capable plane. a Mig-21 bison armed with R-77 can theoretically engage targets at over 100 km, just like an MKI armed with R-77. But does that make a MiG-21 bison as good as an MKI? hell no! the MKI would down the mig before the mig pilot realises what happened! Avionics, airframe structure, RCS and radar all matter. 

3) For those who dont know, the MKI's RCS aint that large. though its a large plane, measures have been taken to reduce its RCS. 

Its hard to predict the outcome of a BVR combat. BVR combat is not two planes heading straight for each other and firing their missiles. They weave around, trying to prevent the enemy getting a lock, at the same time trying to get a lock on the enemy. detection is vital, since the first to detect the enemy has more time to get into position to fire, thus improving his chances of a hit and of survival.


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> KENT,
> 
> Provide a source that VayuSena website on tripod is owned by the IAF.



Ok, I admit my guilty that Vayusena website is not owned by IAF.



WebMaster said:


> Until then, the only people who make sites on tripod, are those without resources.



What makes you think that resoures provided on Vayu-sena tripod are baseless?



WebMaster said:


> And for your information. The personal attacks in your previous posts are deleted.



Pls point me out where did I made any personal attack? rather I was refraining other from making any of such statments.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]


----------



## EagleEyes

> Ok, I admit my guilty that Vayusena website is not owned by IAF.



Thank you.



> What makes you think that resoures provided on Vayu-sena tripod are baseless?



Because it is on tripod.



> Pls point me out where did I made any personal attack? rather I was refraining other from making any of such statments.



Of course your an angel. Whats deleted is deleted. You know what you wrote. I could give a warning for that, and what you wrote would have been sent to you by PM. But consider it some leiniency, and show what is expected of you.

Thanks.


----------



## KENT

WebMaster said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is on tripod.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your an angel. Whats deleted is deleted. You know what you wrote. I could give a warning for that, and what you wrote would have been sent to you by PM. But consider it some leiniency, and show what is expected of you.
> 
> Thanks.




Your theory of Tripod with Vayu-sena can't substantiate the claim of whatever given on Vayu-sena Tripod is baseless.


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Ok, I admit my guilty that Vayusena website is not owned by IAF.



First you were trying to pass Vaysena.tripod as IAF site.......



> Originally Posted by WebMaster
> Until then, the only people who make sites on tripod, are those without resources





> What makes you think that resoures provided on Vayu-sena tripod are baseless?



Secondly , where did you get the idea he is brushing it as baseless........ that is called putting word in the mouth.

He is merely implying that website is a fan site. Is there collaborative evidence is there for rumoured 6&#37; Composite ??? or just wet dream of an internat fanboys....ala 



> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*, so RCS of MKi is not that a big deal, since it has long range radar.




Now that the Vaysena you peddled as IAF site is busted, could you provide where exactacally you came to know that :



> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*,


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> First you were trying to pass Vaysena.tripod as IAF site.......



For that I had apologise to webby.





Titanium said:


> Secondly , where did you get the idea he is brushing it as baseless........ that is called putting word in the mouth.



Whatever be the case, I had apologise for it.



Titanium said:


> He is merely implying that website is a fan site.




My negligence in quoting Vayu-sena tripod as IAF owned website doesn't make it as fan site, the case is only that whatever written over there regarding extensive use of composites is not corrosponding to your line of thinking. It is not fan site either, the person who maintain the site has got the recognition from Indian Military History establishment.




Titanium said:


> Is there collaborative evidence is there for rumoured 6% Composite ???



Percentile of 6% mean that the proporation of Composites used in MKI, it could be anything. Use of Extensive of composites doesn' translate in itself that Airframe should be completely made of composite like LCA. For MKI even 1% of composite usage in airframe can be extensive. 





Titanium said:


> or just wet dream of an internat fanboys....ala



No mate, if that was the case then I could not have provided you with the sources from where I have claiming the extensive use of composites. If you don't want to admit it or whatever given on those sources is not in line of your thinking then it is your problem.

on previous occassion you had insist me to provide the source that would satisfy you.

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium 
How about a quote from Sukhoi, Knappo, HAL??? or even any person connected with it for credibality??? *

Now you had even asked me the creadible person, so let me give one the admission of former PAF Air Commerade regarding Su-30MKI's extensive use of composites. I have highlight its admission regarding use of composites which is highlighted in Bold and Underline format.


*[AIR COMMODORE TARIQ MAHMUD ASHRAF]*


What can it do? 
Why did the Indians opt for it? 
How could they employ it? 
The threat SU-30 poses to Pakistan.
*[AIR COMMODORE TARIQ MAHMUD ASHRAF]*
Development History
The Su-30 MKI is essentially a customized version of the Su-27 PU (NATO codename: Flanker) that is being built according to Indian specifications. In the abbreviation MKI, the M stands for Modernized, the K for Commercial and the I for Indiski (India). This is probably the first ever time that the Russian aircraft industry has embarked upon manufacturing a combat aircraft specifically designed according to the specifications given by a foreign customer country. Notwithstanding the fact that the basic aircraft design including the airframe, the powerplant and some of the weapons will remain of Russian make, the incorporation of Western avionics equipment on the aircraft is actually an outcome of the realization by the Indian Air Force that Russian technology is lagging far behind that available to it from some of the western countries such as France. It is also possible that the Indians will capitalize on their improving relationship with Israel and involve some of the frontline Israeli aviation technology firms in provisioning of the avionics equipment for these aircraft. As such, in electronic equipment terms, the aircraft will at best be a hybrid between Russian and Western technology with the associated integration difficulties having to be catered for and overcome. Since integration is a time consuming and complicated process, it is understandable that the project might suffer from certain unavoidable time delays - something that is already becoming a source of worry and concern for the Indian Air Force.
The IAF compared the Su-30 MKI against the French Mirage 2000-5 and reportedly opted for the former primarily because of economic reasons since the Russian aircraft was appreciably cheaper and as such the number that could be acquired would be substantially larger. This option was resorted to by the IAF despite the fact that it already is operating the Mirage 2000 aircraft and inducting more of the same would have been significantly more economical in logistic, operational and maintenance terms.
As with most Indian defence deals, the Su-30 MKI deal also took a long time before being finalized. Following the initial evaluation of the Su-27 aircraft by the IAF in 1994 in Russia1, the contract for the initial batch of 40 aircraft was signed in 1996 with the aircraft scheduled to be delivered in progressively improved batches from 1997 to 2000. Subsequently, in 1998, the size of the Indian order was increased by another 10 aircraft.2 
As the Indians had done with some of their previous aircraft acquisitions, such as the Anglo-Fresh Jaguar, the imperative of saving costs while ensuring that the substantial Indian aviation industry remained involved actively, the Indian Government decided to ask Russia for complete transfer of technology so that subsequent manufacture of the Su-30MKI could be undertaken indigenously in India. This proposal led to the signing of a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Russia and India for the acquisition of an additional number of 140 
Su-30 MKI aircraft that were to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The immense size of the programme and the large quantum of aircraft involved meant that this project would be completed by the year 20173. Interestingly, the news report in November 2003 that reported the above news also stated that the Indians were continuing negotiations with the French for transfer of technology pertaining to the Mirage 2000 aircraft.4 
The simultaneous Indian endeavour to negotiate for transfer of technology for both, the Su-30 MKI and the Mirage 2000-5 combat aircraft is significant and has probably come about because of the one or more of the following reasons:-
Having been confronted with a serious setback as regards the logistical support for their predominantly Soviet military aircraft inventory, the Indian Government in general and the IAF in particular had realized that they could not afford to put all their eggs in the same basket. This required increasing the diversity of sources from which they were acquiring military wherewithal. The IAF has traditionally been operating combat aircraft of Soviet origin since the early 1970s when it first inducted the MiG-21 Fishbed series of fighter aircraft. Subsequently, the IAF went on to become the largest operator of Soviet origin aircraft outside the USSR when it also acquired the MiG-23, the MiG-25, the MiG-27, the MiG-29 and finally the Su-30 MKI. In the immediate aftermath of the demise of the erstwhile USSR, the IAF faced a major problem in getting spare parts and logistical support for its Soviet origin aircraft since Russia did not possess all the manufacturing establishments for these aircraft and some were located in the newly independent Commonwealth of Independent States. This stoppage in the supply of essential parts created a major problem in maintainability for the IAF and is probably one of the major reasons for it to start thinking in terms of diversifying its sources of equipment procurement.
Although the Indian aviation industry is fairly well-established and is capable of assembling modern combat aircraft, its capability to design and manufacture a modern combat aircraft has become seriously questionable after the experience of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) which is still to materialize and according to some sources, is likely to be scrapped and never built in substantial numbers. Being focussed entirely on the LCA for decades, the Indian aviation industry was confronted with stagnation as regards its technological expertise and needed a major shot in the arm. The deals to transfer technology from the West and also from Russia could provide a kick-start to the Indian aviation industry.
India sees her emerging role as a regional/global power of consequence very seriously and wants to assert that her military potential is in accordance with her perceived power potential and clout. This could explain the decision to go in for such a large number of Su-30 MKI aircraft.
In line with her enhanced regional role and to substantiate her growing strategic alliance with the United States, India finds it imperative to evolve from a regionally limited and confined South Asian power to a Southern Asian one with a wider power spread and perspective. This is a fall-out of the implicit albeit unsaid requirement for the US to promote India as a counterweight to emerging China which is increasing her influence in Asia steadily and also has strong ties with Pakistan. Interestingly, the long range and radius of action of the Su-30 MKI is an absolute non-requirement when Pakistan is considered as the adversary since this aircraft is capable of virtually crossing the entire width of the territorial expanse of Pakistan and go even beyond. There is an obvious implied meaning in acquiring such a long-range capability when one considers that this aircraft would be capable of reaching targets well inside mainland China. The IAF does not need such a long reach aircraft against any regional threat but could possibly need it when operating in the extra-regional context.
India has gained tremendously in economic strength over the past decade and one of the first sectors in which increased national wealth becomes evident is defence. This could explain India's substantial increases in defence budget over the past few years even though that of neighbouring Pakistan has remained virtually stagnant or as some reports suggest, has actually reduced in view of the inflation.
When considered along with the yet unpublicized Indian quest for leasing a limited number of Tupolev 
Tu-22 Blinder supersonic strategic bomber aircraft, one is led to the conclusion that the IAF has embarked on a plan to transform itself from a purely tactical air force to one that has significant strategic potential.
Deliveries of Su-30 to India
As stated earlier, most Russian weapon system deliveries to India in the recent past have all been delayed and the Su-30 aircraft were no exception to this rule. It was not until the middle of 2002, at the height of its military stand-off with Pakistan that the first Su-30 aircraft reached the IAF base at Lohegaon in Pune. In fact the issue gained prominence when the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Indian Parliament Lok Sabha expressed concern at the delay in the delivery of Sukhoi (Su-30 MKI-2 and Su-30 MKI-3) aircraft and criticised the Defence Ministry for not furnishing the current status of the envisaged upgradation of these aircraft to the desired multi-role version.5 This led to the first two IAF Squadrons, No 24 (Hunting Hawks) and No 20 (Lightnings), being earmarked to receive and induct the new weapon system. Though subsequent deliveries have continued in small batches, none of the aircraft received by the IAF meet the complete specifications of the Su-MKI as stipulated by the IAF and some modifications still have to be incorporated on these aircraft. 
The report of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee cited above went on to say that âAs per the revised delivery schedule effected in February 2001, 10 fully upgraded multi-role aircraft [Su-30 MKI-3] were expected to be made available between July and December 2003 and 22 partially upgraded aircraft, including ten aircraft in Phase I and twelve in Phase II were to be delivered at the latest by June 2002 and June 2003 respectively. As against this, only 10 Su-30 MKI-1 aircraft were received and inducted into the Indian Air Force in September 2002.â According to the report, these delays have already caused an increase of 
Rs 546 crores in the project cost which was earlier valued at 
Rs 6310 crores, due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.6

Su-30/Su-30MK will be powered by 2 x Al-31F turbofan engines with each rates at 27,500 lbs of thrust at maximum after-burner setting, the Su-30 MKI aircraft will have the Al-31FP engines which have a maximum power rating of 29,500 lbs. Additionally, these engines will be equipped with thrust vectoring nozzles (TVNs) which will aid immensely in enhancing the manoeuvring potential of the aircraft. These nozzles will be capable of deflecting 32 degrees in the horizontal plane and 15 degrees in the vertical plane.
The engines reportedly have an MTBO of around 1000 hours, while the TVNs will have an MTBO of around 250 hours.
Apart from being refuelled in flight by a tanker aircraft, the 
Su 30 MKIs also can use the 
Mk 32.B buddy-buddy refuelling pods for providing fuel to each other during flight.
Cockpit. Both the aircrew are provided with a modern zero-zero ejection seat with the rear occupant's seat being slightly raised for improved visibility. Like the US F-16 aircraft, the seats of the 
Su-30 MKI are also inclined rearwards at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical.
The six liquid crystal displays (LCDs) installed in the cockpit have been provided by Sextant Avionique of France. The same company is responsible for providing the six Multi-Function Displays (MFDs), the Totem INS system with GPS technology and the VEH-3000 holographic Heads-Up Display (HUD).
The pilot will also have the Gzarkhov 45A HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) unit, which can guide the R 73s and the R60 MK air-to-air missiles.
Airframe. The Su 30 MKI is a twin-finned aircraft. The airframe is constructed of titanium and high-strength aluminium alloys. The engine nacelles are fitted with trouser fairings to provide a continuous streamlined profile between the nacelles and the tail beams. The central beam section between the engine nacelles contains the equipment compartment, fuel tank and the brake parachute container. The fuselage head is of semi-monocoque construction and includes the cockpit, radar compartments and the avionics bay. 
*Su 30 MKIs also have a high percentage of composites used in the air-frame. *Stability and control are assured by a digital Fly-by-Wire (FBW) system and the prominent canard notably assists in controlling the aircraft at large angles of attack (AoA) and bringing it to a level flight condition.
Su-30 MKI Avionics Suite
The N011-M Bars Radar for the Su 30 MKI is a phased array system with a powerful processor and multiple targets track capability using NCTR7 methods. 

Radar System. The avionics package of the Su-30 MKI is based around the N1011M phased array radar which is the main sensor of the aircraft. Capable of operating in the 'I' and 'D' bands, this multi-mode radar is capable of detecting fighter-sized targets at ranges as far as 150-160 kms with the capability of tracking 20 targets simultaneously and engaging eight out of these. In the air-to-ground functioning mode, the radar can provide modes like ground-mapping, terrain-following and terrain-avoidance. In the air-to-surface function, the radar is capable of acquiring large-sized ground targets at ranges upto 400 kms and smaller targets of the size of a typical tank at ranges between 40 and 50 kms.
Radar Modes. The radar has the following modes of functioning in the air-to-air and the air-to-ground / air-to-sea roles:
â¢ Air-to-Air Role Air-to-Ground Role Air-to-Sea Role
â¢ Velocity search Real Beam Mapping Sea surface search
â¢ Range while search Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) mapping Moving sea targets selection
â¢ Track while scan Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Mapping Tracking and measuring of sea target coordinates
â¢ Target Identification (ID) Moving ground target selection Sea target ID
â¢ Close Combat Tracking and measurement of ground 
â¢ target co-ordinates
Radar Specifications
â¢ Operating Band X and L bands (NATO 'I' and 'D' bands)
â¢ Antenna diameter 1 metre
â¢ Antenna Gain 36dB
â¢ Main side lobe level -25 dB
â¢ Average side lobe level -48 dB
â¢ Beam Width 2.4 degrees (12 different beam shapes)
â¢ Antenna weight 100-110 kgs
â¢ Scan mechanism Mechanical and electronic
The radar reportedly uses an Indian developed Radar Controller that was an outcome of the Project Vetrivale which also developed the mission computer and the display processors for the aircraft. Another distinctive feature of the radar is that the aircraft equipped with it can act as a sort of a command post for other interceptor aircraft. In this function, the target co-ordinates and other associated data can be automatically transferred to four other interceptor aircraft using a secure data link. When employed in a dense aerial environment along with other interceptors, this mode can be of significant help.
Electro-Optic (EO) Surveillance and Targeting System. The Su-30 MKI is planned to be fitted with an EO surveillance and targeting system made up of three component sub-systems: an infra-red (IR) direction finder, a laser range finder and a helmet-mounted sighting system. Designated the OLS-30M, this Russian developed system reportedly has a range of 90 kms when pursuing a target and 40 kms when approaching it head-on. 
Communications Equipment. The communications equipment comprises VHF and HF radio sets, a secured digital telecommunications system, and antenna-feeder assembly. It mounts an automatic noise-proof target data exchange system, which provides for coordination of the actions of several fighter aircraft engaged in a group air combat. It is reportedly being developed as part of the INCOM project by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
Self-Defence Suite. The self-defence suite incorporates a newly developed accurate Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), called the Tarang Mk. II. The Su 30 MKI incorporates a number of chaff/flare dispensers and active jammers. The Tarang system is a modified version of the similar system that was earlier installed on the MiG-21 aircraft of the IAF. It has also been developed under project Vetrivale.
Probable Employment of Su-30 MKI by IAF8
As the preceding text of this article has highlighted, the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI is a formidable aerial combat platform, its flexibility being evident from the large variety of weapons that it can carry and its impressive performance characteristics. A look at its design and performance attributes also indicates that the aircraft can be employed effectively across a wide spectrum of air operations stretching from the tactical end of the spectrum to the strategic end.
The envisaged employment of the Su-30 MKI by the IAF that I have worked out takes into consideration various factors including the expected opposition from the PAF, the remaining assets that the IAF possesses and the very nature of the war that India and Pakistan are engaged in.

Employment Considerations. In my opinion the following considerations should govern the IAF's employment of the Su-30 MKI against Pakistan:
Being a prime symbol of its inventory, the Su-30 MKI will be employed by the IAF in a careful, albeit not necessarily a cautious manner.
Roles and functions that can effectively be undertaken by other aircraft available in the IAF inventory will not be assigned to the Su-30 MKI. I do not envisage the Su-30 MKI being employed in conventional offensive strikes since these could be undertaken suitably by other IAF aircraft. In the offensive realm, it could still however be employed for strikes against Pakistani targets located in such depth that places them beyond the effective radii of action of the other offensive aircraft of the IAF.
Being a very potent platform, the Su-30 MKI's employment will be governed by the criticality of the situation. It would be employed for maximum effect and in critical scenarios.
The Su-30 MKI will be employed where its distinctive performance characteristics including reach can have a decisive influence on the outcome of the battle/war. In my opinion, other than strikes aimed at creating a strategic effect, this aircraft would be best employed in the campaign for the achievement of air superiority over the PAF in conjunction with the Phalcon AEW aircraft.
The Su-30 MKI's employment will aim to achieve strategic rather than tactical effects and it will essentially be employed for strategic purposes - functions and roles that are beyond the capability of the other aircraft in the IAF inventory. This aircraft enables the IAF to plan for achieving strategic effects even without resorting to nuclear weapons since its phenomenal reach bestows upon it the capability to undertake operations designed for strategic effect even with just conventional weapons.
Although the Su-30 MKI is an effective ground attack platform, I do not foresee its employment in the Offensive Air Support (OAS) role unless it is absolutely critical and unavoidable. Other than very limited usage against the Pakistan Navy if and when the situation arises, I foresee that the focus of the Su-30 MKI would essentially revolve around the Pakistan Air Force assets being its prime target. It is a very effective air-to-air platform and the IAF will primarily employ it as a means of decisively winning the air war against the PAF. It is by pursuing this employment strategy that the IAF can accrue the maximum benefits out of its Su-30 MKI fleet.
Conclusion
When I embarked on writing this article and all the while that I was involved in completing it, I kept the three basic questions that I set out in the beginning of this article, in mind; What is the Su-30 MKI capable of doing? What are the factors that contributed to the IAF acquiring this aircraft? How is the IAF likely to employ this weapon system in any future war against Pakistan?
The theme of this article must be taken in the correct spirit in which it was written. I am a firm believer in the saying that 'forewarned is forearmed' and as such the purpose of this article is not to paint a gloomy or scary picture but rather to acquaint my readers with the facts that I could lay my hands on from a variety of open sources including printed material as well as the internet.
If after reading this article, some minds are agitated and start thinking on counters to the IAF's Su-30 MKI fleet, I feel that the purpose of writing this article would have been more than fulfilled from my perspective. In order to effectively counter any threat, one must first know as much as possible about it so that an effective and workable counter-strategy can then be devised and subsequently implemented, with a high degree of success. 
End Notes 
1. The initial evaluation of the Su 27 was undertaken by a team led by the then Chief of the Air Staff of the IAF, Air Chief Marshal S. K. Kaul.
2. These ten aircraft became available after Indonesia cancelled its order for the same in the wake of the South East Asian economic crisis.
3. 140 Su-30 MKI Fighters to be Manufactured in India.
4. Ibid.
5. The Hindu : PAC pulls up Defence Ministry for delay in Sukhoi aircraft delivery
6. Ibid. 
7. The abbreviation NCTR probably refers to the fact that the radar operates on the Non-Cooperative Target methodology.
8. These thoughts on the possible manner in which the IAF could be expected to employ the Su-30 MKI in any future India-Pakistan military conflict are purely the author's own thinking and do not represent the thinking of the PAF or any other Government of Pakistan agency. Moreover, no one from any official department has been consulted while writing this article.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Air Commodore Tariq Mahmud Ashraf was commissioned in the flying branch of the PAF in 1975. During his eventful career spanning over three decades, the officer has flown almost all the fighter aircraft in the PAF inventory. He has had the distinction of commanding an elite F-16 Squadron, a Tactical Flying Wing and an operational Base. He is a distinguished graduate of the RAF Advanced Staff Course, the PAF's Combat Commanders Course and the Pakistan National Defence Course. His key staff appointments include three tenures in the Operations Branch at Air Headquarters including a stint as the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations). Widely travelled, the officer was also the Pakistan Defence AttachÃ© to Indonesia, Australia, Singapore and South Korea from 1995 to 1998. He is currently serving on the faculty of the prestigious Pakistan National Defence College. For his meritorious services, the officer has been awarded the Sitara-i-Imtiaz (Military), the Sitara-i-Basalat and the Tamgha-i-Imtiaz (Military) by the Government of Pakistan.

Admin: Links, and can you please make it more readable by creating para breaks!






Now that the Vaysena you peddled as IAF site is busted, could you provide where exactacally you came to know that :[/QUOTE]


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> *My negligence in quoting Vayu-sena tripod as IAF owned website doesn't make it as fan site*, the case is only that whatever written over there regarding extensive use of composites is *not corrosponding to your line of thinking*. It is not fan site either, the person who maintain the site has got the recognition from Indian Military History establishment.



Man, I have never seen a person lie with straight face, than you. Why should anything written by some obscure fellow, should be my line of thinking. I am merely looking for facts, is MKI has "extensive" composite or not. 

That person who has written is not sure of it either.........."rumoured to be 6&#37;" . Is that fact for you???




> Percentile of 6% mean that the proporation of Composites used in MKI, it could be anything.



When you are not sure, what is the purpose of mentioning ..........???



> for MKI even 1% of composite usage in airframe can be extensive.


One more hedge........
When we talk of percentage..........1% is not extensive.

If, on the other hand we are talking of absolute weightage.............yes considering the total weight of SU-30.

[


> B]Quote:
> Originally Posted by Titanium
> How about a quote from Sukhoi, Knappo, HAL??? or even any person connected with it for credibality??? [/B]
> 
> Now you had even asked me the creadible person, so let me give one the admission of *former PAF Air Commerade regarding Su-30MKI's extensive use of composites.* I have highlight its admission regarding use of composites which is highlighted in Bold and Underline format.



Lo and behold...........Former PAF guy will provide evidence regarding the composite usage in SU-30MKI

How lame can you get.........the guy would have most probably looked at the same source that you provided to base his article.


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> Man, I have never seen a person lie with straight face, than you.



Was that lie? now I am completely assure myself, as whatever not in line with your thinking, you view them as a lie.



Titanium said:


> Why should anything written by some obscure fellow,



Was he obscure? so now we will need someone like you who will validate the percentile of Composites in MKI? Oh my goodness......

The person who is running the Vayu-sena tripod is sounding obscure to Titanum, now I am 1000% sure that the things that doesn't suite to the sensitivity of Tiatnium, he call them obsure.



Titanium said:


> should be my line of thinking. I am merely looking for facts, is MKI has "extensive" composite or not.



I had provided you with three links which are more then enough to validate the extensive proporation of composite in MKI, even I had quoted former PAF air commerade, now Titanium you want to tell me all those sources and former PAF air commerade are untruthfull. One can clearly see the level of your emotions



Titanium said:


> That person who has written is not sure of it either.........."rumoured to be 6%" . Is that fact for you???



Yes, but at the same time he also acknowledge the fact that extensive use of composites. His skeptics was in terms of percentile. According to him it could be that 6% of composite are more then enough to term it as extensive. The Percentage figure could be anything, or rather you want to tell me provide me the souce which quote Extensive use of composite in airframe = 100% composite usage in airframe. 





Titanium said:


> When you are not sure, what is the purpose of mentioning ..........???



You should asked this question to yourself. I had provided 4 sources including former fame PAF personnel to validate my claim. Now its upto wheather they are more then enough to suite your sensitivity or not.




Titanium said:


> One more hedge........



Just because it doesn't suiting to your percentile equations.



Titanium said:


> When we talk of percentage..........1% is not extensive.



So what it should be? you mean extensive usage of composites = 100% usage of composites



Titanium said:


> If, on the other hand we are talking of absolute weightage.............yes considering the total weight of SU-30.



When your line of thinking find it hard to parallel itself with what my provided sources then now you came and asking me regarding weight reduction.

Man, move yourself 180 degree vertically and go and read my previous posting, I had quoted use of alongwith weight reduction, I had claim extensive composites to validate my claim of reduction in RCS. 





Titanium said:


> Lo and behold...........Former PAF guy will provide evidence regarding the composite usage in SU-30MKI



Yes, since even he didn't have any problem in digesting the theory of extensive use of composite that he has admitted in his article.




Titanium said:


> How lame can you get.........the guy would have most probably looked at the same source that you provided to base his article.



So this means that whatever the sources that I had provided are correct and authentic which even prompted former PAF air commerade to admit in his article that there is really an extensive usage of composite in Su-30MKI.

Now Titanium, even you can't prove my sources as baseless or fun with this particuler statment, but from now on for a god sake don't come and tell me that whatever PAF air commerde admitted is untruthful.





Yes, afterall you have admitted.


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> Was that lie? now I am completely assure myself, as whatever not in line with your thinking, you view them as a lie.



My line of thinking will not alter the fact"whether SU-30MKI *has utlised maximum extent of Composites* or not". There are hundreds of article on SU-30MKI, i have not come across any composite usage except some loony written in his site.



> Was he obscure? so now we will need someone like you who will validate the percentile of Composites in MKI? Oh my goodness......



When you write something you give refrence ......MKI has refrence for MFD, Litening pod...sources et el from sukhoi, PAC, etc...

Where is the composite sources???

I


> had provided you with three links which are more then enough to validate the *extensive proporation* of composite in MKI



They corraborate each, not from the source.....


When you use words extensive and proportion.........do you know that you are referring to "rumoured 6&#37;???




> Yes, but at the same time he also acknowledge the fact that extensive use of composites. His skeptics was in terms of percentile. *According to him it could be that 6% of composite are more then enough to term it as extensive*


. 

Who is that loony.......that decides 6% is enough to define extensive?? Is he part of the design team??

C'mon man you can do better than that can anyone relate 6% to extensive with anything?? particularly when proportion and percantage thrown in???




> The Percentage figure could be anything, or rather you want to tell me provide me the souce which quote Extensive use of composite in airframe = 100% composite usage in airframe.




What a gem of an statement. If 100% than it is called maximum extent. 

If less than 10% it is called negligible



> Just because it doesn't suiting to your percentile equations.





> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*



It does not suit the sentance also -when 6% is accounted.




> So what it should be? you mean extensive usage of composites = 100% usage of composites



More than 75%. Extensive is not thrown with 6% .it is called negligible or marginal.




> Now Titanium, even *you can't prove my sources as baseless or fun *


.

Maritan from another galaxy visited and told that MKI has become stealth using "rumoured to be 6% composites . Can I disagree now???




> Yes, afterall you have admitted.



If that can give you any consolation for peddling lies *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> My line of thinking will not alter the fact"whether SU-30MKI *has utlised maximum extent of Composites* or not".



So far these idential notion is being appearing from your response, since the person who don't ready to belive the extensive proporation of composites in spite of provided sources, but rather choose shun them to suits his own sensitivity, then it would not be foolish for me view his thaught not in line with what is being provided in those sources. Since person who even choose not to believe former PAF air commerade, then one can understand his delibrate deniel about those sources.




Titanium said:


> There are hundreds of article on SU-30MKI, i have not come across any composite usage except some loony written in his site.



So whatever that I had provided aren't qualify as an article and hence you choose to veiw them as loony. I had provided streight away 4 articles other then wikipedia, if still you don't want to believe them then that is your problem.




Titanium said:


> When you write something you give refrence ......MKI has refrence for MFD, Litening pod...sources et el from sukhoi, PAC, etc...



Hey I had given all in all four reference including Vayu-sena tripod which has extensive information over all the technical details of MKI including extensive proporation of composites.




Titanium said:


> Where is the composite sources???



Ha Ha Ha Ha........

Titanium, how delibrate you are to deny the truht of those sources, even you want deny to the admission of former PAF air commerde.





Titanium said:


> They corraborate each, not from the source.....



so you want to tell me now your authencity will define the validity of my provided sources.




Titanium said:


> When you use words extensive and proportion.........do you know that you are referring to "rumoured 6%???



Men, how insane you are? I had known you would definetly try to jumped on those 6% rumours sentence then only I provided that article. If you don't want believe it then that is your problem, but I had even provided all other three neutral articles which are more then enough to substantiate my claim.
. 


Titanium said:


> Who is that loony.......that decides 6% is enough to define extensive?? Is he part of the design team??



May be he could be part of design team? but who know what is the truth! since his articles has maxium privilage of acknowldegement to get an maximum information about Indian version of MKI.




Titanium said:


> C'mon man you can do better than that can anyone relate 6% to extensive with anything?? particularly when proportion and percantage thrown in???



So go and ask the author of that website regading the authencity of your claim regarding the proporation of 6% and its correlation with extensive use of composites, since now there is one and only creature on earth like you that can show error in his website, since nobody other then you have any problem any quoting his information about proporation of extensive composite. Now don't come and tell me whatever provided on that site regarding technical details of MKI are untruth.

Titanium when you had first began viewing his article as a fan, it clearly shows that your delibrate denial, but I have no problem with it afterall it is a part of your personality.





Titanium said:


> What a gem of an statement. If 100% than it is called maximum extent.



But so far you are sounding like accordingly as extensive use of composite=100% usage of composites




Titanium said:


> If less than 10% it is called negligible



It's upto you to decide how do you view the percentage figure and corrosponding usage of the same in the airframe,since you were the one who consistently denying the proporation of 6% composites usage as low usage versus extensive usage.




Titanium said:


> It does not suit the sentance also -when 6% is accounted.



Whatever!





Titanium said:


> More than 75%. Extensive is not thrown with 6% .it is called negligible or marginal.




Oh so you will decide the percentile of comosite usage in MKI airframe, and deliberatly trying the define the validity of Vayu-sena tripod as untruthful.

Should I repeat your own question, were you among those designer who defined the proporation composite usage in MKI?




Titanium said:


> .
> Maritan from another galaxy visited and told that MKI has become stealth using "rumoured to be 6% composites . Can I disagree now???



HA HA HA HA HA, I thing your mouth is going wayward, since first you came and tell me proporation of usage of composites versus weight of the airplane and now stealth. Man go and read my previous responses regarding reduction in MKI RCS on account of extensive usage of composites. 






Titanium said:


> .
> If that can give you any consolation for peddling lies



Peddling lies of whom you or me? since your responses are highly correlating itself with peddling lies which deliberatily denying the validity of my provided sources.



Titanium said:


> .
> *MKI has utlised maximum extent of Composites*



That's 100% true according to my provided sources.


----------



## Titanium

Keeping aside your bile.....

Just, if you could understand the meaning of *Maximum extent *, when you talk of percentage!! 

When you are asked to fill a glass to maximum *extent* ....

Would you fill to 6&#37; and pass it as maximum extent???


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> Keeping aside your bile.....



What an increadible sixth sense! how did you know I was furious?



Titanium said:


> Just, if you could understand the meaning of *Maximum extent *, when you talk of percentage!!




Yes, mate I know the meaning of both, but this is not my view, I was complled to think accordingly by those four articles as well as wikipedia. And from now on don't come and tell me they are untruthful and bias and yours ethical.



Titanium said:


> When you are asked to fill a glass to maximum *extent* ....



Yes, but it could be that extent to which percentage of usage of composites in MKI can be viewed as maximum according to its airframe.



Titanium said:


> Would you fill to 6% and pass it as maximum extent???



But according to the size of the airframe of MKI, 6% may be viewed as a maximum in proporation of composites usage versus metalic usage in MKI, the usage of composites may have cause a some sort of reduction in MKI's RCS and hence usage of composites may have been terms has "Maximum extent".


----------



## Titanium

KENT said:


> But according to the size of the airframe of MKI, 6&#37; *may be *viewed as a maximum in proporation of composites usage versus metalic usage in MKI, the usage of composites *may have* cause a _some sort of reduction _in MKI's RCS and hence usage of composites* may have been *terms has "Maximum extent".




No need for further hypothesis..........


----------



## Owais

KENT said:


> pls let me know about its accuracy since I have 100% faith in its accuracy other IAF would ordered them in large number.



it is not their primary Bvr weapon also, missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it


----------



## KENT

Titanium said:


> No need for further hypothesis..........



Definetly, I think afterall you have suggest yourself a very wise thinking.


----------



## KENT

Owais said:


> it is not their primary Bvr weapon also,



Did anything sound like that from my previous post?



Owais said:


> missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it



Yes, definetly it does, I am not denying. Did you see anything denial from my post?

But my point was regarding your response of range and not speed.


----------



## su-47

Owais said:


> it is not their primary Bvr weapon also, missiles like R-77, AIM120, SD10 have speed of mach 4. speed does effects accuracy. admit it



R-27 does have a speed of mach 4. Reason IAF chose R-77 as primary BVR weapon is coz R-77 has a more advanced seeker and is lighter than R-27 (175kg vs 253 kg)

R-27 also has a speed of mach 4


----------



## Sino-PakFriendship

JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 &#26783;&#40845;


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

*BARS Airborne Radar Control System​*
The BARS airborne radar control system together with the airborne equipment of the aircraft ensures:

Provision of information on tactical environment in the aircraft front-line hemisphere while tracking-down both ground- and water-based targets; 
Simultaneuous firing of several targets (depending on the missile type) in the long-range combat mode; 
Missiles firing of a separate target in the short-range combat mode; 
Use of weapons of the "air-to-surface" type together with the other aircraft of the system; 
Control over the aircraft flight while conducting military operations at air, marine and ground-based targets; 
Comprehensive processing of data received from various aircraft systems and other aircraft in order to enhance the efficiency of the aircraft military use; 
Informational support for aircraft airborne systems; 
Identification of inter-related air targets types; 
Evaluation of equipment and weapons condition at all stages of ground-based preparation and during flights. 


Key Technical Specifications of the Units: 
Antenna type: phased 
array with fluid drive 
Maximum deviation angles while 
tracking down a single target, deg.: 
- by azymuth +70 
- by the site angle +40 
Scanning area during simultaneous 5.500 
tracking down of targets, sq. deg. 
Scanning area while searching for and locking in a target 
in close maneuver combat, deg.: 
- by azymuth +3; +10 
- by the site angle -15...+40; +7.5 
Receiver

Channels number 3 
Noise rate, db 3 

Transmitter 
capacity, kwt, not less than 
- impulse 4-5 
- medium 1.2 
- illuminative(radiocorrection) 1 
Programmed signel processor 
Data input speed, mHz 28 
Peak productivity rate while conducting 
"butterfly"-type operations, mln. oper/sec 75 
Radar control processor 
Number of processors 3 
Flash-memory size of the processor, mb 16 
Static memory size of the processor, mb 16 
"Air-to-air" mode 
*The fighter's lock-in range of at least, km: 
- at opposite courses 120-140 *
- at overtaking courses 60 
"Air-to-surface" mode 
*Detection range of at least, km: 
- railway bridge 80-120 
- tanks 40-50 
- torpedo-boat destroyer 120-150 
Max resolution capacity, m circa 10 *


*KEY MODES OF THE AIRBORNE RADARS OPERATIONS:
*

"AIR-TO-AIR" 
Speed search; 
Seach with distance gauging; 
Search and lock-in in the short-range combat mode; 
Tracking down up to 15 targets in order to evaluate the tactical situation and conduct aircraft team operations without search suspension; 
Accurate tracking down of up to 4 targets to ensure weapons application without search suspension; 
Targets illumination and transmission of orders on radiocorrection while guiding missiles; 
Identification of target type by its spectral characteristics; 
Identification of multiple target characteristics without visibility distortion. 


"AIR-TO-SURFACE" 
Terrain mapping in the real beam mode; 
Terrain mapping with the Dopler beam narrowing; 
Terrain mapping with antenna synthetic aperture; 
Selection of ground-based moving targets; 
Gauging coordinates down to the ground-based target; 
Tracking down of up to 2 ground-based targets. 

"AIR-TO-SEA" 
Marine search; 
Far-out marine search; 
Selection of moving marine targets; 
Gauging coordinates down to moving or immobile marine targets.

*Link: ---- The Manufacturer!*
V.Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP)

*N11-01M Antenna System*​

A dual-band antenna system with electronic beam control for airborne radio-electronic systems.
The antenna system (AS) comprises two phased arrays with the X and L frequency bands.
Scope of application:
fighters, fighters-interceptors, bombers and attack aircraft.


Key specifications: 
1. Aperture diameter, m ~1 
2. Frequency belt within X- and L-bands, &#37; 6 
3. AS xharacteristics within the X-band: 
multiplication rate, db 36 
beam movement timeline, mcsec 400 
number of formed beam types 12 
level of the first side lobes, db -25 
medium level of the far-out side lobes, db - 48 
width of the main beam, deg. 2,4 
4. Weight, kg 100 

It is possible to install the antenna system at electromechanical and fluid drives.

*Link: ---- The Manufacturer!*
V.Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP)


*India has a Bars N11 01M Antenna onboard Su-30MKI*........


----------



## z9-ec

Folks, I've said it before and I will say it again.

PLAAF and MAF (Malaysia) already use Su-30 (MKK and MKM) which means the tech is pretty much exposed to Pakistan. JF-17 thunder's capabilities can easily be evaluated in combat exercises along with Su-30s.

Considering that Malaysia has shown keen interest in purchasing JF-17 Thunder suggests it is, if not equal but is relatively similiar.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Now donot dis-respect SU-30 MKI.

It is by far One of the best of the best. It has an edge in nearly all aspects of Avionics and Aerodynamics *but it is not Invincible*. 

*Nothing IS.*


----------



## Owais

NIKUS said:


> This is kind of stupid comparison. JF-17 is like upgraded Mig-21 with RD-33 series of engines...speed, power, radar,manouvaribility, weapon load etc... in all respect, it is inferior to LCA. Forget about Su30-MKI...



your comments shows how much you know about these Jets


----------



## su-47

NIKUS said:


> This is kind of stupid comparison. JF-17 is like upgraded Mig-21 with RD-33 series of engines...speed, power, radar,manouvaribility, weapon load etc... in all respect, it is inferior to LCA. Forget about Su30-MKI...



you talk like an indian, and you have the pakistani flag under your country. are you an indian in pakistani clothing or a disconcerted pakistani?


----------



## Titanium

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Now donot dis-respect SU-30 MKI.



Is it a request, then be polite with folded hands



> It is by far One of the best of the best. It has an edge in nearly all aspects of Avionics and Aerodynamics



One of the best among........... names please. If the line is too long then it is one of the many fighter no more no less.



> *but it is not Invincible*.
> 
> *Nothing IS.*




So what is the point in having best if it is not "Invincible". I could trade Mig-21 with anything then, if it all biols down to avainics, weapons and luck


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

although a good radar and ECM suite makes a big difference, it really boils down to who sees and shoots first. even when in a dogfight dealing with WVR, there are so many different variables to take into account, sometimes it just doesn't matter which is the better plane.

Our original intent for the JF-17, is that it is a cheap BVR-capable fighter easily procurible. however, the second batch will be much more advanced, dealing with an AESA radar, composite materials, much more lighter than it already is, increased manueverability, increased TWR, etc. 

alhamdulillah, we are entering the realm of advanced aircraft design. however, i hope all these things that i mentioned don't get too much in the way of the govt.'s wallet. let's hope, insha'Allah, even with all these things the price tag won't go past $27 million.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

a note to some people here, nothing is invincible.


----------



## Malang

asaad-ul-islam said:


> a note to some people here, nothing is invincible.



except Islam, Mahdi, Prophet and Allah ;-)


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Malang said:


> except Islam, Mahdi, Prophet and Allah ;-)


i would say Allah alone. even islam will dissappear one day, according to hadith, before the day of judgement arrives.


----------



## Titanium

Malang said:


> except Islam, Mahdi, Prophet and Allah ;-)



Malang, your hit and run tactics are very good, just be wise in your usage of the same


----------



## Titanium

To get back on the topic, this is what Australian assessment of SU-30:



> "The Sukhoi Su-30 is in its infancy, however it will be a worthy opponent in the next decade


RAAF says new fighters more than a match - Breaking News - National - Breaking News


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

asaad-ul-islam said:


> i would say Allah alone. even islam will dissappear one day, according to hadith, before the day of judgement arrives.



Not correct Asad!

Islam will not disappear, as on the End of Days it will be the only Religion left on the face of the Earth!


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

*Titanium!*

I think you mis read my post or you donot understand what i wanted to imply!

*SU-30, is a class A Jet Fighter but not Invincible!*

Depends on lots of factors other than the machine itself. Doesnt it?


----------



## Titanium

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> *Titanium!*
> 
> *SU-30, is a class A Jet Fighter but not Invincible!*



I still don't get the Class A stuff, define the group and who are in it???


----------



## Malang

Titanium said:


> To get back on the topic, this is what Australian assessment of SU-30:
> 
> 
> RAAF says new fighters more than a match - Breaking News - National - Breaking News



The newspaper quotes "Super Hornets and F35" to be more than a match for Su30 and I agree with that assessment.. (though both Oz craft are more of strike fighters as opposed to Su30)


----------



## Titanium

Malang said:


> The newspaper quotes "Super Hornets and F35" to be more than a match for Su30 and I agree with that assessment.. (though both Oz craft are more of strike fighters as opposed to Su30)



So is the case of "Super Hornet and F-35" more than a match for Mig-21, F-5, Mirage III...etc.


----------



## Goodperson

Titanium said:


> So is the case of "Super Hornet and F-35" more than a match for Mig-21, F-5, Mirage III...etc.



Kewl !!! a reason to cheer? 

I suggest lets get back to the topic.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Malang said:


> The newspaper quotes "Super Hornets and F35" to be more than a match for Su30 and I agree with that assessment.. (though both Oz craft are more of strike fighters as opposed to Su30)



funny assessment.. 

even the american assessment on J-10 is like its a freakin 5th generation Fighter and takes it as a huge threat for it f-18 fleets. 

i think J-10 FA-18 and Su-30 mki are same type of class but no where close to F-35 intearms of Air-to-Air!!


----------



## su-47

23march said:


> funny assessment..
> 
> even the american assessment on J-10 is like its a freakin 5th generation Fighter and takes it as a huge threat for it f-18 fleets.



americans assessed J-10 like a 5th gen fighter? please provide the link. in janes defence weekly last year the USAF representative had assessed J-10 around the same capability as an early model F-16, calling it a 4th gen (not 4.5 gen) fighter and implied that the main threat from J-10 would be its sheer numbers.


----------



## EagleEyes

> implied that the main threat from J-10 would be its sheer numbers.



That was JF-17.


----------



## su-47

WebMaster said:


> That was JF-17.



no it was the J-10. this was in that issue last year or late 2006. the issue that had china as the country of focus. i will look it up once i get home and quote the paragraph.


----------



## Titanium

Get back to the Australian assesment of SU-30:


> "*Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot," *.





> "The Sukhoi Su-30 is in its infancy, however it will be a worthy opponent in the next decade.


----------



## EagleEyes

Titanium said:


> Get back to the Australian assesment of SU-30:



What are you trying to say? I am unable to get a proper picture.


----------



## ejaz007

Just one question to all those comparing the two fighters. These fighters are designed for different type of requirements. SU-30 is more like an long range interceptor while JF-17 multi purpose aircraft. Then why are these two being compared?

Su-30
FC-1

Regards,


----------



## Titanium

WebMaster said:


> What are you trying to say? I am unable to get a proper picture.



Basically Australian assessment is saying that you don't need "Ultra agile" aircraft in the present age of Improved Avionics and Missiles. The first one to see and shoot is all that matters.

The agile and Manuverable aircraft are a thing of the past doctrine......


----------



## su-47

Titanium said:


> Basically Australian assessment is saying that you don't need "Ultra agile" aircraft in the present age of Improved Avionics and Missiles. The first one to see and shoot is all that matters.
> 
> The agile and Manuverable aircraft are a thing of the past doctrine......



please share this piece of wisdom with the USAF. they are, after all, stupid enough to put TVC on Raptor.


----------



## Titanium

su-47 said:


> please share this piece of wisdom with the USAF. they are, after all, stupid enough to put TVC on Raptor.



Do you have No of the concerned Guy/Gal??

You should consider the timeline of Raptor design;

Also, have you wonder why the same TVC not present in F-35


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Also, have you wonder why the same TVC not present in F-35



F 35 is will be the primary strike fighter meaning it will play the primary role of ground attack with good airdefence capability, However the Raptor is an airdominance fighter with secondary ground attack role , so comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges


----------



## Malang

Titanium said:


> Do you have No of the concerned Guy/Gal??
> You should consider the timeline of Raptor design;
> Also, have you wonder why the same TVC not present in F-35



F22 is a stealth craft optimised as a fighter it sacrifices range and storage capacity for maneuverability and speed etc. (IMO)
F35 is a stealth craft optimised as a strike fighter it sacrifices maneuverability, speed etc. for stores and range(IMO)

btw Russians are the whizkids of TVC design and Americans are the geniuses at Stealth.. each exploits one's strengths...


----------



## Titanium

Malang said:


> F22 is a stealth craft optimised as a fighter it sacrifices range and storage capacity for maneuverability and speed etc. (IMO)
> F35 is a stealth craft optimised as a strike fighter it sacrifices maneuverability, speed etc. for stores and range(IMO)



Every one knows what they are for to USAF as well as partner nations. 

You should know the Manvreability is as much valued in strike platform, now that SAM Missiles capable of shooting down even a cruise missile and UAV.


> btw Russians are the whizkids of TVC design and Americans are the geniuses at Stealth.. each exploits one's strengths...



Oh Russians are good at somethings, no doubt. But if west had reason to belive TVC is penacca, I am sure they would have embraced it as they embraced HMS.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> You should know the Manvreability is as much valued in strike platform, now that SAM Missiles capable of shooting down even a cruise missile and UAV



That is where stealth alnong with ecm play a role for F 35.


----------



## Titanium

That is exactly why u should read, before replying


----------



## su-47

Titanium said:


> Do you have No of the concerned Guy/Gal??
> 
> You should consider the timeline of Raptor design;
> 
> Also, have you wonder why the same TVC not present in F-35



The raptor is given TVC coz the USAF determined that a air superiority fighter needs excellent manouverability as well good avionics and stealth if it is to dominate the airspace. 

if manouverability was not important, the USAF might as well load 30 AMRAAMs onto a B1 and call it an air superiority fighter. Put a large AESA radar on it and it would be able to spot enemy fighters at incredible ranges, and get the first shot. also, lancer has reduced RCS and its large size will enable a lot of radar jammers to be installed on it. Then why is it that USAF doesnt use the lancer for air superiority? 

the answer is that even in BVR era manouverability matters. the ranges you see on missiles (like 120 km range for AIM 120-C5) is for a head-on shot against a non-manouvering target. if shot at a manouvering target moving away, the range actually falls to around 1/4th of the stated range. this is why manouverability matters. it reduces the no-escape zone of enemy missiles.


----------



## Malang

Titanium:

TVC is one of the capabilities.. having it is an advantage (not having it is an disadvantage viz-a-viz craft of other similar capabilities)..

Stealth Technology is in itself a very big capability and advantage (for eg B2's were subsonic and yet were never shot down in a battle and has an excellent objective completion efficiency, then why aren;t they used as fighters?)

Further, if F22 and F35 were to compete than F22 with come out triumphant in air-air combat but if both were to compete on being a better strike fighter f35 would come out triumphant.. now is it solely because F22's TVC engine? Not really but it plays a synergistic role...

(another analogy would be some sports car rely on higher BHP some on torque some on reducing weight some on having an excellent dyno graph. etc but ultimately all try to leverage their different advanatages to come out on tops but some cars have a combination of all and some have an outright advantage in one deptt. eg Ariel Atom is a subton car with world's fastest accln amongst all, Bugatti Veyron has a howler of an engine etc.)


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

malang, i don't think superhornet's abilities will exceed that of su-30mki(or should i say su-35). although F-35 is in a different league considering stealth, it can barely carry that much weapons in its internal bay.

as for f-22, TVC featured on the aircraft can only provide vectoring for up and down motion. it's not 2D TVC like su-30mki, which includes left/right and up/down.


----------



## Malang

asaad-ul-islam said:


> malang, i don't think superhornet's abilities will exceed that of su-30mki(or should i say su-35).



Super Hornet is not in the league of SU30MKI, else IAF would have asked for SU Flanker family to be included in the MRCA competition...
SU30MKI will form the flagship of the IAF and MRCA as the second in command (flagshipwise)



> although F-35 is in a different league considering stealth, it can barely carry that much weapons in its internal bay.



How come stealth impedes its weapons carrying ability?? since B2 can carry truckloads of weapons??


----------



## z9-ec

People, I have said this before and I will say it again.

Both PLAAF and MAF operate SU-30 MKK and MKM, they are equivalent to the versions which IAF operates. 

In my opinion, the JF-17 Thunder has already been evaluated in combat exercises with the SU-30 by PAF and if needed the SU-30 can be offered to PAF in combat considering the friendship, mutual interests and cooperation between Pakistan and China.

Malaysia on the other hand is considering JF-17 Thunder for MAF. Algeria after purchasing Mig-29s returned all of them, this happened *for the first time in the history of Russia*due to unsatisfactory results.

Which means, the tech edge that Su-30 offers to India is pretty much exposed and future blocks of JF-17 may resemble or be far advanced from what Su offers. The PAF ACM recently said there are advanced versions of JF-17 being worked at which is a clear indication of what I'm trying to say.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> oth PLAAF and MAF operate SU-30 MKK and MKM, they are equivalent to the versions which IAF operates.



PLAAF's Su MKK is not equalent to MKI. It does not have the same avionics or radar as MKI or MKM has. That said MKM and MKI are pretty much the same except that MKM uses fench avionics and MKI along with french uses Israeli avionics.



> In my opinion, the JF-17 Thunder has already been evaluated in combat exercises with the SU-30 by PAF and if needed the SU-30 can be offered to PAF in combat considering the friendship, mutual interests and cooperation between Pakistan and China.



I have heard J10 has been evaluated with su 30 mkk, but haven't heard J17 being evaluated against it , in that case we all must have heard about it. Again remember it is not the plane Su alone it is avionics and sensors which differ between the chinese version and the Indian one.


> Malaysia on the other hand is considering JF-17 Thunder for MAF



Can you provide the source. Anyways j17 is typically a light aircraft(correct me if I am wrong) and Su 30 is a heavy airdominance fighter, I am sure Malysia would be interested in light aircrafts to complement heavy ones.



> Which means, the tech edge that Su-30 offers to India is pretty much exposed and future blocks of JF-17 may resemble or be far advanced from what Su offers



Nope it is the radar and avionics that matter. so you are not exposed.



> The PAF ACM recently said there are advanced versions of JF-17 being worked at which is a clear indication of what I'm trying to say.


There is a limitation to how much you can upgrade ie limitation of radar relative to nose size etc. That said J17 has the potential to be a decent point defence fighter.

Also one has to understand that you are alone not moving or evolving in the world, the rest also do it, Su will be constantly upgraded, with first upgradation starting around 2009-2010


----------



## Malang

z9-ec said:


> People, I have said this before and I will say it again.
> Both PLAAF and MAF operate SU-30 MKK and MKM, they are equivalent to the versions which IAF operates.



There is a difference in avionics.. and soon in missiles carried too.. also correct me if I am wrong IAF has an option on cards to go in for Irbis-E Radar and the Newer engine (the one on su-35bm)



> In my opinion, the JF-17 Thunder has already been evaluated in combat exercises with the SU-30 by PAF and if needed the SU-30 can be offered to PAF in combat considering the friendship, mutual interests and cooperation between Pakistan and China.



in that case USAF can lend Raptors, B2s and Israelis lend F16I' and Russia lend its Tu-160's etc. 
first ain't gonna happen (happened during ww2 when US and UK lent Russia planes I think)
second Pak would not be able to operate SU30's



> Malaysia on the other hand is considering JF-17 Thunder for MAF.



if their requirement is for sub-20mil$ multirole fighter and numbers then its an awesome craft.



> Algeria after purchasing Mig-29s returned all of them, this happened *for the first time in the history of Russia*due to unsatisfactory results.



The slimy Russians gave them hand me downs/second hands ones... and which also jeopardized their Su30 deal I think.



> Which means, the tech edge that Su-30 offers to India is pretty much exposed and future blocks of JF-17 may resemble or be far advanced from what Su offers.



May I am inclined to believe most definetly not.. a better alt would be J10



> The PAF ACM recently said there are advanced versions of JF-17 being worked at which is a clear indication of what I'm trying to say.



Not really.


----------



## z9-ec

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> PLAAF's Su MKK is not equalent to MKI. It does not have the same avionics or radar as MKI or MKM has. That said MKM and MKI are pretty much the same except that MKM uses fench avionics and MKI along with french uses Israeli avionics.





> Nope it is the radar and avionics that matter. so you are not exposed.



In that sense, France is offering the most advanced avionics and other eqiupment to Pakistan.

Futher more, I was refering to the upgrades of the airframe which will eventually make JF-17 a heavy air dominance fighter in the future.




> Can you provide the source. Anyways j17 is typically a light aircraft(correct me if I am wrong) and Su 30 is a heavy airdominance fighter, I am sure Malysia would be interested in light aircrafts to complement heavy ones.



Heres one.




> Also one has to understand that you are alone not moving or evolving in the world, the rest also do it, Su will be constantly upgraded, with first upgradation starting around 2009-2010



What makes you think Pakistan and China will stand still and watch those upgrades pass by?


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> In that sense, France is offering the most advanced avionics and other eqiupment to Pakistan.



Nothing has been finalised. rb2e offerd is a pesa, so is the current radar in Su , howver Russians are good in PESA and the nose size is big enough to accomodate a biger and a better radar, computer and cooling solutions.

Other then that I dont see anything earth shattering like Spectra etc and morover by the time you have flown a tesbed customised plane Su upgrade would be in its half way mark.


> Heres one.



Ther report does not state any thing about JF17 (correct me if I am wrong)



> What makes you think Pakistan and China will stand still and watch those upgrades pass by?



I was replyimg to your post where you seem to suggest that the advanced avionics will be added and will provide and edge, what I ment was by the time the advanced avionics are added or the test flight is completed or integration prototype is completed , over half of Su fleet would have been upgraded.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

For the USAF, if the kill ratio is not 5:1 in their favour, the enemy aircraft is extremely deadly.

Secondly, the u s millitary has a habbit of exagerating the opponents capabilities to keep them off the track and create a false sense of supremacy.

Thirdly, comparing the JF 17's abilities equal to those of su 30 is a wishfull thinking---it is a bad assesment and the bad assesment is being made worse. Su 30 has been flying in combat role for awhile now---even though the SU is a very expensive platform to operate, it is a deadly deadly air superioity aircraft---no ifs and buts about it---. JF 17 is yet to grow up---we haven't even seen its teething problems. It is still a baby---it will grow up in a year or so---we will start learning what it can do and what it cannot do---remember the F 16---the designers had only the clues as to how far their imaginations could go---the F 16 performed beyond their wildest of dreams---so, it will take 2 to 3 years before the true JF 17 emerges ( the performance capabilities ).

Similiarly, comparing a Super Hornet and J 10---can't compare it one on one---if you grade the hornet 10 on a scale of 1--10, then the J 10 of today is somewhere around 7---to 7.5---with a stronger engine---Tvc---better avionics and missiles--it will jump upto 8.5---8.75----the difference will depend upon the pilot, the training, the air support that he has and the number of aircraft in an encounter.

In the early 80's when the pakistani pilots were training at Hill AFB, they were praised a lot by the american pilots, had great articles written in the newspapers etc etc----but what the truth was---there was only one pakistani pilot out of the whole batch, who could take any american pilot one on one and beat them on a similiar version of an F 16---there were a few other pakistani pilots who could compete with the american counterparts on a given day---.

The americans have set standards for foreign pilots and their planes---when they say that a foreign pilot is good---it is good on the foreign pilots scale of assesment.

I have said many atimes before---listen to what the americans are saying to you about your abilities and their capabilities---but be wary of what they are not telling you about what they can do and the things you don't know about---in other words---be ready---you will be sucker punched.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Malang said:


> F22 is a stealth craft optimised as a fighter it sacrifices range and storage capacity for maneuverability and speed etc. (IMO)
> F35 is a stealth craft optimised as a strike fighter it sacrifices maneuverability, speed etc. for stores and range(IMO)
> 
> btw Russians are the whizkids of TVC design and Americans are the geniuses at Stealth.. each exploits one's strengths...



SU-30 mki
max speed: 2.3
range: 3,000 km
F-22
max spped: 2 / 1.7 at cruise speed.
range: 3,290 km


F-22 is able to exert appropriate maneuvers to pull out of danger or engage in a dominate position.. 
where as fancy stunts by Su-family will not have much effectiveness in BVR era with 5th gen aircrafts, though good for air shows...



su-47 said:


> the answer is that even in BVR era manouverability matters. the ranges you see on missiles (like 120 km range for AIM 120-C5) is for a head-on shot against a non-manouvering target. if shot at a manouvering target moving away, the range actually falls to around 1/4th of the stated range. this is why manouverability matters. it reduces the no-escape zone of enemy missiles.



i highly advice you to do some research on Aim-120 before you make such undermine statements..

In long-range engagements AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft. It transitions to a self-guiding terminal mode when the target is within range of its own monopulse radar set, operating in high-PRF mode. Since this seeker uses its own active radar it does not require the launch aircraft to illuminate the target or to track the target. In case the target tries to protect itself with active jamming, AMRAAMs seeker switches to a medium-PRF "home-on-jam" mode. With its sophisticated avionics, high closing speed, and excellent end-game maneuverability, chances of escape from AMRAAM are minimal. Upon intercept an active-radar proximity fuze detonates the 40-pound high-explosive warhead to destroy the target. At closer ranges AMRAAM guides itself all the way using its own radar, freeing the launch aircraft to engage other targets. The lethal range of the 40lbs. blast fragmentation warhead has not been disclosed.



Malang said:


> Super Hornet is not in the league of SU30MKI, else IAF would have asked for SU Flanker family to be included in the MRCA competition...
> SU30MKI will form the flagship of the IAF and MRCA as the second in command (flagshipwise)



Su-30 mki is from flanker family su-35 so no need for IAF to even consider it for MRCA. 
and if you are going to make such statements like F-18 is not in the same league as mki then please elaborate!


----------



## EagleEyes

> I have said many atimes before---listen to what the americans are saying to you about your abilities and their capabilities---but be wary of what they are not telling you about what they can do and the things you don't know about---in other words---be ready---you will be sucker punched.



PAF utilizes its own tactics and training by itself with the influence of U.S. training and various other country's contribution, as well as what is learned from the exercises. That being said PAF knows what to do.

Where we get suckered punched is at the procurement stage due to the political situation. Now the story is all about costs and dividing the money over the air force's hemisphere.


----------



## z9-ec

MastanKhan said:


> Thirdly, comparing the JF 17's abilities equal to those of su 30 is a wishfull thinking---it is a bad assesment and the bad assesment is being made worse. Su 30 has been flying in combat role for awhile now---even though the SU is a very expensive platform to operate, it is a deadly deadly air superioity aircraft---no ifs and buts about it---. JF 17 is yet to grow up---we haven't even seen its teething problems. It is still a baby---it will grow up in a year or so---we will start learning what it can do and what it cannot do---remember the F 16---the designers had only the clues as to how far their imaginations could go---the F 16 performed beyond their wildest of dreams---so, it will take 2 to 3 years before the true JF 17 emerges ( the performance capabilities ).



That is exactly what I meant to say. Plans are underway to make JF-17 more capable and advanced craft in the future to meet PAF requirements as PAF ACM mentioned in his press conference/interview recently.


----------



## EagleEyes

> There is a limitation to how much you can upgrade ie limitation of radar relative to nose size etc. That said J17 has the potential to be a decent point defence fighter.
> 
> Also one has to understand that you are alone not moving or evolving in the world, the rest also do it, Su will be constantly upgraded, with first upgradation starting around 2009-2010



Firstly, its not J17 rather the JF-17. Secondly, there will be no upgrade rather than equipment. Thirdly, there are no limitations of how much you can upgrade as long as air frame is good.

JF-17 Thunder will be the best aircraft in its category equipped with probably AESA and MBDA missiles.. mica.. meteor are on the cards.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Firstly, its not J17 rather the JF-17. Secondly, there will be no upgrade rather than equipment. Thirdly, there are no limitations of how much you can upgrade as long as air frame is good.


My my that was a mistake ,, thanx for pointing out
I was comparing it with Su 30 in terms of upgrades . Yes the size of the plane and its nose does matter when installing radar, its powerful computer and cooling solutions and other paraphanelia.



> JF-17 Thunder will be the best aircraft in its category equipped with probably AESA and MBDA missiles.. mica.. meteor are on the cards



In case you are talking about France I don't see AESA coming soon nor do I see them delivering the AESA when it is developed, however I am sure that PESA currently serving in Rafale is a good radar and will definitely be on offer, that said I dont see that happening in case India goes for Rfale


----------



## Myth_buster_1

currently the only advantage JF-17 will have over MKI is its verity of advance air-air missiles.. MICA, Aim-120 C5 SD-10 with the help of vast quantity of AWAC support will give hard tough time to any indian fighters.
unless india opts for FA-18s they might then get a chance of getting more advance missiles like Aim-120 C7 and Aim-9x.


----------



## irfan1173

AoA
JF-17 will get Aim-120 C5. Where are you getting this from??


----------



## Myth_buster_1

irfan1173 said:


> AoA
> JF-17 will get Aim-120 C5. Where are you getting this from??



500 aim-120 MICA and SD-10 will be shared upon PAF aircraft inventory.


----------



## EagleEyes

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> My my that was a mistake ,, thanx for pointing out
> I was comparing it with Su 30 in terms of upgrades . Yes the size of the plane and its nose does matter when installing radar, its powerful computer and cooling solutions and other paraphanelia.



There is no POWERFUL computer in the planes. Installing radar proportional to the size of the plane does matter.. every kid knows that. Cooling solutions exist in every other plane. There is no such thing as "other paraphanelia".




> In case you are talking about France I don't see AESA coming soon nor do I see them delivering the AESA when it is developed, however I am sure that PESA currently serving in Rafale is a good radar and will definitely be on offer, that said I dont see that happening in case India goes for Rfale



That is your wishful thinking and your beliefs. Keep it to yourself unless you can provide credible sources to pre-judge the political maneuvers, because the last time i heard Russian President "personally" approved the engines for the JF-17 aircraft. Do provide your sources stating that it will not happen when it is required by the PAF.


----------



## EagleEyes

irfan1173 said:


> AoA
> JF-17 will get Aim-120 C5. Where are you getting this from??



JF-17 is unlikely to use the AIM-120C5 due to the other options available as well as because diversifying sources. However, one will not be surprised if a proper solution to integrate the missile with the Western radar is available.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> There is no POWERFUL computer in the planes. Installing radar proportional to the size of the plane does matter.. every kid knows that. Cooling solutions exist in every other plane. There is no such thing as "other paraphanelia".



Yes there are computers, powerful computational architecture allows faster processing of aesa information, Aesa is not the holy grail, it requires powerful computational architecture to process the information.

Good that you know what everybody knows , which means Su will have a bigger radar and more modules .

Yes there are other paraphenilia, sensors suites ect, any decent 4.5 gen plane has a lot of sensors eg rafale has spectra etc.



> That is your wishful thinking and your beliefs. Keep it to yourself unless you can provide credible sources to pre-judge the political maneuvers



Thanx , shows you are whishful not me, care to provide proff that Rfales Aesa has is ready and has been tested, in case you cant never mind replying.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> 500 aim-120 MICA and SD-10 will be shared upon PAF aircraft inventory.



Aim 120 cannot be easily integrated unless LM allows to go ahead.


----------



## IceCold

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Aim 120 cannot be easily integrated unless LM allows to go ahead.



AMRAAM120c will be equiped on the F-16s, as far as JF-17 is concerned, we have SD-10 and infuture we may also have MICA as negotiations are on their way. Besides if we also incooperate RC-400 we might get the go ahead for integrating the 120c to the JF-17 because in this case there will be no chinese involvement in the issue.But still even if it doesnt,we still have enough punch with SD-10 and MICA on the JF-17.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> AMRAAM120c will be equiped on the F-16s, as far as JF-17 is concerned, we have SD-10 and infuture we may also have MICA as negotiations are on their way. Besides if we also incooperate RC-400 we might get the go ahead for integrating the 120c to the JF-17 because in this case there will be no chinese involvement in the issue.But still even if it doesnt,we still have enough punch with SD-10 and MICA on the JF-17.



I did not say anything to the contrary. I am not sure about SD 10 I think at best it will be comparable to Russian missiles in terms of performance, however MICA will be a good addition,

Can you clarify , why is Pakistan going for two BVR platforms , when they have MICA whsy should they go for SD 10, or is it that SD 10 will be employed in the first fifty lot that will arrive with Chinese avionics and the rest will have MICA. Please do clarify.

Also I though that RBE2 passive scanned array radar installed in Rafale was offered and I though that that slowly when the Active scanned version is ready , they would be on offer too. Can you also clarify exactly what was on offer from the French in terms of avionics.

Thanx


----------



## Malang

23march said:


> SU-30 mki
> max speed: 2.3
> range: 3,000 km
> F-22
> max spped: 2 / 1.7 at cruise speed.
> range: 3,290 km
> 
> F-22 is able to exert appropriate maneuvers to pull out of danger or engage in a dominate position..
> where as fancy stunts by Su-family will not have much effectiveness in BVR era with 5th gen aircrafts, though good for air shows...



It makes more sense in BVR arena Heard of Head-on and tail-tail chase? 
basically a super maneuverable craft can outrun AAM's



> Su-30 mki is from flanker family su-35 so no need for IAF to even consider it for MRCA.



and why not??



> and if you are going to make such statements like F-18 is not in the same league as mki then please elaborate!



answer above please and then get back.,


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

MKI is a good option for IAF....as MRCA.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> MKI is a good option for IAF....as MRCA.



MKI is an airdominance fighter with secondary strike role, also it is a heavy fighter and its runnuing costs are high. 

The Iaf is looking for medium class plane with primay strike role, in short a high tech bomb truck.

IAF is looking towards a force structure of light medium and heavy class fighters.


----------



## IceCold

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> I did not say anything to the contrary. I am not sure about SD 10 I think at best it will be comparable to Russian missiles in terms of performance, however MICA will be a good addition,
> 
> Can you clarify , why is Pakistan going for two BVR platforms , when they have MICA whsy should they go for SD 10, or is it that SD 10 will be employed in the first fifty lot that will arrive with Chinese avionics and the rest will have MICA. Please do clarify.
> 
> Also I though that RBE2 passive scanned array radar installed in Rafale was offered and I though that that slowly when the Active scanned version is ready , they would be on offer too. Can you also clarify exactly what was on offer from the French in terms of avionics.
> 
> Thanx



Well to me it was also a surprise as in actual we are going for three different BVRAAMs if we include the Amraam in the list also. Well i guess the purpose with the SD-10 is to give us an indengious option provided our relationship with the west cools down. However MICA and AMRAAM are the best in the buisness and while we still have the option we will avail it.
I'm am not sure about the passive scanned array radar being offered, i think from the begining it was MICA with RC-400 radar the one also used in the mirage with slight modifications for instance making it compatible with the LINK-16 that we will use and active radar homing for BVRAAM.
Pakistan in my opinion will not go for a passive radar, whenever we change it, it will be for a new block of JF-17 and will most probally be an AESA radar. It would be probally be of chinese orgin.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

PAF current F-16 block 15 are also equipped with Chinese 
PL-9 missiles and French R-550. So depending on the mission requirements appropriate missile will be equipped with any front line fighter be it J-10 F-16 or JF-17. 
I am pretty sure that if PAF could arm its F-6 with aim-9 back in 70s today it wont have any problem with aim-120 on JF-17 or J-10.
so by 2012 PAF should have at lest 1,400 air-2-air missiles primary and secondary missiles on all multirole fighters..
Primary 500 Aim-120 C5
Primary ~300 MICA
Secondary 300 Aim-9
Secondary ~300 SD-10


----------



## EagleEyes

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Yes there are computers, powerful computational architecture allows faster processing of aesa information, Aesa is not the holy grail, it requires powerful computational architecture to process the information.



I thought you were talking about CPUs. 



> Good that you know what everybody knows , which means Su will have a bigger radar and more modules .



So?



> Yes there are other paraphenilia, sensors suites ect, any decent 4.5 gen plane has a lot of sensors eg rafale has spectra etc.



Every fighter planes has sensors, ECM, and various other systems accompanying the aircraft. So what?



> Thanx , shows you are whishful not me, care to provide proff that Rfales Aesa has is ready and has been tested, in case you cant never mind replying.



Why dont you provide links that AESA will not be offered to PAF when it is needed, as per by your claims? *Who are you to tell me that "nevermind replying"??* Did i claim that Rafale AESA is ready and has been tested? Stop it already.


----------



## Keysersoze

23march said:


> PAF current F-16 block 15 are also equipped with Chinese
> PL-9 missiles and French R-550. So depending on the mission requirements appropriate missile will be equipped with any front line fighter be it J-10 F-16 or JF-17.
> I am pretty sure that if PAF could arm its F-6 with aim-9 back in 70s today it wont have any problem with aim-120 on JF-17 or J-10.
> so by 2012 PAF should have at lest 1,400 air-2-air missiles primary and secondary missiles on all multirole fighters..
> Primary 500 Aim-120 C5
> Primary ~300 MICA
> Secondary 300 Aim-9
> Secondary ~300 SD-10



Ok firstly you have to understand the difference between the missiles. BVR missiles are a lot different to WVR missiles. BVR missiles require linking into radar systems. WVR generally don't. There are undoubtedly restrictions on allowing access to the Chinese to the AIM and MICA systems (Which PAK will not want to violate)

It's simple really. Chinese radar systems will use the SD-10
Western radar systems will use the AIM and MICA systems.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Keysersoze said:


> *Ok firstly you have to understand the difference between the missiles. BVR missiles are a lot different to WVR missiles. BVR missiles require linking into radar systems. WVR generally don't. There are undoubtedly restrictions on allowing access to the Chinese to the AIM and MICA systems (Which PAK will not want to violate)*
> 
> It's simple really. Chinese radar systems will use the SD-10
> Western radar systems will use the AIM and MICA systems.



ok like i didnt know whats BVR or WVR?  
"AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft. It transitions to a self-guiding terminal mode when the target is within range of its own monopulse radar set, operating in high-PRF mode. Since this seeker uses its own active radar it does not require the launch aircraft to illuminate the target or to track the target. In case the target tries to protect itself with active jamming, AMRAAMs seeker switches to a medium-PRF "home-on-jam" mode." 
Is their of any restriction imposed on PAF for MICA or AIM-120. does the law only allows it to be used on western MRCAs?
PAF J-10 and upgraded and later batch of JF-17 will carry western avionics and radars so what kind of technical problems would they have integrating western missiles?
can you please enlighten me with any restriction imposed on PAF regarding AMRAAM or MICA missiles?


----------



## irfan1173

AoA
Missiles cannot be integrated without the permission and involvement of radar,missile manufacturer.I doubt americans will agree to integrating AIM-120 on JF-17 even with french radar.


----------



## Keysersoze

23march said:


> ok like i didnt know whats BVR or WVR?
> "AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft. It transitions to a self-guiding terminal mode when the target is within range of its own monopulse radar set, operating in high-PRF mode. Since this seeker uses its own active radar it does not require the launch aircraft to illuminate the target or to track the target. In case the target tries to protect itself with active jamming, AMRAAMs seeker switches to a medium-PRF "home-on-jam" mode."
> Is their of any restriction imposed on PAF for MICA or AIM-120. does the law only allows it to be used on western MRCAs?
> PAF J-10 and upgraded and later batch of JF-17 will carry western avionics and radars so what kind of technical problems would they have integrating western missiles?
> can you please enlighten me with any restriction imposed on PAF regarding AMRAAM or MICA missiles?



Yes re-read what you just posted.

AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft
Now unless the pilot is going to talk the missile, it would require integration. Inertial guidance requires data to be fed to the missile first .......Do the maths. 
Since there is concern about tech being passed to China, Pakistan would have given assurances about the security of technology involved. (The stupid rumours about F-16's are still being perpetuated and used against PAK)
Integrating systems is not generally a problem for say Sweden (Gripen uses a GEC/marconi/ericsson radar) or France (Rafale uses the RBE2) because they have the facility for creating similar systems, and they are allies so there would be little or no problem with tech transfer to third parties.

And so since you "KNOW" that WVR missiles don't require the use of a radar your comment about the PL-9 and AIM -9 does not hold water. the seeker is built into a missile and does not require as much integration.
The westernised aircraft would undoubtedly be constructed in PAK so there would be no problem for integration on any aircraft with WESTERN avionics like I stated earlier.


----------



## Keysersoze

irfan1173 said:


> AoA
> Missiles cannot be integrated without the permission and involvement of radar,missile manufacturer.I doubt americans will agree to integrating AIM-120 on JF-17 even with french radar.



The AIM -120 can be used with the French Rafales so there would be no problem there. And since the Americans sold the missiles they would not mind what platform they were used on, so long as the tech was not shown to potential enemies I.E. China


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> So?



Which means it will have enhanced range, more power output. I said this in reply to another posting where there was a comparison between Su and Thunder.



> Every fighter planes has sensors, ECM, and various other systems accompanying the aircraft. So what?



Yes, but 4.5 generation planes have enhanced sensor suites and capabilities wich would require more room for processing and power generation and power supplies. Sensor suites like spectra are embeddded within the plane in the sense it acts in unision or one whole unit of the plane.



> Why dont you provide links that AESA will not be offered to PAF when it is needed, as per by your claims?



Vice versa , can you provide me with source that AESA has been offerd to Pakistan from the French.Yes, you can forget French avionics in case India goes for Rafale, that is called strategic negotiation and business sense. Do you think the French would like to loose contract such as MRCA IN ORDER TO supply radar for PAF. In this case cost to benifit ratio simply will not add up to favourable ratio. 

I personally believe the whole offer was a pressure tactic from the French quarter and If India does not go for Rafale , I am sure that J17 will receive RC-400 and MICA.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Well to me it was also a surprise as in actual we are going for three different BVRAAMs if we include the Amraam in the list also. Well i guess the purpose with the SD-10 is to give us an indengious option provided our relationship with the west cools down. However MICA and AMRAAM are the best in the buisness and while we still have the option we will avail it.
> I'm am not sure about the passive scanned array radar being offered, i think from the begining it was MICA with RC-400 radar the one also used in the mirage with slight modifications for instance making it compatible with the LINK-16 that we will use and active radar homing for BVRAAM.
> Pakistan in my opinion will not go for a passive radar, whenever we change it, it will be for a new block of JF-17 and will most probally be an AESA radar. It would be probally be of chinese orgin.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On depeer thought, dont you think SD10 will be Used in the first batch of J 17 and in the conversion of older aircrafts such as Mirage and F 7. I am sure that Pakistan will go for western AESA source or atleat prefer one since it would render MICA and the planned western avionics useless in case the western suppliers refuse to integrate it with Chinese AESA. If Pakistan were sure about going for Chinese AESA I am sure they would have preferred the current avionics anot would not have planned to go for western missiles . It simply does not mae sense in terms of spending.
(Correct me if I had missed something)


----------



## Keysersoze

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> On depeer thought, dont you think SD10 will be Used in the first batch of J 17 and in the conversion of older aircrafts such as Mirage and F 7. I am sure that Pakistan will go for western AESA source or atleat prefer one since it would render MICA and the planned western avionics useless in case the western suppliers refuse to integrate it with Chinese AESA. If Pakistan were sure about going for Chinese AESA I am sure they would have preferred the current avionics anot would not have planned to go for western missiles . It simply does not mae sense in terms of spending.
> (Correct me if I had missed something)



IPF it is a lot simpler than you would think.

Any Chinese system would use Chinese missiles. They have the advantage of being almost sanction proof. It also allows for development and self sustainability in arms development. Whilst the systems are not the cutting edge at the moment they would catch up pretty fast. The Chinese are pumping a lot of money into development, which when you add PAK's money and scientists equals to a faster catch up rate.

French and U.S. systems would be more advanced and would be pretty much inter changeable. The French tend not to be as trigger happy with sanctions so it allows PAK with a bit more flexibility in the future with any political problems .


----------



## z9-ec

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Vice versa , can you provide me with source that AESA has been offerd to Pakistan from the French.Yes, you can forget French avionics in case India goes for Rafale, that is called strategic negotiation and business sense. Do you think the French would like to loose contract such as MRCA IN ORDER TO supply radar for PAF. In this case cost to benifit ratio simply will not add up to favourable ratio.




Perhaps, I should enlighten and refresh your memory.


Have you forgotten the fact that PAF operates the largest fleet of Mirage aircrafts? 

The Agostas were equipped with MESMA systems while India has scorpenes? 

DCN has offered Marlin to PN?

Get your facts right. Even if India goes for Rafs there is no way the friendship between France and Pakistan gets affected.

What makes you think otherwise?! (It's common sense!)


----------



## DarkStar

*Veno.

Any more senseless rants that do not add value to the discussion, then infractions and banning will follow.*


----------



## Super Falcon

JF 17 first have to get twin engines than it can generate the thrust which make radars of jf 17 to make a lock on on su 30


----------



## zombie:-)

Super Falcon said:


> JF 17 first have to get twin engines than it can generate the thrust which make radars of jf 17 to make a lock on on su 30



SIR with due respect how is engine thrust connected to radar lock on of an aircraft


----------



## k7x

Well you have to understand JF17 is first child of PAF and SU 30 is for India. 
they will get much attention . 

I agree PAF will increase the avionics and smartness of jF17 to match Su30MKI. but by that time Inida will not waitED with Su30MKI. they will have much more advanced version of su30MKI . so it is like a carrot infront of a horse. PAF will try to bridge the gap but it has to be seen that India will also improve its plane to widen its gap. 

Air combat.. 

Su 30 has more fire power , more range, TVC, high internal energy ( very important to operate EW ) .

jF17s edge is low size and good fire power ( talk of total 9 hard points)

you can talk about IFR ... but the first target of any attack will be on the high valued assets like IFR tanker and AWACS .. and su30 has some bad weapons to take them out. but for su30 , it can travel far and get IFR safely


----------



## zombie:-)

the only surefire way to give a blody nose to IAF is to build jf-17s in large numbers and keeping their timely upgrades on track


----------



## Arsalan

zombie:-) said:


> the only surefire way to give a blody nose to IAF is to build jf-17s in large numbers and keeping their timely upgrades on track



agreed!

JF17 flying with timely modifications and two or three squadrons of more modren jets like the FC20 and the F16 block 52 seems to be the right answer by PAF


----------



## Super Falcon

example before you have to lock on su 30 you must reach near to your target so you can get the target of your fighgter jet in your fighter jets radar its not like that JF 17 is in the skies of karachi and its radars detects su 30 in skies of lahore which is impoesible how can Jf 17 destroy it because its radars dont have su 30 on its range Jf 17 have to reach near to su so it can lock on it it is only examply i know some of Jf will be stationed in lahore


----------



## 24*

Super Falcon said:


> example before you have to lock on su 30 you must reach near to your target so you can get the target of your fighgter jet in your fighter jets radar its not like that JF 17 is in the skies of karachi and its radars detects su 30 in skies of lahore which is impoesible how can Jf 17 destroy it because its radars dont have su 30 on its range Jf 17 have to reach near to su so it can lock on it it is only examply i know some of Jf will be stationed in lahore




I doubt Ur logic, its better to have a powerful radar & long distance air to air missiles. Besides SU 30MKI has a much powerful radar and potent weaponry, it will smoke jf17 even before it appears on later's radar.


----------



## 24*

Can ne *SENIOR MEMBER* please tell me why jf17 has not been inducted in PLAAF.


----------



## IceCold

24* said:


> Can ne *SENIOR MEMBER* please tell me why jf17 has not been inducted in PLAAF.



This question has been answered many times before. I'll suggest you stop posting and get back to reading the JF-17 sticky thread and you will find answers to many of your questions for which you don't even need to waste Bandwidth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

24* said:


> Besides SU 30MKI has a much powerful radar and potent weaponry, it will smoke jf17 even before it appears on later's radar.


JF-17 has potent weaponry and will be data-linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200, which both have a FAR more powerful radar than mki, so by your logic mki will be smoked even before take-off. 



> Can ne SENIOR MEMBER please tell me why jf17 has not been inducted in PLAAF.


Why don't you tell the SENIOR MEMBER why JF-17 needs to be inducted by PLAAF?


----------



## 24*

hj786 said:


> JF-17 has potent weaponry and will be data-linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200, which both have a FAR more powerful radar than mki


dude do not talk about will be and may be.......tell wen will it be linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200?.....besides IAF is not goin to sit ideal and watch MKI technologically surpassed.



> mki will be smoked even before take-off.







> Why don't you tell the SENIOR MEMBER why JF-17 needs to be inducted by PLAAF?



THE REASON: Bcos you guys are going ga-ga over this reversed engineered Chinese jet. 
PLAFF is not inducting it because its not worth it......


----------



## 24*

IceCold said:


> This question has been answered many times before. I'll suggest you stop posting and get back to reading the JF-17 sticky thread and you will find answers to many of your questions for which you don't even need to waste Bandwidth.



OK....SORRY


----------



## lowe1941

Something you might want to think about,,,,The historical experience has been that, 3rd world countries, buying such high tech warplanes, run into personnel problems. Pilots are often selected more for their loyalty to the government, than for their flying skills. Ground crew jobs pay well, and are sometimes given out at gifts to loyal supporters of whoever is running the government at the moment. As a result, the high-tech aircraft tend to be flown by substandard pilots, and not available for operations (because of poor maintenance) 

now for this Russia usually builds cheaper and inferior planes designed for pliots with a minium of training direct by ground control...

of course every one understands that in Pakistan their is no corruption or poltics in handing out jobs.


----------



## Super Falcon

you are right to why not increase the range of radar why not instal aesa radar system on JF 17 but stilll powerfull engine neded to boost the fighter jet capability by doing that JF 17 can engage every fighter jet in iaf up to date


----------



## qsaark

*Risky airplane?*

Markus Junianto Sihaloho
New Sukhoi Jets &#8216;Attacked&#8217; by Malfunctions

Two of the Air Force&#8217;s three new Russian-made Sukhoi jet fighters were struck with what are believed to be minor mechanical problems during a training session over the Makassar Strait on Friday.

Air Force spokesman Air Commodore Chaeruddin Ray said two SU-30MK2 fighters, each flown by one Indonesian and one Russian pilot, were undergoing interception exercises when an alarm signalled in both aircraft that they were under attack from a foreign jet fighter.

The pilots reported the warnings to the Makassar Airbase, which ordered both fighters to return to base where they landed without incident, Chaeruddin said.

He rejected suggestions that there was another aircraft trying to engage the two Sukhois, saying radar evidence around Makassar had not detected any other fighter aircraft above Sulawesi Island.

&#8220;After the report [from the Sukhoi pilots], a surveillance aircraft was also deployed to search, but no other aircraft was found.&#8221;

Chaeruddin said data collected by the Air Force led to the conclusion that the two Sukhois&#8217; &#8220;lock system,&#8221; which detects enemy weapons targeting, had malfunctioned.

&#8220;Technicians from Russia are already [at Makassar Airbase] to check and repair the aircraft,&#8221; he said.

The Air Force previously dealt with an unnerving incident in 2003 when two of its F-16 jet fighters made contact with five F-18 Hornet jet fighters belonging to the US Navy, which had earlier been found maneuvering above Bawean Island, Central Java Province, for more than two hours.

Both sides&#8217; jet fighters were close to firing at each other as the F-18 fighters went into attack mode and had their missiles locked on Indonesia&#8217;s planes. 

It ended with a communication of peace between the pilots after one of the F-16 fighters was able to indicate they were not a threat.

Jakarta Globe

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

Oh the little games we play of hide and seek---a surveillance aircraft---seems like after the fact.


----------



## Contrarian

hj786 said:


> JF-17 has potent weaponry and will be data-linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200, which both have a FAR more powerful radar than mki, so by your logic mki will be smoked even before take-off.



However to fire at a plane-any plane, the missile needs to be cued in to the fighter's radar, not the AWAC or AEW&C. With the Erieye, the element of surprise would be gone if the AEW&C was patrolling the area, but its role thereafter would only be that of battle management. You still need a fighter with a damned big radar to fire at stand-off ranges.


----------



## macintosh

I can never think of comparing JF-17 and SU-30MKI as both are in different leagues and while there is just first under powered batch of JF-17 available and JF-17 will be undergoing upgradations , SU-30 MKI is available in full potential to IAF and taking part in exercises to give experience to young guns passing out of IAF.


----------



## macintosh

hj786 said:


> JF-17 has potent weaponry and will be data-linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200, which both have a FAR more powerful radar than mki, so by your logic mki will be smoked even before take-off.



Saab Erieye does not have a command center on it so all the data collected have to be sent to command center on ground for analysis which will take some time.And by this logic IAF has phalcons which are more powerful and can be datalinked to MKI.


----------



## Contrarian

PC said:


> ok lets put this in simple words.
> JF-17 block1 vs MKI will be like Mig-21 bison vs F-15
> JF-17 block2 vs MKI will be like F-16 block 32 vs F-15
> JF-17 block3 vs MKI will be like F-16 block 52 vs F-15



In all this, do you assume that the Su-30MKI will remain at the level where it is right now?

The Su-30MKI will undergo MLU soon.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

macintosh said:


> Saab Erieye does not have a control & command center on it so all the data And by this logic IAF has phalcons which are more powerful and can be datalinked to MKI.



wow boy looks like you are just jumbling stuff around in air. enjoying freedom of speech. do you even know what "AEW&CS" stands for? and you need to back up with a source when you make such bogus claims like


> collected have to be sent to command center on ground for analysis *which will take some time.*


 On board command systems and on ground have both pros and cons and no... it does not take time as you are emphasizing ..


----------



## macintosh

Erieye does not have a command structure on it and you can go here as it was discussed here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/19484-paf-vs-iaf-analysis-air-combat-over-subcontinent-17.html


----------



## Zob

or MACINTOSH....u can go hear and see it for urself... isn't that a better plan than u just saying go discuss... i guess u won't dispute the video of the MAKER right.... let me summarise EREIYE has 6 command stations....PAF suggested the idea to SAAB and the idea was a hit and guess what all ereiye systems will have 6 command stations yiippeee

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

24* said:


> dude do not talk about will be and may be.......tell wen will it be linked to Saab Erieye and KJ-200?.....besides IAF is not goin to sit ideal and watch MKI technologically surpassed.


Dude? Do not call something that is CONFIRMED by the PAF Air Chief a "maybe".


24* said:


> THE REASON: Bcos you guys are going ga-ga over this reversed engineered Chinese jet.
> PLAFF is not inducting it because its not worth it......


Nope. It is because you are a stupid BR kid. Which jet is JF reverse engineered from? Show links and prove JF is not worth it or go back to BR.



malaymishra123 said:


> You still need a fighter with a damned big radar to fire at stand-off ranges.


How do you know JF-17's radar cannot fire SD-10 at its maximum range?



macintosh said:


> I can never think of comparing JF-17 and SU-30MKI as both are in different leagues and while there is just first under powered batch of JF-17 available and JF-17 will be undergoing upgradations


That is debatable. When JF is backed by AEW/C, mki loses its main advantage. You talk like mki can't be shot down by JF-17 - that is impossible unless mki is a stealth fighter. BTW, how is JF under-powered when it has higher thrust to weight ratio than Mirage 2000C? So what if JF is undergoing upgrades? The current version is "pretty good" according to test pilots, I will believe them instead of you.



macintosh said:


> Saab Erieye does not have a command center...


 WRONG. Saab's own video says it does... 



macintosh said:


> And by this logic IAF has phalcons which are more powerful and can be datalinked to MKI.


So what? Erieye is more than powerful enough for PAF's needs. 



malaymishra123 said:


> In all this, do you assume that the Su-30MKI will remain at the level where it is right now?
> The Su-30MKI will undergo MLU soon.


No, YOU assume we don't know anything by posting BS (shown by you pretending Saab 2k has no command capability). Many combat aircraft undergo MLU, not just mki.


----------



## k7x

guys.

if you fit same type of radar on both su30 and jf17 then also su30 will be more powerful than jf17..

by same type i mean (MMR,AESA,PESA....).. bcoz its not only the size of radar cone or casing that makes the thing. You need "Power" or suitable electricity generation from the engine. 

JF17 is a single engine fighter . and it has a limit . where as in su 30 you have twin engine .. Now understand the power su 30 has over jf17 ....


----------



## Arsalan

k7x said:


> guys.
> 
> if you fit same type of radar on both su30 and jf17 then also su30 will be more powerful than jf17..
> 
> by same type i mean (MMR,AESA,PESA....).. bcoz its not only the size of radar cone or casing that makes the thing. You need "Power" or suitable electricity generation from the engine.
> 
> JF17 is a single engine fighter . and it has a limit . where as in su 30 you have twin engine .. Now understand the power su 30 has over jf17 ....



but in this case what about the larger size of SU3, it surely will degrade the Su30 in this sceanario!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Owais

k7x said:


> guys.
> 
> if you fit same type of radar on both su30 and jf17 then also su30 will be more powerful than jf17..
> 
> by same type i mean (MMR,AESA,PESA....).. bcoz its not only the size of radar cone or casing that makes the thing. You need "Power" or suitable electricity generation from the engine.
> 
> JF17 is a single engine fighter . and it has a limit . where as in su 30 you have twin engine .. Now understand the power su 30 has over jf17 ....



and what happens if JF17 have AWAC Support?? that flying elephant have huge RCS of 10.2m2 compared to JF's <1.2m2. radar and engine power is not the only factor in A to A Combat.
so Instead of making Baseless arguments, you may need to read the whole thread from beginning so that you can understand what have been discussed here and I hope that you will find some interesting facts about both planes after reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contrarian

hj786 said:


> That is debatable. When JF is backed by AEW/C, mki loses its main advantage. You talk like mki can't be shot down by JF-17 - that is impossible unless mki is a stealth fighter.


You cannot fire a missile based on an AEW&C's radar. Its the fighter's own radar that has to cue the missile.

There is no other main advantage of MKI. It has its own big radar to track a target further than the adversary and allow a BVR shot before others. It doesnt matter if it is detected or not. It was never intended to remain undetected anyway!



> WRONG. Saab's own video says it does...
> 
> So what? Erieye is more than powerful enough for PAF's needs.
> 
> No, YOU assume we don't know anything by posting BS (shown by you pretending Saab 2k has no command capability).


He has wrongly used the term command capability. What he implied was data processing. What Erieye does is that its radar see's the picture, etc, etc then sends it down to a ground station, which processes the data comming in from the AWACS, ground sensors, etc, etc and processes it and fuses it all together and sends it back to the AEW&C. 

Since Pakistan has ordered it in a SAAB 2000, it will have more processing capability compared to other smaller platforms on which Erieye is usually fit, or maybe the PAF has chosen to use the extra space for ELINT, etc instead of using it for processing, but it will not be an autonomous link in the air. If for example ELINT gear is installed, then again, everything detected will be sent to the ground station to be processed and the results sent back to the SAAB 2000.
This means that the AEW&C is critically dependent on the ground station. 

This contrasts with Phalcon AWACS, which is a completely independent unit in the air. All the data processing and sensor fusion is done onboard. It also possess a larger radar among other things with larger number of command consoles, ELINT, EW capability.

What the video and press releases about Erieye mean by saying that it has 6 command consoles is that it has 6 operator consoles for battle and airspace management.

*These are the limitations of Erieye as compared to Phalcon, however, that is irrelevant IF PAF deems it sufficient for its operations. Many a times, the best equipment is not the RIGHT equipment in a war. As long as PAF gets what it wants from this plane, it serves the purpose beautifully regardless of limitations and poses significant problems for the IAF.*



> Many combat aircraft undergo MLU, not just mki.


This was in reply to PC's comment that blk 1 JF-17 equal to xyz, blk 2 JF-17 equal to abc, etc, etc. 

My post meant that as JF-17 evolves and gets newer sensors, as will the Su-30MKI. The Su-30 in IAF will not remain with the same sensors, radar and engines as it is now with which it is being compared.


----------



## ALi Rizwan

malaymishra123 said:


> He has wrongly used the term command capability. What he implied was data processing. What Erieye does is that its radar see's the picture, etc, etc then sends it down to a ground station, which processes the data comming in from the AWACS, ground sensors, etc, etc and processes it and fuses it all together and sends it back to the AEW&C.



saabgroup.com

*APPLICATIONS:*
 AEW&C
 National security missions
 Border control
 *Airborne C2 platform*
 Disaster management co-ordination
 Major event security
 Emergency Air Traffic Control (ATC)


----------



## Zob

mamalymishra... as far as i know i rather call it a diffrence not a LIMITATION OF EREIYE....i hope one of the senior members can relate from my knowledge all battles in the ex soviet states and allies is done on drawing boards unlike the western style where every pilot has the liberty to take action according to there own will....so india being an ex ally of soviet union i don't think anything wrong with a system that is controlled from the ground and is not independant....


----------



## zombie:-)

Owais said:


> and what happens if JF17 have AWAC Support?? that flying elephant have huge RCS of 10.2m2 compared to JF's <1.2m2. radar and engine power is not the only factor in A to A Combat.
> so Instead of making Baseless arguments, you may need to read the whole thread from beginning so that you can understand what have been discussed here and I hope that you will find some interesting facts about both planes after reading.



sir any links for your claim of RCS of jf-17


----------



## Owais

zombie:-) said:


> sir any links for your claim of RCS of jf-17



chanda You my be completely in the dark about the fact that the design of JF17 is derived from F16 which have RCS of 1.2m2. it is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades also, JF-17 has the worlds second combat aircraft to have DSI intakes. These intakes reduces one of the three major forward scatters of an aircraft that typically represents between 30%-35% of the RCS of an aircraft.

read this article. its very Informative for you. 

Pakistan&#8217;s JF-17 Thunder Fighter plane: US sanctions and external existential threats forced Pakistan to go Nuclear, build missiles and develop its own indigenous Fighter jet RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intell


----------



## Contrarian

ALi Rizwan said:


> saabgroup.com
> 
> *APPLICATIONS:*
>  AEW&C
>  National security missions
>  Border control
>  *Airborne C2 platform*
>  Disaster management co-ordination
>  Major event security
>  Emergency Air Traffic Control (ATC)



That implies Battle Management & Coordination.


----------



## zombie:-)

Owais said:


> chanda You my be completely in the dark about the fact that the design of JF17 is derived from F16 which have RCS of 1.2m2. it is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades also, JF-17 has the worlds second combat aircraft to have DSI intakes. These intakes reduces one of the three major forward scatters of an aircraft that typically represents between 30%-35% of the RCS of an aircraft.
> 
> read this article. its very Informative for you.
> 
> Pakistans JF-17 Thunder Fighter plane: US sanctions and external existential threats forced Pakistan to go Nuclear, build missiles and develop its own indigenous Fighter jet RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intell



*read it but it SAYS LOWER RCS NOT RCS<1.2 * 

LET ME BE CLEAR in the airforce question thread there was a question to Mr.muradk about RAM coating on f-16 blk 52s coming to pakistan he said it was too costly stuff so you are not getting it UNDERSTAND the RCS of the f-16 you are talking might be of USAF aircraft certainly not PAF i mean to say f-16 RCS is not same all over the world.....so cant believe if you would be getting RAM coating similar to f-35 come on be practical


----------



## Owais

zombie:-) said:


> *read it but it SAYS LOWER RCS NOT RCS<1.2 *
> 
> LET ME BE CLEAR in the airforce question thread there was a question to Mr.muradk about RAM coating on f-16 blk 52s coming to pakistan he said it was too costly stuff so you are not getting it UNDERSTAND the RCS of the f-16 you are talking might be of USAF aircraft certainly not PAF i mean to say f-16 RCS is not same all over the world.....so cant believe if you would be getting RAM coating similar to f-35 come on be practical



where does I mention RAM Coating??
RCS of F16 have been discussed many times on many forums its only you who is unaware about that.
OK If RCS of JF17 may not <1.2m2 but it is approximately equal to RCS of F16. because if you use logic, you may conclude that JF17 with DSI does have a reduced RCS. here is another link for you.

Situation Awareness

if you don't accept these facts, well I have no problem with the one who want to live in fool's paradise


----------



## zombie:-)

Owais said:


> where does I mention RAM Coating??
> RCS of F16 have been discussed many times on many forums its only you who is unaware about that.
> OK If RCS of JF17 may not <1.2m2 but it is approximately equal to RCS of F16. because if you use logic, you may conclude that JF17 with DSI does have a reduced RCS. here is another link for you.
> 
> Situation Awareness
> 
> if you don't accept these facts, well I have no problem with the one who want to live in fool's paradise



I WILL ACCEPT FACTS

but some thing from the article abt RAM 


> The detection range of the Bars is (according to Janes, for a 2m squared target), 80-100 km head on. About half what was first estimated, and that assuming a 2m squared target. More probable would be a calculation for 1 meter squared target, and that is being generous, given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has *RAM coating*.





> The lower RCS is to be reached using new materials, including advanced composites. *A new RAM paint is also rumored that is said to be similar to that being used on the F-35*. The nose will see comprehensive redesign and is rumored to incorporate a new AESA radar set of Chinese origin. One proposition is that the single tail is replaced with twin-tails similar to the F-35. A new DSI is also projected that will further lower RCS.



come on be serious what is the credibility of the source  it cant be as good as f-35


----------



## Owais

zombie:-) said:


> I WILL ACCEPT FACTS
> 
> but some thing from the article abt RAM
> 
> 
> 
> come on be serious what is the credibility of the source  it cant be as good as f-35



The source is as credible as BR . I accept that the RAM coating right now, is a dream for PAF but JF17's block II will incorporate low rcs, <1 (May be L-O characteristics if not stealthy) also, the other source I provide you regarding F16 RCS is a valid source.


----------



## zombie:-)

Owais said:


> The source is as credible as BR . I accept that the RAM coating right now, is a dream for PAF but JF17's block II will incorporate low rcs, <1 (May be L-O characteristics if not stealthy) also, the other source I provide you regarding F16 RCS is a valid source.



why bring BR here ive never posted any stuff from there
anyways all the best for your plane


----------



## beckham

India exercised its Su-30MKIs against the Royal Air Force's Tornado ADVs in October 2006. This was the first large-scale bilateral aerial exercise with any foreign air force during which the IAF used its Su-30MKIs extensively. This exercise was also the first in 43 years with the RAF. During the exercise, RAF's Air Chief Marshall, Glenn Torpy, was given permission by the IAF to fly the MKI. RAF's Air-Vice Marshall, Christopher Harper, praised the MKI's dogfight ability, calling it "absolutely masterful".
In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise. The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.
An earlier variant of the Su-30MKI, the MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21. The results have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions".[29] It must be noted that during the exercise, the USAF fighter jets did not exploit their beyond visual range offensive capabilities, unlike those of the IAF. In July 2008, the IAF sent 6 Su-30MKIs and 2 aerial-refueling tankers, the Il-78MKI, to participate in the Red Flag exercise.


----------



## jakesmith

Hi Friends,
This is JAke Smith Frm NY....
Its Great Forum topic I like it ....
Thanks!


----------



## mean_bird

beckham said:


> India exercised its Su-30MKIs against the Royal Air Force's Tornado ADVs in October 2006. This was the first large-scale bilateral aerial exercise with any foreign air force during which the IAF used its Su-30MKIs extensively. This exercise was also the first in 43 years with the RAF. During the exercise, RAF's Air Chief Marshall, Glenn Torpy, was given permission by the IAF to fly the MKI. RAF's Air-Vice Marshall, Christopher Harper, praised the MKI's dogfight ability, calling it "absolutely masterful".
> In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise. The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.
> An earlier variant of the Su-30MKI, the MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21. The results have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions".[29] It must be noted that during the exercise, the USAF fighter jets did not exploit their beyond visual range offensive capabilities, unlike those of the IAF. *In July 2008, the IAF sent 6 Su-30MKIs and 2 aerial-refueling tankers, the Il-78MKI, to participate in the Red Flag exercise*.



And the result??

It got repeatedly hammered by the F-15 and F-16 to the point the indians asked to quit the one-to-one dog fighting to move to something else.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zombie:-)

mean_bird said:


> And the result??
> 
> It got repeatedly hammered by the F-15 and F-16 to the point the indians asked to quit the one-to-one dog fighting to move to something else.



guys why do you want to revive skeletons from the graveyard let it go 

waiting for future exercises what happened to paf and redflag any news ??


----------



## hj786

beckham said:


> During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.


Until you show us a source, you type nothing but BS. If no source is provided in a week, can somebody please ban this troll?

If that was true, it would be all over the western forums - instead, they mock the way that trolls generate hype for mki. It is a good aeroplane, but it is also an over-hyped flanker, not the F-35-killing stealth fighter that trolls will have us believe. J-10s flown by Chinese test pilots beat J-11s hands down, both without TVC and the J-11s were even being flown by China's elite fighter pilots (according to the Chinese forums who translate Chinese sources).

Edit: Mr Beckham was right (I doubt they said mki displayed "superior" manoeuvring, though), I was wrong.


----------



## Zob

zombie please try and understand that going to ED FLAG doesn't mean that u have been invited to venture into space....hel u pay and u go....no pay no go...so i mean its not like INDIA got selected from all the countries in the world....please RED FLAG doesn't signify a leap into space so just relax u guys r just happy about being american's new ho...


----------



## Keysersoze

jakesmith said:


> Hi Friends,
> This is JAke Smith Frm NY....
> Its Great Forum topic I like it ....
> Thanks!



No you are from India you idiot, thanks for dropping by.....


----------



## godsavetheworld

mean_bird said:


> And the result??
> 
> It got repeatedly hammered by the F-15 and F-16 to the point the indians asked to quit the one-to-one dog fighting to move to something else.



Okay a lot of nationalistic talk here.

Firstly let me begin by saying the video was that of an American aggresor pilot candidly taking to his stuents and not a "debreifing" session. It was more of morale boosting session for his trainee pilots. So don't take it as "only the truth and nothing but the truth".

All the handicaps that the IAF had imposed on itself during Red Flag aside, in a real world condition, the MKI will be detecting and ID'ing contacts a long way out[/B]. *there won't be any "is the contact hostile or friendly" chatter when the Bars is operating at full tilt and no fratricides either**..and IAF Phalcons are not that far away frm being operational, so that takes away the added edge that Western fighters always enjoyed.

Next, MKI's were never "shot" down, but had to be disembarked due to a lot of "friendly fire". 

I know as a fact now that the all the pilots IAF sent were "rookies" having an experience of only 1-2 year with the MKI. Why? Because the airforce wanted the rookies to face the challlenge so that they could see the road ahead and what they need to do as the future of IAF. This is not the case when squadrons are formed.

Any guy who has a decent idea about wht combat aviation is will tell you that MKI's can easily over come F-15/16 just with its guns and a conventional radar. And that fact that MKI has a 22 deg/s turn ratio compared to F-15's mere 16 deg/s proves this fact altogether. Any MKI pilot can get hold of an F-15 with simple cobra maneuver.

But no, if you all are so intent on bringing in the "nationalistic" aspect to an F-15 vs MKI discussion, then it is all blabber for me.*


----------



## mean_bird

godsavetheworld said:


> Okay a lot of nationalistic talk here.
> 
> Firstly let me begin by saying the video was that of an American aggresor pilot candidly taking to his stuents and not a "debreifing" session. It was more of morale boosting session for his trainee pilots. So don't take it as "only the truth and nothing but the truth".
> 
> All the handicaps that the IAF had imposed on itself during Red Flag aside, in a real world condition, the MKI will be detecting and ID'ing contacts a long way out[/B]. *there won't be any "is the contact hostile or friendly" chatter when the Bars is operating at full tilt and no fratricides either**..and IAF Phalcons are not that far away frm being operational, so that takes away the added edge that Western fighters always enjoyed.
> 
> Next, MKI's were never "shot" down, but had to be disembarked due to a lot of "friendly fire".
> 
> I know as a fact now that the all the pilots IAF sent were "rookies" having an experience of only 1-2 year with the MKI. Why? Because the airforce wanted the rookies to face the challlenge so that they could see the road ahead and what they need to do as the future of IAF. This is not the case when squadrons are formed.
> 
> Any guy who has a decent idea about wht combat aviation is will tell you that MKI's can easily over come F-15/16 just with its guns and a conventional radar. And that fact that MKI has a 22 deg/s turn ratio compared to F-15's mere 16 deg/s proves this fact altogether. Any MKI pilot can get hold of an F-15 with simple cobra maneuver.
> 
> But no, if you all are so intent on bringing in the "nationalistic" aspect to an F-15 vs MKI discussion, then it is all blabber for me.*


*

Mind giving part of this lecture to your fellow countryman who is boasting the result of the war-games and choose to report only the results that favors him. I just complemented the information with the results of Red Flag. 

Also, you are wrong that no MKI was shot down except for friendly fire. The F-15 pilot clearly states that "you just drill his brains out". 

Not to undermine the the capabilities of IAF or the Su-30, but here's what the USAF had to say about Cope India:

"Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills."

"The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise."


Having said that, IAF does seem to have improved their tactics as compared to past and the Su-30 is by no means a rubbish plane. But what will be the outcome with a "real world fight" with a latest block F-16 or F-15, is really debatable.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Munir

Here you have a plane with huge RCS and huge radar. Even if it detects you... It will not make it certain that it will use its bvr's good enough. And if someone detects you you can surely add that you know where he is. It will surely have its butt screwed when it enters WVR. The Indians can turn and burn but in real war there is not the same arena as in their orchestrated trainings. If the Indians can do perfect then they would have overrun Pakistan in 1947. Even in the 65 and 71 wars they did not move beyind that. One or thousand MKI's will not make them a winner. With getting nukers, better CM and Pakistani build weapons the Indians are purely dressing up the battlefield. India asked Israel for lgb to counter a few hero's during Kargill. Now they think with the imported MKI with parts from everywhere (and oops somethign made in India) the can pull the strings?

The war will be short. No way they can mass that many people on the borders. If it stays conventional then this time the Indians will be hit hard. If it moves beyond conventional the Indians and the rest of the world can forget Kyoto.


----------



## hj786

godsavetheworld said:


> Okay a lot of nationalistic talk here.


 Yes, and you are one of the sources. 


> Any guy who has a decent idea about wht combat aviation is will tell you that MKI's can easily over come F-15/16 just with its guns and a conventional radar.


 This just proves you know nothing about "combat aviation". You're just another troll.


> And that fact that MKI has a *22 deg/s* turn ratio compared to F-15's mere *16 deg/s* proves this fact altogether.


At what altitude? 
What speed?
What weapons load?
According to the experts on Western forums, at high altitude and high speed, F-15 has a higher turn rate than mki.


> Any MKI pilot can get hold of an F-15 with simple cobra maneuver.


LOL, this just proves you know NOTHING about combat aviation. Any cobra maneuvers will ensure your mki gets killed. All experts agree that it has little to no combat value whatsoever. Just another airshow trick to make fanboy trolls like you shout "woooow, it is superior to everything else!"


> But no, if you all are so intent on bringing in the "nationalistic" aspect to an F-15 vs MKI discussion, then it is all blabber for me.


Your posts are all blabber for us, troll. Take YOUR nationalistic aspect somewhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Munir

beckham said:


> India exercised its Su-30MKIs against the Royal Air Force's Tornado ADVs in October 2006. This was the first large-scale bilateral aerial exercise with any foreign air force during which the IAF used its Su-30MKIs extensively. This exercise was also the first in 43 years with the RAF. During the exercise, RAF's Air Chief Marshall, Glenn Torpy, was given permission by the IAF to fly the MKI. RAF's Air-Vice Marshall, Christopher Harper, praised the MKI's dogfight ability, calling it "absolutely masterful".
> In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise. The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.
> An earlier variant of the Su-30MKI, the MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21. The results have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90&#37; of the mock combat missions".[29] It must be noted that during the exercise, the USAF fighter jets did not exploit their beyond visual range offensive capabilities, unlike those of the IAF. In July 2008, the IAF sent 6 Su-30MKIs and 2 aerial-refueling tankers, the Il-78MKI, to participate in the Red Flag exercise.



The Indians send MKI and not K to Red Flag... Only a2g... And indeed the K against F15's but f15's with no weapons and radar...

And how well can you say the reality if a plane is not allowed to use radar? It is te usual courtesy of the west to praise others. And it is the usual courtesy of the Indians to trash others...


----------



## Shiny Capstar

hj786 said:


> Until you show us a source, you type nothing but BS. If no source is provided in a week, can somebody please ban this troll?
> 
> If that was true, it would be all over the western forums - instead, they mock the way that trolls generate hype for mki. It is a good aeroplane, but it is also an over-hyped flanker, not the F-35-killing stealth fighter that trolls will have us believe. J-10s flown by Chinese test pilots beat J-11s hands down, both without TVC and the J-11s were even being flown by China's elite fighter pilots (according to the Chinese forums who translate Chinese sources).



Its true, the RAF pilots admited that the Su-30MKI was more manoeuvrable. The Indian pilots also were impressed by the Eurofighter's manoeuvrability. 

Typhoon vs. SU-30MKI: The 2007 Indra Dhanush Exercise

What is left out is that the extra manoeuvrability counted for pretty much squat against HMS and high off-boresight missiles. I don't know if LOAL capability was factored in.


----------



## Shiny Capstar

hj786 said:


> LOL, this just proves you know NOTHING about combat aviation. Any cobra maneuvers will ensure your mki gets killed. All experts agree that it has little to no combat value whatsoever. Just another airshow trick to make fanboy trolls like you shout "woooow, it is superior to everything else!"
> Your posts are all blabber for us, troll. Take YOUR nationalistic aspect somewhere else.



It was the use of TVC by the Indian pilots that gave such bad results, not to say that it is bad to have TVC but it was used in a very poor way by the inexperienced Indian pilots.


----------



## hj786

Shiny Capstar said:


> Its true, the RAF pilots admited that the Su-30MKI was more manoeuvrable. The Indian pilots also were impressed by the Eurofighter's manoeuvrability.
> 
> Typhoon vs. SU-30MKI: The 2007 Indra Dhanush Exercise
> 
> What is left out is that the extra manoeuvrability counted for pretty much squat against HMS and high off-boresight missiles. I don't know if LOAL capability was factored in.


Wow. Respect to the thrust vectoring nozzles. I stand corrected, apologies for the incorrect parts of my earlier posts! Thanks for correcting me Shiny!
I hope they go through with adding TVC nozzles on the Typhoon's engines. If not, I guess J-10 will be the first canard-delta with TVC?


----------



## Shiny Capstar

hj786 said:


> Wow. Respect to the thrust vectoring nozzles. I stand corrected, apologies for the incorrect parts of my earlier posts! Thanks for correcting me Shiny!
> I hope they go through with adding TVC nozzles on the Typhoon's engines. If not, I guess J-10 will be the first canard-delta with TVC?



I don't think that TVC would really be necessary for the Eurofighter, it is manoeuvrable enough as it is and with HMS and the ASRAAM it should be more than enough to at least break even in WVR combat against all non-5th gen planes. Plus TVC would add quite a bit of cost and I have heard that it is a nightmare for maintenance. 

If the J-10 goes into service with TVC then it shall be the first canard-delta to be in service with them, I think there have been canard-delta test planes with TVC although without digging around I cannot be sure.


----------



## Gabbar

Keysersoze said:


> No you are from India you idiot, thanks for dropping by.....



What happened there?


----------



## gaurysh

Zob said:


> zombie please try and understand that going to ED FLAG doesn't mean that u have been invited to venture into space....hel u pay and u go....no pay no go...so i mean its not like INDIA got selected from all the countries in the world....please RED FLAG doesn't signify a leap into space so just relax u guys r just happy about being american's new ho...



Means if PAF was invited instead of IAF you would have said same thing??.... 

What u r feeling now is inferiority complex....


----------



## Patriot

gaurysh said:


> Means if PAF was invited instead of IAF you would have said same thing??....
> 
> What u r feeling now is inferiority complex....


PAF was invited for Red Flag last year but PAF did not go because of Indian Attack Threat as well as financial reasons.
FYI: PAF have been training with USAF since 1966.


----------



## gaurysh

saadahmed said:


> PAF was invited for Red Flag last year but PAF did not go because of Indian Attack Threat as well as financial reasons.
> FYI: PAF have been training with USAF since 1966.



So y u people get so hyper abot India going to Red flag ... i don feel anything if u go to red flag or do anything else with USAF... Go ahead do a great job... but u people certainly don seem to digest the truth that India performed well at Red flag


----------



## notorious_eagle

gaurysh said:


> So y u people get so hyper abot India going to Red flag ... i don feel anything if u go to red flag or do anything else with USAF... Go ahead do a great job... *but u people certainly don seem to digest the truth that India performed well at Red flag*



Did you even bother to read the results? The great thing about the US is that they never degrade their visiting opponents, but clearly in the Red Flag the MKI was hammered by the F15 and F16.


----------



## zombie:-)

Zob said:


> zombie please try and understand that going to ED FLAG doesn't mean that u have been invited to venture into space....hel u pay and u go....no pay no go...so i mean its not like INDIA got selected from all the countries in the world....please RED FLAG doesn't signify a leap into space so just relax u guys r just happy about being american's new ho...



seriously you have some problem with me 

yes i agree india paid huge sum for the exercise but if india didn't have the mki they would not have invited us to ED .... and previously upon india request for participation in red flag they had some thing called red flag alaska just to please us with our requests and india did send its jaguars to alaska and not to forget the nuclear deal was up for negotiation in our parliament at that time so they were trying to please us in every possible way


----------



## Munir

You payed a lot of cash to do an average training. As Murad said pretty clear. Red Flag is not what people think. You have to pay commercial price to get some parts in it. And sending MKI to do ground stuff is hardly something valuable cause if it was good the Indians would have done their so called punitive strikes in Kashmir...

I think there were plenty oppertunities to snoop IT/RCS figures so I hope you enjoyed the show cause the AMRAAM or European BVR will have an easy target. Whether you do not use a radar or not you are tracked very well.


----------



## zombie:-)

Munir said:


> You payed a lot of cash to do an average training. As Murad said pretty clear. Red Flag is not what people think. You have to pay commercial price to get some parts in it. And sending MKI to do ground stuff is hardly something valuable cause if it was good the Indians would have done their so called punitive strikes in Kashmir...
> 
> I think there were plenty oppertunities to snoop IT/RCS figures so I hope you enjoyed the show cause the AMRAAM or European BVR will have an easy target. Whether you do not use a radar or not you are tracked very well.



whats your problem 

i was replying to his posts 

first i ask about PAF AND RED FLAG 

answer could have been :we (PAK) have been working with USA for a long time and there will be nothing new to learn from RED FLAG and fielding an contingent far away will be costly .....

BUT I GET PUSHED ..and zob say we think 
*
.please RED FLAG doesn't signify a leap into space so just relax u guys r just happy about being american's new ho...*

i reply to his posts in a civilized way and developments leading to the participation of IAF in the red flag and YOU COME then MKI bashing starts AND SAY WE WERE FOOLS TO DO SUCH A THING 
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS 

i dont want to get dragged into useless war of words


----------



## Zob

i am not getting dragged into this mess again...answering the question about Shiny captor...canard-delta with TVCwell i really don't know if it i possible... i think to employ a TVC in the small airframes such as the J-10 and eurofighter....i think u need a whole new airframe that can have a TVC in it.....so i doubt that such small agile airframes can take a TVC...i think if TVC has to b hypothetically installed in a small plane think MITSUBISHI F2 is slighlty bigger than the F-16 and might be able to have a TVC in it however it doesn't have canards....

by the way i have a question what is the SD-10 BVR based on....i mean what platform...is it like the AIM120 or R77 or neither


----------



## gaurysh

notorious_eagle said:


> Did you even bother to read the results? The great thing about the US is that they never degrade their visiting opponents, but clearly in the Red Flag the MKI was hammered by the F15 and F16.



So u think in real war scenario MKI would be beaten by F16?????


----------



## MaXimMaRz

gaurysh said:


> So u think in real war scenario MKI would be beaten by F16?????



Weapon , altitude , AI , and SA of the pilot will be the main factors along with other........air combat is so flexible there is not final word to it.

but you can always go for combat comparison and performance comparison.

su-30 is the the king of the jungle in Asia right now if you compare the Combat parameters and performance parameters with those of F-16.

but it always flexible


----------



## gaurysh

MaXimMaRz said:


> Weapon , altitude , AI , and SA of the pilot will be the main factors along with other........air combat is so flexible there is not final word to it.
> 
> but you can always go for combat comparison and performance comparison.
> 
> su-30 is the the king of the jungle in Asia right now if you compare the Combat parameters and performance parameters with those of F-16.
> 
> but it always flexible



The capabilties of pilot s have not yet been seen in open as there PAF and have IAF have to engage in full scale war against each other to see the the quality of pilots


----------



## MaXimMaRz

gaurysh said:


> The capabilties of pilot s have not yet been seen in open as there PAF and have IAF have to engage in full scale war against each other to see the the quality of pilots



please Explain that ?


----------



## macintosh

Guys isn't the thread about Su 30MKI and JF-17???.
And I personally believe that the Pakistani's are too much buoyed by induction of JF-17 so that they are even making it's comparision with Su 30MKI.


----------



## Zob

ever heard of a david vs golaiith batle besides BR shot both sides with small borders can be taken my friend machintosh.As for JF-17 and like i said SU30 is not alien technology. and please reverting back to my question about a TVC being able to be integrated into a smaller platform such as an F-16 or a J-10 or eurofighter is it possible i am just asking for an opinion.


----------



## Patriot

During Gulf War..An Iraqi Mig25 took out F-18 Hornet so its not like SU-30 is stealthy.If its get within WVR range then it can be shot down by JF-17.Indians somehow think SU-30 MKI is somehow the best fighter produced..no fighter except Raptor can take it down.


----------



## macintosh

Zob said:


> ever heard of a david vs golaiith batle besides BR shot both sides with small borders can be taken my friend machintosh.As for JF-17 and like i said SU30 is not alien technology. and please reverting back to my question about a TVC being able to be integrated into a smaller platform such as an F-16 or a J-10 or eurofighter is it possible i am just asking for an opinion.



In EUROFIGHTER it is not required but in F-16 VISTA they did test pitch and yaw vectoring and it was said succesful but never made it to production.


----------



## macintosh

saadahmed said:


> During Gulf War..An Iraqi Mig25 took out F-18 Hornet so its not like SU-30 is stealthy.If its get within WVR range then it can be shot down by JF-17.Indians somehow think SU-30 MKI is somehow the best fighter produced..no fighter except Raptor can take it down.



You are under delusions.JF-17 DOWNING a Su-30MKI isn't improbable but why to compare the two when they are in different leagues.Su 30 downed by JF17 is based on a BIG IF.In actual combat conditions anything can happen but you just can't discuss what will happen if this and that happen.As if now you have to discuss the actual specifications based on which it is highly improbable that a JF-17 can down a SU-30MKI.


----------



## Munir

macintosh said:


> You are under delusions.JF-17 DOWNING a Su-30MKI isn't improbable but why to compare the two when they are in different leagues.Su 30 downed by JF17 is based on a BIG IF.In actual combat conditions anything can happen but you just can't discuss what will happen if this and that happen.As if now you have to discuss the actual specifications based on which it is highly improbable that a JF-17 can down a SU-30MKI.



Based on what? If you post so many sentence then I would expect atleast some depth.

It was impossible for F86 to down mig21... The MKI is a nice plane but everything has its advantages and disadvantages. With ECM going to ne era you can rething the BVR part. Yoou do remind you Indian text? Cause the coffin mig21 had nice ECM the F15's could do nothing and in WVR it was a fine plane to avoid... Just check how old your Mig21's are... They got upgraded but do you really think that the ECM of JF17 is less? Let me wake you up. The ECM of the JF17 is perfected to counter any Indian hostility. If we are often reminded that SD10 seeker is copied from the same BVR you have then you should understand that we have a trusted friend China to do the math. Why else would we go for 250+ JF17's... Why else would you go for a few LCA's...


----------



## macintosh

Munir said:


> Based on what? If you post so many sentence then I would expect atleast some depth.
> 
> It was impossible for F86 to down mig21... The MKI is a nice plane but everything has its advantages and disadvantages. With ECM going to ne era you can rething the BVR part. Yoou do remind you Indian text? *Cause the coffin mig21 had nice ECM the F15's could do nothing* and in WVR it was a fine plane to avoid... Just check how old your Mig21's are... They got upgraded but do you really think that the ECM of JF17 is less? Let me wake you up. The ECM of the JF17 is perfected to counter any Indian hostility. If we are often reminded that SD10 seeker is copied from the same BVR you have then you should understand that we have a trusted friend China to do the math. Why else would we go for 250+ JF17's... Why else would you go for a few LCA's...



As far as the bold part is concerned the MIG Bisons were able to jam them mainly becoz the F-15 were flying in training mode.Never compare the training combats with actual combats.And I have not said that JF 17 CAN'T down a Su-30 but the conditions of actual combat can't be replicated and discussed on this forum.


----------



## Zob

listen buddy on March 27th 1999 a F-117 NIGHTHAWK was shot down over YOUGOUSLAVIA.....now if a stealth fighter can be shot down in the dark then ur MKI is not comparable..so JF-17 downing a SU30 is doable....but won't be easy but will definetly be eaiser than shooting down stealth fighters. 

even though they shot the plane down by operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths, making them visible to radar for brief periods.


----------



## Munir

macintosh said:


> .Never compare the training combats with actual combats.And I have not said that JF 17 CAN'T down a Su-30 but the conditions of actual combat can't be replicated and discussed on this forum.




So we can close all forums cause there is no way we can discuss this? I just wanted to say that even with average knowledge of aerodynamics and electronics we can say a lot more then those tigers on the net that think that a cropped delta is superior... The problem with comparing is that many people have internet and zero knowledge about what they say. Would you believe me that the almost outer pylon of the f16 does 270 electronic checks before it says ok or not ok? I doubt that. Would you know what the impact is of certain avionics or databus? Nopes. All I hear is that LCA or MKI are superduper. When it comes to China, Pakistan it is suddenly a paper plane or a joke and we are trolls...

Let me close it for you easiliy. For some it is not possible to compare and some ar eeven blinded by nationalism. Let them stay out of the discussion. For the rest feel free to add and I am happy to learn, certainly from Indian projects.


----------



## maverick2009

The Su30 mki was flown against the Typhoon recently in the UK.#

The s30 mki was also flown against the Tornado in india earlier.

On both Ocasions the RAF pointed out that they where highly impressed by the flankers power and agility.

The indian flanker rated the best Russian fighter in the world has been improved by 

_ TVC adding even more agility

Pesa bars radar = huge tracking range 

French & Israeli Jammers & EW suites._

*** Its a Russian plane with western style..

Can the JF17 beat it.

_Only if the 

JF17 radar and jammers are equal or better

BVR/WVR WEAPONS are superior

Thrust speed and power is greater

Situational awareness is better _


----------



## Munir

maverick2009 said:


> The Su30 mki was flown against the Typhoon recently in the UK.#
> 
> The s30 mki was also flown against the Tornado in india earlier.
> 
> On both Ocasions the RAF pointed out that they where highly impressed by the flankers power and agility.
> 
> The indian flanker rated the best Russian fighter in the world has been improved by
> 
> _ TVC adding even more agility
> 
> Pesa bars radar = huge tracking range
> 
> French & Israeli Jammers & EW suites._
> 
> *** Its a Russian plane with western style..
> 
> Can the JF17 beat it.
> 
> _Only if the
> 
> JF17 radar and jammers are equal or better
> 
> BVR/WVR WEAPONS are superior
> 
> Thrust speed and power is greater
> 
> Situational awareness is better _



It will depend on pilot and tactics... You hardly have knowledge of any subject related to it...


----------



## sancho

Zob said:


> ever heard of a david vs golaiith batle besides BR shot both sides with small borders can be taken my friend machintosh.As for JF-17 and like i said SU30 is not alien technology. and please reverting back to my question about a TVC being able to be integrated into a smaller platform such as an F-16 or a J-10 or eurofighter is it possible i am just asking for an opinion.


Of course TVC can be integrated on smaller platforms too, the new Mig 35 is offered with 3 D TVC, the EJ200 engine of EF is on offer for our LCA with TVC.
If you consider a 1 on 1 the Mki is superior against JF 17, WVR if had pretty good performances agaist F15, EF, which are better than JF 17. 
The chances rise at BWR, even Mkis PESA radar might be better, but JF 17 RCS is lower. So if JF 17 comes close enough to have the first shot, it might down the Mki, but I don't think we can get a final conclusion. Also if u consider war times with much more fighters arround and awacs support, things will get different again.


----------



## MastanKhan

Zob said:


> listen buddy on March 27th 1999 a F-117 NIGHTHAWK was shot down over YOUGOUSLAVIA.....now if a stealth fighter can be shot down in the dark then ur MKI is not comparable..so JF-17 downing a SU30 is doable....but won't be easy but will definetly be eaiser than shooting down stealth fighters.
> 
> even though they shot the plane down by operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths, making them visible to radar for brief periods.




Hi,

The F 117 was shot down by a unique tracking system. 

Here is one analysis that is most agreed upon---it takes a few hour for the plane to fly from italian air base---where it was stationed to reach its target in bosnia. There were spotters outside the base looking for the F 117 to take off---then determing the flight time over its target---gave them a fair idea of the flight path of the plane knwoing the approximate speed of the plane. Once that was done---spotters were placed on its route throught he bosnian / serbian territory. Then it was simple sound tracking of the engines at night and warning ahead by cell phones---looking for any anamoly on the radar screen as well. 

If I missed something---readers please add.


----------



## Manticore

maverick2009 said:


> The Su30 mki was flown against the Typhoon recently in the UK.#
> 
> The s30 mki was also flown against the Tornado in india earlier.
> 
> On both Ocasions the RAF pointed out that they where highly impressed by the flankers power and agility.
> 
> The indian flanker rated the best Russian fighter in the world has been improved by
> 
> _ TVC adding even more agility
> 
> Pesa bars radar = huge tracking range
> 
> French & Israeli Jammers & EW suites._
> 
> *** Its a Russian plane with western style..
> 
> Can the JF17 beat it.
> 
> _Only if the
> 
> JF17 radar and jammers are equal or better
> 
> BVR/WVR WEAPONS are superior
> 
> Thrust speed and power is greater
> 
> Situational awareness is better _



*eyree radar might be the answer to counter su30 radar if they invade pakistan giving better awareness
*in the bvr category we are catchingup in terms of darters and sd10
*thrust speed... advantage of su30 might be a thing that could be reduced considerably in jf17 block2
*jf17 has less rcs.
*dont know about agility... i was of the impression that smaller jets are more agile than heavier ones?


----------



## Keysersoze

ANTIBODY said:


> *eyree radar might be the answer to counter su30 radar if they invade pakistan giving better awareness
> *in the bvr category we are catchingup in terms of darters and sd10
> *thrust speed... advantage of su30 might be a thing that could be reduced considerably in jf17 block2
> *jf17 has less rcs.
> *dont know about agility... i was of the impression that smaller jets are more agile than heavier ones?



Dude with SD-10 AND AIm120 I would say in weapons, then PAF is ahead.

Ultimately this list has been debated to death before.


----------



## Manticore

i thought only sd10 and darters could be launched from jf17 as yet.


----------



## omerhhh

The jf-17 is basicly an interceptor if the paf does get 250 of them indians have 80 su30s and the jf-17 will have the numbers advantage and they will almost always be in the home field so if they can stop attacks from indian fighters especially su30 which they probably can then i guess the answer is jf-17 wins.


----------



## RajsParadise

... and I believe India has currently 108 Su30 MKI and by 2014-2015 by which JF-17 number will increase to 250, India would have 230 SU-30 MKI and what happens in that Scenario!


----------



## Nihat

omerhhh said:


> The jf-17 is basicly an interceptor if the paf does get 250 of them indians have 80 su30s and the jf-17 will have the numbers advantage and they will almost always be in the home field so if they can stop attacks from indian fighters especially su30 which they probably can then i guess the answer is jf-17 wins.



Talk about the here and the now and not fancy upgrades and future scenarios.

80 odd MKI with India and 8 JF-17 with Pakistan (under Integration that is)

One on one or 3 on 3 scenario pitting equal number of Jf-17 V/s the MKI . You tell me , who survives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LCA

Apart from this , their so called operational aircraft from 2 years still no inducted in to the PAF.....

only prototypes and limited series production is there......


----------



## gromell

Nihat said:


> Talk about the here and the now and not fancy upgrades and future scenarios.
> 
> 80 odd MKI with India and 8 JF-17 with Pakistan (under Integration that is)
> 
> One on one or 3 on 3 scenario pitting equal number of Jf-17 V/s the MKI . You tell me , who survives.



Just looking at the specifications, who would think there is even a slight chance for JF-17 against Su30-MKI?!?! Well, not me


----------



## LCA

gromell said:


> Just looking at the specifications, who would think there is even a slight chance for JF-17 against Su30-MKI?!?! Well, not me



Yes you are right there is not even a chance for JF-17 against MKI.

I hope other people in this forum understand this.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

gromell said:


> Just looking at the specifications, who would think there is even a slight chance for JF-17 against Su30-MKI?!?! Well, not me



The worst general is a paper spec general. 
In 65 war, other then 18 F-86 + 12 F-104 1st generation heat seekers equipped PAF was no where close to IAF numerical and technical advantage on "PAPER". F-86 is no match to Mig-21, Hunter, Gnats (in air to air role) and Su-7 in (air to ground role). how ever... PAF turned out to be the victorious but its another matter that some delusional pathological IAF fanboys imagine other wise. and same can be said about 71 war.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

LCA said:


> Yes you are right there is not even a chance for JF-17 against MKI.
> 
> I hope other people in this forum understand this.



Sure F-86 had a chance aganist Mig-21 
Mig-19 had a chace aganist F-4s.... 
but let me tell you.. your air force is smarter then you, they are not deluded like you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

the JF-17 does not assume the role as air-superiority aircraft.

Of course we can boost the capabilities --because it was designed with the intention of having different slots for different systems western or chinese origin. 

I'm sure over the years structural changes also take place --as they did from protoype to final version. ---in order to fix larger radar etc.



with that said --- its interesting to compare both fighters, but obviously we are comparing work-horse multi-roler vs. an air superiority aircraft which is MUCH larger and can carry helluva lot more arsenals




you can bet that BVR for the Thunders is priority 1. 


Please somebody post picture of the helmet-sight fire control.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## messenger

PC said:


> The worst general is a paper spec general.
> In 65 war, other then 18 F-86 + 12 F-104 1st generation heat seekers equipped PAF was no where close to IAF numerical and technical advantage on "PAPER". F-86 is no match to Mig-21, Hunter, Gnats (in air to air role) and Su-7 in (air to ground role). how ever... PAF turned out to be the victorious but its another matter that some delusional pathological IAF fanboys imagine other wise. and same can be said about 71 war.



dude you still believe that paf outclassed iaf in 71 .!


----------



## messenger

PC said:


> The worst general is a paper spec general.
> In 65 war, other then 18 F-86 + 12 F-104 1st generation heat seekers equipped PAF was no where close to IAF numerical and technical advantage on "PAPER". F-86 is no match to Mig-21, Hunter, Gnats (in air to air role) and Su-7 in (air to ground role). how ever... PAF turned out to be the victorious but its another matter that some delusional pathological IAF fanboys imagine other wise. and same can be said about 71 war.



do some research regarding 65 war . iaf didnt have mig-21 at that time , it only had vampires , hunters and some other jets . and yes its true that iaf lost more planes than paf but we downed more of your planes in air . !


----------



## notsuperstitious

PC said:


> The worst general is a paper spec general.
> In 65 war, other then 18 F-86 + 12 F-104 1st generation heat seekers equipped PAF was no where close to IAF numerical and technical advantage on "PAPER". F-86 is no match to Mig-21, Hunter, Gnats (in air to air role) and Su-7 in (air to ground role). how ever... PAF turned out to be the victorious but its another matter that some delusional pathological IAF fanboys imagine other wise. and same can be said about 71 war.




Atleast the delusional pathological IAF fanboys know that India did not use Mig 21s in 1965 in a fully operational role.


----------



## mean_bird

gromell said:


> Just looking at the specifications, who would think there is even a slight chance for JF-17 against Su30-MKI?!?! Well, not me





LCA said:


> Yes you are right there is not even a chance for JF-17 against MKI.
> 
> I hope other people in this forum understand this.



I usually use this phrase to counter such statements:

" If wars could be decided so easily as to look at paper specifications, there would be nor wars at all. All defense studies would have been abolished and the two generals in question would look at their paper specifications and decide who the winner is, without firing a single shot."

In reality it is not the same. Quite a few people seem to think that a war will be two fighters facing each other head-on and the one with better specifications will win. This used to happen a thousand years ago or so, where enemies would come out and stand face-to-face with each other. Each side would be required to send 3 or 5 of its best warriors who would fight each other in duals. 

Today's war is a far more complex scenario where even though equipment plays a significant role, tactics and strategy usually decide the winner. A plane's worth is decided by not only if it would be able to stand in a 1-to-1 dual but how good it fits into the overall strategy. 

Regarding JF-17 and Su-30MKI, what exactly do you know about the performance of its Radar, its missiles or its EW? Unlike most western systems, there is little known information about chinese systems available to the general public. JF-17 serial production has just started, its too early to speculate on whether either will stand a chance against the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

messenger said:


> dude you still believe that paf outclassed iaf in 71 .!



so much for your mighty IAF. they could not even destroy a single PAF isolated F-86 squadron so spare your pathological lying indian facts to BR fanboys.



messenger said:


> do some research regarding 65 war . iaf didnt have mig-21 at that time , it only had vampires , hunters and some other jets . and yes its true that iaf lost more planes than paf but we downed more of your planes in air . !



have you even done research on your own before owning the title to tell others to do research? you are a perfect example of BR graduated delusional kid who was brain washed by half censored facts to suit fello indians ego.

IAF received its first Mig-21F-13 batch in 1963, two years before they were pitched into combat though its another story of even getting to see any action at all. 

*Pathankot Strike
*


> There was some doubt in the minds of the PAF planning staff as to whether Pathankot would still be occupied by the IAF. But the force of 8 Sabres, escorted by 2 more F-86s carrying Sidewinders as top cover at 15,000 ft was fortunate. When the PAF pilots pulled up over Pathankot precisely on time at 1700 hours after a diversionary high-low approach, descending to tree-top height about 20 miles short of the border to avoid the Indian radar, they were delighted to see a large number of IAF aircraft parked around in protected dispersal pens. On the way in, with gun switches selected form 'safe' to 'fire' when crossing the frontier, the 8 Sabres in two sections of four had passed below a couple of IAF Gnats flying at about 5,000 ft without being detected.
> 
> Nosey Haider on September 6 before attack on Pathankot base.At the 1530 hours briefing for the Pathankot strike, for which no airfield photographs were unfortunately available, the plan was for each pilot to make two attacks with his six 0.5 in Browning guns, and 1,800 rounds of API (armour-piercing and incendiary) ammunition per aircraft as the sole armament. With no enemy fighters in the vicinity, however, and 'fairly thin' ground fire, 'Nosey' set the ball rolling with four carefully positioned dives from about 1,500 ft, systematically selecting individual aircraft in protected pens on the airfield for his gun attacks. He was gratified to recognise the distinctive delta-winged Mig-21s, -India's latest fighteramong the aircraft on the ground, and singled them out for special attention. As the rest of his pilots followed suit, Wing Commander Tawab flying one of the 2 top cover Sabres counted 14 fires burning on the airfield, and observed quite a bit of light flak.
> 
> Only one PAF aircraft was hit during this strike, with minor damage in the lower fuselage and wing. After their attacks, the Sabres hugged the ground for five minutes or so for their exit from the target, pulling up when clear to stretch their fuel for the return flight. Even though they had retained their drop tanks throughout the attack to get as much fuel from them as Possible most landed with less than 300 lbs left on board at the nearest airfield, which was Sargodha. This was enough for only two or three minutes of flight, and one of the Peshawar Sabres ran completely out of fuel just as it turned off the runway after landing. This sort of margin was clearly unacceptable, but on many occasions throughout the war, some Sabre pilots counted themselves fortunate if they were able to land with more than about 3-400 lbs of fuel on board. Certainly after about 80&#37; of their wartime missions, the Sabres of 19 Squadron landed back with 300 lbs of fuel or less. Operating with this sort of margin was made possible only because of the excellent recovery procedures and instructions from the Sakesar SOC.








Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.



some pictures from no19 squdron who participated in Pathankot strike and oh do notice that they are the same tigers who are being interviewed by BBC reporter. 
and listen to his words he says something about the migs..









and you are also forgetting that IAF had total strength of 1000 combat fleet consisting of.
-Mig-21
-Hunters
-Gnats
-Su-7
-vampires


----------



## messenger

PC said:


> so much for your mighty IAF. they could not even destroy a single PAF isolated F-86 squadron so spare your pathological lying indian facts to BR fanboys.



just one scenario doesnt decide the fate of war . i dont know why you cant digest the fact that you were creamed by india in 71 like we lost to china in 62 and move on .





PC said:


> have you even done research on your own before owning the title to tell others to do research? you are a perfect example of BR graduated delusional kid who was brain washed by half censored facts to suit fello indians ego.



i get brain washed in india . dude dont start me , do something about those schools which teach students to hate hindu . its a pathetic situation . no wonder terrorism is thriving on your land . dont you think that is brainwashing .



PC said:


> IAF received its first Mig-21F-13 batch in 1963, two years before they were pitched into combat though its another story of even getting to see any action at all.
> 
> 
> 
> *Pathankot Strike
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathankot Strike
> 8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
> 
> 
> 
> some pictures from no19 squdron who participated in Pathankot strike and oh do notice that they are the same tigers who are being interviewed by BBC reporter.
> and listen to his words he says something about the migs..
> PFHlzP69n9c[/media] - Pakistan Air Force Pilots of 1965 War - ??? ??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are also forgetting that IAF had total strength of 1000 combat fleet consisting of.
> -Mig-21
> -Hunters
> -Gnats
> -Su-7
> -vampires



i will admit all your FACTS just tell me did they tell you in school that paf had downed more planes during the 62 war .

take no offence plz .


----------



## notsuperstitious

'spare your pathological lying indian facts to BR fanboys'

PC, can you please keep this civil?

Mods, can you pls take a look.


----------



## Zob

ok messenger...plz plz plz i request u let's not get down 2 saying stuff like pakistans r a thriving terrorist nation because my friend... this is not the place to get it started honestly....if u really want to discuss all this private messge me and i shall discuss it properly in depth with u and hopefully will convince u how and WHY INDIA IS NOT SECULAR!!! let's keep it more specific and airforce related...and as for 1962 war PAF had nothing to do in 1962....we fought u in 1965!!!


----------



## Munir

If JF17 was that bad then PAF would never build and buy 250 of these birds... I don;t think we should believe armchair pilots here that much. Let me tell you that with technology like DRFM the Indian planes are pretty much useless... And we do not have to import that from USA...


----------



## zombie:-)

Munir said:


> If JF17 was that bad then *PAF would never build and buy 250 of these birds*... I don;t think we should believe armchair pilots here that much. Let me tell you that with technology like DRFM the Indian planes are pretty much useless... And we do not have to import that from USA...



i presume they have to be built yet and most importantly PAF plans to upgrade it heavily even before all the planned 250 planes are built ....that speaks volumes about current jf-17s avionics ...and the engine ....the airframe might be good but avionics and engine account to more than 70% of the cost which implies their impotance in an airplane


----------



## Munir

zombie:-) said:


> i presume they have to be built yet and most importantly PAF plans to upgrade it heavily even before all the planned 250 planes are built ....that speaks volumes about current jf-17s avionics ...and the engine ....the airframe might be good but avionics and engine account to more than 70% of the cost which implies their impotance in an airplane



I mean, I agree that moving from f7P/PG, A5 and Mirage 3 this is a gigantic step forward but telling all the time that it is peanuts compared to MKI is a bit overdone. Let me post something about DRFM and you will understand that MKI will have almost zero tooths... And the last one will make it more vulnerable to all other Pak assets. Just have to wait some time but it will be posted.

As far as I am informed (and there is a lot more then posted on internet) the JF17 ECM is optimized against Mig29 and SU30's radar and weapons. Even without DRFM you will kow that it hurts when you cannot... The problem will be there if that fails in flight but I think that the Chinese did an outstanding job. So much that they copied it now and made it better for the J10...


----------



## Muradk

*messenger*
Although PC has answered your answers with facts, I think its time to go back to your IAF website and learn some more before you jump in Again in a debate. With your discussion I put you between 18 to 20. At-least know which planes were flying in which war thats a start.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kharian_Beast

I don't even know why you guys are replying to the noobs on this thread.


----------



## zombie:-)

Munir said:


> I mean, I agree that moving from f7P/PG, A5 and Mirage 3 this is a gigantic step forward but telling all the time that it is peanuts compared to MKI is a bit overdone. Let me post something about DRFM and you will understand that MKI will have almost zero tooths... And the last one will make it more vulnerable to all other Pak assets. Just have to wait some time but it will be posted.
> 
> As far as I am informed (and there is a lot more then posted on internet) the JF17 ECM is optimized against Mig29 and SU30's radar and weapons. Even without DRFM you will kow that it hurts when you cannot... The problem will be there if that fails in flight but I think that the Chinese did an outstanding job. So much that they copied it now and made it better for the J10...



i never said it was peanuts against MKI .....first you guys gotta induct it....train on it ...gain expertise etc..then if PAF would be able to ward off iaf for some crucial period and get the job done ..it would be more than enough for a low cost fighter ...i think it would be ideal to put jf-17s for CAP in suffeciantly large numbers till the bad boys get into air ...itll be mission acomplished for jf-17 ...seriously you cant expect it to do more than that in the present future


----------



## Munir

I promised something to post about DRFM...

>>>Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) is an electronic method for digitally capturing and retransmitting (reproducing) an RF signal. The DRFM technique snoops and digitizes the received signals, stores it in memory, then when needed, replicates and retransmits.

Because its a copy of the original signal, the attacking transmitting radar will not be able to distinguish its legitimate original return signal from the DRFM copy. Neither does DRFM generate and transmit radio jamming noise, so the home-on-noise-jamming used by current weopons - is useless.
The real twist with DRFM, is that slight variations in frequency (phase) can be retransmitted (imbedded) by the more powerful DRFM jam signal, to create Doppler (velocity) error in the attackers receiver/seeker head. The attacking weapon may not (or can not) resolve these more powerful false signals (in time), the weapon will fly wide of the target  and so is defeated.

These type of DRFM signal reproduction can include snooping/creating/retransmitting distorted phase signals to confuse attacking aircraft main radar sets as well. 
Core issues for DRFM may be:
 Any radio-spectrum transmission can be snooped including: beeps, squawks, data-links and digitized radio communications.
 DRFM would not be effective in the Infrared (IR) EM spectrum.
 DRFM increases need for robust Within Visual Range (WVR) capability.
 DRFM may require offering aircrews more than one type of homing technique for BVR, similar to say Vympel R-77 plus Vympel R-77T usage model.
DFRM is used on new aircraft entering service as well as being able to be fitted to existing legacy platforms (F-15, F-16 & F-18) via pods. This could be one reason that stealth is effectively absent on Grippen, Typhoon and Rafael? 

Ultra-long range air breathing weapons with fully passive wide-band EM-spectrum homing (anti-radiation/emission) might be the few options remaining for BVR?
If DFRM has indeed turned the radio spectrum of the battlefield upside down, then gun-sights using IRST rather than radar might soon be an essential part of Future Firepower.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Munir

zombie:-) said:


> i never said it was peanuts against MKI .....first you guys gotta induct it....train on it ...gain expertise etc..then if PAF would be able to ward off iaf for some crucial period and get the job done ..it would be more than enough for a low cost fighter ...i think it would be ideal to put jf-17s for CAP in suffeciantly large numbers till the bad boys get into air ...itll be mission acomplished for jf-17 ...seriously you cant expect it to do more than that in the present future



India has showed that conventional it cannot take any chances since it has no assets to win a war in a fast way, it can have a tough conventional answer and in the end it can turn into nuclear war. But let us forget that. How many targets would the MKI go for? ow many planes would be in that pack? We do not need that many planes to defend cause we have all our ground assets in place and the MKI's are flying to us... It is not the Irac war where US had overwhelming superiority and even then it needed years to start something on the ground. Even then it lost more then a few planes and choppers. In the Pakistan - India scenario a 1-5 war will not lead to anything good for India. I refuse to accept that the MKI is a better plane when sttacking Pakistan. It has huge RCS and countering its weapons is something Pakistan is trained for. The JF17 is built for that purpose. I am pretty sure that the Mirages will not be used against it but even the PG would make the MKI sweating.


----------



## maverick2009

SU30 MKI is not a strike Plane 

It is geared towards Air Superiority. Carries up to 8 air to air missles

IAF strike planes will be Jaguar & mirage 2000 Today.

In the future by the time PAF has 150+ JF17 i think the main strike planes will be MRCA. contender. (probably F18SH or Rafael) 

SU30MKI will provide AIR COVER over the strike formations but i don,t think they will be bombing any targets. 

Comparable match up to SU30MKI would be F16/52 or J10 wen PAF acquires these.


----------



## LCA

Munir said:


> I promised something to post about DRFM...
> 
> >>>Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) is an electronic method for digitally capturing and retransmitting (reproducing) an RF signal. The DRFM technique &#8216;snoops&#8217; and digitizes the received signals, stores it in memory, then when needed, replicates and retransmits.
> 
> Because it&#8217;s a &#8216;copy&#8217; of the original signal, the attacking transmitting radar will not be able to distinguish its legitimate original return signal from the DRFM &#8216;copy&#8217;. Neither does DRFM generate and transmit radio jamming noise, so the &#8216;home-on-noise-jamming&#8217; used by current weopons - is useless.
> The real twist with DRFM, is that slight variations in frequency (phase) can be retransmitted (imbedded) by the more powerful DRFM jam signal, to create Doppler (velocity) error in the attackers receiver/seeker head. The attacking weapon may not (or can not) resolve these more powerful &#8220;false&#8221; signals (in time), the weapon will fly wide of the target &#8211; and so is defeated.
> 
> These type of DRFM signal reproduction can include snooping/creating/retransmitting distorted phase signals to confuse attacking aircraft main radar sets as well.
> Core issues for DRFM may be:
> &#8226; Any radio-spectrum transmission can be snooped including: beeps, squawks, data-links and digitized radio communications.
> &#8226; DRFM would not be effective in the Infrared (IR) EM spectrum.
> &#8226; DRFM increases need for robust Within Visual Range (WVR) capability.
> &#8226; DRFM may require offering aircrews more than one type of homing technique for BVR, similar to say Vympel R-77 plus Vympel R-77T usage model.
> DFRM is used on new aircraft entering service as well as being able to be fitted to existing legacy platforms (F-15, F-16 & F-18) via pods. This could be one reason that stealth is effectively absent on Grippen, Typhoon and Rafael?



Basically , DRFM technolgy used as jammer, am i right?

I don't know about JF but MKI(also mig-21,F-16) already have jammer- EL/M-8222..



Yes, it is israeli jammer and they already used this jammer in their F-15.

And do you ever heard of Electronic counter-counter measure(anti-jamming)

There are several technique included in this : 

*Pulse compression
*Frequency hopping
*Sidelobe cancellation
*Polarization
*Radiation homing

I like to describe last one,*Radiation homing*,for you.



> DRFM may require offering aircrews more than one type of homing technique for BVR, similar to say Vympel R-77 plus Vympel R-77T usage model.



*The other main aspect of ECCM, is to program sensors or seekers to detect attempts at ECM and possible even to take advantage of it*. For example, some modern fire-and-forget missiles like the *Vympel R-77 and the AMRAAM *are able to *home in directly on sources of radar jamming if the jamming is too powerful to allow them to find and track the target normally. *This mode, called *'home-on-jam', actually makes the missile's job easier. *Some missile seekers actually target the enemy's radiation sources, and are therefore called "anti-radiation missiles" (ARM). The jamming in this case effectively becomes a beacon announcing the presence and location of the transmitter. This makes the use of such ECM a difficult decision; it may serve to obscure an exact location from a non-ARM missile, but in doing so it must emit signals which can be exploited by an ARM type missile.

So,



> Let me post something about DRFM and you will understand that MKI will have almost zero tooths...


----------



## LCA

So , MKI not only have ECM (EL/M-8222) but also ECCM (R-77)


----------



## zombie:-)

> Let me post something about DRFM and you will understand that MKI will have almost zero tooths...



some people call MKI an elephant because of its rcs which again is a mistaken term somewhere i had posted the true meaning of rcs ....anyways there is a saying in hindi "haathi ke khaane ke daant aur dikhaaneke daant alag hote hain" an elephants biting teeth and tuskers are different ....back to the topic i think LCAs post is not suitable and anyway i understood that RF signals will be stored in the memory but how can you persuade a missile to lose lock ...can the signas which are encrypted be deciphered if not how can you know whars in the signal?????? would be better if you posted the source link


----------



## maverick2009

Su30 mki = Is Sleek Vey fast and very agile. ITS hardly an elephant. 

F15 of USA/Israel are huge fighters but they are stil an awesome Air dominance fighter. 

Low RCS is really vital but other factors are even more paramount

Engine power,, WEAPONS MIX, radar ,agility situational wareness and jammers ECM THEY ARE even more vital. 

Hawk or LCA has low RCS but cannot it tangle with F15 which has a huge RCS. 

i think not !!!!!!!


----------



## Munir

If you see how well radars are now compared to a decade ago then you would understand that there is a reason why Israeli and others are willing to replace their elephants...

The RCS of MKI is huge. Believe me. I do not have to share the technical details but if you read some on google you will understand. Just read the part I posted about RCS. That is more reliable then someone telling me that it is sleek or nice... If the design was that good then it would never have two vertical tails... No huge brake or those added features around the intake... Hell, those pylons or attached BVR's are even more funny... Just for discussion... How do you judge its RCS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zombie:-)

Munir said:


> If you see how well radars are now compared to a decade ago then you would understand that there is a reason why Israeli and others are willing to replace their elephants...
> 
> The RCS of MKI is huge. Believe me. I do not have to share the technical details but if you read some on google you will understand. Just read the part I posted about RCS. That is more reliable then someone telling me that it is sleek or nice... *If the design was that good then it would never have two vertical tails*... No huge brake or those added features around the intake... Hell, those pylons or attached BVR's are even more funny... Just for discussion... How do you judge its RCS?



seriously stop contradicting yourself ....had a look at your AVATAR ...the way you put things it seems the two verical stabilizers are put becoz the aircraft is in serious trouble and only heavy fighters have it .....the avatar is JSF right


----------



## zombie:-)

double post


----------



## maverick2009

Ae the Israelis Replacing F15.

i THINK NOT.

They have ordered JSF approx 40 to begin with.

These are due to replace F16 blocka/b (The oldest F16s in IDAF since 1982)

The F15 will go thru a MLU will remain in IDAF service till at least 2025..

Even USA will retain several hundred F15s till 2025 SINCE THE F22 is so expensive at $150m each.


----------



## messenger

Muradk said:


> *messenger*
> Although PC has answered your answers with facts, I think its time to go back to your IAF website and learn some more before you jump in Again in a debate. With your discussion I put you between 18 to 20. At-least know which planes were flying in which war thats a start.



you lost me sir . you seem to read only pc's comment .

my father once told me a of a pakistani pilot which came on international media during the war of 65 . he on TV said he downed many indian planes and seemed very proud but after some reasearch it came out that he had not faced even a single indian fighter in air , he just destroyed indian fighters stationed on ground .


----------



## PAFAce

messenger said:


> my father once told me a of a pakistani pilot which came on international media during the war of 65 . he on TV said he downed many indian planes and seemed very proud but after some reasearch it came out that he had not faced even a single indian fighter in air , he just destroyed indian fighters stationed on ground .



I bet, the people who did the "research" were Indian. And your father is Indian too, isn't he? Surely, you took that story with a grain of salt. I do not mean to disrespect your father, but true-stories have a strange way of turning into tales. The Indians still do not give much due credit to PAF fighters in the 1965 war, despite the amazing destruction they delivered. Saying that the planes were grounded when they were destroyed is a convenient way of escaping the humiliation of air-to-air, man-to-man defeat.

MuradK, on the other hand, is an Air Force veteran and is as reliable a source as any IAF veteran. His point was, you should brush up on your IAF history before you post next, and not rely on hear-say so much.

*Edit* Oh man, I just read some of your previous posts. Seriously bro, read a book or two on the subject. Just a few things:

- The IAF did operate Mig-21s in 1965 (one squadron, if I am not mistaken, to counter PAF F-104 Starfighters). The Americans were very interested in seeing how their F-104s would perform against the Soviet Mig-21s in dogfights, but that showdown didn't happen until 1971 (when in three encounters, the Mig-21 shot down one F-104).
- PAF had nothing to do with anything in 1962. In 1962, it was the Chinese that put you in your place (quite literally).
- In 1971, a greater number of IAF planes were destroyed than the PAF, which usually means victory in any sport. However, due to the separation of East Pakistan, most Pakistanis still believe the 1971 war to be a loss, unaware that the PAF once again performed outstandingly.



Kharian_Beast said:


> I don't even know why you guys are replying to the noobs on this thread.



To keep the morale high. Easy pickings, sir, easy pickings.


----------



## messenger

PAFAce said:


> I bet, the people who did the "research" were Indian. And your father is Indian too, isn't he? Surely, you took that story with a grain of salt. I do not mean to disrespect your father, but true-stories have a strange way of turning into tales. The Indians still do not give much due credit to PAF fighters in the 1965 war, despite the amazing destruction they delivered. Saying that the planes were grounded when they were destroyed is a convenient way of escaping the humiliation of air-to-air, man-to-man defeat.
> 
> MuradK, on the other hand, is an Air Force veteran and is as reliable a source as any IAF veteran. His point was, you should brush up on your IAF history before you post next, and not rely on hear-say so much.



you dont believe anything until source is given to you . maybe i could give you . maybe i could give you the source that pakistanis in japan are calling themselves indian .

india did not have even 6 mig-21 at 65 . they became operational after 65 .


----------



## PAFAce

messenger said:


> read this
> Indian Air Force - Visiting the MiG-21 Bisons
> 
> india did not have even 6 mig-21 at 65 . they became operational after 65 .



Bharat Rakshak! Here is a more neutral, and accurate, source:

Source:
*Wings That Stay On - The Role of Fighter Aircraft in War
USAF Colonel (Ret) Edward V. "Cougar" Coggins Jr.*
Published by Turner Publishing Company, *2000*
ISBN 1563115689, 9781563115684



> Air Order of Battle
> 
> Before 1956 the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) used primarily British equipment, but in 1956, a US Military Defense Assistance Program (MDAP) was begun. On the eve of the Kashmir Conflict, the Pakistani order of Battle was:
> 
> - 100 F-86F Sabres
> - 25 B-57 Canberras
> - 12 F-104A & F-104B Starfighters
> - 12 T-33A trainer/fighter/bombers (two sear F-80s)
> 
> Twenty-five percent of F-86s were fitted with AIM-9B sidewinders. *Pakistani training was excellent, beginning in the T-6 and then progressing to the T-33.*
> 
> The Indian Air Force (IAF) was larger than the PAF and had a myriad of equipment:
> 
> - *8 Mig-21 Fishbeds*
> - 118 Hawker Hunters
> - 80 Mystere IV-As
> - 50 Gnats
> - 56 Ouragans
> - 132 Vampires
> 
> The IAF also had a number of Soviet SA-2 SAMs installed primary facilities.



Further on in the book.



> The long awaited fight between F-104 and Mig-21 did not occur in 1965.



The Colonel then goes on to tell the story of IAF's destruction. It is an interesting read. I read a very similar account in a book on the F-86 Sabre, but that was a _long_ time ago.



> maybe i could give you the source that pakistanis in japan are calling themselves indian



Well, not that it is relevant to our discussion, but I have an Indian Kashmiri friend who calls himself Pakistani. Also, I knew an Indian Muslim back in UAE who called himself Pakistani. I also know of many "fresh-off-the-boat" Indians who hate calling themselves Indian. But who cares about them? Ask me who I am, and you will always get the same answer. *Proud Pakistani*.


----------



## zombie:-)

guys please stop derailing the thread


----------



## messenger

PAFAce said:


> Bharat Rakshak! Here is a more neutral, and accurate, source:
> 
> Source:
> *Wings That Stay On - The Role of Fighter Aircraft in War
> USAF Colonel (Ret) Edward V. "Cougar" Coggins Jr.*
> Published by Turner Publishing Company, *2000*
> ISBN 1563115689, 9781563115684
> 
> 
> 
> Further on in the book.
> 
> 
> 
> The Colonel then goes on to tell the story of IAF's destruction. It is an interesting read. I read a very similar account in a book on the F-86 Sabre, but that was a _long_ time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not that it is relevant to our discussion, but I have an Indian Kashmiri friend who calls himself Pakistani. Also, I knew an Indian Muslim back in UAE who called himself Pakistani. I also know of many "fresh-off-the-boat" Indians who hate calling themselves Indian. But who cares about them? Ask me who I am, and you will always get the same answer. *Proud Pakistani*.



u dont trust bharat rakshak i dont trust any usa report about that war coz usa was heavily biased against india at that time .

and dude by highlighting you yourself answered your question . you think 6 or even 8 mig-21 are enough to change the course of war . the reality is that mig-21's were used to a very minimum extent during 65 , very minimum .

and regarding 71 war , yeah your paf performed well , much better than army and navy . 95,000 POW's are no joke . learn how much you lost &#37; wise during the 71 war in army , navy and airforce . 
you say we were creamed by chinese in 62 , absalutely true . but from it we learnt something and admitted it . look at you even after almost 40 years you are still there waiting for history to change itself .

and dude change your friend circle all of your friends are mujahideen .


----------



## messenger

zombie:-) said:


> guys please stop derailing the thread



agreed . lets get back to it .


----------



## Patriot

Even if Sajjad Haider shot down planes on grounds so what?It was your Air Force Failure that it was not able to air bone their fighters before Pakistani Fighters bombed the base back to stone ages.Not even a single plane was shot down in that air raid.An Air Force 5 times smaller then IAF was able to do this damage and Indians are quite proud of destorying Pakistan Air Planes in East Pakistan and bragging about it on American Forums.Perhaps they have forgetten that only 1 Squardon was stationed there and yet they were able to shoot down some Indian Planes.Thanks to PAF Training we have Pilots like Muradk, MMALAM they saved Pakistan from Indian Air Force and caused maximum damage.


----------



## messenger

saadahmed said:


> Even if Sajjad Haider shot down planes on grounds so what?It was your Air Force Failure that it was not able to air bone their fighters before Pakistani Fighters bombed the base back to stone ages.Not even a single plane was shot down in that air raid.



yes i was expecting a wise reply only from you . 

we made some grave mistakes in 62 and 65 and pakistan and china took full benefit of them .


----------



## Hasnain2009

Bharat Rakshak is reliable source!!


----------



## Hasnain2009

> Source:
> Wings That Stay On - The Role of Fighter Aircraft in War
> USAF Colonel (Ret) Edward V. "Cougar" Coggins Jr.
> Published by Turner Publishing Company, 2000
> ISBN 1563115689, 9781563115684
> 
> 
> PAF Inventory
> 
> - 100 F-86F Sabres
> - 25 B-57 Canberras
> - 12 F-104A & F-104B Starfighters
> - 12 T-33A trainer/fighter/bombers (two sear F-80s)
> 
> =199
> 
> The Indian Air Force (IAF) was larger than the PAF and had a myriad of equipment:
> 
> IAF
> 
> - 8 Mig-21 Fishbeds
> - 118 Hawker Hunters
> - 80 Mystere IV-As
> - 50 Gnats
> - 56 Ouragans
> - 132 Vampires
> 
> Thats make 444!!



Thats mean we were outnumbered by IAF in 1965 too, and we performed very well, and now the inventory is not that bad as it was in 1965!!
So we can perform better then 1965 if india again opens war against pakistan!!

@PAFace, thanks for the this valuable info!!

Pakistan Zindabad!!


----------



## zombie:-)

messenger said:


> and dude change your friend circle all of your friends are mujahideen .




who are you to comment about his friends circle ...got a valid point put it in a presentable manner or youll get banned and i am going to report your posts ...posting in a foreign forum in this manner is highly un acceptable ..you represent our county ....do it in a proper way

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

messenger said:


> you lost me sir . you seem to read only pc's comment .
> 
> my father once told me a of a pakistani pilot which came on international media during the war of 65 . he on TV said he downed many indian planes and seemed very proud but after some reasearch it came out that he had not faced even a single indian fighter in air , he just destroyed indian fighters stationed on ground .



how is your fairy tale relevant to my post? 
and how is destroying planes on the ground easier then shooting in air? 
May be your dad was referring to this video but i could not find such claims in it.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

messenger said:


> you dont believe anything until source is given to you . maybe i could give you . maybe i could give you the source that pakistanis in japan are calling themselves indian .
> 
> read this
> Indian Air Force - Visiting the MiG-21 Bisons
> 
> india did not have even 6 mig-21 at 65 . they became operational after 65 .



wait.




IAF received its MiG-21F-13 batch in *1963* ..

Indian Air Force Losses -1965 War
and lol.. your own source claims that 3 Mig-21 were lost on the ground.


----------



## zombie:-)

STOP FEEDING TROLLS


----------



## hj786

messenger said:


> and dude change your friend circle all of your friends are mujahideen .



Stupid troll.
The same Mujahideen who liberated Afghanistan from the Soviets? Good. Any Muslim would be proud to have friends who are true Mujahideen. Get out of here kid, nobody here wants to read your BS.


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Stop wasting the bandwidth with trolls and mudslinging


----------



## messenger

Growler said:


> wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IAF received its MiG-21F-13 batch in *1963* ..
> 
> Indian Air Force Losses -1965 War
> and lol.. your own source claims that 3 Mig-21 were lost on the ground.



sir thats the whole point i wanted to prove mig-21 's part in 65 was very limited . !


----------



## messenger

Munir said:


> If you see how well radars are now compared to a decade ago then you would understand that there is a reason why Israeli and others are willing to replace their elephants...
> 
> The RCS of MKI is huge. Believe me. I do not have to share the technical details but if you read some on google you will understand. Just read the part I posted about RCS. That is more reliable then someone telling me that it is sleek or nice... If the design was that good then it would never have two vertical tails... No huge brake or those added features around the intake... Hell, those pylons or attached BVR's are even more funny... Just for discussion... How do you judge its RCS?



believe me rcs doesnt matter much until you have got f-22 or f-35 . you attach ammunition and fuel tanks - a jf-17 will be identified as early as a mki by ground based radars .


----------



## Keysersoze

messenger said:


> believe me rcs doesnt matter much until you have got f-22 or f-35 . you attach ammunition and fuel tanks - a jf-17 will be identified as early as a mki by ground based radars .


Ok it is official. You know nothing. I suggest you desist as warnings/banning are imminent. Leave this debate to the smarter members of your nation

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiko

messenger said:


> believe me rcs doesnt matter much until you have got f-22 or f-35 . you attach ammunition and fuel tanks - a jf-17 will be identified as early as a mki by ground based radars .



This is not true. This is what F-15 and Su-30 pilots and fans tell themselves to make themselves feel better.

It's not additive, but it's not like putting the same missile on say an F-16 and an Su-30MKI gives them both the same RCS either.

And it's not an all or nothing equation of either going F-22 or being useless either. Any reduction helps and reduces the range in which they can detect you.

This is, to a fairly substantial degree, offset by AEW systems but there's no guarantee you can keep those systems flying in war. And in either case you still need a lock to fire the missile, except in some cases (of which I don't believe the Su-30MKI is capable).


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Well the RVV-AE has a lock on after launch feature I think. Anyone here knows that?


----------



## AkhandBharat

There is no discussion. SU-30MKI beats JF-17 fair and square. Hell, the F16 Block 60 will beat the JF-17 anyday.


----------



## hj786

AkhandBharat said:


> There is no discussion. SU-30MKI beats JF-17 fair and square. Hell, the F16 Block 60 will beat the JF-17 anyday.


But you just proved you don't know anything because there IS a discussion about it. It has been shown that JF has every chance of taking out the big bad sukhoi from beyond visual range, the sukhoi has no significant advantage at that range when the JF is supported by AEW/C aircraft.
Close-in it is a different story - in dogfights the sukhoi holds a significant advantage that can be decisive - thrust to weight ratio. Whether it is actually more agile/manoeuvrable than the JF we cannot be sure, but with thrust vector control it is likely to hold advantages in that department also. However, the JF is stated to be equipped with a helmet mounted cueing system which should, in theory, negate some of the sukhoi's close-in advantages. 
..... Looks like a discussion to me. 
The F-16 block 60 better beat the JF any day, it costs about 10 times more and is armed with the latest American AMRAAM missile, ECM and AESA radar technology. I bet you wouldn't admit it whoops your favourite sukhoi too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Owais

AkhandBharat said:


> There is no discussion. SU-30MKI beats JF-17 fair and square. Hell, the F16 Block 60 will beat the JF-17 anyday.



Mr Akhand,
please provide some reasonable arguments before making childish comments. I suggest you to read the whole thread so that you have some learning experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> It has been shown that JF has every chance of taking out the big bad sukhoi from beyond visual range, the sukhoi has no significant advantage at that range when the JF is supported by AEW/C aircraft.
> Close-in it is a different story - in dogfights the sukhoi holds a significant advantage that can be decisive - thrust to weight ratio. Whether it is actually more agile/manoeuvrable than the JF we cannot be sure, but with thrust vector control it is likely to hold advantages in that department also. However, the JF is stated to be equipped with a helmet mounted cueing system which should, in theory, negate some of the sukhoi's close-in advantages.



JF 17 and J10 will leave their advantages in BVR also against an old Mig 21 Bison with AEW/C support, cause it leaves everything to the range of the weapons. So if we compare the fighters, we have to compare them without AEW/C, just their radar, speed, maneuverability, weapons...
There should be no doubt about JF 17 & Mki WVR, like you said Mkis advantages in t/w ratio and maneuverability (it performs well against EF which is one of the most maneuverable fighters at the moment) are too big.
BVR is the chance for JF 17 and it might be equal to Mki. Low RCS and less radar range vs big RCS but long radar range. 

JF 17 is a good fighter and better than LCA MK1, but I don't belive IAF bother to much about it. J10 and F16 are bigger threats and gives more to worry about.


----------



## The Punisher

Tiger said:


> can some1 post a comparison between them? i've read this thread and so far nothing really worth reading.
> 
> and plx use ONLY the current models (no mki with aesa and supercruise and no jf-17 with aesa, super avionics, tvc, and twin tails)





Here you go :

The Sukhoi Su-30 MKI (NATO reporting name Flanker-H) is a variant of the Sukhoi Su-30 jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). It is an air superiority fighter which can also act as a multirole, strike fighter jet.

*Su-30MkI*

Crew: Two in tandem seating on KD-36DM ejection seats. Rear seat raised for better visibility.

Engine: Su-30K/MK-1; Two AL-31F turbofans, each rated at 12,500 kgf (27,550 lbs) of full afterburning thrust.
..........Su-30MKI; Two AL-31FP turbofans, each rated at 12,500 kgf (27,550 lbs) of full afterburning thrust.

*Engine Thrust-To-Weight Ratio: 8.7:1*

Maximum Speed: At sea level - 1350 km/h.
.......................Above 11,000 meters - Mach 2+

Service Ceiling: 17,500 meters.

Climb Rate: 230 m/s; 45,300 ft/min.

*Maximum Range: The Su-30MKI with a single in-flight re-fuelling can go a distance of 8000 km; (~5000 miles). The maximum flight duration can be 10 hours --> in terms of the crew capabilities. The Su-30K/MK-1 with a normal fuel load of 5270 kg (~11,620 lbs.) can go a distance of 3000 km (~1900 miles) and with an in-flight re-fuelling the aircraft go a distance of 5200 km (3231 miles).*

G Limit: +9.

Armament: The aircraft is fitted with a 30mm GSh-301 single-barrel gun which has a firing rate of 1500 - 1800 rds/min or 25 - 30 rds/sec. The gun has a maximum effective range of 1200 - 1800 meters (3937 - 5906 feet) against air targets and 200 - 800 meters (656 - 2625 feet) against ground targets. Has 170 rounds capacity with 150 rounds loaded. Can carry a variety of ordnance on 12 hard points, which can be increased to 14 by using multi-payload racks. For air-superiority missions, the Su-30MKI can carry air-to-air missiles, l*ike the close-combat R-60MK and R-73RDM2 (up to six), the medium-range R-27RE1/TE1 (up to six/two) and the long-range R-77RVV-AE (up to six).*

For surface-strike missions, *the Su-30MKI can be armed with air-to-surface missiles like the Kh-25MP, Kh-29L/T (up to six), Kh-31A/P (up to six) and Kh-59/59M (up to two), as well as KAB-500KR/KAB-500OD (up to six) and KAB-1500KR/KAB-1500L (up to three) high-precision bombs which can be fitted with either laser or television guidance systems. Over 70 versions of guided and unguided weapon stores may be employed, which allows the aircraft to fly the most diverse tactical missions. The Su-30 can also carry a tactical nuclear payload.*

Maximum External Stores Load: 8000 kg; 17,600 lbs. Max Take Off Wt: 34,500 kg. (38500 kg unconfirmed)

*Self Defence: An integrated ECM system turns on the warning units that provide signals about incoming enemy missiles, a new generation radio recon set, active jamming facilities and radar & heat decoys. It also includes an electronic intelligence unit, a chaff and flare dispenser and a RWR system. Reportedly, the RWR system is an indigenous product developed by DRDO. The system is a modified version of the new RWR to be fitted on the upgraded MiG-21bis, known as the MiG-21UPG, and goes by the name Tarang.*

Design Features: The first batch of eight Su-30MK-1s (SB 001 - SB 008), delivered to the IAF, have evolved from the Su-27K long range interceptor, a two-seat fighter derivative of the Su-27PU, which in itself is a two-seat fighter derivative of the Su-27UB trainer. These aircraft have the standard Su-27 radar, an in-flight refuelling capability, limited air-to-ground capability and a data-link system. The second batch, originally built to fulfill a cancelled Indonesian order, of ten Su-30Ks (SB 009 - SB 018) have limited PGM (Precision Guided Munitions) capability. The specifications below relate to the final Su-30MKI variant, unless specified otherwise.

*Avionics: The Su-30MKI features an all-weather, digital multi-mode, dual frequency, forward facing NIIP N-011M radar which has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range. The radar can track and engage 20 targets and engage the 8 most threatening simultaneously. These targets can include cruise/ballistic missiles and even motionless helicopters. The radar is combined with a helmet mounted sight system, which allows the pilot to turn his head in a 90º field of view, lock on to a target and launch the TVC-capable R-73RDM2 missile. The radar's forward hemisphere is ±90º in azimuth and ±55º in elevation. The N-011M ensures a 20 metre resolution detection of large sea targets at a distance up to 400 km, and of small size ones - at a distance of 120 km.*

In March 1998, the IAF signed a contract with the French electronics manufacturer, Sextant Avionique, to add six liquid colour displays, five MFD 55s and one MFD 66, for both the pilot and his WSO (Weapons System Officer), the Totem inertial guidance system with the GPS technology and the VEH 3000 holographic HUD. Officials from Sexatant have acknowledged that they have already validated the GPS system on Sukhoi aircraft. The six LCDs have a wide-screen and are shielded to make it readable even in bright sunlight. All the flight information is displayed on these four LCD displays which include one for piloting and navigation, a tactical situation indicator, and two for display systems information including operating modes and overall operation status. The aircraft is fitted with a satellite navigation system, which permits it to make flights in all weathers; day and night. The navigation complex comprises an inertial directional system and short- and long-range radio navigation systems. It also has a laser attitude and a heading reference system. An automatic flight control system makes all phases of its flight automatic, including the combat employment of its weapons.


----------



## The Punisher

Tiger said:


> can some1 post a comparison between them? i've read this thread and so far nothing really worth reading.
> 
> and plx use ONLY the current models (no mki with aesa and supercruise and no jf-17 with aesa, super avionics, tvc, and twin tails)



*JF-17*

The PAC JF-17 Thunder (Urdu: &#1578;&#1726;&#1606;&#1672;&#1585, also known in China as the Chengdu FC-1 Fierce Dragon (Chinese: &#26541;&#40857;; pinyin: Xi&#257;o Lóng),[1] is a light-weight multi-role combat aircraft jointly developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation of China and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex of Pakistan. The "JF" and "FC" designations stand for "Joint Fighter" and "Fighter China" respectively.

* Crew: 1 (2 for proposed twin-seater)
* Length: 14.0 m [44] (45.9 ft)
* Wingspan: 9.45 m [44] (31 ft)
* Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
* Wing area: 24.4 m² [44] (263 ft²)
* Empty weight: 6,411 kg [45] (14,134 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles [46] [47] (20,062 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg [46] (28,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan [48]
o Dry thrust: 49.4 kN [49] [50] (11,106 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN [51] [52] (18,973 lbf)
* G-limit: +8.5 g [16]
* Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb) [53]

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 [54] [55]
* Combat radius: 1,352 km [56] (840 mi)
* Ferry range: 3,000 km [57] [58] (2,175 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,700 m [59] (54,790 ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.99 [60] [61]

Armament

* Guns: 1× 23mm internal GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30mm GSh-30-2 twin-barrel cannon)
* Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance,
* Rockets: 57mm/90mm unguided rocket pods [64]
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air missiles: PL-5E, PL-9C, PL-12 / SD-10
o Air-to-surface missiles: anti-radiation missiles; anti-ship missiles (AM-39 Exocet); cruise missiles (Ra'ad ALCM); etc. [63]
* Bombs:
o Gravity/Unguided bombs: general purpose (Mk-82, Mk-84); anti-runway (Matra Durandal); etc. [62]
o Precision guided munitions: laser-guided (GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2); satellite-guided; etc. [62]
o Cluster bombs: anti-armour (CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye); etc. [62]

KLJ-7 radar can reportedly manage up to 40 targets, monitor up to 10 of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. The detection range for targets with a radar-cross section of up to 3 m2 is stated to be 120 km, or 50 km in look-down mode, while surface sea targets can be detected at up to 135 km. Target data is displayed on the multi-function display screens in the cockpit.


*For pics, Check Military Photos and Videos Forum*


----------



## IceCold

I would say that both fighters are meant for an entirely different role so their one to one comparision does not make sense. They will come up against each other but that won't be a one to one fight, there will be different factors involved and those factors would matter in the end which jet comes on top.
I would also add that those Pakistani friends that underestimate the mki should re read about what it can do or what it is capable of doing. It is a deadly lethal machine and we should not under estimate it under any circumstances and Indians do know how to use it to its maximum advantage. Rather then underestimating we should prepare to counter it effectively.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Munir

IceCold said:


> I would say that both fighters are meant for an entirely different role so their one to one comparision does not make sense. They will come up against each other but that won't be a one to one fight, there will be different factors involved and those factors would matter in the end which jet comes on top.
> I would also add that those Pakistani friends that underestimate the mki should re read about what it can do or what it is capable of doing. It is a deadly lethal machine and we should not under estimate it under any circumstances and Indians do know how to use it to its maximum advantage. Rather then underestimating we should prepare to counter it effectively.



Being big is never and advantage. Unless you are a transportplane. It is a nice plane to see. Does nice shows. But having seen it more then a few times and knowing how it works and acts I think it is a rhino. Superb for a2g but I have my own thoughts when it somes to a2a.


----------



## paritosh

even the f-15 is bigger than the jf-17...and so is the raptor...


----------



## Zob

like i said the platform really doesn't matter its the armament that it carries....like the ARCHER or the AIM120....and people keep saying the MKI has a superior detection range my question is INDIA pakistan war scenario both sides would be agressive and both fighters would be able to paint the enemy within its border...someone said what if MKI is flying over agra my question is why is INDIA going to be defensive flying fighters over AGRA and not trying to fly them over HALWARA PATHANKOT or somewhere closer to our border after all in a war u have to be agressive....all i say is somehow make the JF-17 carry AIM120C5 and boy u got a deadly machine in ur hand!!!!


----------



## SEAL

RCS of MKI is 10m2 and MKI radar's detection range against the target of 5m2 is 80-120km

JF-17 radar's max detection range against the target of 5m2 is 75km..(rcs of mki is 10m2) which meanz JF-17 can detect MKI at its max range.

so it dosent matter what su-30mki has,, 
JF-17 can shot down MKI..


----------



## IceCold

Munir said:


> Being big is never and advantage. Unless you are a transportplane. It is a nice plane to see. Does nice shows. But having seen it more then a few times and knowing how it works and acts I think it is a rhino. Superb for a2g but I have my own thoughts when it somes to a2a.



I wasn't talking about size, my point was meant as far as the jets capabilities are concerned. We should not underestimate about what an MKI can or cannot do. However like i said in my previous post, both jets are meant for different roles and more so there will be different factors involved on which it will depend which jet comes out on top. 
For example JF-17 in a defensive role will be under the umbrella of an AWAC which means it will get an early situation awareness as compared to MKI who will be in a hostile environment and not only has to look for SAMs but in coming PAF jets. However the situation will completely turn once JF-17 gets out from friendly skies and enter hostile skies where it will not have an advantage of an AWAC and that is why i recommend an AESA radar for JF-17.


----------



## saiko

Munir said:


> Being big is never and advantage. Unless you are a transportplane. It is a nice plane to see. Does nice shows. But having seen it more then a few times and knowing how it works and acts I think it is a rhino. Superb for a2g but I have my own thoughts when it somes to a2a.



It's an advantage in three important ways:

1) That usually means you can carry more fuel.
2) That usually means you can carry more missiles/weapons.
3) That usually means you have a larger radome. Assuming equvialent levels of radar technology the bigger fighter will have a better radar.

Of course it usually also means a larger RCS, worse fuel-efficiency and higher operating costs.


----------



## IceCold

paritosh said:


> even the f-15 is bigger than the jf-17...and so is the raptor...



Don't bring in the raptor because its an entirely different case and it does not matter whether it is bigger then JF or smaller, its stealth and no one will know about its presence until you have a missile on your tail and that will be too late.


----------



## Munir

1) That usually means you can carry more fuel.

You do not have to travel to other side of China... The battle is on the border and you surely do not want weight that is making your agility as good as a gigantic fueltanker. Besides that, IFR is just as handy to have range...

2) That usually means you can carry more missiles/weapons.

You wil get one shot for BVR.. Then within less then minute the second chance to shoot WVR (if you still are flying. You fire your BVR around 70% of the range... Do you need lots of weapons? That is why the F16 (block52-60) do not carry a lot more then 2 bvr and 2 wvr... This is the most impressive dogfighter. And let us see how often the other tough guy (f15) used more then 1 bvr...

3) That usually means you have a larger radome. Assuming equvialent levels of radar technology the bigger fighter will have a better radar.

Bigger radome is bigger RCS... Bigger radar is bigger flash light that the opponent can see...

>>>Of course it usually also means a larger RCS, worse fuel-efficiency and higher operating costs.

Hell yeah...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mean_bird

Tiger said:


> uhh i dont think u read the mki radar info, it says it can detect the smallest (1-2 m2 at 120 km) 5 km is freaking huge.
> 
> and Munir
> 
> having more fuel does help, say ur in a dogfight and a fighter is escaping from you while ur fuel is almost out, if u have more fuel u can run after it and get a kill.
> 
> also more bvr weapons is also good, say ur a lone fighter going up against 2-3 fighters, if ur loaded with bvr and able to engage more than 1 u have an advantage.
> 
> i dont think u should underestimate the mki so much. NEVER underestimate, always overestimate.



You do know that planes engage with each other after very careful planning and with a clear strategy. Its not like some plane is roaming in the wild that comes into contact with another.

Normally planes make a formation comprising of different types of planes in different configurations. For example, USAF practices F-15 and F-16 combo formations. 

Secondly, more fuel is meant for "deep strike missions" and not for pursuing other fighters. JF-17 has a 1300km combat radius which is fairly enough. You do not just go pursuing other fighters for hundreds or thousands of kilometers because you do not want to enter into enemy area. Most encounters will take place on the border area or near it. Fuel limitations for the purpose of pursuing doesn't even arise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## satishkumarcsc

> Originally Posted by Tiger
> uhh i dont think u read the mki radar info, it says it can detect the smallest (1-2 m2 at 120 km) 5 km is freaking huge.
> 
> and Munir
> 
> having more fuel does help, say ur in a dogfight and a fighter is escaping from you while ur fuel is almost out, if u have more fuel u can run after it and get a kill.
> 
> also more bvr weapons is also good, say ur a lone fighter going up against 2-3 fighters, if ur loaded with bvr and able to engage more than 1 u have an advantage.
> 
> i dont think u should underestimate the mki so much. NEVER underestimate, always overestimate.



Read about the Mirage and Harrier fight in the end of Falklands war.


----------



## Munir

Tiger said:


> uhh i dont think u read the mki radar info, it says it can detect the smallest (1-2 m2 at 120 km) 5 km is freaking huge.
> 
> and Munir
> 
> having more fuel does help, say ur in a dogfight and a fighter is escaping from you while ur fuel is almost out, if u have more fuel u can run after it and get a kill.
> 
> also more bvr weapons is also good, say ur a lone fighter going up against 2-3 fighters, if ur loaded with bvr and able to engage more than 1 u have an advantage.
> 
> i dont think u should underestimate the mki so much. NEVER underestimate, always overestimate.



Even if true... When will it able to track a JF17? And when will it shoot? I dot underestimate. I just use logic and tehnology. There is never a scenario of lone fighter against...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiko

Munir said:


> 1) That usually means you can carry more fuel.
> 
> You do not have to travel to other side of China... The battle is on the border and you surely do not want weight that is making your agility as good as a gigantic fueltanker. Besides that, IFR is just as handy to have range...



If you want to use them on strike missions, fuel is terribly important. The combat radius you read about on paper usually assume few if no weapons. Start adding high-drag 1000lb bombs onto an aircraft and watch the range drop to something less tha useful.



> 2) That usually means you can carry more missiles/weapons.
> 
> You wil get one shot for BVR.. Then within less then minute the second chance to shoot WVR (if you still are flying. You fire your BVR around 70% of the range... Do you need lots of weapons? That is why the F16 (block52-60) do not carry a lot more then 2 bvr and 2 wvr... This is the most impressive dogfighter. And let us see how often the other tough guy (f15) used more then 1 bvr...



Combat aircraft never travel alone. And if you get into a large-scale air war, you are talking about large numbers of combat aircraft attacking each other simultaneously the ability to carry more missiles is a large advantage. It gives you the options to "waste" missiles are long ranges to force advantages when you close.



> 3) That usually means you have a larger radome. Assuming equvialent levels of radar technology the bigger fighter will have a better radar.
> 
> Bigger radome is bigger RCS... Bigger radar is bigger flash light that the opponent can see...



Well this is the first time I've ever had someone claim that having a better radar is actually a disadvantage.


----------



## Munir

>>>If you want to use them on strike missions, fuel is terribly important. The combat radius you read about on paper usually assume few if no weapons. Start adding high-drag 1000lb bombs onto an aircraft and watch the range drop to something less tha useful.

JF17 will defending so it just waits low and his fast heavy loaded mki. JF17 does not nead huge fuel cause its range in CAP is good enough and otherwise it will do a fine job with IFR. And I think that a heavy loaded MKI is not as agile as we tend to think. Let me give you an example. F16 is highly agile. With two winganks it is a sitting duck. MKI with fuly fuel is a sitting duck. With or without TVC. Just calculate its weight to thrust.

>>>Combat aircraft never travel alone. And if you get into a large-scale air war, you are talking about large numbers of combat aircraft attacking each other simultaneously the ability to carry more missiles is a large advantage. It gives you the options to "waste" missiles are long ranges to force advantages when you close.

In the past PAF had to use BVR evasive tactics. Now with BVR and netcentric approach there is not much in favour left for MKI. Rule about smaller is better still is valuable. And with JF17 optimized ECM we will see how much is wasted. We will see how fast SD10 hits. The Chinese know the missile. With so clear goal to counter MKI the JF17 has its teeth ready.


>>>Well this is the first time I've ever had someone claim that having a better radar is actually a disadvantage.

Well, you have things like the Vera... And ECM or DRFM etc etc... A radar is active so if you want to see something then expect that the other is catching your signals. Or do you expect them to sleep? Just for your info... F5 pilots invented first ECM... It was an ordinary speed trap scanner. They knew exactly when the rqdar started scanning or locking...

Well, I am bugging out cause there is not much entertaining in explaining basics to kiddo's.


----------



## saiko

Munir said:


> JF17 will defending so it just waits low and his fast heavy loaded mki. JF17 does not nead huge fuel cause its range in CAP is good enough and otherwise it will do a fine job with IFR. And I think that a heavy loaded MKI is not as agile as we tend to think. Let me give you an example. F16 is highly agile. With two winganks it is a sitting duck. MKI with fuly fuel is a sitting duck. With or without TVC. Just calculate its weight to thrust.



So what you're saying is the JF-17 is not multi-role and will pretty much just be used as an interceptor? OK, gotcha.



> In the past PAF had to use BVR evasive tactics. Now with BVR and netcentric approach there is not much in favour left for MKI. Rule about smaller is better still is valuable. And with JF17 optimized ECM we will see how much is wasted. We will see how fast SD10 hits. The Chinese know the missile. With so clear goal to counter MKI the JF17 has its teeth ready.



Missile payload and radar strength are still crucial. It doesn't matter how good your jamming is the mathematics involved dictate that you will burn through eventually. The better your radar is, the sooner you'll burn through the sooner you get a weapons solution. 



> Well, you have things like the Vera... And ECM or DRFM etc etc... A radar is active so if you want to see something then expect that the other is catching your signals. Or do you expect them to sleep? Just for your info... F5 pilots invented first ECM... It was an ordinary speed trap scanner. They knew exactly when the rqdar started scanning or locking...
> 
> Well, I am bugging out cause there is not much entertaining in explaining basics to kiddo's.



You'd best bug out since you have at terrible argument here. You think you need to explain basics to me but you're also saying having a better radar is actually a disadvantage when every single air force in the entire world will disagree with you - including the PAF - who replaced the cheaper indigenous Chinese radar with a better, foreign radar on the JF-17.

How you utilize that radar matters of course but if both sides are noise jamming he with the more powerful radar wins - burn through range matters and the math is very clear about how burn through works.


----------



## saiko

Tiger said:


> and i think mki also has some ecm system so dont underestimate its ecm either and remember jf-17 is smaller so it will carry less ew equipment. but since the huge size differences ecm are balanced out.
> 
> but 1 thing...
> 
> what are ew and ecm systems used for?
> 
> to fight and disrupt radar? or the missile chasing you?



ECM can be used against both the fire control radar of the platform firing a missile against you and the missile fired against you.

a lot of warplanes dont carry on-board ECM equipment - they use jamming pods instead. even some planes with on-board ECM equipment will carry add-on ECM pods anyways to enable them to jam more effectively (either by covering more threats or increasing the power output against the threats being jammed). most of the add-on jamming pods are self-powered (using a Ram Air Turbine) to make them them modular.

you get the same power output regardless of the size of the aircraft if they are using such external jamming pods.


----------



## maverick2009

A PAF which is proficient and well trained will not engage SU30 MKI with JF17 in a 1 on 1 SITUATION. 

Just has in Kargil War PAF will only engage IAF if they have 50% chance of surviving the engagement.

OTHERWISE they will avoid the scenario.

USA & Israel only engage wen they know they can WIN... 

THAT MEANS engaging IAF flankers with Amraam equipped F16s or FC20.

I can,t SEE how a JF17 in Its current guise carrying SD10 with KLJ7 radar can go into combat against a PESA BARS equipped SU30 MKI carrying R27./R77.

The flanker has better radar, better missles, more armament, more fuel; better jammers, more EW suites. 

JF17 VERSIS MIG29 is a 50/50 ENGAGEMENT

F16/52 VERSIS SU30 MKI is also much closer

*** To take on SU30 MKI and win in majority of your clashes PAF needs better warplane than SU30MKI.

TODAY that means 60+ Rafael or Typhoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAFAce

I agree with everything you said above, except the two quotes below.



> JF17 VERSIS MIG29 is a 50/50 ENGAGEMENT


I think the balance shifts towards the JF-17 on this one, just for being a fresher platform if nothing else.

*Edit* I'm sorry, I thought you said Mig-21, not Mig-29. You may be correct in your assessment afterall.



> PAF needs better warplane than SU30MKI... TODAY that means 60+ Rafael or Typhoon.


Unrealistic, and frankly, irresponsible, to even consider these aircraft in present times. With the FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be, we would be in much better shape to counter the Su-30MKI. In fact, if you consider PAF strategy and doctrine thus far, the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically).


----------



## MastanKhan

PAFAce said:


> I agree with everything you said above, except the two quotes below.
> 
> 
> I think the balance shifts towards the JF-17 on this one, just for being a fresher platform if nothing else.
> 
> *Edit* I'm sorry, I thought you said Mig-21, not Mig-29. You may be correct in your assessment afterall.
> 
> 
> Unrealistic, and frankly, irresponsible, to even consider these aircraft in present times. With the FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be, we would be in much better shape to counter the Su-30MKI. In fact, if you consider PAF strategy and doctrine thus far, the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically).





Hi,


We are talking about the defence of pakistan---and then about the most important procurement in the current history of PAF---FC 20

you state---"FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be "---is this how strategic assests are developed---or is this how an average pakistani feels that they should develop---or is is this how we pakistanis feel that it is normal where the MAYBE part comes in. What if FC 20 doesnot turn out not to be what it is---what if there is a further delay with its powerplant---plus how about the time frame involved in integrating the FC 20 into the mainstream

Don't you think that it is high time that pakistani public should start questioning the promises made by PAF---and start looking beyond the statements of GRANDIOSE made by the PAF heirarchy and look closely and dissect the failure that the PAF has been in the past 20 years and take measures to correct those mistakes and bring about a change to the mindset of the PAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAFAce

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> We are talking about the defence of pakistan---and then about the most important procurement in the current history of PAF---FC 20
> 
> you state---"FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be "---is this how strategic assests are developed---or is this how an average pakistani feels that they should develop---or is is this how we pakistanis feel that it is normal where the MAYBE part comes in. What if FC 20 doesnot turn out not to be what it is---what if there is a further delay with its powerplant---plus how about the time frame involved in integrating the FC 20 into the mainstream
> 
> Don't you think that it is high time that pakistani public should start questioning the promises made by PAF---and start looking beyond the statements of GRANDIOSE made by the PAF heirarchy and look closely and dissect the failure that the PAF has been in the past 20 years and take measures to correct those mistakes and bring about a change to the mindset of the PAF.



Yes, but how will buying Rafale or Typhoon help that? I agree with you that we _must_ question the objectives and efficiency of our forces, afterall, we pay for them. However, no nation can allow their armed forces to be dictated to by the public. This is not the point I was trying to make earlier.

When I said "If the FC-20 turns out to be all that it is supposed to be", I meant to imply that I, _personally_, do not know too much about it, and that I am assuming that the PAF senior staff are probably capable of deciding that by themselves without my input. Similarly, for the "development of strategic assets", I am assuming that those who attend several courses in national and international military colleges to study exactly these subjects would be capable of making at least credible judgements, without my input. This was my point. To counter the Su-30MKI, surely, we have to select the best "value" platform (i.e., optimum cost vs function), and the people in the best position to decide the "value" would be those operating these machines.



> what's the qualitative advantage that the fc-20/F-16 gives over the mki?


None, if you compare just the two platforms. I clearly stated that "if you consider PAF strategy... the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically)". 



> and dont forget the mirage 2000


Good question, but that is not the topic of discussion.


----------



## PAFAce

Tiger said:


> what's the strategy? ensure that the survival rate is over 50&#37;? that's not a good strategy...



Sorry, Air Chief Marshall, I didn't know I was dealing with a Master Aerial Strategist. The mods really hate it when it turns into an "I am better than you" match, so I didn't want to spell it out, "aqalmand ko ishara kafi hota hai".

(Theoretical) Advantages of FC-20 over the Su-30MKI

Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).
Qualitative: We have been training to beat a Porsche with a Honda Civic. Imagine what we will do when we get ourselves a Nissan GTR.

You don't have to remind us of the advantages of the Su-30MKI over our platforms, we are well aware of that. Also, are you sure your country flags are correct?


----------



## PAFAce

Tiger said:


> mki and jf-17 are different fighters...
> they also are well trained (especially against f-15, f-16, rafael, typhoon, and f-18)


I do not disagree with you on any of the above points.



> also whats MTBF, LCC, and SGR


MTBF - Mean Time Between Failure
LCC - Life-Cycle Cost
SGR - Sortie Generation Rate


----------



## saiko

PAFAce said:


> (Theoretical) Advantages of FC-20 over the Su-30MKI
> 
> Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).
> Qualitative: We have been training to beat a Porsche with a Honda Civic. Imagine what we will do when we get ourselves a Nissan GTR.



That's rather like suggesting the T-72 is superior to the Abrams because it's cheaper, more reliable, lower operating cost, and training to counter the Abrams.

The only actual combat advantage you listed is a lower RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAFAce

saiko said:


> That's rather like suggesting the T-72 is *superior* to the Abrams because it's cheaper, more reliable, lower operating cost, and training to counter the Abrams.



Never used that word. Ever.
Also, I admitted there is no comparison 1 to 1.

Seriously, does anybody ever _read_ before replying these days?


----------



## messenger

PAFAce said:


> Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).?




you mentioned only cost and rcs .

jf-17 is cheaper than mki . true . but jf-17 i think is the cheapest modern fighter .

jf-17 has less life cycle cost than mki . true . but look at the diff b/w them .

in the present scenario unfortunately jf-17 is no match to mki . we can discuss it for hours but we will still reach the same conclusion .!


----------



## messenger

hj786 said:


> But you just proved you don't know anything because there IS a discussion about it. It has been shown that JF has every chance of taking out the big bad sukhoi from beyond visual range, the sukhoi has no significant advantage at that range when the JF is supported by AEW/C aircraft.
> Close-in it is a different story - in dogfights the sukhoi holds a significant advantage that can be decisive - thrust to weight ratio. Whether it is actually more agile/manoeuvrable than the JF we cannot be sure, but with thrust vector control it is likely to hold advantages in that department also. However, the JF is stated to be equipped with a helmet mounted cueing system which should, in theory, negate some of the sukhoi's close-in advantages.
> ..... Looks like a discussion to me.
> The F-16 block 60 better beat the JF any day, it costs about 10 times more and is armed with the latest American AMRAAM missile, ECM and AESA radar technology. I bet you wouldn't admit it whoops your favourite sukhoi too.



dont you think that mki also has helmet mounted cueing system .

and dude you still not sure which aircraft has better manoeuvrablity .

how can you drag AWACS into the conversation . we are discussing jf-17 and mki not AWACS . we have got better AWACS than you . compare them on the basis on their own radars .


----------



## Zob

messenger said:


> you mentioned only cost and rcs .
> 
> jf-17 is cheaper than mki . true . but jf-17 i think is the cheapest modern fighter .
> 
> jf-17 has less life cycle cost than mki . true . but look at the diff b/w them .
> 
> in the present scenario unfortunately jf-17 is no match to mki . we can discuss it for hours but we will still reach the same conclusion .!




this is a master piece you say true JF-17 is cheapest modern fighter....true it has a less life cycle cost... but it is not a match....why mr.einsten tell me how you made such a huge breakthrough....i bet you have no clue about what the capabilites of the MKI are...u r just a typical fan boy who comes from reading a few articles on BR and just tries to put your conclusions on things....


----------



## Super Falcon

can our new F 16 block 50/52 can gine run of money for SU 30


----------



## godsavetheworld

Super Falcon said:


> can our new F 16 block 50/52 can gine run of money for SU 30



Never, even the candid video released after Red Flag, shows a Colonel explaining exactly that. I quote



> How did they Fly? There is a lot of stuff on the subject in the newspapers and magazines about this airplane. There's a great video on youtube, where somebody shows the F-22 flying its demo, and the Su-30MK, side by side, and he does the exact same demonstration, as the F-22. And an airshow, then can do the same demonstration. The reality is, that's about as close as the airplanes ever get. *When you compare it with US airplanes; where does it stand up against the F-16 and F-15, it's a tad bit better than we are(holds his palm higher than the other arm). And that's pretty impressive, it has better radar, more thrust, vectored thrust, longer ranged weapons, so it's pretty impressive. The Sukhoi is a tad bit better (holds arm at chest level, and the other arm signifying the Sukhoi a wee bit higher).* But now compare with the F-22 Raptor, the raptor is here. (holds palm way above his head - signifying that the aircraft is much better)


----------



## Kharian_Beast

^ Did you hear about the part where he said the F-16's drilled the SU30MKI's brains out with only guns? It might be flashy, but in no way is it immune to lock on and simple tactics that exploit its weaknesses (gigantic rcs/heat signature, cumbersome size, etc.)


----------



## godsavetheworld

Kharian_Beast said:


> ^ Did you hear about the part where he said the F-16's drilled the SU30MKI's brains out with only guns? It might be flashy, but in no way is it immune to lock on.



Yea I agree. But yo should also appreciate the context in which the comment was made. He was explaining why the IAF failed and had several kills/friendles. Su-30's were literally blind, they were not using their radars, and therefore could not anticipate the enemy. When you have fighters locking onto others, only the most agile survive if they are not blind. 

Also the above comment I have mentioned above, was made after he talked about how "F-16 could easily lock onto MKI's."

And to add, MKI outperformed F-16 during Cope India. USAF admitted that.


----------



## messenger

Zob said:


> this is a master piece you say true JF-17 is cheapest modern fighter....true it has a less life cycle cost... but it is not a match....why mr.einsten tell me how you made such a huge breakthrough....i bet you have no clue about what the capabilites of the MKI are...u r just a typical fan boy who comes from reading a few articles on BR and just tries to put your conclusions on things....



you can only bash BR , dont you .

well you dont have to be Einstein to see the difference . you tell me one area except RCS in which jf-17 outclasses mki in a dogfight . 

if you see it as a disrespect to jf-17 , then its your fault . what i see is comparison b/w 4 gen and 4.5 gen aircraft .



[ and please learn to spell the name correctly ]


----------



## RAZOR

guys whatever you say no one ever describes it better than mastankhan sir 



MastanKhan said:


> Araz,
> 
> Indeed we all need to have a reality check---possibly sanity check would be the right word for the majority of the members here---when one pitches a jf 17---a plane not even in service yet---against a top notch plane the SU 30---an extremely seasoned platform and weapons system---I guess under the circumstance, I need some moments of hallucination as well---now don't everyone desreve to have their own personal pipe's dream!!! So what is wrong if I do want to have mine over here.


----------



## hj786

messenger said:


> in the present scenario unfortunately jf-17 is no match to mki . we can discuss it for hours but we will still reach the same conclusion .!


No, YOU will reach the same conclusion WITHOUT discussing anything, because you are a fanboy. 



messenger said:


> dont you think that mki also has helmet mounted cueing system
> and dude you still not sure which aircraft has better manoeuvrablity .
> how can you drag AWACS into the conversation . we are discussing jf-17 and mki not AWACS . we have got better AWACS than you . compare them on the basis on their own radars .


Don't you think that JF-17 also has HMCS?
Dragging AEWC into the equation is perfectly acceptable because it is the big equaliser. It negates your sukhoi's radar advantage. 

I don't care how many times you shout mki is better or phalcon is better, I'm being realistic by focusing on the actual facts here, not "mine is better than yours" BS. Your AWACS isn't good enough to stop PAF's AEWCs seeing everything InAF does near the border, so who cares if it's better? Only Indian fanboys like you, not the PAF.



messenger said:


> you can only bash BR , dont you .


Why shouldn't he? BR is full of racism against Chinese and Pakistani people.



messenger said:


> well you dont have to be Einstein to see the difference . you tell me one area except RCS in which jf-17 outclasses mki in a dogfight .
> if you see it as a disrespect to jf-17 , then its your fault . what i see is comparison b/w 4 gen and 4.5 gen aircraft .
> [ and please learn to spell the name correctly ]


If you see JF as something that cannot compare to mki, then its your fault. If you want people to spell correctly, first you use capital letters and punctuation properly.



godsavetheworld said:


> And to add, MKI outperformed F-16 during Cope India. USAF admitted that.


So you will happily shout "USA admitted mki outperformed F-16", but you won't admit any of the following:
- It was not real combat, it was an exercise designed to improve relations between air forces.
- As per an ex-PAF instructor pilot who has observed Red Flag exercises in the USA, it does not compare to real air combat exercises.
- F-16 and F-15 WHOOPED the mki in this exercise to the point where InAF pilots did not want to do any more dogfighting.
- In Cope India, F-15 also was also heavily handicapped - not allowed to use it's radar and AMRAAM capability properly.

Isn't that a double standard Mr savetheworld? You'll happily accept anything to make the sukhoi look good, but you refuse to show both sides of the story?

Razor, until MastanKhan explains why PAF increased their order of 150 JF-17 to 250 even after the war on terror allowed them to buy the F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, or any other Western 4.5 gen jet, I will disregard what he says about JF being worthless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keysersoze

Messenger, I think you need to "wind your neck in" attitudes like yours don't last long


----------



## Munir

I think India should hire these armchair pilots cause they have great knowledge and maybe will raise the chances for IAF the next time...


----------



## maverick2009

From My understanding The War on Terror has nothing to do with PAF not acquiring the Typhoon. 

The sole reason PAF has not ordered even a small batch of 36 Typhoons or indeed Rafale is the enormous cost. 

Approx 3 times the cost of the J10/FC20... 

USA is the only country i am aware of that has prevented PAF from acquiring some platforms.


----------



## messenger

hj786 said:


> No, YOU will reach the same conclusion WITHOUT discussing anything, because you are a fanboy.
> 
> 
> Don't you think that JF-17 also has HMCS?
> Dragging AEWC into the equation is perfectly acceptable because it is the big equaliser. It negates your sukhoi's radar advantage.
> 
> I don't care how many times you shout mki is better or phalcon is better, I'm being realistic by focusing on the actual facts here, not "mine is better than yours" BS. Your AWACS isn't good enough to stop PAF's AEWCs seeing everything InAF does near the border, so who cares if it's better? Only Indian fanboys like you, not the PAF.
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't he? BR is full of racism against Chinese and Pakistani people.
> 
> 
> If you see JF as something that cannot compare to mki, then its your fault. If you want people to spell correctly, first you use capital letters and punctuation properly.
> 
> 
> So you will happily shout "USA admitted mki outperformed F-16", but you won't admit any of the following:
> - It was not real combat, it was an exercise designed to improve relations between air forces.
> - As per an ex-PAF instructor pilot who has observed Red Flag exercises in the USA, it does not compare to real air combat exercises.
> - F-16 and F-15 WHOOPED the mki in this exercise to the point where InAF pilots did not want to do any more dogfighting.
> - In Cope India, F-15 also was also heavily handicapped - not allowed to use it's radar and AMRAAM capability properly.
> 
> Isn't that a double standard Mr savetheworld? You'll happily accept anything to make the sukhoi look good, but you refuse to show both sides of the story?
> 
> Razor, until MastanKhan explains why PAF increased their order of 150 JF-17 to 250 even after the war on terror allowed them to buy the F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, or any other Western 4.5 gen jet, I will disregard what he says about JF being worthless.



yes mr defene analysist can you answer my simple question that i asked in my post.

he said jf-17 has HMCS with extreme pride . see his post . then i said mki also has HMCS . this shows you dont read posts carefully .

and dude be practical . you think your AWACS would be able to cover all 230 mki's .

and when you are comparing aircrafts , you are comparing them and not AWACS .i dont understand his everytime we start a debate on mki vs jf-17 / f-16 or any other PAF fighter . the first thing pakistani members do is drag AWACS . and if you still want to do this , you can change the name of the thread to jf-17 + AWACS vs mki .

and about BR . you say it's all racism . what you dont want to believe , you tag it as racism . 



can you plz tell me what are the facts that you are focusing on . you see actually im a fanboy , so im a little short on info . 


"""""If you want people to spell correctly, first you use capital letters and punctuation properly.""""""

this just shows how desperate you are .


----------



## gromell

Why are we comparing these two?! I mean every single Pakistani knows deep inside, Jf-17 can not stand infront of Su-30MKI in any circumstance(forget about strategy and real time situation;we wouldnt have to talk then), unless you severely handicap the Su-30 pilot or put the 21st century Red Baron in the Jf-17


----------



## gromell

Pakistan needs J-10 or now that Indians have shown some serious blunder, Pakistan may go for Rafale!


----------



## PAFAce

messenger said:


> and dude be practical . you think your AWACS would be able to cover all 230 mki's .



You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time, what with all their reliability and operational issues. You seem to be a big fan of the Red Flag video, why don't you go watch it again. So, yes, as far as Pakistani border goes, the AWACS will offer great coverage, but realistically, not all MKIs could be covered.



> and when you are comparing aircrafts , you are comparing them and not AWACS .i dont understand his everytime we start a debate on mki vs jf-17 / f-16 or any other PAF fighter.



Well, if we went platform vs platform, there wouldn't be much to debate at all. On paper, the MKI wins hands down because it is, as you say, 4.5 Gen. We are discussing real scenarios here, and AWACS, intelligence, strategy, training, operational readiness, air defense ground environment etc. all come into the mix. This is why I mentioned all those things including LCC, MTBF etc. in my post above. In a real scenario, these things matter. There is no point in having 230 MKIs if u can't get one up in the air for 15 minutes. You're better off flying the old "coffins".



> and about BR . you say it's all racism . what you dont want to believe , you tag it as racism.



Well, not to get side-tracked, but we don't refer to Indians as anything but Indians on this forum. If you go to BR, you see a lot of Porkistani, Bakristani etc. type name-calling. That is racism in its purest form. Seriously, the average IQ level of that forum must be negative. It is a very, very poor representation of your nation. If you care about how others view your country, you must criticize BR as well.

Lastly, you are correct, according to the USAF pilot (the same pilot that Indian fanboys hate) the MKI is slightly better than the F-16s, but that slight difference can be remedied by strategy and tactics. The USAF wasn't playing defense, they were on the offense (hence the name, Agressors), whereas the PAF's primary priority woul dbe defense of Pakistani airspace. Don't take Cope India or Red Flag as a real Indo-Pak situation. These should just be used as indicators.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mean_bird

PAFAce said:


> You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time, what with all their reliability and operational issues. You seem to be a big fan of the Red Flag video, why don't you go watch it again. So, yes, as far as Pakistani border goes, the AWACS will offer great coverage, but realistically, not all MKIs could be covered.



Add to that intelligence!

Its highly unlikely that planes would be popping out from where they aren't expected. In other words, intelligence should give you a good idea of where each of these planes would be so you know where and how to focus you attention.


----------



## messenger

PAFAce said:


> You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time, what with all their reliability and operational issues. You seem to be a big fan of the Red Flag video, why don't you go watch it again. So, yes, as far as Pakistani border goes, the AWACS will offer great coverage, but realistically, not all MKIs could be covered.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we went platform vs platform, there wouldn't be much to debate at all. On paper, the MKI wins hands down because it is, as you say, 4.5 Gen. We are discussing real scenarios here, and AWACS, intelligence, strategy, training, operational readiness, air defense ground environment etc. all come into the mix. This is why I mentioned all those things including LCC, MTBF etc. in my post above. In a real scenario, these things matter. There is no point in having 230 MKIs if u can't get one up in the air for 15 minutes. You're better off flying the old "coffins".
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to get side-tracked, but we don't refer to Indians as anything but Indians on this forum. If you go to BR, you see a lot of Porkistani, Bakristani etc. type name-calling. That is racism in its purest form. Seriously, the average IQ level of that forum must be negative. It is a very, very poor representation of your nation. If you care about how others view your country, you must criticize BR as well.
> 
> Lastly, you are correct, according to the USAF pilot (the same pilot that Indian fanboys hate) the MKI is slightly better than the F-16s, but that slight difference can be remedied by strategy and tactics. The USAF wasn't playing defense, they were on the offense (hence the name, Agressors), whereas the PAF's primary priority woul dbe defense of Pakistani airspace. Don't take Cope India or Red Flag as a real Indo-Pak situation. These should just be used as indicators.



well i didnt come across the words you mentioned in BR . but if its so then its very bad and i will stop visiting that site .

'''''You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time'''''

'''''There is no point in having 230 MKIs if u can't get one up in the air for 15 minutes'''''

how can you say so . can you provide some news or info . do you know that mki pilots were trained to fly for 10 hours straight . and there ha been no serviceability issue till now . and what are the operational issues . just that it costs more to fly and needs more maintainence doesnt mean that they will not be used to their maximum extent in case of war .

i have not even seen the complete video but just heard about it , so lets not talk about it .


----------



## messenger

PAFAce said:


> You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time, what with all their reliability and operational issues. You seem to be a big fan of the Red Flag video, why don't you go watch it again. So, yes, as far as Pakistani border goes, the AWACS will offer great coverage, but realistically, not all MKIs could be covered.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we went platform vs platform, there wouldn't be much to debate at all. On paper, the MKI wins hands down because it is, as you say, 4.5 Gen. We are discussing real scenarios here, and AWACS, intelligence, strategy, training, operational readiness, air defense ground environment etc. all come into the mix. This is why I mentioned all those things including LCC, MTBF etc. in my post above. In a real scenario, these things matter. There is no point in having 230 MKIs if u can't get one up in the air for 15 minutes. You're better off flying the old "coffins".
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to get side-tracked, but we don't refer to Indians as anything but Indians on this forum. If you go to BR, you see a lot of Porkistani, Bakristani etc. type name-calling. That is racism in its purest form. Seriously, the average IQ level of that forum must be negative. It is a very, very poor representation of your nation. If you care about how others view your country, you must criticize BR as well.
> 
> Lastly, you are correct, according to the USAF pilot (the same pilot that Indian fanboys hate) the MKI is slightly better than the F-16s, but that slight difference can be remedied by strategy and tactics. The USAF wasn't playing defense, they were on the offense (hence the name, Agressors), whereas the PAF's primary priority woul dbe defense of Pakistani airspace. Don't take Cope India or Red Flag as a real Indo-Pak situation. These should just be used as indicators.



well i didnt come across the words you mentioned in BR . but if its so then its very bad and i will stop visiting that site .

'''''You're going to have a tough time having even one complete squadron of MKIs in the air at any given moment in time'''''

'''''There is no point in having 230 MKIs if u can't get one up in the air for 15 minutes'''''

how can you say so . can you provide some news or info . do you know that mki pilots were trained to fly for 10 hours straight . and there ha been no serviceability issue till now . and what are the operational issues . just that it costs more to fly and needs more maintainence doesnt mean that they will not be used to their maximum extent in case of war .

i have not even seen the complete video but just heard about it , so lets not talk about it .


----------



## FC-20

^^^^
if u hav not seen tht video, then u mus c it, and Pakistanis here r rite bout BR, u jus go n c wats going on BR, those r jus bunch of illiterate ppl with no sense at all


----------



## hj786

messenger said:


> yes mr defene analysist can you answer my simple question that i asked in my post.
> 
> he said jf-17 has HMCS with extreme pride . see his post . then i said mki also has HMCS . this shows you dont read posts carefully .
> 
> and dude be practical . you think your AWACS would be able to cover all 230 mki's .


Mr Defence Analyst? I'll take that as a compliment coming from you, Mr Fanboy. Show me which questions I did not answer properly. I said JF-17 has HMCS for a reason - it negates some of the sukhoi's manoeuvrability advantages. This is one fact you do not seem to want to accept. I already know the sukhoi has a HMCS, does the sukhoi's HMCS magically make the JF's HMCS disappear? 


messenger said:


> and when you are comparing aircrafts , you are comparing them and not AWACS .i dont understand his everytime we start a debate on mki vs jf-17 / f-16 or any other PAF fighter . the first thing pakistani members do is drag AWACS . and if you still want to do this , you can change the name of the thread to jf-17 + AWACS vs mki .


 So what? Yes, lets change the name of the thread. Or you can start a new one if you like. Anything to make you happy.


> and about BR . you say it's all racism . what you dont want to believe , you tag it as racism .


 You show me what you think I don't want to believe, I'll show you what I tag as racism. 


> can you plz tell me what are the facts that you are focusing on . you see actually im a fanboy , so im a little short on info.
> """""If you want people to spell correctly, first you use capital letters and punctuation properly.""""""
> this just shows how desperate you are .


The facts I'm focusing on don't matter to you, so how will they stop you being short on info? Above is an example, you don't want to accept that the JF's HMCS negates some of the MKI's advantage in manoeuvrability, you just come back with "sukhoi has it too". You're saying the JF's HMCS doesn't make any difference? 

Nope, it just shows what an idiot you are. You will complain to somebody about their spelling, but when you are criticised for your own poor use of english (not using capital letters and punctuation properly) you get defensive and call me "desperate".


----------



## Patriot

and dude be practical . you think your AWACS would be able to cover all 230 mki's .
--
Yes, they would be able to track all MKi's within their range and frankly Pakistan does not have to look more deep into India.We will have multiple AWACS so we can cover eastern as well as Western Side.


----------



## Zob

gromell said:


> Why are we comparing these two?! I mean every single Pakistani knows deep inside, Jf-17 can not stand infront of Su-30MKI in any circumstance(forget about strategy and real time situation;we wouldnt have to talk then), unless you severely handicap the Su-30 pilot or put the 21st century Red Baron in the Jf-17



Damn we got a MIND READER HERE......can u guys please not ATTACK us and destroy us...no no let me use the proper words from BR...."WIPE US FROM THIS PLANET".....and as for RED BARON....well my friend please send up one of ur MKIs into our airspace and then see...all our pilots for us are RED BARONs hell sc*ew RED BARON they all r M.M.ALAMs for us....hope u realise that not only u can be patriotic now stick to the topic


----------



## Zob

messenger said:


> yes mr defene analysist can you answer my simple question that i asked in my post.
> 
> he said jf-17 has HMCS with extreme pride . see his post . then i said mki also has HMCS . this shows you dont read posts carefully .
> 
> and dude be practical . you think your AWACS would be able to cover all 230 mki's .
> 
> and about BR . you say it's all racism . what you dont want to believe , you tag it as racism .
> 
> 
> 
> can you plz tell me what are the facts that you are focusing on . you see actually im a fanboy , so im a little short on info .
> 
> 
> """""If you want people to spell correctly, first you use capital letters and punctuation properly.""""""
> 
> this just shows how desperate you are .



ohh boy....we are desperate and we can't spell either.... unlike you i wasn't born on the ten downing street mr prime minster...but oh well i am just waiting for you to piss off keysersoze...but honestly i like u man don't want u 2 go its getting boring here these days we need people like you to keep us entertained..so get in line before you get kicked out.....


----------



## messenger

Zob said:


> ohh boy....we are desperate and we can't spell either.... unlike you i wasn't born on the ten downing street mr prime minster...but oh well i am just waiting for you to piss off keysersoze...but honestly i like u man don't want u 2 go its getting boring here these days we need people like you to keep us entertained..so get in line before you get kicked out.....



thank you . im glad that im entertaining you . well you want me to piss off . why is that so . just because i say that my nation's plane is better than yours . dude thats good that you are not a moderator or there would have been no indian on this site .


----------



## messenger

hj786 said:


> Mr Defence Analyst? I'll take that as a compliment coming from you, Mr Fanboy. Show me which questions I did not answer properly. I said JF-17 has HMCS for a reason - it negates some of the sukhoi's manoeuvrability advantages. This is one fact you do not seem to want to accept. I already know the sukhoi has a HMCS, does the sukhoi's HMCS magically make the JF's HMCS disappear?
> So what? Yes, lets change the name of the thread. Or you can start a new one if you like. Anything to make you happy.
> You show me what you think I don't want to believe, I'll show you what I tag as racism.
> 
> The facts I'm focusing on don't matter to you, so how will they stop you being short on info? Above is an example, you don't want to accept that the JF's HMCS negates some of the MKI's advantage in manoeuvrability, you just come back with "sukhoi has it too". You're saying the JF's HMCS doesn't make any difference?
> 
> Nope, it just shows what an idiot you are. You will complain to somebody about their spelling, but when you are criticised for your own poor use of english (not using capital letters and punctuation properly) you get defensive and call me "desperate".



you get happy when some fanboy calls you a defence analysist . well actually thats called mocking if you didnt understand . well now it doesnt matter .

regarding HMCS - you really dont read posts . read some of the previous posts and you will realize who started boasting of HMCS .

regarding the question that you didnt answer . again , read the posts . one of your friends has already answered it , maybe he saw the question and you didnt . maybe your PC magically dissapeared my question .

well regarding jf-17 vs mki , you cant even convince a wise Bangladeshi how can you convince it to anyone else .

well you compare those planes that are worth comparing . it would have been a good debate if would have been mki vs j-10 , but mki vs jf-17 is a bit out of picture . you can compare jf-17 with mirage 2000 , mig-29 and lca .
do we compare our mig-21 bisons to your f-16 's . NO .

and please stop talking about AWACS and AWACS . next time you will say that we dont need any radars in our planes cause we have got AWACS .

well your choice of words shows that you are a getting unneccesarily angry . dont be . debate always helps . atleast it's helping me .


----------



## maverick2009

I have missed something here.

PAF does not have AWACS or do they ????

SU30 MKI is a operational fighter with 5 squadrons as we speak. 

JF17 is in testing with 8 prototypes i think. At this stage wat the JF17 carries in terms of electronics and armament is conjecture. 

People are mixing conjecture and like to have with FACT. 

The F16 blk 52 with superb Amraam missle and APG68 radar will go 1v1 against SU30MKI. 

JF17 is the workhorse of PAF its whole doctrine is bulk buy to do the basic right and minimal cost and technolog...wen it finally arrives in combat mode.


----------



## zombie:-)

maverick2009 said:


> I have missed something here.
> 
> PAF does not have AWACS or do they ????
> 
> SU30 MKI is a operational fighter with 5 squadrons as we speak.
> 
> JF17 is in testing with 8 prototypes i think. At this stage wat the JF17 carries in terms of electronics and armament is conjecture.
> 
> People are mixing conjecture and like to have with FACT.
> 
> The F16 blk 52 with superb Amraam missle and APG68 radar will go 1v1 against SU30MKI.
> 
> JF17 is the workhorse of PAF its whole doctrine is bulk buy to do the basic right and minimal cost and technolog...wen it finally arrives in combat mode.



MAN this thread is filled with expectations not facts please rename the thread as POSSIBLE SU-30 JF-17 AIRFIGHT


----------



## godsavetheworld

hj786 said:


> So you will happily shout "USA admitted mki outperformed F-16", but you won't admit any of the following:
> - It was not real combat, it was an exercise designed to improve relations between air forces.
> - As per an ex-PAF instructor pilot who has observed Red Flag exercises in the USA, it does not compare to real air combat exercises.
> - F-16 and F-15 WHOOPED the mki in this exercise to the point where InAF pilots did not want to do any more dogfighting.
> - In Cope India, F-15 also was also heavily handicapped - not allowed to use it's radar and AMRAAM capability properly.
> 
> Isn't that a double standard Mr savetheworld? You'll happily accept anything to make the sukhoi look good, but you refuse to show both sides of the story?



You are contradicting yourself in your post. While you accuse me of having double standards, you are doing the same in the 3rd and the 4th point.

Cope India had Su-30s and F-15/16's employing the same rules laid down. Su-30's were not using many of their capabilities so werent the F-15's. Since both were equally handicapped, the battle was fair, and Su-30s whooped the F-15/16's.

In the Red Flag, you had Su-30's handicapping themselves. All other fighters including F-15/f-16s were using most of their "necessary" capabilities. Su-30 was blind. 

Whether or not you want to believe the facts is not my problem, because I am thoroughly convinced about Su-30's superiority. And to add to my claim, the USAF Colonel himself admitted that Su-30s were far better than F-15/16.


----------



## BATMAN

maverick2009 said:


> I have missed something here.
> 
> PAF does not have AWACS or do they ????



Just Google PAF AWACS and you will learn all what you have missed.



> SU30 MKI is a operational fighter with 5 squadrons as we speak.


Are you sure on this? 
what we know is that half of SU30MKI fleet is not operational due to spares issue with Russia.



> JF17 is in testing with 8 prototypes i think. At this stage wat the JF17 carries in terms of electronics and armament is conjecture.
> 
> People are mixing conjecture and like to have with FACT.



Pakistan had serial produced 8 Thunders on 23rd march 2007.
PAF is looking forward to field first squarden of THUNDER&#8217;s.
Thunder have every thing what is expected out of 4th generation fighter; some features are incorporated from 5th generation fighters, like DSI etc.
If you need basic information than I advise you to browse its *official website*.
I think you will agree that It is better than some one copy paste information for you and if you have questions about specific missile than you may ask.



> The F16 blk 52 with superb Amraam missle and APG68 radar will go 1v1 against SU30MKI.


 
THUNDERs will definitely be equipped with IR missile and KLJ-10 but its A2A wepon list has little bit more to it.
Amramm is another IR missel and its integration to Thunders has been done at prototype stage but let see what is the final choice, French meteor was also on cards and is even better choice than Amramm.

When you talk about pitching SU30 against F-16 blk 52 on 1 to 1 than clearly F16 is winner. I don&#8217;t want to go to detail but its because SU-30 is not a dogfighter it is suppose to be a strike role aircraft and would not wish to face any dogfighter on 1 to 1 as you said, refer to the recent red flag exercise results.
USAF pilot describes IAF Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag-08 - The DEW Line
On the other hand mig-29 is a real dog fighter. But in real scenario no aircraft will be allowed to fly on its own and only advantage of SU-30 is its ECM suite and I wonder in dog fight scenario how advantageous would it be!

FYI, The best advantage of F-16 over other comparable fighters is its faster turn rate and THUNDER match F-16 1 to 1 on maneuverability account.

Please, stop the approach, when you cannot face facts than start acting dumb.



> JF17 is the workhorse of PAF its whole doctrine is bulk buy to do the basic right and minimal cost and technolog...wen it finally arrives in combat mode.


THUNDER&#8217;s cost is less because it is not designed and built in west and it is not built as air-superiority fighter that it should cost like one.
Its development cost was lower than any comparable aircraft.
THUNDER is built as a multirole and point defence fighter depending on incorporated features of choice. It is a custom build fighter based on PAF requirements and experience.
FC-20 will serve as air-superiority fighter for PAF and naturally will be more expensive.


----------



## BATMAN

zombie:-) said:


> MAN this thread is filled with expectations not facts please rename the thread as POSSIBLE SU-30 JF-17 AIRFIGHT



Facts for your eyes:

dcDnmOZiVIQ[/media] - JF 17 Thunder Fighter (New Video April 2009) Pak-China Evolution


----------



## zombie:-)

^^^

su-30mki is NOT PRIMARILY A STRIKE AIRCRAFT 

come on man do you know f-15e strike eagle ...its is as capable as f-15 eagle but is also optimized primarily for strike roles...WE ARE NOT AS RICH AS USA TO FIELD SIMILAR AIRCRAFT TYPES TO BOTH ROLES SEPERATELY 

SPARES......

su-30 mki is being built in INDIA from 2004 .....why "would you run for milk to your friend when you have a living and healthy cow with you and you know how to milk the cow too"


> Please, stop the approach, when you cannot face facts than start acting dumb.



stop assuming things or ask the same question to the person who said to you that half the fleets are grounded due to unavailability of spares WHERE ARE THE FACTS CLAIMED BY YOU ....yes there was a shortage of tyres and it has been solved now

MR.HJ786 PLEASE SHOW ME ONE LINK WHERE ITS SHOWN THAT SU-30MKI FLEW 1 ON 1 ON F-16S OR F-15S IN RED FLAG
as far as i know it was only for strike role


----------



## zombie:-)

BATMAN said:


> Facts for your eyes:
> 
> dcDnmOZiVIQ[/media] - JF 17 Thunder Fighter (New Video April 2009) Pak-China Evolution



you show me fanboy compilation and call it fact


----------



## BATMAN

zombie:-) said:


> you show me fanboy compilation and call it fact



If you don't accept vedio as a fact than I don't see you expecting the written facts as well.

BTW, what is fact for U?


----------



## zombie:-)

BATMAN said:


> If you don't accept vedio as a fact than I don't see you expecting the written facts as well.
> 
> BTW, what is fact for U?



yea tomorrow ill post a video of a mig-21 bis shooting down F-22 in BVR will it become a fact .....long back malymishra had said people saying jf-17 will give a worthy fight to the mki are as good (naive) as Indian fan boys saying that the mki will whoop the f-22.


----------



## zraver

godsavetheworld said:


> You are contradicting yourself in your post. While you accuse me of having double standards, you are doing the same in the 3rd and the 4th point.
> 
> Cope India had Su-30s and F-15/16's employing the same rules laid down. Su-30's were not using many of their capabilities so werent the F-15's. Since both were equally handicapped, the battle was fair, and Su-30s whooped the F-15/16's.



In correct, the USAF was outnumbered 3 and 4-1 there were no SU-30MKI at Cope India.



> In the Red Flag, you had Su-30's handicapping themselves. All other fighters including F-15/f-16s were using most of their "necessary" capabilities. Su-30 was blind.



What happened to the Indians at Red Flag was to be expected. The aggressor pilots are the best in the world, the SU-30MKI's were not blind. They tried to do things against pilots who were training against the F-22 it was a recipe for disaster and it was. 



> Whether or not you want to believe the facts is not my problem, because I am thoroughly convinced about Su-30's superiority. And to add to my claim, the USAF Colonel himself admitted that Su-30s were far better than F-15/16.



The SU-30MKI is superior to anything in the PAF inventory. And in some missions its better than the F-15, in others its not. The F-15C with AESA is a better BVR air dominance fighter and the F-15E is a better bomber but the SU-30MKI is a better dog fighter and interceptor. Its not even a contest v the F-16 as they are dissimilar aircraft. Tha tis not to say that a good pilot in an F-16blk52 with AMRAAAMS won't toast a mediocre pilot or even an exceptional pilot in an SU-30MKI if they get the jump on them that is the nature of A2A combat- see first- shoot first- win.


----------



## BATMAN

zombie:-) said:


> yea tomorrow ill post a video of a mig-21 bis shooting down F-22 in BVR will it become a fact .....long back malymishra had said people saying jf-17 will give a worthy fight to the mki are as good (naive) as Indian fan boys saying that the mki will whoop the f-22.



Don't you think that you are going a bit out of context and this is why I hate to debate with indians.
It all started with some ignorant asking about electronics of THUNDER.
Following are his exact words:


> At this stage wat the JF17 carries in terms of electronics and armament is conjecture.
> 
> People are mixing conjecture and like to have with FACT.


----------



## maverick2009

Su30mki in red Flag flew with Radar switched to training mode only to avoid their signals being picked up by USA Awacs stationed 100 miles away.

Su30 mki pilots had no Awacs link up because the mki IS NOT A STANDARD Nato fighter and could not be intergrated in time for start of the excercise.

Su30 mki where flying in a world class air base against world class pilots of USA WHO HAD advantage of Awacs support and full radar use on their planes. In adittion they are in their own back yard. 

The USA airforce pilot in vedio clearly states the SU30MKI is marginally superior to USA legacy fighters ie F15/F16. But is far inferior to F22/JSF... 

Living in the UK I CAN CONFIRM the basic Flanker su30k destroyed the Tornado F3 of the RAF in cope india. More importantly the better SU30MKI was a rea handful for even the Typhoon Pilots in waddington UK. 

This thread and various posters for months are debating can a JF17 live with and survive on a regular basis against the best combat plane in South Asia as we speak. 
For the JF17 TO DO THIS it has be comparable to the USA F15 F16 fighters in terms of radar, weapons, and jamming,,...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

^^ I thought you were asking about 1 to 1 dog fight senario.
No AWACS can help in dog fights and this was what happened to your sooper drooper SU30 every time it got slugish it got roasted.
So it clearly lost in 1 to 1 dog fight.
You may not had data link with AWACS but you were allowed to use radios and where ever you kept your radars off, was at your own will, which you were using to your own advantage.
I'm repeatedly saying that there will be no senario where a fighter jet would be allowed to fly on its own so the advantage of radar goes down to minimal.
In such senarios if THUNDER tackels SU30 no one can say who will come out as winner.
IMO, it will be human factor (over all engagement) which will be decisive element in any future encounters.

What are your reasons for underestimating THUNDER's radar, wepons and ECM suite?

PAF has already shifted to net centric war fare so never under-estimate THUNDER even when its radar is completely off.


----------



## godsavetheworld

BATMAN said:


> ^^ I thought you were asking about 1 to 1 dog fight senario.
> *No AWACS can help in dog fights and this was what happened to your sooper drooper SU30 every time it got slugish it got roasted.*
> So it clearly lost in 1 to 1 dog fight.
> You may not had data link with AWACS but *you were allowed to use radios and where ever you kept your radars off, was at your own will, which you were using to your own advantage.*
> .



Dude wth are you talking. The Su-30 was BLIND. It is impossible to win any air-combat of this age without an active radar unless ofcourse you competing a Sabre against a F-22.

And you can never win a dog fight over a radio!. Imagine a world-class fighter engaging you, and youre asking "Is he friendly?". You'll be toasted before you even reach the word "friendly".


----------



## maverick2009

Batman 

The Thunder is not yet operational Yet various threads are being opened up about JF17 needing a new radar, new engine, new weapons, and changing the alloy structure to composites etc etc. They are calling it JF17MK2 or JF18 in some cases. 

In particular we seem to believe the French can use Rafale technolgy to improve JF17 in future.

It just seems a bit premature to me. 

People really need to give this plane a chance to arrive and perform first

It will never be a SU30MKI or a F18SH or a Rafael because these are twin engined super fighters. 

JF17 is single engined low cost low maintance mass production war plane..

It can,t carry the same no of weapons jammers and radar capability. It will never match the flanker for speed and power. But like you people say it is smaller and has less RCS AND COSTS only one third the price of a flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick2009

Batman 

The Thunder is not yet operational Yet various threads are being opened up about JF17 needing a new radar, new engine, new weapons, and changing the alloy structure to composites etc etc. They are calling it JF17MK2 or JF18 in some cases. 

In particular we seem to believe the French can use Rafale technolgy to improve JF17 in future.

It just seems a bit premature to me. 

People really need to give this plane a chance to arrive and perform first

It will never be a SU30MKI or a F18SH or a Rafael because these are twin engined super fighters. 

JF17 is single engined low cost low maintance mass production war plane..

It can,t carry the same no of weapons jammers and radar capability. It will never match the flanker for speed and power. But like you people say it is smaller and has less RCS AND COSTS only one third the price of a flanker.


----------



## hj786

But then its only the same people talking about LCA mark 2 when the mark 1 is still not operational yet. So you can't really criticise people for doing it, can you?
The point is that with a new and more powerful engine, radar/avionics, new weapons, advanced light-weight materials etc, the JF-17 mark 2/block 2 would be able to compete with Rafale, F-18 SH, MKI on equal terms (negligible disadvantage in thrust/weight, radar range, weapon capability, etc.) while still being ~half the price.


----------



## IceCold

zombie:-) said:


> yea tomorrow ill post a video of a mig-21 bis shooting down F-22 in BVR will it become a fact .....long back malymishra had said people saying jf-17 will give a worthy fight to the mki are as good (naive) as Indian fan boys saying that the mki will whoop the f-22.



While staying out side the line of discussion you and Batman were having, just one bit of something i wanted to comment on, i usually discourage Pakistani people here from underestimating the MKI for obvious reasons and you will find the same in many of my posts and i would agree that certain people do get carried away, patriotism you may call it but however coming back i would say that in a home environment JF-17 will give a worthy fight to the MKI and its not some sort of fan boy thing, you see in an event of conflict, we are not talking about a 1 on 1 thing, there will be numerous factors involved most notably the AWACS which will heavily influence the outcome of any conflict. So to believe that everytime an MKI faces a JF-17, it will come on top is a bit naive because JF-17 is something which is heavily influenced from the experience of our PAF pilots on the F-16 and F-16 was and still is our front line fighter something that IAF still worries about so unless you are completely of no opinion about the F-16 you cannot simply discount JF-17 just like that.


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> The point is that with a new and more powerful engine, radar/avionics, new weapons, advanced light-weight materials etc, the JF-17 mark 2/block 2 would be able to compete with Rafale, F-18 SH, MKI on equal terms (negligible disadvantage in thrust/weight, radar range, weapon capability, etc.) while still being ~half the price.


With all respect but this is more than doubtfull! These fighters are in totally different classes and of course won't stay the same as they are now. They also will get better radars, engines, airframe changes for more internal fuel and less RCS. I am telling it to everybody who compares LCA Mk2 with MMRCA too, different classes and no where near to be a match. 
Realisticly LCA and JF 17 can match older Gripen and F16 versions now, with better techs improved versions (Mk2/3, or block 2/3) hopefully can match Gripen NG and F16 block 60, but anything above is just a dream.


----------



## Super Falcon

if jf 17 has a better radar and avionics than SU 30 than there is a chance it can beat SU 30 MKI


----------



## zombie:-)

Super Falcon said:


> if jf 17 has a better radar and avionics than SU 30 than there is a chance it can beat SU 30 MKI



man wake up can any of your fellow countrymen support your ideas with facts then i am all ears right now ....will it be jf-17 blk 2 .....and any official word on blk2 ...if there is please throw some light on it


----------



## BATMAN

maverick2009 said:


> Batman
> 
> The *Thunder is not yet operational *Yet various threads are being opened up about JF17 needing a new radar, new engine, new weapons, and changing the alloy structure to composites etc etc. *They are calling it JF17MK2 or JF18 in some cases*.



 They are serial produced and are operational in squadron strength.
I enjoy&#8230; reading all those new ideas and future of THUNDER, in this case you are at wrong place.



> In particular we seem to believe the French can use Rafale technolgy to improve JF17 in future. It just seems a bit *premature *to me.


I'm not familiar of any such proposals for contracting Rafale for any technology transfer.
BTW, In my opinion the THUNDER blk. 2 is better than Rafale, but I don&#8217;t want to comment more because no prototype is known yet. All I can say is that after first 50..60, second batch is planned to be blk.2.
With one sqardon already in service and expectations are that atleast 30...40 THUNDERS would be produced in year 2010.
See... BLK. 52 is not as premature as it seems to you.



> People really need to give this plane a chance to arrive and *perform first*


What is your gauge of performance? 2000 test flights! or tested in war?
Why you keep forgetting that it not only meets the PAF specifications but it has been passed by war experienced PAF pilots.



> It will never be a SU30MKI or a F18SH or a Rafael because these are twin engined super fighters. JF17 is single engined low cost low maintance mass production war plane..


Neither does F-16 has twin engine, which roasted SU&#8217;s *** in redflag.
BTW, from my perspective, twin engine SU30 is not same as twin engine Hornet or Rafale.
Hornet and Rafale are multirole platform, whereas SU30 is a dedicated strike role fighter, which is not meant for dogfight.
Cost depends on components!! and this is one beauty of THUNDER which we keep forgetting is its highly modular design concept and its swift serviceability.



> It can,t carry the same no of weapons jammers and radar capability. It will never match the flanker for speed and power. But like you people say it is smaller and has less RCS AND COSTS only one third the price of a flanker.


What about speed comparison of flanker and THUNDER? Please elaborate with support of specs.
For 1 to 1 dog fight, all you should know is that it can carry two sidewinders, two BVR, it has a gun, its engine response is very good and it is more agile than F-16.

And yes, posting same post twice does not make your point more presentable.


----------



## maverick2009

Batman. 

Su30mki is not a Strike a Strike fighter its a multi role fighter.

India SU30 MKI is geared to Air DOMINANCE... 

Bars Pesa Phased Array Radar. The best radar Russia ever produced that tracks 40 TARGETS at once. Can engage 4 different targets simultaneously..
Maximum tracking range 200km 

Typical load 8 BVR/WVR air air missles ie R77/27 vymal currently the fastetst BVR missles in the world. Of course HMS and datalinking are standard. 

So you see its actually a true air superiority fighter. 

With regards the F16 beating S30MKI it was actualy USA F15C equipped with Anraams AND Awacs... support beating a virtually blind SU30MKI which had no Awacs & only training mode radar on. 

Re F16 VERSIS SU30MKI both the USA & Singapore who operate far superior F16s to PAF blocka/b where both tested to the full in Cope india over the last few years. 

I won,t comment on JF17 has there is no real data avialable for this Chinease fighter. But looking at the design and the cost around $15m each i would be surprised if it matches up to F16 in PAF.


----------



## maverick2009

Bat man one other point that may have escaped you. 

IAF Flankers and Russian Flankers are set to receive the KH172 Ramjet version of the R77 bvr missle. Dubbed the AWACS killer. This has a spped of mach 4 and range of over 200km It will used in conjunction with Russia first AESA radar the Snow leopard IBRIS which will just one part of the first upgrade to IAF SU30 MKI flankers. 

These flankers are going to awsome fighters in Soutrh Asian Skys. And they look so damn Sexy too.

I have pasted a neutral article confirming all my points on this hyperlink 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm


----------



## Keysersoze

maverick2009 said:


> Bat man one other point that may have escaped you.
> 
> IAF Flankers and Russian Flankers are set to receive the KH172 Ramjet version of the R77 bvr missle. Dubbed the AWACS killer. This has a spped of mach 4 and range of over 200km It will used in conjunction with Russia first AESA radar the Snow leopard IBRIS which will just one part of the first upgrade to IAF SU30 MKI flankers.
> 
> These flankers are going to awsome fighters in Soutrh Asian Skys. And they look so damn Sexy too.
> 
> I have pasted a neutral article confirming all my points on this hyperlink
> 
> Su-30 FLANKER



Just for you....... special thanks to growler/PC for the scan.....


----------



## Keysersoze

BTW Maverick the question has to be asked.....If the Flankers are of such dominance....where was the "precision strike" talked of by the Indian Government? After all all they would be facing would be block 15 f-16's right? and the MKI is such a super machine. Oh and btw your claims about how the MKI performed in the UK are interesting as none of the results were released. SO all of your claims are conjecture.


----------



## maverick2009

Keysorose.

We could argue all posts are conjecture. Where do we draw the line. 

One thing i do know SU30MKI is not a strike plane 

Heres a good link explaining why if anybody is remotely interested. 
The Su-30MKI Info Page - Vayu Sena

I for one believe that Su30mki is not unbeatable its just a great looking beast and the back bone of the IAF for certainly the next 5 to 10 years until MRCA comes in large nos. 

With regards PAF answer they need nothing less than F16 BLK52 and lots of them. 60 F16 will be in serious trouble against over 200 FLANKERS... 

As for JF17 & FC20 lets wait and see nobody knows wat they can or can,t do now that is real conjecture. not much info at all.. on chinease goodies.


----------



## BATMAN

maverick2009 said:


> Batman.
> 
> Su30mki is not a Strike a Strike fighter its a multi role fighter
> 
> India SU30 MKI is geared to Air DOMINANCE...



It is a strike role ...likely geared to air dominance... but not multirole.



> Bars Pesa Phased Array Radar. The best radar Russia ever produced that tracks 40 TARGETS at once. Can engage 4 different targets simultaneously..
> Maximum tracking range 200km
> 
> Typical load 8 BVR/WVR air air missles ie R77/27 vymal currently the fastetst BVR missles in the world. Of course HMS and datalinking are standard.
> 
> So you see its actually a true air superiority fighter.


200 is definately not the shootdown range, on the web it says Bars have 140km detection range!!!!. Due to smaller RCS THUNDER may not have 2 meter RCS at 200 and don't forget KLJ10 can fire 2 BVR simaltaneously..


> With regards the F16 beating S30MKI it was actualy USA F15C equipped with Anraams AND Awacs... support beating a virtually blind SU30MKI which had no Awacs & only training mode radar on.


F15-Eagle has bigger RCS than viper, cannot be considered as same.
Hmm..now, we are shifting away from 1 to 1 dog fight to net centric + BVR warfare!!!



> Re F16 VERSIS SU30MKI both the USA & Singapore who operate far superior F16s to PAF blocka/b where both tested to the full in Cope india over the last few years.


Yet, I have no knowledge about it.
But any viper with AIM-120 can take a pot shot at SU30 before getting hurt itself and there is no escape to AIM-120.



> I won,t comment on JF17 has there is no real data avialable for this Chinease fighter. But looking at the design and the cost around $15m each i would be surprised if it matches up to F16 in PAF.


If you don't even know that THUNDER is jointly produced (J-oint F-ighter) and made specificaly for Pakistan on PAF specifications than you know nothing about the bird.
I have told you in past that if you need to read official perspective than you should consult with the official website i.e. 
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....
JF-17.com : Your Best Resource for JF-17/FC-1
We know it cost less and is best value for the buck. One can buy 2 THUNDERS at the cost of one F-16 without compromising performance.
I'm not sure about your figure of $15m.... how did you came about this figure?
BTW, if you don't believe or do not know the real data than how come you know the price info. so accurately!!


----------



## BATMAN

Keysersoze said:


> Just for you....... special thanks to growler/PC for the scan.....



Oh...why do I keep forgetting, not to trust (fan boy claims on) wiki.


----------



## BATMAN

Keysersoze said:


> BTW Maverick the question has to be asked.....If the Flankers are of such dominance....where was the "precision strike" talked of by the Indian Government? After all all they would be facing would be block 15 f-16's right? and the MKI is such a *super machine*. Oh and btw your claims about how the MKI performed in the UK are interesting as none of the results were released. SO all of your claims are conjecture.



It is indeed a super machine and therefore start dancing zig zag ..when pilots press hard on gas.
This is the comment, what I rememeber from the red flag leakouts.
Oh yes,, the USAF guy also said that this is the best opportunity to tka shots at SU30MKI..


----------



## sancho

BATMAN said:


> It is a strike role ...likely geared to air dominance... but not multirole.


Can you explain what multi role means to you?


----------



## PAFAce

sancho said:


> Can you explain what multi role means to you?



Good question. Here's my attempt at an answer.

One dimensional fighters (point-defence interceptors, area-defence interceptors, bomber jets etc.) are a thing of the past, really. All fighter jets these days are capable of both air-to-ground and air-to-air combat, however, a true multirole fighter is primarily designed to do both equally well (more or less). It all comes down to the engineers and what they decided to put top on their list.

Ex:
F-16 - Multirole
F-15 - Air Dominance
F-15E - Strike

When you make the claim that the Su-30MKI is a multirole combat aircraft, you are not wrong, but you are also not entirely correct. It can do both, but it's pupose is one, as Keysersoze and Batman have argued above. That said, let's give credit where credit is deserved, the Russians have really done a great job with that machine, a 30 year old platform and it's still one of the best around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick2009

I believe the first flankers flew in 1988 about 10 years after the much heralded F15 & F16. 

As for SU30MKI this first flew in 2002. 

Taking out the excellent Pesa Radar, Great weapons mix, massive range and brute power of 2 engines the biggest advantage of SU30MKI over JF17 is that the indian fighter is now mature. Been in service since 2002 already equipping 5 Squadrons.. Its operational doctrine has been tested with and against F15 F16 Mirage2000 Typhoon/Tornado both in india and in the West. 

As the USAF Pilot in the vedio stressed the SU30MKI is a notch above F15 F16 withy the right envionment ie real radar switched on & real AWACS ( Phalcon of course). And that will be more than enough until MRCA arrive. 

The other point every one has missed the massive upgrade programe that i have only hinted at. The su30mki currently is only Block 1. 
At some stage these fighters will get MLU. These will include the following.

1. IBRIS AESA radar 
2. New ramjet BVR missle
3. RAM coating and other stealth improvements as spin offs from PAK FA programme..
4. New AL41 engines which can supercruise. 

*** These are al improvements off the 5 GEN FIGHTER..Pak FA


----------



## Zob

Ok maverick....here goes my inept understanding....

*R-77 BVR vs SD10*


R-77 maximum speed is Mach 4 operational range is 90 kms if i am not wrong....

now let's look at the SD-10 speed is similar operational range is similar...because SD10 is based on the R-77

The question is SU30 fires a BVR and JF-17 does the same....it will all come down to Electronic Counter measures. 

I agree that the SU-30 has a higher detection range and can engage 4 targets simultenously compared to the KLJ-10 but given a INDO PAK scenario i have mentioned before the ranges are negated when the enemy's border is less then 30 kilometers from your forward bases...i can understand that you might have a SU30 flying over Agra and tracking our JF-17 but in a war situation why would you want to keep your beast so far away from the enemies border...once you deploy your SU-30 to Halwara,Pathankot etc....fine you can see more inside our territory from your fighter but our fighters are closer to you and the ranges become favourable in our favour...even if not in our favour atleast more or less equal. the only thing that will be in favour of the SU-30 is tracking and engaging 4 fighters simultenously...that shall be countered when pakistan goes for its BLOCK II upgrade after the initial 50 fighters....

before you jump the gun and say but yes "lets not talk about upgrades" my friend i think you were the one who started talking about ramjet powered BVRs as a MLU for the SU-30.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

PAFAce said:


> Good question. Here's my attempt at an answer.
> 
> One dimensional fighters (point-defence interceptors, area-defence interceptors, bomber jets etc.) are a thing of the past, really. *All fighter jets these days are capable of both air-to-ground and air-to-air combat*, however, *a true multirole fighter is primarily designed to do both equally well (more or less)*. It all comes down to the engineers and what they decided to put top on their list.
> 
> Ex:
> F-16 - Multirole
> F-15 - Air Dominance
> F-15E - Strike
> 
> When you make the claim that the Su-30MKI is a multirole combat aircraft, you are not wrong, but you are also not entirely correct. It can do both, but it's pupose is one, as Keysersoze and Batman have argued above. That said, let's give credit where credit is deserved, the Russians have really done a great job with that machine, a 30 year old platform and it's still one of the best around.


So the first point is Su 30 are also multi role fighters just as F15E (designed for AS with added strike capability), EF 2000, Mig 35, F16, F18, or Rafale. The difference is that some of them are better in a2a, the others in a2g and some are quit good in both roles. 
The second point that you mentioned was designed to do both roles! 


> The Su-30MK is a two-seat highly-manoeuvrable fighter *designed for air-superiority and strikes at ground and naval surface*


Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-30ÌÊ

So the base of the Mki was already designed for both roles and compared to Chinas Su 30 MKK, India focused far more to improve it's a2a capabilities (TVC, Canards, PESA radar).
So if you count F16 as a true multi role fighter in medium class, you also have to admit that the Mki is a true multi role fighter in the heavy class!
It offers the good strike capability from the base and has now nearly everything that is needed for a2a combats (maneuverability, longe range radar and weapons, good t/w ratio and speed). Of course that doesn't mean it is unbeatable, but that makes it to a very good fighter.


----------



## Patriot

Hi,
Pakistani Air Force Generals are not dumb to send Jf-17 to India to perform Strike Mission.They will be used for Interception and Defense only (If Europen AESA Radar is added with Good BVR Missile then it can compete with SU30Mki otherwise no chance in hell).SU30 will shot it down way before it can shot MKI in the current scenario.PAF will most likely send these jets for fight against Mig29, and other jets of IAF.F16 will be taking care of SU30MKI's.


----------



## maverick2009

In Reply to Zob. 

The R77 has stated range of 105km versis SD10 70KM.

jf17 pilot will have 2 x SD10 versis SU30MKI pilot 6 x R77 

Pesa Bars Radar Versis KLJ10 chinease radar.

In each all 3 fields the MKI pilot has the upper hand.

This is discounting several other advantages like Twin engines = more power.

2 PILOTS versis one 

More fuel 

More jammers etc.

I am posting another thread on Russian BVR philsophy by an Austrillian Web site which compares all BVR missles including Amraams & SD10..

Theres a great moving graph showing various missle ranges including SD10 versis R77 its fun see post by Maverick 2009 " Russian BVR philsophy "


----------



## blain2

maverick2009 said:


> Batman.
> 
> Su30mki is not a Strike a Strike fighter its a multi role fighter.
> 
> India SU30 MKI is geared to Air DOMINANCE...



Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.



> With regards the F16 beating S30MKI it was actualy USA F15C equipped with Anraams AND Awacs... support beating a virtually blind SU30MKI which had no Awacs & only training mode radar on.



Not true. There were F-15s too, however the aggressor sqns as well as other units at the Red Flag and at the workup location prior to RF flew F-16s (a better dog fighter than the F-15 in many flight regimes).



> Re F16 VERSIS SU30MKI both the USA & Singapore who operate far superior F16s to PAF blocka/b where both tested to the full in Cope india over the last few years.



MKI is a very good platform and a serious threat no denying that. BTW, PAF blk 15 is a better dog fighter than the later blocks. Its lighter etc.



> I won,t comment on JF17 has there is no real data avialable for this Chinease fighter. But looking at the design and the cost around $15m each i would be surprised if it matches up to F16 in PAF.



Cost is cheap because that was the intent. However the benefit is that technology is also getting cheaper by the day so a lot more in terms of avionics is being integrated into the JF-17 than was possible with the F-16s inducted 20 plus years ago. Also the comparison that you often hear about the PAF F-16s vs. JF-17 has to be understood in proper context. When someone says that JF-17 would perform to 70&#37; of the F-16s capability, the point being made is about the propulsion and airframe and not avionics. The JF-17 can handle 8 Gs whereas F-16 can do 9Gs. The GE engines on the PAF F-16 have a higher thrust and performance than the Chinese ones. However avionics wise, the aircraft (JF-17) has gear that is in line with what most of the current fighters have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

sancho said:


> Can you explain what multi role means to you?


You had some quite impressive expalaination from PAFAce and Blain2.
SU30 MKI remain more of strike role rather than a dog fighter.

Now I ask you and your colleague; what does dog fight mean to you guys?


----------



## sancho

BATMAN said:


> You had some quite impressive expalaination from PAFAce and Blain2.
> SU30 MKI remain more of strike role rather than a dog fighter.


Please read my answer to PAFAce, because his definition of a multi role fighter fits perfectly to the Mki, also I think you didn't read Blain2 post correctly:


blain2 said:


> Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? *In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.*





BATMAN said:


> Now I ask you and your colleague; what does dog fight mean to you guys?


First, I dont wanted to offend you, just wondered why you say the Mki is not a multi role fighter, although you admit that its capable for strikes and like you said geared for air dominance. That's why I asked you that.
Now to your question, I think a dogfight is a combat of fighter aircrafts WVR and as I said before the Mki has the right qualities for that (maneuverability through TVC, good t/w ratio and speed).


----------



## Tang0

blain2 said:


> Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter?



Actually, according to _Jane's Aviation Review_, the official classification of the F/A-22 is "Stealth Air-Superiority Fighter" And I have heard the term Air-Superiority Fighter thrown about fairly often when people talk about the F/A-22. Doesn't make it any less of a buzz word, but there you have it...


----------



## blain2

Tang0 said:


> Actually, according to _Jane's Aviation Review_, the official classification of the F/A-22 is "Stealth Air-Superiority Fighter" And I have heard the term Air-Superiority Fighter thrown about fairly often when people talk about the F/A-22. Doesn't make it any less of a buzz word, but there you have it...



Air superiority fighter is a term that has been around since the induction of F-15 Eagle. In the Air Force parlance this is not a new term. This Air Dominance term is something that you hear from IAF all the time around their MKI and even their pilots wear shoulder patches suggesting the same. I stand by my point that its essentially a word play. Nothing really different from air superiority.

The only Air Force capable of true air dominance is the US Air Force because its not a matter of a single fighter type being able to dominate an adversarial aircraft, its essentially all of the various components/nodes put together that ensure that the US Air Force can dominate over the other side instead of attaining a theater specific superiority. For as long as you cannot guarantee against the other side taking up Offensive Air Ops against you (IAF cannot while the USAF can), you cannot claim yourself to be an Air Dominance force.


----------



## maverick2009

The Su30 mki ( In IAF ROLE) as i see it is a Heavey weight air superiority platform. I admit that it can perform multi role missions like Naval Support, Strike missions but the IAF will it appears use it as as their king pin in long range Air dominance in South Asia. 

The reasons are listed in here.

Firstly it has massive range combat radius of 1000km

Can remain in air for hours at a time

massive payload up 8 BVR/WVR missles

Big radar tracking range with multi target engagement

Most important it can be a mini Awacs and link up to 4 other fighters for command and control.

** If as i highlighted in my other thread India is paying for the development of the Ramjet BVR missle KH172 then SU30MKI is clearly geared for massive improvements in air combat capability in the near future. KH172 missle range 200km and Ibris radar wil track at 400km 

Whislt SU30 MKI is no F22 which is a whole generation ahead and indeed inferior to Rafale/Typhoon i don,t believe there is anthing that can live with it South Asia at this moment in time. If Ibris Aesa Radar and KH172 missles are added in later tranches its clear edge will last a while yet.


----------



## PAFAce

blain2 said:


> Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.



The F-22 is officially an "Air Dominance Fighter" with strike capability (the point I was trying to make earlier, all fighters are multirole in some respect). The Advance Tactical Fighter program was initially planned to produce a pure ground-strike fighter, but due to the emergence of the Su-27 reality, combined with the relative decline of American aerial "dominance", and the fact that it is easier (from an engineering stand-point) to modify an air-superiority fighter for strike role than vice versa (example, F-15), it was later decided that the ATF program should focus primarily on Air Dominance. Strike capability is an added advantage, but was never a primary role for the ATF and the F-22.

"Air Dominance" is not _entirely_ a buzz word, although I agree it's thrown around unnecessarily and undeservedly for many fighters, as in the case of the Su-30MKI. In the military circles, "air dominance" means something very much concrete. Air Dominance _includes_ Air Superiority, but also includes Aerial Information Superiority, Information Denial etc. achieved through stealth, radars, jamming, integrated avionics, overall defence systems integration (satellites + AWACS + intel + air power) and so on. You probably know much more about this than I do.

Here's a good source:
Advanced tactical fighter to F-22 raptor: origins of the 21st century air dominance fighter
By David C. Aronstein, Michael J. Hirschberg, Albert C. Piccirillo

Aronstein and Hirschberg were engineers who worked on the ATF program, and Col. (Retd) Dr. Piccirillo was program head for the USAF Advanced Systems Division in the early stages of the ATF program.


----------



## Tang0

blain2 said:


> Air superiority fighter is a term that has been around since the induction of F-15 Eagle. In the Air Force parlance this is not a new term. This Air Dominance term is something that you hear from IAF all the time around their MKI and even their pilots wear shoulder patches suggesting the same. I stand by my point that its essentially a word play. Nothing really different from air superiority.
> 
> The only Air Force capable of true air dominance is the US Air Force because its not a matter of a single fighter type being able to dominate an adversarial aircraft, its essentially all of the various components/nodes put together that ensure that the US Air Force can dominate over the other side instead of attaining a theater specific superiority. For as long as you cannot guarantee against the other side taking up Offensive Air Ops against you (IAF cannot while the USAF can), you cannot claim yourself to be an Air Dominance force.



Meh, air superiority, air dominance, call it what you will, does change what an aircraft is or is not. I am a native English speaker and the terms have pretty much the exact connotation as far as I can tell. 

Dominance of an air battlefield is contingent on the circumstances, and what forces you can bring to bear. Okay, you have 50 F-22's.... What about a couple of high altitude nuclear detonations? All that fancy hardware is now junk. You could probably still land it, I don't know how good the EMP shielding is, but you are not going to be shooting anything down. What if there is a surprise attack on your staging centers? What if all your pilots were killed in a poison gas attack.... Well, you get the picture.

How fast can you bring your forces to bear? How close are your forward staging areas? Can you launch sufficiently many attacks in a short period of time to complete your strategic objectives? Sure if the US decided to launch an aerial campaign against anyone they wanted, no other Air Force is going to stop them. Can they actually achieve the goals they want fast enough to matter.... Maybe.


----------



## RajsParadise

... , Just wondering as to how some fan boy claims actually triggered such a huge debate. Logically you are talking about a 3.5-4th gen air craft which still needs to be tested to impose against a 4.5 gen advanced fighter craft which is nothing but a fan boys wet dreams as Omar might have said. &#61514;


----------



## maverick2009

To be fair Raja i have made that point myself.

A mature operational flanker versis a JF17 is not fair in the JF17. To many question marks on aspects of this single engined fighter as yet. 

Much better comparison F16/52 V SU30MKI


----------



## IceCold

RajsParadise said:


> ... , Just wondering as to how some fan boy claims actually triggered such a huge debate. Logically you are talking about a 3.5-4th gen air craft which still needs to be tested to impose against a 4.5 gen advanced fighter craft which is nothing but a fan boys wet dreams as Omar might have said. &#61514;



Dude get your facts straight. How do you pose JF-17 as a 3.5th generation fighter jet?


----------



## BATMAN

^^Because, he is indian and JF-17 is some kick *** machine!
got my drift!!! 

Just enjoy indian frustration.


----------



## BATMAN

maverick2009 said:


> To be fair Raja i have made that point myself.
> 
> A mature operational flanker versis a JF17 is not fair in the JF17. *To many question marks on aspects of this single engined fighter as yet*.
> 
> *Much better comparison F16/52 V SU30MKI*



Do you expect F-16 / 52 to be twin engine! 

Pilots flying JF-17 says its performance is higher than F-16's.


----------



## maverick2009

_Pilots flying JF-17 says its performance is higher than F-16's._

Care to explain how.

F16 is superbly designed fighter light years ahead of its time just look at the bubble canopy 360 degree view.


----------



## PAFAce

maverick2009 said:


> F16 is superbly designed fighter light years ahead of its time just look at the bubble canopy 360 degree view.



No doubt about that. However, "it's time" is early eighies. First flight for the F-16 was in February 1974, if I remember correctly. Also, its greatest achievement was not the bubble canopy (I really hate it when people reduce the F-16 to just the "bubble canopy"). Unprecedented use of fly-by-wire technology and the concept of a lightweight, reliable numbers fighter from the the "Lighweight Fighter Mafia" are of far greater significance.

What Batman means to say is that PAF F-16 pilots who've flown the JF-17 have claimed it performs better than the F-16 _in some respects_. This should not surprise anyone, really. The PAF has been flying the F-16 since before they joined the JF-17 project, surely you didn't think they would design an inferior plane to what they already had, did you?

As for the JF-17 and Su-30MKI contest, well, it is an implied hypothetical question. What better question to ask than "the PAF's backbone fighter vs the IAF backbone fighter"? Also, it makes more sense to compare these platforms than the comedic "LCA vs Eurofighter" debate you find on some Indian defence forums.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RajsParadise

The JF-17 project(Joint Pakistani-Chinese fighter)
The News,Pakistan ^ | 2/8/2008 | Ali Abbas Rizvi 

The JF-17 project

By Ali Abbas Rizvi

2/8/2008

T*he JF-17 Thunder is a light combat aircraft, a single-engine fighter with all-weather capability, which Pakistan has developed with the help of the Chinese. It is a third-generation fighter that has been so designed that it can take on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft*. The JF-17 fighter project would soon see serial production at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra. In this connection, a ceremony was recently held at the aeronautical complex, presided over by the chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mehmood.

According to the JF-17 project director, the PAF will not only be the user but also the manufacturer of the JF-17 aircraft. Therefore, the manufacturing and production process of the aircraft will be monitored and controlled by the PAF from the very beginning.

The story of the JF-17 Thunder, to say the least, is rather amazing. The origins of the programme lie in the Sabre 2 project that the Chinese Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) had started with the American Northrop Grumman in the late Eighties. Following the Tiananmen Square issue in 1989, the Americans pulled out of the project. In came the Russian Mikoyan OKB. Pakistan received the invitation to join the party apparently in 1995, but it took four years to finalise the Air Staff proposal for codesigning, co-developing and co-manufacturing with the Chinese government. From that point, there was no turning back. In fact, to meet the fighter gap that the PAF was facing because of the American embargoes on F-16s, the Pakistanis, to a large extent, took over the project from the Chinese. In this respect, reports say that the specifications of the project were changed to include the PAF's request for incorporation of the capability to fire beyond visual range (BVR) missiles following the induction of Su-27s by the Indian Air Force.

The underpinnings of the JF-17 project can be traced to the following factors.

First, the Pakistan Air Force has developed over the years a strong engineering base. In the early days of the service, engineering officers were sent abroad for training. The establishment of the College of Aeronautical Engineering at Korangi Creek during the mid-Sixties was a major step towards developing a team of professionals who could provide a strong engineering backbone to the service. The appointment of Colonel John H Blakelock from the United States Air Force as the first principal, and other American officers, who served till 1978, offered the much-needed impetus to the system of education at the CAE, which was developed on the lines of the United States Air Force Institute of Technology. The curricula it offers in both aerospace and avionics engineering is accepted worldwide. The CAE graduates, who have a hallmark of talent and professionalism, have helped to meet the rapid advancements in aviation technology and increasing complexity of PAF equipment. They have also made a significant contribution to the JF-17 programme, successfully dealing with different technological issues. Without them, meeting the Pakistani requirements and specifications for the JF-17 programme would not have been possible.

Second, it is safe to assume that the success of the Karakoram-8 jet trainer programme, which was carried out with the Chinese prior to the development of Thunder fighter, provided the thrust for the JF-17 programme. The lessons that were learnt from the K-8 programme regarding programme management, project designs, project monitoring, system integration, acquisition of technology from abroad or indigenous development, among others, were most likely put into effect in the JF-17 project, which is far more complex in nature and requires greater labour and technological input.

Third, while the training system of the Pakistan Air Force imbues a strong spirit of confidence, audacity and initiative among the officers and the airmen, what we see from the two joint ventures with the Chinese is that unnecessary risks were not taken. Instead, with regard to the two projects, good judgment, common sense and logic prevailed. The emphasis was not on producing the world's best weapons system; rather it was on turning out a practical weapons system which could meet the requirements of the two services. Accordingly, instead of the aim being the most sophisticated top-of-the-line systems, it was kept in mind that a practicable and cost-effective technology could produce the desired results.

Fourth, the PAF has certainly followed the Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), or Tejas (Radiance) programme, and kept its failures in mind while working on the JF-17 project. The Indian LCA programme is now approaching the fourth decade of its operation. The initial operational clearance of the LCA project, which was sanctioned in 1983 to replace the MiG-21s, has now been pushed back to mid-2008 while it could be joining the Indian Air Force in the years beyond 2010. Not only that, the original project cost of Rs56 billion could cross a figure of Rs100 billion. For the much-touted aircraft that would have a digital fly-by-wire flight control system, composite airframe made of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre and titanium, full-glass cockpit, advanced combat avionics, multi-mode radar and contemporary weapon systems, the costs have massively over-run and the delays are mind-boggling. But still, the dream of developing an indigenous Kaveri engine is far off and the initial aircraft squadrons will be equipped with the American GE-404 engines. Nevertheless, in the fast changing geo-strategic environment, the missions for which the LCA was originally conceived may have changed when it is inducted in the Indian Air Force in large numbers.

Fifth, unsurprisingly, the US embargoes that keep on hitting the Pakistan military again and again have done wonders for the country's indigenous defence capabilities. These embargoes have convinced the military hierarchy that the US will always be an unreliable partner and, as such, it is imperative not to put all the eggs in one basket. Also, the panacea to these embargoes is developing indigenous defence capabilities. As one would have thought, we are once again hearing suggestions over the F-16s by certain not-too-smart American senators and congressmen.

On March 21, 2007, President Musharraf was at the PAC Kamra to mark the arrival of the first two JF-17s from China. On that occasion, the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed, declared: "We thank Almighty Allah for giving us the strength, wisdom and foresight to conceive the idea of the JF-17 aircraft." The JF-17 project tells us that there is no substitute to grasping good ideas, making quick decisions, strong commitment and hard work while at the same time keeping your head down. No wonder, the air chief is a happy man. And so is the service that has seen many embargoes, lack of funding and denial of technology in the face of a superior adversary.

While we are highly critical of our military these days, some of the criticisms certainly more than justified, achievements like the JF-17 project should nevertheless be acclaimed and recognised.

The writer is news editor, The News, Karachi. Email: abbasrizvi14@hotmail.com

Keyword: jf17

Now this is what your media says a 3rd Gen Fighter...


----------



## Owais

RajsParadise said:


> The JF-17 project(Joint Pakistani-Chinese fighter)
> 
> Keyword: jf17
> 
> Now this is what your media says a 3rd Gen Fighter...



RajsParadise, you have no Idea what are you talking about  I think if you read the whole thread you might not said that stupid argument. ok once again I tell you the reason behind that so called "3rd generation aircraft". Chinese rank their jets a generation behind the western ranks so if a J10/JF17/SU30 is a 4rth generation known in western world, chinese call it a 3rd generation


----------



## RajsParadise

Oh..probably that's the reason why the author Emphasized the fact that it is a 3rd gen fighter craft made to fight against 4th gen fighter craft, so u will now claim that JF-17 will take on F-22, Typhoon, Mig 35 and Pak-FA. What a fan boy claims.

and coming to your comment regarding I don't know any thing...U are making that comment against a Attorney who excelled in International Relations and is at the Helm of things which u can't even dream in your wildest dreams.

..So stop making Chinese proverbs.

I think we need to start a new thread JF-17 vs F22, Mig 35, Typhoon, Rafale,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAFAce

RajsParadise said:


> Oh..probably that's the reason why the author Emphasized the fact that it is a 3rd gen fighter craft made to fight against 4th gen fighter craft, so u will now claim that JF-17 will take on F-22, Typhoon, Mig 35 and Pak-FA. What a fan boy claims.
> 
> and coming to your comment regarding I don't know any thing...U are making that comment against a Attorney who excelled in International Relations and is at the Helm of things which u can't even dream in your wildest dreams.
> 
> ..So stop making Chinese proverbs.
> 
> I think we need to start a new thread JF-17 vs F22, Mig 35, Typhoon, Rafale,



"Third Generation" and "Fourth Generation" are not just words. If you put some effort into researching the meanings of those terms you would realise that there are pretty much no third-gen aircrafts flying around anymore (ofcourse, there are exceptions like the Mig-21, F-4, Mirages etc). No country in their right mind would invest in third-generation fighters today. The guy who wrote this article is as reliable as any Indian journalist would be on these subjects. Seriously, dude, why make childish arguments? the JF-17 was, and is, a late-fourth generation fighter, nobody is talking about the F-22 here.

Also, the Chinese _do_ have a different ranking system for aircraft, but that has nothing to do with the genius journalist above. My 8-year-old sister knows more about aviation than some of the journalists in India and Pakistan.


----------



## Patriot

Hi,
Jf-17 is a forth generation fighter.
1) Fly by Wire Control System
2) BVR Missile Support
3) Much more Agile then 3rd Generation Fighters such as Mig21, Mirage 3/5.
-
Now I think PAF should equip All Jf-17's with GRIFO Radars and SD-70 Missile.
GRFIO has a range of 100KM and SD-70 Missile has a range of 70 KM.
Now Although Su30mKi radar range is 200KM+ how ever it will not have anything to fire at that range even if it detects JF-17 because the BVR Missile it carries has a range of 80KM and anything above 80K has a very low PKK and IFF is another issue.So, I believe along with Radar and other stuff PAF should also be careful about Agility as IAF and PAF Fighters may get into Dogfights because JF-17 should be able to handle any IAF Fighter except MRCA (If MRCa gets AESA) and SU30MKI (SU30MKI can also be handled by integrating better missiles with high range and good PKK).After reading the Missile Range i don't think SU30MKI will be a huge threat once AIM120C and SD10 are fully inducted in PAF.Radar as well as Missile Range is what matters in BVR Combat.Both Pilots will try to fire at each other within 60-70Km as anything above 70KM will have a very low chance of kill (No Escape Zone is best for BVR Kill).Can anyone with real reliable knowledge tell me range of KLJ-7 Radar?There is no point of radar with 200KM+ Range detection imo when you don't have anything to fire at those ranges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mean_bird

saadahmed said:


> Hi,
> Jf-17 is a forth generation fighter.
> 1) Fly by Wire Control System
> 2) BVR Missile Support
> 3) Much more Agile then 3rd Generation Fighters such as Mig21, Mirage 3/5.
> -



Saad sahib, its not even worth the effort. Nobody with a basic knowledge of aircrafts can even argue that JF-17 is 3rd gen except people who believe only what they like to believe.



saadahmed said:


> Now I think PAF should equip All Jf-17's with GRIFO Radars and SD-70 Missile.
> GRFIO has a range of 100KM and SD-70 Missile has a range of 70 KM.


Interesting, I have read this 100km range for Grifo before but couldn't find a reference. I would be interested if you have one or the complete specs of Grifo. The webpages from selex aren't really that informative in terms of specifications.




saadahmed said:


> Now Although Su30mKi radar range is 200KM+ how ever it will not have anything to fire at that range even if it detects JF-17 because the BVR Missile it carries has a range of 80KM and anything above 80K has a very low PKK and IFF is another issue.So, I believe along with Radar and other stuff PAF should also be careful about Agility as IAF and PAF Fighters may get into Dogfights because JF-17 should be able to handle any IAF Fighter except MRCA (If MRCa gets AESA) and SU30MKI (SU30MKI can also be handled by integrating better missiles with high range and good PKK).After reading the Missile Range i don't think SU30MKI will be a huge threat once AIM120C and SD10 are fully inducted in PAF.Radar as well as Missile Range is what matters in BVR Combat.Both Pilots will try to fire at each other within 60-70Km as anything above 70KM will have a very low chance of kill (No Escape Zone is best for BVR Kill).Can anyone with real reliable knowledge tell me range of KLJ-7 Radar?There is no point of radar with 200KM+ Range detection imo when you don't have anything to fire at those ranges.



That's quite true. The only advantage you have with a very long range radar is that you know the presence of the other fighter plane but there is nothing you can do about it till it gets into your missile range, and most shots will be fired well within that range (40-60km range) to ensure a good enough kill ratio. 

Moreover, the 200km+ range is for a fighter the size of Su-30 or Su-27 and not JF-17. For JF-17, it would be significantly lower. Also, with good enough sensors, the plane being tracked also gets to know of the presence of the other fighter and with AWACS, it won't matter much because everyone will be aware of everyone else.

Regarding KLJ-7, Jane's had put it at 75+km but I would like to remind that Jane has been inaccurate on chinese stuff so it ain't a very reliable source as it is for western stuff.


----------



## Patriot

mean_bird said:


> Saad sahib, its not even worth the effort. Nobody with a basic knowledge of aircrafts can even argue that JF-17 is 3rd gen except people who believe only what they like to believe.
> 
> 
> Interesting, I have read this 100km range for Grifo before but couldn't find a reference. I would be interested if you have one or the complete specs of Grifo. The webpages from selex aren't really that informative in terms of specifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite true. The only advantage you have with a very long range radar is that you know the presence of the other fighter plane but there is nothing you can do about it till it gets into your missile range, and most shots will be fired well within that range (40-60km range) to ensure a good enough kill ratio.
> 
> Moreover, the 200km+ range is for a fighter the size of Su-30 or Su-27 and not JF-17. For JF-17, it would be significantly lower. Also, with good enough sensors, the plane being tracked also gets to know of the presence of the other fighter and with AWACS, it won't matter much because everyone will be aware of everyone else.
> 
> Regarding KLJ-7, Jane's had put it at 75+km but I would like to remind that Jane has been inaccurate on chinese stuff so it ain't a very reliable source as it is for western stuff.


I think i read 100KM+ Range on the PDF which you posted in another thread in which they mentioned JF-17 is equipped with Grifo.Quite honestly, the SU30MKI threat is way way overrated.Once, AIM120C and SD10 are inducted then PAF will be on par with Indian Air Force.I just hope PAF inducts JF-17 and SD10 quickly and also get's Block52 and AIM20C.It F16 MLU and Block 52 should be able to take out MKI's and JF-17 can be used for all other IAF fighters if it gets Grifo Radar (Which i think it has because Sir Muradk said JF-17 does not have chinese avionics..but even 75KM+ is not bad because SD10 Range is only 70KM (Correct me if i am wrong..I am on slow internet atm so can't search).The mere fact that JF-17 has Fly by wire control makes it 4th Generation Fighter...Frankly, these Indians are just young boys without actual knowledge (Although, I am young but i do read technical info before making posts).By 2014 PAF will be getting J10 and they should equip them with AESA.PAF will be in very good position in 4-5 years and we will also get AWACS so JF-17 Pilots will also have info regarding the presence of other fighters in the area because of AWACS.PAF Leadership has done awesome job.It all comes down to Pilot skills now imo.Now Dogfight between MKI and JF17 i can't comment on that as i don't know how agile JF-17 really is.All these Indian's bragging about MKI huge radar don't know that if you don't have missile with a range of 200KM how will you shoot down a bogey.The advantage Indian Air Force currently has will be finished once PAF gets SD10 and AIM120C's.I just hope there is no confrontation between IAf and PAf right now as we don't have a solid BVR Platform.


----------



## maverick2009

SU30MKI BVR missle range is 105km 

The Radar range is 140km for a average fighter RCS. 

With regards su30mki advantages over both JF17 & F16 are as follows

1. upto 8 bvr missles versis 4 max for both F16/JF17
2. twin engines for more range/power
3. TVC & Canards very useful for WVR combat - extreme agility. All new fighters have canards ie FC20/Typhoon, Rafale Gripen
4. 2 pilots to reduce workload
5. Shear nos 100 su30mki in service now versis nil F16/.52 & 10 jf17. By the time first F16/52 enters PAF IN 2011 iaf will be fielding 150+ Flankers. 
6. Massive upgrade all in place in new tranche MKI from 2012 ONWARDS with ramjet BVR missle KH172 and new Ibris Aesa Radar. 

** Nothing short of over 200 FC20/F16/52 is what PAF needs to ensure a 50/50 CHANCE against the SU30MKI fleet. 

This excludes the potential massive threat from MRCA which may stil happen by 2011


----------



## sancho

saadahmed said:


> Now I think PAF should equip All Jf-17's with GRIFO Radars and SD-70 Missile.
> GRFIO has a range of 100KM and SD-70 Missile has a range of 70 KM...
> ...There is no point of radar with 200KM+ Range detection imo when you don't have anything to fire at those ranges.


To sum it up, *you wish* that JF  17 will get that radar and missiles, *you believe* that with better radar and missiles PAF should be handle IAF fighters exept MRCA (with AESA, because it's a key requirement) and Su 30Mki, *you dont think* that Mki will be a huge treat against AIM 120C and SD10 and *in your opinon* there is no point for a radar with long detection range.
So you have a nice theory but where are the facts mate? 

Missile range like you said:


saadahmed said:


> BVR Missile it carries has a range of 80KM / SD-70 Missile has a range of 70 KM


So advantage Mki 

AIM 120 C that might be inducted in JF-17 has a range of around 100 Km, the same range that R77 missiles has, but the Mki already has this missile.
Advantage Mki 

Radar range like you said: 


saadahmed said:


> Su30mKi radar range is 200KM+ / GRFIO has a range of 100KM.


Of course the Mki cant fire the missiles at that range, but let me ask you this: 
If your opponent doesnt know you are there, would you attack him front to front, or would you stay outside of his radar range instead and get yourself into a better attack position? I doubt JF-17 has 100 Km radar range to the back side right? 
This advantage of an Mki can only be compensated if JF-17 has AWECS support, but we are talking about a 1 on 1 comparison of these fighters, so without AWECS!
Again advantage Mki
At the moment the JF-17 has less advantages against a Mki, that's why many people say it's the wrong PAF fighter for a comparison. Even these fighters could be the backbone of PAF and IAF in numbers, in quality J10, F16 MLU and block 52 will be the backbone of PAF.


----------



## LCA

As far as BVR missile for MKI is concern it is R-77 which has a range of about 100 km.

But there is an upgradation version of R-77 called R-77 M1 for PAK-FA ,has a range of about 150-175 km like AIM-120D,which will be integrated with MKI in coming years.


----------



## Patriot

sancho said:


> To sum it up, *you wish* that JF  17 will get that radar and missiles, *you believe* that with better radar and missiles PAF should be handle IAF fighters exept MRCA (with AESA, because it's a key requirement) and Su 30Mki, *you dont think* that Mki will be a huge treat against AIM 120C and SD10 and *in your opinon* there is no point for a radar with long detection range.
> So you have a nice theory but where are the facts mate?
> 
> Missile range like you said:
> 
> So advantage Mki
> 
> AIM 120 C that might be inducted in JF-17 has a range of around 100 Km, the same range that R77 missiles has, but the Mki already has this missile.
> Advantage Mki
> 
> Radar range like you said:
> 
> Of course the Mki cant fire the missiles at that range, but let me ask you this:
> If your opponent doesnt know you are there, would you attack him front to front, or would you stay outside of his radar range instead and get yourself into a better attack position? I doubt JF-17 has 100 Km radar range to the back side right?
> This advantage of an Mki can only be compensated if JF-17 has AWECS support, but we are talking about a 1 on 1 comparison of these fighters, so without AWECS!
> Again advantage Mki
> At the moment the JF-17 has less advantages against a Mki, that's why many people say it's the wrong PAF fighter for a comparison. Even these fighters could be the backbone of PAF and IAF in numbers, in quality J10, F16 MLU and block 52 will be the backbone of PAF.


By the time MRCA is indcuted PAF will be inducting J10 and i am sure PAF will equip it with good radar.Even without Grifo S7..KLJ has a range of 80KM according to Janes and SD10 has a range of 75KM+ according to Janes which is more then enough to take out any IAF Fighters except MKI and MRCA.AIM120C's will be inducted once MLU and Block52 arrive which is why i said right now PAf does not have solid BVR platform and no pilot will shoot at 100kM+ ranges lol..Even USAF Pilots in gulf war hit in ranges between 50-60Km because the missile accuracy was very low above 50-60KM and Iraqis pilots could easily break the lock by speeding up the jet and going in opposite direction and i highly doubt AIM120 will be inducted in JF-17 as American's wont give source code for it.Only AIM9 will be inducted.For BVR SD10 will be used...Well, obviousely the generals plan strategy with all resources in mind..Its not like they will send JF-17 without AWACS support if they do have AWACS support.There is no doubt that MKI is superior to JF-17.In 4-5 years PAF will be in total different shape.


----------



## Owais

RajsParadise said:


> Oh..probably that's the reason why the author Emphasized the fact that it is a 3rd gen fighter craft made to fight against 4th gen fighter craft, so u will now claim that JF-17 will take on F-22, Typhoon, Mig 35 and Pak-FA. What a fan boy claims.
> 
> and coming to your comment regarding I don't know any thing...U are making that comment against a Attorney who excelled in International Relations and is at the Helm of things which u can't even dream in your wildest dreams.
> 
> ..So stop making Chinese proverbs.
> 
> I think we need to start a new thread JF-17 vs F22, Mig 35, Typhoon, Rafale,



I knew that you may counter argue with more baseless comments. from where does F22 comes in debate??  F22 is a generation ahead of JF17/Mig 35/SU30. here are few links for you to get knowledge.

4th generation jet fighter: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Fighter aircraft: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article


----------



## Arsalan

Owais said:


> I knew that you may counter argue with more baseless comments. from where does F22 comes in debate??  F22 is a generation ahead of JF17/Mig 35/SU30. here are few links for you to get knowledge.
> 
> 4th generation jet fighter: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
> 
> Fighter aircraft: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article




thankyou, it is a nice site giving the details about the fighter plane generation classification! previously i have not been able to find one other than wikipedia which was quite unreliable, though this site seems to be a copy of wikipedia but it will be good to shut them up who claim JF 17 as a third generation!

thums up sir!!


----------



## hj786

PAFAce said:


> "Third Generation" and "Fourth Generation" are not just words. If you put some effort into researching the meanings of those terms you would realise that there are pretty much no third-gen aircrafts flying around anymore (ofcourse, there are exceptions like the Mig-21, F-4, Mirages etc). No country in their right mind would invest in third-generation fighters today. The guy who wrote this article is as reliable as any Indian journalist would be on these subjects. Seriously, dude, why make childish arguments? the JF-17 was, and is, a late-fourth generation fighter, nobody is talking about the F-22 here.
> 
> Also, the Chinese _do_ have a different ranking system for aircraft, but that has nothing to do with the genius journalist above. My 8-year-old sister knows more about aviation than some of the journalists in India and Pakistan.


Funny thing is, they'll quote Pakistani media to make JF-17 look bad, but when Pakistani media says Babur and Raad cruise missiles are indigenous, Pakistan gave technical input to the JF-17 project, nuclear weapons were developed by Pakistani scientists, its just propoganda and everything is copied from China.

But I have to say you're wrong about JF-17 being a late-fourth generation combat jet, IMO its airframe simply is not yet advanced enough to warrant such a classification even if its avionics are. If the Chinese articles about JF-17 modifications are true though, it could end up becoming one. I read a translation somewhere of plans to make 70&#37; of the airframe out of composite materials, for example. 



RajsParadise said:


> so u will now claim that JF-17 will take on F-22, Typhoon, Mig 35 and Pak-FA. What a fan boy claims.


Not one single poster here has claimed anything like that. Get out of here and take your agenda with you, troll.


----------



## hj786

mean_bird said:


> That's quite true. The only advantage you have with a very long range radar is that you know the presence of the other fighter plane but there is nothing you can do about it till it gets into your missile range, and most shots will be fired well within that range (40-60km range) to ensure a good enough kill ratio.
> 
> Moreover, the 200km+ range is for a fighter the size of Su-30 or Su-27 and not JF-17. For JF-17, it would be significantly lower. *Also, with good enough sensors, the plane being tracked also gets to know of the presence of the other fighter* and with AWACS, it won't matter much because everyone will be aware of everyone else.


I don't understand why they will happily talk about MKI's radar, but they refuse to mention the radar warning receiver of JF-17. They know all about missile ranges and radar ranges, but they seem to forget that as soon as MKI switches on its radar, the JF will know pretty much exactly where it is. 
I read somewhere that the reason PAF has been looking at AESA radars such as Vixen 500E for JF-17 is because they have found that the modern slotted array radars such as the Grifo M3 in Mirage ROSE, KLJ-7 in JF, are very easy to detect on a radar warning receiver. AESA radars are not. A reason why AEWC and data-links are so important is that they do not require the actual combat aircraft to light up their radars and show every enemy jet where they are. 

I guess it is inevitable that they will come back with "MKI will be upgraded with Russian AESA radars."


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Just one question...Is SD 10 and the other BVRAAMs acquired by Pakistan datalinked to the AWACS?


----------



## mean_bird

satishkumarcsc said:


> Just one question...Is SD 10 and the other BVRAAMs acquired by Pakistan datalinked to the AWACS?



There is no AWACS yet and you are already data-linking BVR missiles to it


----------



## Zob

sancho said:


> To sum it up, *you wish* that JF  17 will get that radar and missiles, *you believe* that with better radar and missiles PAF should be handle IAF fighters exept MRCA (with AESA, because it's a key requirement) and Su 30Mki, *you dont think* that Mki will be a huge treat against AIM 120C and SD10 and *in your opinon* there is no point for a radar with long detection range.
> So you have a nice theory but where are the facts mate?
> 
> Missile range like you said:
> 
> So advantage Mki
> 
> AIM 120 C that might be inducted in JF-17 has a range of around 100 Km, the same range that R77 missiles has, but the Mki already has this missile.
> Advantage Mki
> 
> Radar range like you said:
> 
> Of course the Mki cant fire the missiles at that range, but let me ask you this:
> If your opponent doesnt know you are there, would you attack him front to front, or would you stay outside of his radar range instead and get yourself into a better attack position? I doubt JF-17 has 100 Km radar range to the back side right?



SANCHO please don't ANNIHALTE us.....thank you....and your line BACK SIDE....says it all....currently SD-10 is based on R-77 so it is more or less anequal match and like i said you might have a higher detection range but in a war why would your MKIs be flying over agra and why not over AMRITSAR,HALWARA etc....that would be detection ranges become more or less not worth mentioning leaqving us with an R-77 vs an SD-10 or AIM120....it will become a less of a platform based fight and more of a BVR vs a BVR and EW suite fight....


----------



## Chanakyaa

Notably JF 17 has been categorised as 4th Plane while LCA is placed in 4.5 Gen Category with Su30


----------



## saiko

4th gen, 4.5 gen, etc are in fact just terms. The point of classifying that is to give a general summary of its capabilities, particularly for laymen who don't follow the field with as much interest. Generally it's an indication of its overall combat capability, not some very specific narrow characteristics. There is no governning body that decides these classifications.

So it really is just a useless term - far more important are the actual characteristics of the plane that make it X gen and if you are going to make an argument that X plane is better than Y plane because someone called it 4.5 gen then you'd best be able to backup what specific performance characteristics make up that difference. 

Otherwise you will just look foolish. When you read the "discussion" on Wikipedia's JF-17 article for example you see this:



> The JF-17, while being a cost effective replacement for PAF's older fighters like the Q-5s and the Mirage-3s is not a 4th gen fighter by any stretch of imagination. Its upto date avionics while being capable can't plug one gap that differentiates a 3rd gen a/c from a 4th gen one -- fly-by-wire controls. FBW is ALWAYS the deciding factor in classifying a bird as a beyond 3rd gen a/c. This is not to mean that the JF-17 will not be a capable a/c. Oxymoronic as it may sound, frequently, older gen a/c are more capable than newer gen a/c. The "generation" classification is more a reflection of the technology than capability. Other factors include functions like serviceability and ease of use which, while being better in a newer gen a/c does not increase "capability" per se. To give an example, the F-14 tomcat, which was replaced in USN service by the F/A-18 Hornet is about half a gen behind the hornet but yet, it is capable of many functions the hornet is incapable of.
> Anyway, PAF already has a 4th gen fighter in service, the F-16 which its pilots
> 
> have put to good use and the next will be the J-10 !! Therefore, I request everyone :
> 
> DO NOT EDIT THE THUNDER DESIGNATION TO 4TH/4.5TH GEN. IT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE.
> 
> Thank You. &#8212;Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.66 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)



Which of course is total nonsense. Take the Mig-29 (original) - no fly by wire controls and nobody is going to claim the Mig-29 is not a 4th generation fighter. But people make silly distinctions such as this in an attempt to discredit the aircraft.

Well the joke's on them, because if the JF-17 ever sees real combat it will outperform every single 3rd generation aircraft in real combat situations and my guess is a lot of 4th generation aircraft as well.


----------



## Owais

XiNiX said:


> Notably JF 17 has been categorised as 4th Plane while LCA is placed in 4.5 Gen Category with Su30



su30MKI is no doubt a 4.5th generation but its a maintenance nightmare and still inferior to typhoon, super hornet and rafale. also, we cannot conclude either LCA is a 4th gen or 4.5th. will talk about it when it will finish its trials and goes into serial production


----------



## Munir

If Mig21 Bison could beat F15 in WVR then why is that impossible for JF17 against MKI?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

Munir said:


> If Mig21 Bison could beat F15 in WVR then why is that impossible for JF17 against MKI?



Its because MIG21 Bisons were being flown by Indian Pilots(Simply the best pilots in the world); and JF17's will be flown by Pakistani pilots(whom are just ordinary pilots). Not to mention JF17 will be facing the mighty SU30MKI, its a God's gift to aviation and there is no plane in this world that can match the might of MKI(maybe the F22 might give it a fair fight but the MKI will prevail).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gaurysh

notorious_eagle said:


> Its because MIG21 Bisons were being flown by Indian Pilots(Simply the best pilots in the world); and JF17's will be flown by Pakistani pilots(whom are just ordinary pilots). Not to mention JF17 will be facing the mighty SU30MKI, its a God's gift to aviation and there is no plane in this world that can match the might of MKI(maybe the F22 might give it a fair fight but the MKI will prevail).



Thanks Eagle


----------



## IceCold

XiNiX said:


> Notably JF 17 has been categorised as 4th Plane while LCA is placed in 4.5 Gen Category with Su30



Well LCA can be catergorized as a 5th generation fighter jet too does it matter? What matters however is when it finally enters into a full scale production and with a final specification whatever that maybe. 

On a side note IAF does not seem be too keen with the induction of this 4.5th fighter jet. Wonder why


----------



## sancho

Zob said:


> and like i said you might have a higher detection range but in a war why would your MKIs be flying over agra and why not over AMRITSAR,HALWARA etc....that would be detection ranges become more or less not worth mentioning leaqving us with an R-77 vs an SD-10 or AIM120....it will become a less of a platform based fight and more of a BVR vs a BVR and EW suite fight....


If I get you right, you mean the long range radar is not an advantage anymore if the Mki is near to the border right? Because the distance between an attacking fighter and Mki would be less. But on the other side the Mki could see much deeper behind the border, so it would still detect other a/c first and will shoot first right? Aren't BVR combats allways based on the capabilities of radar, missiles and EWS?


----------



## yh1

sancho said:


> If I get you right, you mean the long range radar is not an advantage anymore if the Mki is near to the border right? Because the distance between an attacking fighter and Mki would be less. But on the other side the Mki could see much deeper behind the border, so it would still detect other a/c first and will shoot first right? Aren't BVR combats allways based on the capabilities of radar, missiles and EWS?



But MKI is also much bigger and easier to be tracked at a long distance. For the BVR it doesn't seem to be of any advantage.


----------



## PAFAce

hj786 said:


> But I have to say you're wrong about JF-17 being a late-fourth generation combat jet, IMO its airframe simply is not yet advanced enough to warrant such a classification even if its avionics are. If the Chinese articles about JF-17 modifications are true though, it could end up becoming one. I read a translation somewhere of plans to make 70% of the airframe out of composite materials, for example.



Thanks for pointing that out hj786. What I meant to say by "late fourth-gen fighter" was that it is more sophisticated than early fourth-gen fighters (ex. F-14 Tomcats, J-8s etc). I realise my mistake now. What I should have said is that the JF-17 is a true "mid-fourth-gen fighter", i.e., as good as, if not more so, than the early F-16 models. I certainly did not mean to compare it to the Rafales and Eurofighters of the world.


----------



## Gucci Juice

i think we should compare mki against F-16 or J-10, instead of mki vs jf-17.

jf-17 is better compared with the lca

here's different classes of fighters:

light: Jf-17, LCA, Gripen
Medium: F-16, J-10, Mirage 2000, 
Heavy: F-15, F/A-18, Mig-29, Rafael, Eurofighter, Su-30 

people here are saying that the size doesn't matter in bvr because all u need in aewacs and missiles. its not as simple as that people. in a bvr fight once you have locked on with a missile at around 70-80 km the other fighter will also lock on to you they will both fire and try to help their missile reach a range (10-15 km) where the missile's radar can take over, then they will turn back, once that happens the fighter with the most fuel and the highest T/W ratio will have an advantage, when it turns the other way and fires flares and chaff like crazy and goes to max speed to avoid the mach 5 missile.

thus a light fighter cannot be compared with a heavy fighter because the heavy fighter has 2 engines instead of one giving it a higher t/w ratio and it also has a lot more fuel giving it more combat time in the air, also in a close combat dogfight the fuel reserves of a light airplane are only enough for 10-15 minutes of combat before they have to break off and run which isn't feasible and for the heavy plane it isn't much higher maybe 5-10 minutes more, but that 5-10 minutes is critical in a dogfight where your enemy is almost out of fuel.

my source? Dogfights on History channel

i think its better to compare mki with f-16 or j-10 because they're a bit larger and a bit more advanced.

i'm asking the moderators to open up another thread comparing mki with f-16 of j-10.


----------



## Munir

Gucci Juice said:


> i think we should compare mki against F-16 or J-10, instead of mki vs jf-17.
> 
> jf-17 is better compared with the lca
> 
> here's different classes of fighters:
> 
> light: Jf-17, LCA, Gripen
> Medium: F-16, J-10, Mirage 2000,
> Heavy: F-15, F/A-18, Mig-29, Rafael, Eurofighter, Su-30
> 
> people here are saying that the size doesn't matter in bvr because all u need in aewacs and missiles. its not as simple as that people. in a bvr fight once you have locked on with a missile at around 70-80 km the other fighter will also lock on to you they will both fire and try to help their missile reach a range (10-15 km) where the missile's radar can take over, then they will turn back, once that happens the fighter with the most fuel and the highest T/W ratio will have an advantage, when it turns the other way and fires flares and chaff like crazy and goes to max speed to avoid the mach 5 missile.
> 
> thus a light fighter cannot be compared with a heavy fighter because the heavy fighter has 2 engines instead of one giving it a higher t/w ratio and it also has a lot more fuel giving it more combat time in the air, also in a close combat dogfight the fuel reserves of a light airplane are only enough for 10-15 minutes of combat before they have to break off and run which isn't feasible and for the heavy plane it isn't much higher maybe 5-10 minutes more, but that 5-10 minutes is critical in a dogfight where your enemy is almost out of fuel.
> 
> my source? Dogfights on History channel
> 
> i think its better to compare mki with f-16 or j-10 because they're a bit larger and a bit more advanced.
> 
> i'm asking the moderators to open up another thread comparing mki with f-16 of j-10.



That is really a stupid post. Light, medium and heavy? Ever heard about ECM, ECCM or passive? Ever heard about cone of death which is surely not at bvr max range of anything fired? Maybe watching discovery shows some fancy pics but it is hardly realistic. Just watch the top 10 of X, Y or Z... Mostly stupid movies. Just posting this for a junior posters sounds a bit strange...


----------



## zombie:-)

there is nothing wrong in what he said STOP BLOWING UP YOUR NERVES 

and most of the pakistanis here might hate history channel coz it always shows good stuff about israel and its fearless pilots ...and it wont go well with them...but all is not true that is shown in them .....even your ESTEEMED muradk has also accepted that to counter su-30s you need j-11s ...ever seen him say that JF-17 is a match to the MKI and even if you get J-11 youll have no answer to MMRCA winner which obviously will be much more advanced than the MKI .....FACE THE REALITY...if the jf-17 ventures on a 1on1 combat against mki itll loose badly .....only solution is hunt in packs and use the numerical advantage very carefully ...thats all there is nothing in the SANE WORLD that can compare jf-17 to an mki considering the pilots on both the air craft are equally skilled .....JF-17 VS MIG-21 BISON might be a better topic


----------



## Gucci Juice

^

jf-17 vs mig-21 isn't a good comparison.

mig-21 is 2nd gen (3.75 gen with upgrade)

jf-17 is 4th gen

but still not comparable

oh and munir i've heard of them and they have something to do with ew right?

and the cone of death is the range where u cant escape a bvr missile right?


----------



## Gabbar

Gucci Juice said:


> ^
> 
> jf-17 vs mig-21 isn't a good comparison.
> 
> mig-21 is 2nd gen (3.75 gen with upgrade)
> 
> jf-17 is 4th gen
> 
> but still not comparable
> 
> oh and munir i've heard of them and they have something to do with ew right?
> 
> and the cone of death is the range where u cant escape a bvr missile right?



Zombie was talking about MIG-21 Bisons not the older versions. Bisons are much improved and they are way more improved then older versions.


----------



## zombie:-)

Gucci Juice said:


> ^
> 
> jf-17 vs mig-21 isn't a good comparison.
> 
> mig-21 is 2nd gen (3.75 gen with upgrade)
> 
> jf-17 is 4th gen
> 
> but still not comparable
> 
> oh and munir i've heard of them and they have something to do with ew right?
> 
> and the cone of death is the range where u cant escape a bvr missile right?



MIG-21 BIS IS DIFFERENT FROM MIG-21 BISON which is nothing but mig-21-93as the russians call it ...the most advanced mig-21
when they can compare a 4-gen with a 4.5 gen aircraft whats the difference when a 3.75 is compared with a 4 gen one 

indian pilots are vastly experienced with the characteristics of the airplane and still the jf-17 has to be inducted and should be built in large numbers and they should also build tactics according to the aircrafts flight performance...its not like a video game where you strap on,take off and start shooting ....they still have to be completely sure about the jf-17s flight profiles at different altitudes with varying payload and velocity.....hence all this stuff about jf-17 putting up a worthy fight even with a mig-21 bison is not foreseeable in the near future (5 years)...hope my points are clear .. i am not trying to put jf-17 or PAF in bad light this is just the reality.


----------



## hj786

> .hence all this stuff about jf-17 putting up a worthy fight even with a mig-21 bison is not foreseeable in the near future (5 years)



 Reality? Here you are comparing the Mig-21 bison with a jet that is, according to MuradK, amazing the PAF's best F-16A pilots with its agility? 
So one moment you will say "MuradK said PAF needs J-11, so PAF needs J-11 to counter Su-30", but THEN you say Mig-21 is superior to JF-17 even though the same MuradK has said it is already scaring the F-16A pilots?
Man you biased people are funny, maybe if you stop the double standards you'll be taken seriously by non-Indians. Until then, we'll just keep laughing at you.

By the way, MuradK never once said PAF needs J-11 to counter Su-30. He said PAF would see a huge boost in capability with J-11. 
In fact, MuradK has stated many many times that PAF can counter InAF even with its current fleet of F-7, Mirage and a handful of F-16. Do you believe that too?

Munir, Gucci is right, JF-17 should not be compared to Su-30 because they are in different classes, same with JF-17 and bison. Su-30 will always have advantages over the JF. It is up to the PAF to eliminate those advantages through technologies such as data-linking, EW/ECM suites, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick2009

Its unfair to compare a non operational JF17 to a MKI flanker which is in service with 5 Squadrons of the IAF already.

JF17 wen it arrives will be a massive improvement on wat PAF has today. Even the 44 F16 are onlly basic block a/b and non BVR capable. 

Hence i agree with HJ786 JF17 will be the best PAF fighter in atempting to tackle the su30mki 

But i also feel that block 52 F16s will surpass JF17 WEN THEY ARRIVE in 2011. That will become PAFs big MKI answer.. But so few nos will be an issue.. 

APG68 V KLJ 7/10 & Amraam v SD10. i think F16 will win on both accounts


----------



## Keysersoze

maverick2009 said:


> Its unfair to compare a non operational JF17 to a MKI flanker which is in service with 5 Squadrons of the IAF already.
> 
> JF17 wen it arrives will be a massive improvement on wat PAF has today. Even the 44 F16 are onlly basic block a/b and non BVR capable.
> 
> Hence i agree with HJ786 JF17 will be the best PAF fighter in atempting to tackle the su30mki
> 
> But i also feel that block 52 F16s will surpass JF17 WEN THEY ARRIVE in 2011. That will become PAFs big MKI answer.. But so few nos will be an issue..
> 
> APG68 V KLJ 7/10 & Amraam v SD10. i think F16 will win on both accounts



Dude your rampant fandom of the MKI is getting a bit tiresome.... Frankly it is not the be all and end all of fighter aircraft as has been proved. 
Simply put it has not yet caused the PAF any big headaches yet when tensions arose over the recent attacks and there was talk of "surgical strikes"

I am getting the inside skinny on the RAF's REAL opinion on the aircraft through a new source I have, and no one is that impressed despite what you have claimed in the past.

The next step would be for you to go and check what has been said NUMEROUS times before......the current set up is only for the first few models of the aircraft and would be upgraded after the first 50.


----------



## notorious_eagle

hj786 said:


> Reality? Here you are comparing the Mig-21 bison with a jet that is, according to MuradK, amazing the PAF's best F-16A pilots with its agility?
> So one moment you will say "MuradK said PAF needs J-11, so PAF needs J-11 to counter Su-30", but THEN you say Mig-21 is superior to JF-17 even though the same MuradK has said it is already scaring the F-16A pilots?
> Man you biased people are funny, maybe if you stop the double standards you'll be taken seriously by non-Indians. Until then, we'll just keep laughing at you.
> 
> By the way, MuradK never once said PAF needs J-11 to counter Su-30. He said PAF would see a huge boost in capability with J-11.
> In fact, MuradK has stated many many times that PAF can counter InAF even with its current fleet of F-7, Mirage and a handful of F-16. Do you believe that too?
> 
> Munir, Gucci is right, *JF-17 should not be compared to Su-30 because they are in different classes, same with JF-17 and bison*. Su-30 will always have advantages over the JF. It is up to the PAF to eliminate those advantages through technologies such as data-linking, EW/ECM suites, etc.



You are absolutely right they should not be compared; but one thing i can guarantee is that a JF17 will never face MKI one on one. Unless the Indians work out a miracle and make the MKI into an F22(stealthy), it can definitely be shot down. But one thing Gucci is spot on is that both JF17 and MKI will fire at each other at almost the same time. Yes Yes MKI has a huge detection range but JF17 will also be aware of MKI's existence with the help of an AWAC. Not to mention the Erieye will be able to jam the MKI, so overall it all depends on luck and the skill of the pilot. And all that heavy payload the Indians like to talk about, well that payload is the first thing the MKI will drop when it realizes that an SD10 or an AMRAAM is on its way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zombie:-)

when you guys accept that there is no point in comparig jf-17 with the mki WHY NOT CLOSE THIS THREAD .....40 pages of pure fanboy stuff
*
MODS ARE NOT DOING THEIR WORK *


----------



## Gucci Juice

notorious_eagle said:


> You are absolutely right they should not be compared; but one thing i can guarantee is that a JF17 will never face MKI one on one. Unless the Indians work out a miracle and make the MKI into an F22(stealthy), it can definitely be shot down. But one thing Gucci is spot on is that both JF17 and MKI will fire at each other at almost the same time. Yes Yes MKI has a huge detection range but JF17 will also be aware of MKI's existence with the help of an AWAC. Not to mention the Erieye will be able to jam the MKI, so overall it all depends on luck and the skill of the pilot. And all that heavy payload the Indians like to talk about, well that payload is the first thing the MKI will drop when it realizes that an SD10 or an AMRAAM is on its way.



if erieye can jam the mki the phalcon can jam the jf-17.

and why's every1 talking about jf-17 block 2 when there isn't even an mki block 2? and mki's been around for 10 years.


----------



## Manticore

Gucci Juice said:


> if erieye can jam the mki the phalcon can jam the jf-17.
> 
> and why's every1 talking about jf-17 block 2 when there isn't even an mki block 2? and mki's been around for 10 years.



we are talking about jf17 block2 because its in the process of evolution. block1 is somewhat equal to block30 f16... and we intend to [gradually]increase its capability [and our production expertese] to block60 level.

su27.. su30k.. su30mki.. =>MLU... SU35... you dont see any evolution here mate? what we call batches, russians come up with different names... same is the mig. series


jf17 block 1 is for point defence... its not for deep penetration [yet].... the erieye has some range and i reckon it would help the jf17 more effectively inside pakistan with some areas of india depending upon erieye mobility presence.


pakistan is looking for aesa radar for the subsequent jets for the deep strike function.. even the allmighty su30 does not have aesa so it might feel the brunt of pesa and huge rcs, at the moment


----------



## mean_bird

Gucci Juice said:


> if erieye can jam the mki the phalcon can jam the jf-17.
> 
> and why's every1 talking about jf-17 block 2 when there isn't even an mki block 2? and mki's been around for 10 years.



MKI itself is a block 2 or a block 3 and it is not 10 years old. The original Su-30 even for India were not MKIs but were later upgraded to be so. 

The Su-30 itself is a variant of the Su-27. Its goes like this:
-Su-27
-Su-30
-Su-30K
-Su-30MKI

India started getting from the Su-30, then Su-30K and then Su-30MKI.


----------



## Gucci Juice

ya true...

but mki capability has been the same since 2001 almost 8 years. and there still isn't talk of a mki upgrade, except for rumors of the supercruse al-41 3d tvc engine, and the ibris aesa radar. but they are just rumors and are most likely 3-5 years away.

my point is...

i dont think it makes economic sense to upgrade the jf-17 so fast. aesa radars and French avionics are very expensive my friend they are charging 1.5 billion to upgrade 50 mirage 2000s just for a new engine, new radar which isn't even aesa, and new avionics, if we minus the cost of the engines i estimate it'd be 700 million for the radar and the avionics.

and buying aesa from china isn't possible as their technology hasn't matured yet, the first chinese aesa will probably fly by 2015-2017. remember only 1 country has mastered aesa, while other countries (Israel, France, and Russia) are 2-3 years away from 1st generation aesa.

France will offer aesa but it'll be very expensive.


----------



## mean_bird

Gucci, AESA radars should not cost more than $2.5-3 million/piece (for a size compatible with the JF-17) and you get advantage in maintenance too. The real cost will be the weapons.

Still, if we can get some ToT with partial in-house manufacturing (as we do for Grifo), costs should be within our reach. If you need something good, you will have to spend some money. We did our saving in the airframe and going the chinese way, so we have the cushion to spend a bit in this department.


----------



## Contrarian

mean_bird said:


> MKI itself is a block 2 or a block 3 and it is not 10 years old. The original Su-30 even for India were not MKIs but were later upgraded to be so.


Specs were frozen by 2000. The upgrades and integration of all the French/Israeli and other equipment equipment took time. 

The MKI phase II and Phase III describe the level of Indian technology put in the MKI and its levels of domestic production. The Phase III of the MKI project includes the production of a Su-30MKI from ground up. 

The Phase II and Phase III donot mean different specs of the plane. It is a standard spec'd plane. 

All of them will start getting MLU'd around 2014. It remains to be seen whether the plane is re-engined or not. A change of radar and a change of avionics is certain, including different EW equipment set in, this apart from the external Israeli EW pod put on the MKI.



> The Su-30 itself is a variant of the Su-27. Its goes like this:
> -Su-27
> -Su-30
> -Su-30K
> -Su-30MKI
> 
> India started getting from the Su-30, then Su-30K and then Su-30MKI.


Lastly, a Su-30 or a Su-30K/Su-30MK CANNOT be upgraded to a Su-30MKI. A Su-30MKI has to be built specifically.

There is a HUGE difference between a Su-30K or the Su-30MKK(that China has) from a Su-30MKI.


----------



## mean_bird

malaymishra123 said:


> Lastly, a Su-30 or a Su-30K/Su-30MK CANNOT be upgraded to a Su-30MKI. A Su-30MKI has to be built specifically.



I was referring to the fact that they were upgraded in terms of avionics. Not technically the MKIs so you're right.


----------



## maverick2009

French will charge Indian Air force $20 million each to upgrade Mirage 2000H to Mirage 2000 dash 5 standard. And will take 3 years to upgrade 51 planes

God only knows wat they wil charge to upgrade a never seen before Chinease FIGHTER. 

Some forum members are suggesting block 2 JF17 with

New engine 
New radar.
Compatability with French & USA weapons
lower rcs

Thats huge changes for a brand new warplane.


----------



## Contrarian

maverick2009 said:


> French will charge Indian Air force $20 million each to upgrade Mirage 2000H to Mirage 2000 dash 5 standard. And will take 3 years to upgrade 51 planes



The changes are more than standard Dash 5 configuration.


----------



## maverick2009

For $20m each i would expect Rafale level upgrade of weapons and radar.

And this is wat PAF will want for JF17 too i imagine


----------



## Gucci Juice

malay

do u have a source that says mki will be upgraded by 2014?

that's when production ends and all 230 are produced right?


----------



## zombie:-)

Gucci Juice said:


> malay
> 
> do u have a source that says mki will be upgraded by 2014?
> 
> that's when production ends and all 230 are produced right?



here it is from TAKE-OFF.RU feb 2009 issue which i got from Aero India 2009












possible upgrades 
STAGE 1 : radars performance and operating modes will be beefed up 
STAGE 2: a new AESA resulting from the FGFA PROGRAM

*EDIT* i dont think IAF will go for irbis-E.....there will be some more changes in the BARS N011 ...and later they will go for AESA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gucci Juice

well that confirms aesa for mki.

so i guess u guys need to take into account an aesa radar for mki which is hard to jam and also is a good ew weapon in itsself along with the internal ew equipment the mki has and also the external jammer it has.


----------



## maverick2009

SU30 MKI will get additional upgrades from the SU35 & PAK FA projects.

The Aesa RADAR 7 the KH172 BVR missle are virtually guranteed to end up on future mkis since its india that financing the development. 

I would also argue that some of the new technology going intp PAK FA again part indian funded will find itself in infian flankers. 

PESA equipped flanker with R77/27 bvr is just the start..


----------



## Arsalan

well can anybody please tell me that,

can the JF17 be data linked with the AEW systems we are purchasing?
if so i guess it would cancle out the Su30 radar edge to some extent, though there may still be some points where Su30 will be better but for me the Radar aspect will no more be one on them!!

any info on this. please share!

Regards!


----------



## LCA

arsalanaslam123 said:


> well can anybody please tell me that,
> 
> can the JF17 be data linked with the AEW systems we are purchasing?
> if so i guess it would cancle out the Su30 radar edge to some extent, though there may still be some points where Su30 will be better but for me the Radar aspect will no more be one on them!!
> 
> any info on this. please share!
> 
> Regards!



You have to think both way

If u have SAAB then we have phalcon , apart from this MKI itself can take a mini-AWACS role which is data linked with four other MKI.

Now imagine the scenario.


----------



## Arsalan

> well can anybody please tell me that,
> 
> can the JF17 be data linked with the AEW systems we are purchasing?


can somebody focus on this, i didnt meant to be offensive, it was just a question as mentioned above, it will be beter if you can answer this!!

regards!


----------



## mean_bird

arsalanaslam123 said:


> can somebody focus on this, i didnt meant to be offensive, it was just a question as mentioned above, it will be beter if you can answer this!!
> 
> regards!



Arsalan,

what's the point of buying an AEW&C/AWACS if your planes are not data-linked to it?

Sure they will be data-linked. JF-17 will be our back-bone and remember that SAAB erieye was the whole deal before, as noted in another thread, we split across the erieye and the chinese AWACS. Therefore JF-17 and Erieye were under consideration so its only logical to think they can be data-linked. 

Grifo is an open architecture radar, and the bus standards and other things are on western systems on the JF-17. So rest assured that JF-17 will be data-linked with AWACS as well as ground-based radars. Its only a natural thing to do. 

For the moment, neither JF-17 are inducted as a squadron nor the erieye is here, so you will have to wait. If I am not mistaken, the interwiew of ex-ACM with Dawn news channel also talked about data-links.

It has been reported by some that it already is data-linked to its peers and share information from targeting pods. 



LCA said:


> You have to think both way
> 
> If u have SAAB then we have phalcon , apart from this MKI itself can take a *mini-AWACS role which is data linked with four other MKI.*
> 
> Now imagine the scenario.



Unless they intend to upgrade some of the MKIs with better equipment, I don't see the benefit of data linking an MKI with four other MKIs. Reliability may be?

It would make more sense to data-link a less-capable aircraft in the formation to receive more information from the Su-30MKI and that is what is referred to as a mini-AWACS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LCA

> Unless they intend to upgrade some of the MKIs with better equipment, I don't see the benefit of data linking an MKI with four other MKIs. Reliability may be?
> 
> It would make more sense to data-link a less-capable aircraft in the formation to receive more information from the Su-30MKI and that is what is referred to as a mini-AWACS.



There is no need of upgradation for MKI to act as a mini-awacs, it already have this capability and also datalinking with 4 other aircraft, it can be MKI or any other aircraft.

As far as benifit is concern,if one MKI use it radar and rest of 4 jet datalinked to it not req. to use their radar so they can remain invisible to enemy radar for longer range and can make the surprise attack.I don't know about reliability but that's is one of the objective of an AWACS.


----------



## gambit

mean_bird said:


> Arsalan,
> 
> what's the point of buying an AEW&C/AWACS if your planes are not data-linked to it?


The main point of having an AWACS platform is about early detection and 'early' equals to distance. Keep in mind that radar detection is about detecting a target as far away from you as possible, and that applies to civilian usage of radar as well. A busy civilian airport would benefit from early detection of inbounds as it would help controllers better scheduling take-offs and landings. For the military, early detection equals to keeping the enemy or potential enemy and his weapons from you and your valuables as long as possible. Military controllers would do the opposite of their civilian counterparts, vector defending forces towards (hostile) inbounds instead of guiding the inbounds in.

In the early days of AWACS operations, it was with voice commands, not through data linking, although some rudimentary data transmissions did occurred, that AWACS controllers send in defending forces. Data links along with voice commands adds complexity, technical and operational, that can degrade an air force if the capability is not properly exploited through training -- extensive training -- that require flight hours and aviation fuel, for both the AWACS and everyone else that have a need for what the AWACS has to offer. Data links is the proverbial gravy, not the meat, of an AWACS platform. If the Pakistani Air Force cannot afford such training for this level of an AWACS, then do not spend the money. Train as best as possible with voice commands like how the US military did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Patriot

Hi,
JF-17 will be datalinked.Muradk confirmed it i think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mean_bird

gambit,

The advantages of having a data-link is much more than simply vocal commands. You get to share real time information...you are aware of the whole war scenario...the complete overview... in front of you rather than being told by someone by voice about individual planes.

Just as an example, look at what happened at Red Flag. The US, french, etc were all data-linked to the awacs while the indians were not...and they ended up having to call the AWACS to ask " 24miles northwest, friend or foe?" each time. And as a result they ended up either holding their fires or having friendly kills. And that is just one example. Look up that briefing by USAF officer on Red Flag on youtube.

As Saadahamed said, Muradk has said the JF-17 will be data-linked. Other forumers have also claimed that to be the case and it is even written on the PAC kamra website..you can read it yourself.

JF-17 will also have 2 secure, and independent, communication links as well.


----------



## Gucci Juice

ok, here's my take

the mki has an advantage over the jf-17 in radar, ew systems, avionics, tvc, faster speed, more range, more firepower, and the user a/f has 10 years experience with it. the only disadvantages i can think of are high maintenence and big rcs.


----------



## nik007

I think pitting a jf17 against an mki would be suicide. I have many articles which say that only a Eurofighter or f22 can face this "menace".

An australian website said that even an JSF F35 cannot match it.

My reccomendation for PAF would be Eurofighter, J10B/JXX. and SAMS

Unfortunately the chinese dont have aerial warfare experiance so we will have to see....


----------



## gambit

mean_bird said:


> gambit,
> 
> *The advantages of having a data-link is much more than simply vocal commands. You get to share real time information...you are aware of the whole war scenario...the complete overview... in front of you rather than being told by someone by voice about individual planes.*
> 
> Just as an example, look at what happened at Red Flag. The US, french, etc were all data-linked to the awacs while the indians were not...and they ended up having to call the AWACS to ask " 24miles northwest, friend or foe?" each time. And as a result they ended up either holding their fires or having friendly kills. And that is just one example. Look up that briefing by USAF officer on Red Flag on youtube.
> 
> As Saadahamed said, Muradk has said the JF-17 will be data-linked. Other forumers have also claimed that to be the case and it is even written on the PAC kamra website..you can read it yourself.
> 
> JF-17 will also have 2 secure, and independent, communication links as well.


Let me first put it this way...

A manual transmission have about 20-30 moving parts and require much inputs from the user. An automagic transmission have ten times the amount of moving parts and most of the time, an automagic transmission user is idle and blissfully unaware of the operations that motivate his automobile.

Data links are not voice commands but voice commands convey or at least imply certain data. If this venture into AWACS is the first for the Pakistani Air Force, the leadership would be wise in training his pilots the basics of coordinated tactics from an airborne controller before treading into automated data links territory. Information overload can be just as dangerous as lack of information.

In no way am I donwplaying the usefulness of data links but real time information does not always translate to better decisions. Real time data links can give a flight of fighters information about their positions in relation to the targets or even 'friend or foe' status but keep in mind that the AWACS operator possesses ten times the amount of information his radar produces while due to physical limitations, a fighter pilot is limited to what his radar can give him, which usually is about 120-140 deg of sweep. Someone has to make the final decision regarding target approach and that decision cannot be delegated to multiple recipients else there would be absolute chaos in the sky and the enemy escape in the confusion.

For example...A four-ship formation that are data linked to each other still require a coordinator, or a final decision maker, from among them regarding target engagement, such as approach altitude and angle, to maximize the surprise factor. If, in trying to hide their numbers, only one of them is transmitting his radar and sharing his radar information to his companions, someone still has to make the final decision as to when all of them will transmit and at which target, if there are multiple hostiles. Your mistake lies in conflating information and decision making.

You speak of Red Flag? I have been to a couple of Red Flag exercises in supporting my fighters on the ground. I know what teamwork involves, on the ground and in the air. Like the automagic transmission example, every individual part must know its role and function in the assembly and in actuality, the more information is available to the individuals the less flexibility each individual has because now he is more aware of potential for disastrous consequences should his 'lone wolf' attitude and initiatives failed. Data links works precisely because of the extensive trainings involved and when it works, the operation is seemingly transparent and the successes are spectacular.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mean_bird

Did I or anyone said that voice commands will cease to exist once a fighter is data-linked? 

The point I am making is simple: You better have data-links too than just voice commands and that happened in Red flag, which I quoted just for an example, where having a picture in front of you is better than having somebody telling you on the Radio. 

As already mentioned, "JF-17 will also have 2 secure, and independent, communication links as well." So nobody is stopping the use of voice commands and all tactics involve communications. You never cease to talk to each other no matter what technology you have. Data-links are not there to take over command and control but to complement it by giving real time information. 



> Data links are not voice commands but voice commands convey or at least imply certain data. If this venture into AWACS is the first for the Pakistani Air Force, the leadership would be wise in training his pilots the basics of coordinated tactics from an airborne controller before treading into automated data links territory. Information overload can be just as dangerous as lack of information.



The AWACS deal comes with a complete training. And I do not agree you have to start with voice commands and go to data-links later. The two are not replacements of each other but act in harmony to complement each other. You need to train your personnel with all the technology you have. 

A Saab erieye is already in pakistan where training is going on even before we receive our first erieye sometime later this year.


----------



## hocuspocush

IAF aiming to be Net-Centric by 2010-11

Hi Members,

I have been following this thread from the beginning and would like to mention a new system of warfare which will evolve in 21st century warfare in South Asia.

India will get its first 'eye in the sky', the Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), aircraft on May 18.
.....
.....
"The other two aircraft would be delivered by Mid or late 2010, if everything goes on schedule," 
....
....
India and Israel are reported to be in advanced negotiations for the purchase of three more Phalcon AWACS, which the IAF proposes to integrate with other air and ground assets. 

All the six AWACS would be linked with the country's first military satellite proposed to be launched by mid next year.

Refer article:
Unable to publish due to less than 15 posts.

"The AWACS, a major force multiplier for the Air Force, is also an important link in the IAF's plans to go network centric by establishing an advanced Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) through the Air Force Net (AFNET) communication network.


Under the AFNET project, the IAF has already linked about 70 per cent of its land-based assets and platforms to the IACCS, the officer said."

Refer article:
Unable to publish due to less than 15 posts.

"India is building up a satellite-based Military Surveillance and Reconnaissance System that will become operational by 2007, allowing it to keep watch on developments in its area. "

Refer article:
Unable to publish due to less than 15 posts.


"Giving a big boost to its defence surveillance capabilities, India today successfully launched an all-weather Israeli-built spy satellite that will help security agencies keep a vigil on the country's borders."

Refer article:
Unable to publish due to less than 15 posts.


Point in case: 
Any country going into a war or a war like situation would like to use all available information at its disposal to gain the maximum advantage in the event of first strike.

With India integrating it's AFNET to have a One point Command and Control center where all information would be available and thus make a strategic decision for the objective.

However, I am sure the Pakistan Defence Forces will be aware of this and might be taking appropriate steps to counter such huge advantages such as Saab2000 but I still doubt the huge advantageous position of satellite imaging system which can precisely indicate the enemy position be is Army, Navy or Air Force.

PS: I have all the links from where I have taken these excerpts. In case anybody who wishes to read these articles, please PM me or wait till I get 15 posts in this forum


----------



## Arsalan

nik007 said:


> I think pitting a jf17 against an mki would be suicide. I have many articles which say that only a Eurofighter or f22 can face this "menace".
> 
> An australian website said that even an JSF F35 cannot match it.
> 
> My reccomendation for PAF would be Eurofighter, J10B/JXX. and SAMS
> 
> Unfortunately the chinese dont have aerial warfare experiance so we will have to see....



well dude isnt it way too patriotic!!



let us be a bit more realistic man!!


----------



## mean_bird

nik007 said:


> I think pitting a jf17 against an mki would be suicide.



Pitting a Mig-21bison wasn't a suicide according to an experienced F-15 fighter flying with an AESA radar, but hey....that was an Indian 'indigenous" super-fighter against an ordinary F-15 with stupid US pilots and a less capable AESA radar. 

Here we are talking about useless 3rd generation "souped-up Mig-21" built be the incompetent Chinese against the World class Indian pilots flying the invincible Su-30MKI with a superior PESA radars. 



nik007 said:


> I have many articles which say that only a Eurofighter or f22 can face this "menace".
> 
> An australian website said that even an JSF F35 cannot match it.


The australians are very angry with you because you didnt quote the one thing why the article was written...Australia should go for the F-22 if it needs to survive.



nik007 said:


> My reccomendation for PAF would be Eurofighter, J10B/JXX. and SAMS
> 
> Unfortunately the chinese dont have aerial warfare experiance so we will have to see....



PAF appreciates highly of your recommendations for such wisely insights. It also requests a check of a few billion $ to buy those and a blueprint for the JXX so it can build it. PAF also likes to inform you of something called "postdiction" where you recommend something that has already happened, in this case PAF going for the J10B and the SAMs.

[/end sarcasm]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hasnain2009

nik007 said:


> JSF F35 cannot match MKI.



Is there any Indian who supports his claim?


----------



## Jako

Hasnain2009 said:


> Is there any Indian who supports his claim?



nope......i had a gr8 laugh anyways.......but yeah,the mki is a beast,and the best in the subcontinent and beyond.....


----------



## nik007

> well dude isnt it way too patriotic!!
> 
> 
> 
> let us be a bit more realistic man!!




What I told u was the truth. I actually read those articles. Do u want to see them?



> Here we are talking about useless 3rd generation "souped-up Mig-21" built be the incompetent Chinese against the World class Indian pilots flying the invincible Su-30MKI with a superior PESA radars.



I never said anything of that sort. I just repeated what I read. But believe what u want.



> PAF appreciates highly of your recommendations for such wisely insights. It also requests a check of a few billion $ to buy those and a blueprint for the JXX so it can build it. PAF also likes to inform you of something called "postdiction" where you recommend something that has already happened, in this case PAF going for the J10B and the SAMs.



Thanks a lot. When do I get my payment?



> Is there any Indian who supports his claim?



SU30 vs F35?
Its rit here.
Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power

But I have been pointed out that it is Australian propaganda. Although I dont fully agree


----------



## mean_bird

just for fun


----------



## tutu

pitting a jf17 against an mki in a war ...........joke !

jf-17 will only be pitting against LCA in future export competitions ...


----------



## gambit

nik007 said:


> SU30 vs F35?
> Its rit here.
> Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power
> 
> But I have been pointed out that it is Australian propaganda. Although I dont fully agree


Here is my take on just some of the Russian's claims about their junks...



> The NIIP N011M BARS phased array is the most capable fighter radar *produced by Russian industry* and is designed to support the R-77M family of ramjet missiles.


Yes...Produced by Russian industry at about a decade too late.



> The NIIP Irbis-E is an evolution of the BARS using a 20 kW ganged TWT transmitter and increases range performance significantly.


Anyone can say something like this about his product. Notice there is no contrasting figures from non-Russian equipments. Why not?



> The depicted detection range curves are based on publicly disclosed Russian performance figures for co-altitude BVR engagements. *It is evident that inside the 10-20 nautical miles envelope the radar will be able to challenge aircraft with quite good stealth characteristics.* The curves for the Agat 9B-1103M and 9B-1348E seekers are based on the most recent Agat data release, and include the TMS320 equipped digital variant. The 9B-1101K has not been included (Author - NIIP, Phazotron, Agat data).


No...It is not so 'evident'. I would like to know how did the Russians test their junks to make this claim. They do not even have a working F-117 equivalent model while we retired the aircraft.

Now on to Mr. Kopp...



> Radar
> 
> The first of these is its massive radar bay, capable of fitting a 1 metre class X-band phased array antenna. In the long range BVR combat game, radar range is a key factor and for any given radar technology, the larger the aperture the better. While the current N011M/ME BARS (Panther) and Pero (Plume) upgrades use passive array technology which delivers less peak power than competing active arrays (AESA) *it is only a matter of time before NIIP and Phazotron adapt commercial GaAs MMIC technology (98% of the total GaAs chip market) to build an AESA variant competitive against the AESAs in the latest Western evolved 3rd Gen fighters.*


What Kopp omitted to disclose, may be because of writing space limitation, is that having active T/R modules is only half of the AESA operation equation, the other half is the software required to fully exploit the flexibility of these T/R modules. After all, if sheer radar transmit power is the only factor in any air-air engagements, then a PESA system is fully adequate, as Kopp correctly pointed out...


> With similar TR (Transmit-Receive) module performance, the fighter with *the largest aperture size wins* in this game - for instance the N011M has around twice the aperture size of the JSF AESA and F/A-18E/F's APG-79 and even with inferior TR module technology will be highly competitive.


In radar detection, distance and array dimension (or aperture) has a direct relationship. Large early warning radars capable of reaching out thousands of km from shore are literally in tens of meters across in antenna aperture. So yes...If the intention is to detect one's opponent as far from one's self as possible then the larger array will have the advantage.

But the reason why an Active Elect. Scan Array (AESA) is far more desirable is the fact that because each T/R module can be individually powered on/off and in clusters, an AESA antenna through a process called 'subarray partitioning' can become several antennas *AT ONCE*. One subarray can transmit at one freq, another subarray can be a jammer against enemy radar, another subarray can transmit in another freq, and another subarray can act as a data link to other aircrafts. All can be done at the same time. Frequency agility is when a radar will transmit in sequence different freqs to counteract ECM. Not only can an AESA system move from one freq to another, but *ALL* of its subarrays can perform freq. agility at the same time, making jamming a determined AESA antenna nearly impossible. As if that is not enough, a subarray's aperture can be dynamically resized as tactically needed. To prevent the subarrays from interfering each other's operations, they will be separated by a border of nontransmitting T/R modules. This capability is not possible unless there are appropriate avionics and softwares. The US is installing AESA systems into the F-15 and F-18 and here we have the Russians telling everyone that 'soon' they will be able to produce T/R modules.


----------



## Arsalan

ha ha!

nice one, but it is true that currently Su30 is the best atleast in our part of the world! this think may come to an end with PAF inducting F16 block 52 and china developing there J10 and its more advanced versoins!!

regards


----------



## tutu

arsalanaslam123 said:


> ha ha!
> 
> nice one, but it is true that currently Su30 is the best atleast in our part of the world! this think may come to an end with PAF inducting F16 block 52 and china developing there J10 and its more advanced versoins!!
> 
> regards



china developing J10 ..........So.........are they going to give you that free ?


----------



## Munir

tutu said:


> china developing J10 ..........So.........are they going to give you that free ?



For you a question. Atleast they are not robbed like IAF (Hawk prices, MKI prices and maintenance headache, Israeli parts and consultancy prices...).

It is intresting to see Indians loving to have Israeli flag... Without it they are probably nothing. Not even able to produce basic equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Munir said:


> For you a question. Atleast they are not robbed like IAF (Hawk prices, MKI prices and maintenance headache, Israeli parts and consultancy prices...).
> 
> It is intresting to see Indians loving to have Israeli flag... Without it they are probably nothing. Not even able to produce basic equipment.



congrats sir on having 1500 usefull and informative posts, thanks for the valuable info you have shared!!

very true, the indian are not able to do anything all on themselves.

they keep on saying all the pakistani equipment which we call indegenious are infact just chines copies! !

lets us have a look at them
they tried to make LCA and arjun all on there own and now both these projects are messed upto such a level that even foreign help has not been able to help them out! 

paksiatn have been devloping manyproducts that are 100% home made! the UAVs, many guns at POF like the POF EYE, missiles and many more! also pakistan is able to make lots of products at home after ToT and assistance of our chines friends!


----------



## Arsalan

tutu said:


> china developing J10 ..........So.........are they going to give you that free ?




dont you worry dude we will be able to BUY them, chines will also be helping us with loan payments! you must concentrate on your own MRCA, i dont think US will be giving these for free!!


----------



## maverick2009

ARSLANASLAM .. 

Is correct that SU30MKI is the best in south Asia right now only because the rest in South Asia is junk including both basic F16 A/B & MIG29. 

Both IAF & PAF fly 70&#37; plus pure obselete planes like MIG21/ F7 & MIRAGE 5s 
That most air forces phased out decades ago. 

F16/52 will bridge the gap MASSIVELY from 2011 onwards

As for FC20 thats like 5 years away. even then PAF have only ordered 36 planes . I ASK WHY so few. ???

In 5 YEARS TIME the sub continent will probably have a AESA equipped F18SH in the ranks or even the Typhoon/Rafale.


----------



## paritosh

but then sheer numerical superiority...is important too...


----------



## tutu

arsalanaslam123 said:


> dont you worry dude we will be able to BUY them, chines will also be helping us with loan payments! you must concentrate on your own MRCA, i dont think US will be giving these for free!!



like the US given you F-16 for free ?


----------



## IceCold

tutu said:


> china developing J10 ..........So.........are they going to give you that free ?



If you have nothing constructive to add then shut up go troll some place else. Try BR.


----------



## tutu

Munir said:


> It is intresting to see Indians loving to have Israeli flag... .



coz all KAFIRS has became united ....


----------



## Owais

tutu said:


> coz all KAFIRS has became united ....



yea All kafirs are United  but still need Muslim countries to survive. their oil is coming from Arab, their half of economy is running on export to Muslim countries, Muslims have most of shipping routes and they need countries like Pakistan to get natural resources of central asia


----------



## Arsalan

tutu said:


> like the US given you F-16 for free ?



no one said that dude! infact i have almost always opposed this project because of unreliability of US asa an arms supplier to pakistan! you seem too much worried about pakistans procurements man! thanks for your concern but 
*as sir icecold have said*


> If you have nothing constructive to add then shut up go troll some place else. Try BR.


----------



## Gucci Juice

^

that may soon end(in 10-15 years) at least for us here in the USA, electric cars are becoming all the rage, and for regular cars algae biofuels show great potential, they wont affect world food prices, they dont use too much land, and they multiply rapidly.

that combined with replacing coal fired plants with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear plants.


so if the oil-producing countries dont diversify, their economies are screwed.

and dubai tried to diversify, tried to become a world city, but that's impossible with only 3 million people and a zillion skyscrapers that noone wants to live in. they need to have a sustainable diversification.


----------



## Arsalan

maverick2009 said:


> As for FC20 thats like 5 years away. even then PAF have only ordered 36 planes . I ASK WHY so few. ???
> 
> In 5 YEARS TIME the sub continent will probably have a AESA equipped F18SH in the ranks or even the Typhoon/Rafale.



this is perhaps due to th fact that paksitan air force is trying to diversefy its equipment!

you can see that we are flying american, chines and french planes, swedish AWACS using some weapons from south africa as well! so probably PAF alos wants to induct two different platform for its high end requirment!
also it may be case that PAF will try these jets for some time, in the mean while if we get finances for some other planes PAF might go for gripen or Rafale and if not so then option of ordering more J10 is always there!

regards!


----------



## Contrarian

mean_bird said:


> Pitting a Mig-21bison wasn't a suicide according to an experienced F-15 fighter flying with an AESA radar, but hey....that was an Indian 'indigenous" super-fighter against an ordinary F-15 with stupid US pilots and a less capable AESA radar.
> 
> Here we are talking about useless 3rd generation "souped-up Mig-21" built be the incompetent Chinese against the World class Indian pilots flying the invincible Su-30MKI with a superior PESA radars.



Haha. Just HAD to quote it mate. It's wayy too funny!


----------



## nik007

You Pakistanis are letting nationalistic feelings get in the way of rational thinking. Here is my take:


PAF enjoyed qualitative superiority decades back although IAF had a 2:1 numerical advantage. If Pakistani sources are to be believed, they even got a 3:1 kill ratio which is very impressive.
h**p://www.subcontinent.com/1971war/skies_west.html
Now, although the IAF mantains the same ratio numerically, the past few years have witnessed tremendous upgrades in the airplanes to such an extent that IAF can enjoy superiority over even chinese PLAAF, forget about pakistan.
h**p://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492118/posts

Pilot Training: PAF were trained by US pilots earlier and did a fairly good job over the Indians who recieved inferior training. Now, there is SPECULATION that IAF training might even surpass the US which they found after joint exercises. (They both have different doctrines. Its like comparing apples and tomatoes)
h**p://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
I have found many websites and blogs that praise the IAF perfomances. Here is a US report in which India is mentioned as a country with great potential for air dominance. It also says that IAF has maintained an admirable record of professionalism. Not surprisingly, Pakistan or PAF is not mentioned anywhere.
h**p://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/0908air_dominance.pdf

The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected, Snowden says. India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. 
h**p://taiwantp.net/cgi/TWforum.pl?board_id=6&type=show_post&post=449_6

"The Indian Air Force is a world-class air force with great aircraft, great pilots, and great leadership," said Capt. Marcus Wilson, an Aggressor pilot at Nellis and the team chief for the exercise.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2009/articles/jan_09/indian_af_redflag/index.html

Indian AF Su-30K during the Cope India exercise. The Flanker's soundly defeated US Air Force F-15Cs during this exercise, exploiting not only superior BVR radar/missile capabilities, but also the TKS-2 datalink, used to network flights of Flankers 
h**p://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.htmlgazine.com/archives/2009/articles/jan_09/indian_af_redflag/index.html



"We came rolling in, like, 'Beep-beep, superpower coming through,'" Colonel Fornof told me. "And we had our eyes opened. We learned a lot. By the third week, we were facing a threat that we weren't prepared to face, because we had underestimated them. They had figured out how to take Russian-built equipment and improve upon it."
Black Hawk Down author Mark Bowden
h**p://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/infamous-youtube-star-fornof-r.html 


The Chinese get their hardware and technology from the Russians who give it half heartedly (read territorial disputes, illeagal technology copying).
India on the other hand enjoys complete access to the best of what Russia has to offer.
The radar in the su30mki for eg, is highly advanced and highly classified N011BARS which is a variant for their 5th generation PAKFA (which also India will receive) and is currently only employed for the MKI. The su 30s give to India are considered to be the best of flankers, much superior to chinese su30mkk. Forget about Pakistan, but the IAF seems more likely to receive 5th gen planes from Russia much before China can come up with its own. Also there is the induction of 126 MRCA airplanes as well as 4.5th gen Tejas (intended to be a mass produced workhorse. Inducted by 2012).

The writer also seems to greatly underestimate IAF planes which have all the best combinations of Russian, Israeli and some western components. Also India has its own base of very competent scientists who excel in many fields including avionics (h**p://users.erols.com/ziqbal/ih2.htm) and therefore puts a lot into aircraft upgrade and development. The mig21 bison for eg, is invisible to even US airplanes (from the red flag USAF pilot). forget about the chinese/pakistani JF 17.

Also IAF pilots have recently participated in numerous aerial exercises increasing their experience. I am not aware of any major recent exercises of the PAF.

In conclusion, I can say that although PAF has an airforce that can more than match anything an average country can put up, compared with India, it is a different story.
India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win. (considering from statistics of globalsecurity and other sources)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakpower

> You Pakistanis are letting nationalistic feelings get in the way of rational thinking. Here is my take:
> 
> 
> PAF enjoyed qualitative superiority decades back although IAF had a 2:1 numerical advantage. If Pakistani sources are to be believed, they even got a 3:1 kill ratio which is very impressive.
> h**p://www.subcontinent.com/1971war/skies_west.html
> Now, although the IAF mantains the same ratio numerically, the past few years have witnessed tremendous upgrades in the airplanes to such an extent that IAF can enjoy superiority over even chinese PLAAF, forget about pakistan.
> h**p://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492118/posts
> 
> Pilot Training: PAF were trained by US pilots earlier and did a fairly good job over the Indians who recieved inferior training. Now, there is SPECULATION that IAF training might even surpass the US which they found after joint exercises. (They both have different doctrines. Its like comparing apples and tomatoes)
> h**p://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
> I have found many websites and blogs that praise the IAF perfomances. Here is a US report in which India is mentioned as a country with great potential for air dominance. It also says that IAF has maintained an admirable record of professionalism. Not surprisingly, Pakistan or PAF is not mentioned anywhere.
> h**p://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/0908air_dominance.pdf
> 
> The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected, Snowden says. India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force.
> h**p://taiwantp.net/cgi/TWforum.pl?board_id=6&type=show_post&post=449_6
> 
> "The Indian Air Force is a world-class air force with great aircraft, great pilots, and great leadership," said Capt. Marcus Wilson, an Aggressor pilot at Nellis and the team chief for the exercise.
> http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...lag/index.html
> 
> Indian AF Su-30K during the Cope India exercise. The Flanker's soundly defeated US Air Force F-15Cs during this exercise, exploiting not only superior BVR radar/missile capabilities, but also the TKS-2 datalink, used to network flights of Flankers
> h**p://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.htmlgazine.com/archives/2009/articles/jan_09/indian_af_redflag/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> "We came rolling in, like, 'Beep-beep, superpower coming through,'" Colonel Fornof told me. "And we had our eyes opened. We learned a lot. By the third week, we were facing a threat that we weren't prepared to face, because we had underestimated them. They had figured out how to take Russian-built equipment and improve upon it."
> Black Hawk Down author Mark Bowden
> h**p://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/infamous-youtube-star-fornof-r.html
> 
> 
> The Chinese get their hardware and technology from the Russians who give it half heartedly (read territorial disputes, illeagal technology copying).
> India on the other hand enjoys complete access to the best of what Russia has to offer.
> The radar in the su30mki for eg, is highly advanced and highly classified N011BARS which is a variant for their 5th generation PAKFA (which also India will receive) and is currently only employed for the MKI. The su 30s give to India are considered to be the best of flankers, much superior to chinese su30mkk. Forget about Pakistan, but the IAF seems more likely to receive 5th gen planes from Russia much before China can come up with its own. Also there is the induction of 126 MRCA airplanes as well as 4.5th gen Tejas (intended to be a mass produced workhorse. Inducted by 2012).
> 
> The writer also seems to greatly underestimate IAF planes which have all the best combinations of Russian, Israeli and some western components. Also India has its own base of very competent scientists who excel in many fields including avionics (h**p://users.erols.com/ziqbal/ih2.htm) and therefore puts a lot into aircraft upgrade and development. The mig21 bison for eg, is invisible to even US airplanes (from the red flag USAF pilot). forget about the chinese/pakistani JF 17.
> 
> Also IAF pilots have recently participated in numerous aerial exercises increasing their experience. I am not aware of any major recent exercises of the PAF.
> 
> In conclusion, I can say that although PAF has an airforce that can more than match anything an average country can put up, compared with India, it is a different story.
> India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win. (considering from statistics of globalsecurity and other sources)



Baby ohh Baby stop Day Dreaming and search the facts which always remains the facts. Well I found out this Day Dreaming in most of the young indians guys which is good for them but not in actual reality.

 If you enjoy by having day dreaming then keep on dreaming enjoy guys these are not the facts which you revealed above.


----------



## nik007

pakpower said:


> Baby ohh Baby stop Day Dreaming and search the facts which always remains the facts. Well I found out this Day Dreaming in most of the young indians guys which is good for them but not in actual reality.
> 
> If you enjoy by having day dreaming then keep on dreaming enjoy guys these are not the facts which you revealed above.



OK. I suppose people who wrote those sources were also dreaming with me?


----------



## pakpower

> OK. I suppose people who wrote those sources were also dreaming with me?



I am not like you who does that pathatic things in life I think it's you who do that. like day dreaming etc......................


----------



## hj786

When will moderators here take action against these stupid 10 year old trolls? They refuse to bring sources to back anything they say while thumping their chests.

Bringing up Cope India shouting their flankers beat F-15Cs while forgetting to mention F-15s had no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, huge numerical disadvantage, unfamiliar terrain. Then their ONLY source for their flankers having "BVR superiority" is an Australian article that is universally ridiculed. Of course they don't dare bring that article up on Western forums because they will be laughed at and proved wrong.

Then there's the part where they think PAF doesn't do exercises, meanwhile PAF pilots here talk about how they go watch Red Flag. PAF goes over to Turkey to train with TuAF, Germans, Americans and others at Anatolian Eagle and we hear that their anti-BVR tactics and ECM equipment worked so well that nobody got a simulated BVRAAM kill on a PAF F-16.
Of course they forget that PAF instruct and fly for several Arab air forces in the latest F-16s, Mirage 2000s, etc.

While these kids brag that their upgraded Mig-21s shot down F-15s in exercises, they don't know that PAF in an exercise with USAF has F-15 kills while flying... original Chinese-built Mig-19s! Yes, the Mig-21's predecessor with no upgrades whatsoever - no radar, no EW/ECM, no datalink, nothing except a martin baker ejection seat and a pair of AIM-9L has kills on the F-15. Of course the USAF said exactly the same thing then as they did when India needed big bad flankers and upgraded Mig-21 to beat them... "we underestimated them, their tactics were totally unexpected".

Then there's JF-17. These trolls still don't understand how to counter a 12 million dollar "3rd generation upgraded J-7" with a thrust/weight of 1, F-16A agility, helmet mounted targeting, AWACS datalink, ~100km radar range and the latest Chinese missile tech that's based on the InAF's very own R-77. So they just come here whining that "you Pakistanis are being nationalistic. JF-17 is crap because we say so." Keep dreaming, kiddies. 

"India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win." 
"India can get air superiority over PLAAF." 
"Mig-21 bison is invisible to radar." 

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way. 

Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Arsalan

hj786 said:


> When will moderators here take action against these stupid 10 year old trolls? They refuse to bring sources to back anything they say while thumping their chests.
> 
> Bringing up Cope India shouting their flankers beat F-15Cs while forgetting to mention F-15s had no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, huge numerical disadvantage, unfamiliar terrain. Then their ONLY source for their flankers having "BVR superiority" is an Australian article that is universally ridiculed. Of course they don't dare bring that article up on Western forums because they will be laughed at and proved wrong.
> 
> Then there's the part where they think PAF doesn't do exercises, meanwhile PAF pilots here talk about how they go watch Red Flag. PAF goes over to Turkey to train with TuAF, Germans, Americans and others at Anatolian Eagle and we hear that their anti-BVR tactics and ECM equipment worked so well that nobody got a simulated BVRAAM kill on a PAF F-16.
> Of course they forget that PAF instruct and fly for several Arab air forces in the latest F-16s, Mirage 2000s, etc.
> 
> While these kids brag that their upgraded Mig-21s shot down F-15s in exercises, they don't know that PAF in an exercise with USAF has F-15 kills while flying... original Chinese-built Mig-19s! Yes, the Mig-21's predecessor with no upgrades whatsoever - no radar, no EW/ECM, no datalink, nothing except a martin baker ejection seat and a pair of AIM-9L has kills on the F-15. Of course the USAF said exactly the same thing then as they did when India needed big bad flankers and upgraded Mig-21 to beat them... "we underestimated them, their tactics were totally unexpected".
> 
> Then there's JF-17. These trolls still don't understand how to counter a 12 million dollar "3rd generation upgraded J-7" with a thrust/weight of 1, F-16A agility, helmet mounted targeting, AWACS datalink, ~100km radar range and the latest Chinese missile tech that's based on the InAF's very own R-77. So they just come here whining that "you Pakistanis are being nationalistic. JF-17 is crap because we say so." Keep dreaming, kiddies.
> 
> "India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win."
> "India can get air superiority over PLAAF."
> "Mig-21 bison is invisible to radar."
> 
> Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way.
> 
> Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?




well brother i dont want to repeat the same post again and again but ithink you do not understand what the great indain  and myself  have been trying to tell you!! 

dear how the hell can we compare indian with any power in this world! you talk about there Mig 21  ,, 
trust me even if they were flying world war-I bi-planes they would have easily defeated the dumb USAF , not because the reason you mentioned that the US were not having AMRAAM or the AWACS, but because the IAF is flown by indian pilots, people with super natural powers!!  there palnes as i saod earlier are data linked to BHAGWAN and they will whip out anyone and everone from the air!! 

i hope you understand my point and in future take care of how to replay to these greay people otherwise they are going to kill you by shooting you vai your net!! beleive me bro they are that advance


----------



## pakpower

> well brother i dont want to repeat the same post again and again but ithink you do not understand what the great indain and myself have been trying to tell you!!
> 
> dear how the hell can we compare indian with any power in this world! you talk about there Mig 21 ,,
> trust me even if they were flying world war-I bi-planes they would have easily defeated the dumb USAF , not because the reason you mentioned that the US were not having AMRAAM or the AWACS, but because the IAF is flown by indian pilots, people with super natural powers!! there palnes as i saod earlier are data linked to BHAGWAN and they will whip out anyone and everone from the air!!
> 
> i hope you understand my point and in future take care of how to replay to these greay people otherwise they are going to kill you by shooting you vai your net!! beleive me bro they are that advance



Brother you really greatly portray these indians in your thoughts they actually more then this all you have said.


----------



## paritosh

hj786 said:


> When will moderators here take action against these stupid 10 year old trolls? They refuse to bring sources to back anything they say while thumping their chests.
> 
> Bringing up Cope India shouting their flankers beat F-15Cs while forgetting to mention F-15s had no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, huge numerical disadvantage, unfamiliar terrain. Then their ONLY source for their flankers having "BVR superiority" is an Australian article that is universally ridiculed. Of course they don't dare bring that article up on Western forums because they will be laughed at and proved wrong.
> 
> Then there's the part where they think PAF doesn't do exercises, meanwhile PAF pilots here talk about how they go watch Red Flag. PAF goes over to Turkey to train with TuAF, Germans, Americans and others at Anatolian Eagle and we hear that their anti-BVR tactics and ECM equipment worked so well that nobody got a simulated BVRAAM kill on a PAF F-16.
> Of course they forget that PAF instruct and fly for several Arab air forces in the latest F-16s, Mirage 2000s, etc.
> 
> While these kids brag that their upgraded Mig-21s shot down F-15s in exercises, they don't know that PAF in an exercise with USAF has F-15 kills while flying... original Chinese-built Mig-19s! Yes, the Mig-21's predecessor with no upgrades whatsoever - no radar, no EW/ECM, no datalink, nothing except a martin baker ejection seat and a pair of AIM-9L has kills on the F-15. Of course the USAF said exactly the same thing then as they did when India needed big bad flankers and upgraded Mig-21 to beat them... "we underestimated them, their tactics were totally unexpected".
> 
> Then there's JF-17. These trolls still don't understand how to counter a 12 million dollar "3rd generation upgraded J-7" with a thrust/weight of 1, F-16A agility, helmet mounted targeting, AWACS datalink, ~100km radar range and the latest Chinese missile tech that's based on the InAF's very own R-77. So they just come here whining that "you Pakistanis are being nationalistic. JF-17 is crap because we say so." Keep dreaming, kiddies.
> 
> "India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win."
> "India can get air superiority over PLAAF."
> "Mig-21 bison is invisible to radar."
> 
> Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way.
> 
> Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?



is there any good link....or a video to the results of a PAf-USAF air exercise?


----------



## Manticore

> IAF kills in 1965: 16 In-Air + 8 On-Ground= 24 Kills
> IAF kills in 1965
> IAF Looses in 1965: 38 In-Air + 37 On-Ground= 75 Losses
> Indian Air Force Losses -1965 War
> IAF kills in 1971: 20 In-Air + 23 On-Ground= 43 Kills
> IAF Kills in 1971
> IAF Looses in 1971: 75 Confirmed + 17 Unconfimed= 92 Losses
> Indian Air Force Losses in the 1971 War
> IAF kills 1990-till date: 1 Navy Survalence Aircraft
> IAF shoots down Pakistan spy plane over Gujarat
> IAF losses 1990-till date: 5 + 1 UAV=6
> IAF Losses in 1990s



i hope you can believe your own bharat-rakshak figures


----------



## nik007

hj786 said:


> When will moderators here take action against these stupid 10 year old trolls? They refuse to bring sources to back anything they say while thumping their chests.
> 
> Bringing up Cope India shouting their flankers beat F-15Cs while forgetting to mention F-15s had no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, huge numerical disadvantage, unfamiliar terrain. Then their ONLY source for their flankers having "BVR superiority" is an Australian article that is universally ridiculed. Of course they don't dare bring that article up on Western forums because they will be laughed at and proved wrong.
> 
> Then there's the part where they think PAF doesn't do exercises, meanwhile PAF pilots here talk about how they go watch Red Flag. PAF goes over to Turkey to train with TuAF, Germans, Americans and others at Anatolian Eagle and we hear that their anti-BVR tactics and ECM equipment worked so well that nobody got a simulated BVRAAM kill on a PAF F-16.
> Of course they forget that PAF instruct and fly for several Arab air forces in the latest F-16s, Mirage 2000s, etc.
> 
> While these kids brag that their upgraded Mig-21s shot down F-15s in exercises, they don't know that PAF in an exercise with USAF has F-15 kills while flying... original Chinese-built Mig-19s! Yes, the Mig-21's predecessor with no upgrades whatsoever - no radar, no EW/ECM, no datalink, nothing except a martin baker ejection seat and a pair of AIM-9L has kills on the F-15. Of course the USAF said exactly the same thing then as they did when India needed big bad flankers and upgraded Mig-21 to beat them... "we underestimated them, their tactics were totally unexpected".
> 
> Then there's JF-17. These trolls still don't understand how to counter a 12 million dollar "3rd generation upgraded J-7" with a thrust/weight of 1, F-16A agility, helmet mounted targeting, AWACS datalink, ~100km radar range and the latest Chinese missile tech that's based on the InAF's very own R-77. So they just come here whining that "you Pakistanis are being nationalistic. JF-17 is crap because we say so." Keep dreaming, kiddies.
> 
> "India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win."
> "India can get air superiority over PLAAF."
> "Mig-21 bison is invisible to radar."
> 
> Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way.
> 
> Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?



if what u say is true, then paf is really good.

unfortunately, u dont have any sources


----------



## nik007

> Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way.



ever heard of ELINT?



> Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?



THANK GOD all pakistanis are not biased like u


----------



## PAFAce

hj786 said:


> When will moderators here take action against these stupid 10 year old trolls? They refuse to bring sources to back anything they say while thumping their chests.
> 
> Bringing up Cope India shouting their flankers beat F-15Cs while forgetting to mention F-15s had no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, huge numerical disadvantage, unfamiliar terrain. Then their ONLY source for their flankers having "BVR superiority" is an Australian article that is universally ridiculed. Of course they don't dare bring that article up on Western forums because they will be laughed at and proved wrong.
> 
> Then there's the part where they think PAF doesn't do exercises, meanwhile PAF pilots here talk about how they go watch Red Flag. PAF goes over to Turkey to train with TuAF, Germans, Americans and others at Anatolian Eagle and we hear that their anti-BVR tactics and ECM equipment worked so well that nobody got a simulated BVRAAM kill on a PAF F-16.
> Of course they forget that PAF instruct and fly for several Arab air forces in the latest F-16s, Mirage 2000s, etc.
> 
> While these kids brag that their upgraded Mig-21s shot down F-15s in exercises, they don't know that PAF in an exercise with USAF has F-15 kills while flying... original Chinese-built Mig-19s! Yes, the Mig-21's predecessor with no upgrades whatsoever - no radar, no EW/ECM, no datalink, nothing except a martin baker ejection seat and a pair of AIM-9L has kills on the F-15. Of course the USAF said exactly the same thing then as they did when India needed big bad flankers and upgraded Mig-21 to beat them... "we underestimated them, their tactics were totally unexpected".
> 
> Then there's JF-17. These trolls still don't understand how to counter a 12 million dollar "3rd generation upgraded J-7" with a thrust/weight of 1, F-16A agility, helmet mounted targeting, AWACS datalink, ~100km radar range and the latest Chinese missile tech that's based on the InAF's very own R-77. So they just come here whining that "you Pakistanis are being nationalistic. JF-17 is crap because we say so." Keep dreaming, kiddies.
> 
> "India has the ability to take on Pakistan as well as all Muslim countries combined without external help and still win."
> "India can get air superiority over PLAAF."
> "Mig-21 bison is invisible to radar."
> 
> Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's all BS. Never mind. BTW we're still waiting for those surgical strikes you kids got excited about some time ago... did the big bad InAF chicken out? A couple hundred F-7s and Mirages from the 60s scared away the latest flankers? No way.
> 
> Dear moderators - how about sending these trolls on a one way all-expenses paid trip to Banistan?



Three cheers for hj786! Remind me to never tick him off!

Just a few days ago I saw a video on youtube ranking the Su-30MKI as the second best aircraft in the world, and calling the JF-17 a "3rd generation platform with some 4th generation capabilities". I tried to suggest that the guy do some research, but when I got the same old BS from him as you find on this thread, I decided to cut my losses and get the eff out. It really is like banging your head against a wall, only much more frustrating. 

If you notice, most sensible people now stay away from this thread altogether. I was going to do the same, but I had to reply to your post. Now, let's let this trash-fest die off on its own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nik007

PAFAce said:


> Three cheers for hj786! Remind me to never tick him off!
> 
> Just a few days ago I saw a video on youtube ranking the Su-30MKI as the second best aircraft in the world, and calling the JF-17 a "3rd generation platform with some 4th generation capabilities". I tried to suggest that the guy do some research, but when I got the same old BS from him as you find on this thread, I decided to cut my losses and get the eff out. It really is like banging your head against a wall, only much more frustrating.
> 
> If you notice, most sensible people now stay away from this thread altogether. I was going to do the same, but I had to reply to your post. Now, let's let this trash-fest die off on its own.



u r actually backing up a guy who makes tall claims with no proof? 

su30mki is not 2nd best, its 3rd. 2nd is eurofighter


----------



## Munir

I think in real combat we just do not know enough cause the F22 loses in wvr arena even from a T38. Certainly from a f16. When we see the whole system then the F22 is huge and expensive. You need sats, costly maintenance and surely numbers. I think the dominance by F22 is a bit far fetched. A nuclear nation will not accept that dominance and sofar the latest US planes could only achieve dominance after years of manipulation and degradation of the opponent (politicially, economically and technically). Nations like India and Pakistan are not suspectible to that. Nation like Russia and China are far above that level. So the dominance will be for the third world which hardly can achieve a decent airforce.

India is gradually moving from Mig21 era to more regional force. The problem is that the nation that surround it are not very happy with that. The plus is that India needs to import superiority and that leads to more and more problems. I do not mean that India has no workforce or intellectuals. The contrary is true. The produce very big and impressive numbers of well educated people. But in the field of defence or military equipment they are more basic then nations like China and Pakistan. The fact remains... Israel and South Africa showed. North Korea and Iran do the same... If you are treated like a paria you will have better results then a nation that gets all the support. India gets help from every nation (greed based) but is can not succeed in making Arjun/LCA etc. Why? It has the luxary of able to buy it. Same happens with arabs. They are filled with cash and hardly have achieven anything else then that. UAE shifted to real estate but that is pretty a dead end. Arab nations import everything and sofar exported wordl class items like Osama. They have no democarcy and the top is as corrupt as possible. They cannot threat Israel (not personally supported cause we should accept it as a nation) nor are they able to work as a team or decrease poverty under muslims. I think the pride of being a fellow muslim decreases when you are able to visit an arab nation...

Ok, let us return to the topic. Both India and Pakistan are not easy targets. Even outdated equipment in these hands is impressive. They both have pretty strong national feelings. They both posses power (in anyway) to get what they want. If that means totally boycot then they accept it as a fate. At the moment they are showing that while they both were third world almost 2 decades ago they now posses military power to be threat to 99&#37; of the world. Only a few nations are able to stop them and then it will not mean a walk in the park. Adding to that is that they both are responsible nations. They have fought a few wars but they handled it much better then other developed nations. They never conquered other continents nor are a threat to others.


----------



## paritosh

Munir said:


> I think in real combat we just do not know enough cause the F22 loses in wvr arena even from a T38. Certainly from a f16. When we see the whole system then the F22 is huge and expensive. You need sats, costly maintenance and surely numbers. I think the dominance by F22 is a bit far fetched. A nuclear nation will not accept that dominance and sofar the latest US planes could only achieve dominance after years of manipulation and degradation of the opponent (politicially, economically and technically). Nations like India and Pakistan are not suspectible to that. Nation like Russia and China are far above that level. So the dominance will be for the third world which hardly can achieve a decent airforce.
> 
> India is gradually moving from Mig21 era to more regional force. The problem is that the nation that surround it are not very happy with that. The plus is that India needs to import superiority and that leads to more and more problems. I do not mean that India has no workforce or intellectuals. The contrary is true. The produce very big and impressive numbers of well educated people. But in the field of defence or military equipment they are more basic then nations like China and Pakistan. The fact remains... Israel and South Africa showed. North Korea and Iran do the same... If you are treated like a paria you will have better results then a nation that gets all the support. India gets help from every nation (greed based) but is can not succeed in making Arjun/LCA etc. Why? It has the luxary of able to buy it. Same happens with arabs. They are filled with cash and hardly have achieven anything else then that. UAE shifted to real estate but that is pretty a dead end. Arab nations import everything and sofar exported wordl class items like Osama. They have no democarcy and the top is as corrupt as possible. They cannot threat Israel (not personally supported cause we should accept it as a nation) nor are they able to work as a team or decrease poverty under muslims. I think the pride of being a fellow muslim decreases when you are able to visit an arab nation...
> 
> Ok, let us return to the topic. Both India and Pakistan are not easy targets. Even outdated equipment in these hands is impressive. They both have pretty strong national feelings. They both posses power (in anyway) to get what they want. If that means totally boycot then they accept it as a fate. At the moment they are showing that while they both were third world almost 2 decades ago they now posses military power to be threat to 99&#37; of the world. Only a few nations are able to stop them and then it will not mean a walk in the park. Adding to that is that they both are responsible nations. They have fought a few wars but they handled it much better then other developed nations. They never conquered other continents nor are a threat to others.



i like your post...just that...i fail to understand why you claim the pakistani indigenous weapon programs to be better than the indian ones..?
we are actually hijacking this thread...but i hope that we can sensibly put our doubts to rest.
you claim that India "imports it's superiority"
most of our imports have a significant indigenous input to them...like the SU-30 Mki...it is a lot different from the other Su-30s...
the LCA is not a failure...it flies...money is being invested and advanced prototypes are in order...it has completed more than a thousand flying hours...none has crashed..weapon testing is done...
we have gained enough experience for the MCA program...which has transformed from a fanboy's rumor to a reality...
and the Jf-17 is a chinese plane...made to fit the PAf description...i asked people here quite a while back...in some different thread to prove me otherwise...i got no real reply..
Al-Khalid or MBT-2000 has been made with the Chinese assistance...
a good counter to my claims would be Brahmos...but i really can point out the indian and the russian input in the development of the Brahmos...

and believe me...we have the money now to field the best of both the east and the west...while invest in improving our domestic tech through hierarchical indigenous programs and ToT from other programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Munir

If you read between the lines then there is no difference where they get it. Mostly with foreign input. Pakistani products rely on China (and some others) while India gets its tech from Russia and Israel. The difference is that Pakistan starts with less then best concept and gradually alters it locally to better. India jumps to f22 level and it fails... Unless you provide me info where Indian products are surpassing the original concept we can keep this as a basic fact.

Your option would be that India sets higher goal but then again takes more risks and maybe gets more tech input... Pakistan cannot afford the same risk, hence it goes from well known and tested ideas with tot towards Pakistan products...


----------



## zombie:-)

Munir said:


> If you read between the lines then there is no difference where they get it. Mostly with foreign input. Pakistani products rely on China (and some others) while India gets its tech from Russia and Israel. The difference is that Pakistan starts with less then best concept and gradually alters it locally to better. India jumps to f22 level and it fails... Unless you provide me info where Indian products are surpassing the original concept we can keep this as a basic fact.
> 
> Your option would be that India sets higher goal but then again takes more risks and maybe gets more tech input... Pakistan cannot afford the same risk, hence it goes from well known and tested ideas with tot towards Pakistan products...



so how is it better than what we do .....please dont try to tell Pakistanis are the only smart people an earth .....then it'll be like Pakistanis are taller and fairer than Indians contest......yes we do some things and we do fail sometimes .....by the claims you make ...it says pakistan never fails anything it tries to develop .....if thats what you are telling .... STOP BOASTING...first you can try giving some CREDIBLE RESOURCES on stuff developed in pakistan which is better than the one it is modeled on .....i am asking you this because .....i want to point out the fact that any source from india about indian projects will not be considered as credible ....same applies for pakistan


AND FOR SOURCES ...ill post some things about MISSION COMPUTERS AND RWRs,INTEGRATED EW SUITS,AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT,MOBILE TEST EQUIPMENTS developed by DARE which is going into the su-30mki ,jaguar ,mig-27 upgrades,and the LCA


----------



## Rafael

RajsParadise said:


> Lets applaud the almighty JF-17 (Joint Fighter17) the unassailable Chinese & Pakistans joint venture, which with the current avionics can dogfight even against the best of flankers and can even outclass it inspite of the fact that the flankers has proven track record and its advanced avionics. The almighty JF-17 Block  II will outclass F-18 SH and even Rafaela or Euro Typhoon. And with Pakistan acquiring 36 J10B which are Chineses answer to the world for F-22 Pakistan will rule the skies of South-East Asia along with its Brother China. And if U.S provides F-16 Block 52 and Mirage Rose Upgrade and SaaB Erieye Pakistan AirForce will command the skies of its region.
> Poor India with 230 Russian Made Flankers and Mig-21 Bis which do have BVRAAM capability and Mirage 2000 5/9 upgrade, Mig 27, Jaguars, Mig 29s in its repository till 2025 who are in the process of acquiring some 126-200 F-18 SH/Rafale/Mig -35, which is in a Joint Venture in PAK/FA, and HAL Tejas taking its trails to be inducted in the class of 4.5 gen fighter will need to be a defensive airforce with Awacs in its skies because if Pakistan and China attacks India it will have no external support from either U.S.A, Israel, Russia, France or for that matter NATO forces.
> Pakistan has Babur Crusie Missiles which can be lifted of with Nuclear War heads 100s of them at once along with Shaeen- I, II, III and other state of art missiles leaving no option for India to Retaliate. Mighty, Mighty alliance of China and Pakistan.
> On the other hand Indias with Agni, Prithvi, Brahmos, astra, Nag, and its own Air defence system which is considered better than Patriot or Arrow will have to Succumb to the potential effect and aftermath of the destructive force of Pakistan.
> &#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;&#61514;
> I never ever found anyone having a constructive debate on this thread apart from Fan boy claims of JF-17s potential. Think but dont perceive your dreams to be true when it comes to ground realities of Destructive armaments.




Do you know, You have wasted good 10 minutes writing this useless and crapy post?

Time is money, Think about it


----------



## Manticore

at above.. how do u think we are getting the new f16s and the mlu programme?? by showing u.s that we are using them!


----------



## Jako

nik007 said:


> yep.
> 
> i think jf17 would not even stand against mig21 bison rit?



nope,they can be quite effective against the mig29 and mirages.....but mig21 isnt the choice against jf17......but su30mki is in a different league alltogether...thnx


----------



## Arsalan

*nik007 you are 100&#37; right!*

JF17 cannot stand against a MIG21! 

no chance!! 

the reason are obvoius,

the JF17 is not made to keep it stanging like the LCA standing for decades and might no soon be Laid (to rest), JF17 is for flying!!

even if it need to stand on ground, it do not need a Mig21 to stand against as it have its own wheels to stand on! 

so you were right!

thankyou both for this informative disscussion of yours,  
i hope all the forum members have benifited from your posts!!

regards!


----------



## IceCold

old monk said:


> 1) jf 17 is 10 years after MKI but still nowhere near superiority on any
> grounds.
> 2) this thread should be *LCA & JF-17 *since have similar roles of filling numbers.... even china is not using jf-17 as front line fighter.
> 3) on many issues LCA is superior to JF-17 (please refer wikipedia)



Refer wikipedia, you got to be kidding me. Dude something that can be edited as deemed fit, and you are asking us to refer to it just because some Indian fan boy may have edited it and LCA will appear superior to JF-17. Seriously don't make me laugh.


----------



## Owais

old monk said:


> 1) jf 17 is 10 years after MKI but still nowhere near superiority on any
> grounds.
> 2) this thread should be *LCA & JF-17 *since have similar roles of filling numbers.... even china is not using jf-17 as front line fighter.
> 3) on many issues LCA is superior to JF-17 (please refer wikipedia)



First of all, we DONOT need a Wikipedia troll here  and secondly, please elaborate on WHAT Issues LCA is superior to JF17 but still not operational??


----------



## IceCold

LCA said:


> I don't know why pakistan not using their JF against Taliban, it will be good practice for their pilot....
> 
> But wait a minute there is no single fighter sq. of JF.
> 
> And they are comparing with MKI which is already inducted in IAF,about 100+ in numbers......
> 
> Fanboyism at its best.



Don't worry dude our pilots have the full pratice they need to keep war mongers at bay, you need not worry about that.


----------



## old monk

IceCold said:


> Refer wikipedia, you got to be kidding me. Dude something that can be edited as deemed fit, and you are asking us to refer to it just because some Indian fan boy may have edited it and LCA will appear superior to JF-17. Seriously don't make me laugh.



but they have given an link of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex...... don't tell me you don't trust your own institution


----------



## hj786

paritosh said:


> is there any good link....or a video to the results of a PAf-USAF air exercise?


I don't need links or videos, I am not a foolish kid who lives in denial like some other posters here. 
My source is a decorated fighter pilot, somebody who has no need for pissing contests like you trolls because he has been there and done it, that's enough for me. I don't care if you need sources, go whine to somebody else. 



nik007 said:


> if what u say is true, then paf is really good.
> unfortunately, u dont have any sources


Unfortunately you and your stupid troll pals have no proof for:
- Mig-21 Bisons being invisible to radar
- MKI being able to beat JF-17 in a future Indo-Pak war scenario
- InAF being able to beat a single air force in the world - so far they have failed against the tiny PAF, never mind all Muslim nations combined
Need I go on?


----------



## Owais

old monk said:


> but they have given an link of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex...... don't tell me you don't trust your own institution



sorry I didn't find any PAC link there can you provide us that link??


----------



## Jako

hj786 said:


> I don't need links or videos, I am not a foolish kid who lives in denial like some other posters here.
> My source is a decorated fighter pilot, somebody who has no need for pissing contests like you trolls because he has been there and done it, that's enough for me. I don't care if you need sources, go whine to somebody else.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you and your stupid troll pals have no proof for:
> - Mig-21 Bisons being invisible to radar
> - MKI being able to beat JF-17 in a future Indo-Pak war scenario
> - InAF being able to beat a single air force in the world - so far they have failed against the tiny PAF, never mind all Muslim nations combined
> Need I go on?



do you need more reasons to believe mki is better than jf17......what denial!!! But yes jf17 i think is good enough for mig29 and the mirages........mig21 is a generation behind(4 to 3.75)......thnx


----------



## old monk

Owais said:


> sorry I didn't find any PAC link there can you provide us that link??



its under specifications


----------



## maverick2009

JF17 in its current configuration is a fairly basic plane. when compared to modern 4th generation fighters. 

ie 

No composites, all alluminium build.
NO CANARDS or TVC 
Standard Russian RD93 engine comparable to that on MIG29. 
Chinease KLJ radar which is inferior to Bars Pesa radar.
Very limited range of weapons ie variety/MIX is minimal as china is stil behind Russia and the West in this respect. 

BUT PLUS points are massive.

BVR capability for first time in PAF. 
Very low cost can BE acquired in LARGE nos.
Great upgrade potential
WILL BE LICENSE built in PAC. SO NO embargos...

JF17 is far more successful than LCA tejas which will flop because the indians kept moving goal posts. 

BUT JF17 in current block cannot live with SU30MKI without AWACS and 
F16/52.. IN SUPPORT. Thankfully jf17 will have both as back up...


----------



## MARCOS

Would really like to get news about a war game simulation between Su-30 Mki and JF 17.... hmmm......some thing like cope india or the red flag... hehehe....that will answer most of the questions and emotions over here.


----------



## ironman

I think this thread is for MKI v/s JF-17 "Air fight". So I'm quoting my questions here. 

*Assuming JF-17 datalinked with AWAC*

1.) What type of data link JF-17 will use for connect to AWAC? 

2.) How many Aircrafts can be able connect to a single Erieye?

3.) Normally AWAC is used to find out ground based targets. So what is the azimuth of an Erieye?


----------



## paritosh

Munir said:


> If you read between the lines then there is no difference where they get it. Mostly with foreign input. Pakistani products rely on China (and some others) while India gets its tech from Russia and Israel. The difference is that Pakistan starts with less then best concept and gradually alters it locally to better. India jumps to f22 level and it fails... Unless you provide me info where Indian products are surpassing the original concept we can keep this as a basic fact.
> 
> Your option would be that India sets higher goal but then again takes more risks and maybe gets more tech input... Pakistan cannot afford the same risk, hence it goes from well known and tested ideas with tot towards Pakistan products...



well these are the indian inputs to the MKI program...

Sukhoi Su-30 MKI
read about the avionics and the 'Tarang mkII' self defense system...
the Bars radar uses an Indian Radar controller, under the Project Vetrivale (Lance of Victory). The project also has developed the mission computer and the display processors for the aircraft....

samtel is an indian company developing avionic displays for the Mki...
Samtel to produce Avionics Display Systems for HAL's star programmes - SU-30MKI, Light Combat Aircraft and Jet trainers

read about the indian contribution...
The Su-30MKI Info Page - Vayu Sena

and the guidance system of the Brahmos is indian.


----------



## Gucci Juice

ok here is a 1-5 scale of some of the features of both planes which i have compared using global security, fas, and other sites (not wikipedia).

rating meanings: 1. crap, 2. poor, 3. decent, 4. good, 5. very good

and for 5th generation fighters the ratings can go above 5 so this scale is only for 4th generation.

mki

avionics: 4.5
ew: 4.25
endurance: 5
radar: 4.5
maneuverability: 5
weapons load: 5
rcs: 2.75
reliability: 3.75

overall: 35/40 86% effectiveness

jf-17

avionics: 3.75
ew: 3.5
radar: 3.5
endurance: 3.5
maneuverability: 4
weapons load: 3
rcs: 4
reliability: 3.75 (due to chinese/Russian engine reliability is same as mki)

overall: 28/40 70% effective

i can do other fighters as well

j-10

avionics: 4
ew: 3
radar: 4
endurance: 4
maneuverability: 4
weapons load: 4
rcs: 3
reliability: 3.75

overall: 30/40 or around 75% effective

lca

avionics: 4.5 (they are good at avionics due to their IT industry)
ew: 3.5 (imported ew systems)
radar: 5 (elta 2052 built specifically for it)
endurance: 3
maneuverability: 3
weapons load: 3 
rcs: 4
reliability: 4

overall: 29.5/40 or 74% effective

lca scores over jf-17/j-10 in terms of avionics already being there and access to better sources of technology. jf-17 scores in endurance and maneuverability. reliability is about the same but lca's is a bit higher due to better engine, it could be 4.5, but i decided 4 because composites are a new technology and we dont know maintenence stuff about them yet.

all percent numbers are off top of my ahead so not 100% but very close 1-2% error.


----------



## paritosh

EW in lca is not imported arent they using the tarang mkII being used in the mki or is it israeli?


----------



## sehranasheen

well guys as from your talk it is clear that there is no counter for sukhois with paf. what will it do in case of war as we have no c/d version of f-16 is pakistan is going to invest in 5th gen stealth aircraft with china like JSF and F-22. J-F 17 doesnt look smart to me with current avionics but as for as it manuerability and main design is concerened it is a real 4th gen aircraft as i have seen a video in which thunder and falcon 360 degree turn rate is compared in which both are equal. we should make its avionics better. and one more question. is it possible that a j-f can beat a flanker by its better in one to one fight by better pilot training and using full potential of thunder.


----------



## godsavetheworld

Its completely farcical to compare the MKI to the JF-17. They are a class apart, MKI is a heavy air-superiority fighter, the JF is more a a backbone to the older F-15s PAF. So far, I have not seen any substantial stats that favour the JF over the MKI. Any person with a miniscule knowledge about military aviation would completely back the MKI. 

A fair fight is only possible if the MKI is put against multiple JF's at a time. Other than that, MKI reigns over in literally everything, leave alone dogfighting.
Infact even the LCA would be a toughnut for the JF. Especially because of its avionics, and capability to carry more weapons, since is much lighter.

Again a conflict wouldnt be just a JF vs MKI. It would be PAF vs IAF. That means, everything that flies needs to complement everything on the ground supporting it.


----------



## Gucci Juice

sehranasheen said:


> well guys as from your talk it is clear that there is no counter for sukhois with paf. what will it do in case of war as we have no c/d version of f-16 is pakistan is going to invest in 5th gen stealth aircraft with china like JSF and F-22. J-F 17 doesnt look smart to me with current avionics but as for as it manuerability and main design is concerened it is a real 4th gen aircraft as i have seen a video in which thunder and falcon 360 degree turn rate is compared in which both are equal. we should make its avionics better. and one more question. is it possible that a j-f can beat a flanker by its better in one to one fight by better pilot training and using full potential of thunder.



actually i dont think the mki's are flown by inexperienced pilots...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

godsavetheworld said:


> It would be PAF vs IAF. That means, everything that flies needs to complement everything on the ground supporting it.


Right- which means that direct comparisons of the JF-17 to the MKI are pointless, and the 'on paper' advantage of the MKI to the JF-17 does not automatically imply that the MKI would come out tops against the JF-17 in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

Gucci Juice said:


> ok here is a 1-5 scale of some of the features of both planes which i have compared using global security, fas, and other sites (not wikipedia).
> 
> rating meanings: 1. crap, 2. poor, 3. decent, 4. good, 5. very good
> 
> and for 5th generation fighters the ratings can go above 5 so this scale is only for 4th generation.
> 
> mki
> 
> avionics: 4.5
> ew: 4.25
> endurance: 5
> radar: 4.5
> maneuverability: 5
> weapons load: 5
> rcs: 2.75
> reliability: 3.75
> 
> overall: 35/40 86&#37; effectiveness
> 
> jf-17
> 
> avionics: 3.75
> ew: 3.5
> radar: 3.5
> endurance: 3.5
> maneuverability: 4
> weapons load: 3
> rcs: 4
> reliability: 3.75 (due to chinese/Russian engine reliability is same as mki)
> 
> overall: 28/40 70% effective
> 
> i can do other fighters as well
> 
> j-10
> 
> avionics: 4
> ew: 3
> radar: 4
> endurance: 4
> maneuverability: 4
> weapons load: 4
> rcs: 3
> reliability: 3.75
> 
> overall: 30/40 or around 75% effective
> 
> lca
> 
> avionics: 4.5 (they are good at avionics due to their IT industry)
> ew: 3.5 (imported ew systems)
> radar: 5 (elta 2052 built specifically for it)
> endurance: 3
> maneuverability: 3
> weapons load: 3
> rcs: 4
> reliability: 4
> 
> overall: 29.5/40 or 74% effective
> 
> lca scores over jf-17/j-10 in terms of avionics already being there and access to better sources of technology. jf-17 scores in endurance and maneuverability. reliability is about the same but lca's is a bit higher due to better engine, it could be 4.5, but i decided 4 because composites are a new technology and we dont know maintenence stuff about them yet.
> 
> all percent numbers are off top of my ahead so not 100% but very close 1-2% error.



by the time your lca will come into the picture, paf would be inducting jf17 block 2 with western avionics+composites
secondly j10a and j10b are atleast half a generation apart... so if u want to compare, u dont have the stats of these 2 upgraded birds.
..
and plz dont compare your lca , its nowhere in picture.secondly its an interceptor not a multirole jet.
youve said
''lca

avionics: 4.5 (they are good at avionics due to their IT industry)
ew: 3.5 (imported ew systems)
radar: 5 (elta 2052 built specifically for it)''

its just as far fetched as if i told u the stats of block2 jf17 with french avionics! infacts its amusing!
..
for defensive roles at the moment, eyree helps a lot.. for offensive we have cruise missiles /awacs killers missiles as a stopgap measure
..
dont underestimate the f16 radar that we have, its not the standerd block15 radar.. plus the jf17 radar is supposedly better than the f16 one, so couple it with eyree and u do have a good combination for defence.
.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Leave LCA out please - this thread isn't about LCA, and until the LCA is actually inducted there is no point in comparing it to any aircraft.*


----------



## Manticore

Gucci Juice said:


> actually i dont think the mki's are flown by inexperienced pilots...



well after the repetitive defeats during red flag the indians said the totally opposite thing.. they said 80 percent of their pilots were totally inexperienced!again very amusing!


----------



## gubbi

ANTIBODY said:


> well after the repetitive defeats during red flag the indians said the totally opposite thing.. they said 80 percent of their pilots were totally inexperienced!again very amusing!



It is actually true. Fresh pilots are being trained to fly the Su-30 MKI for the sole purpose that old school doctrines of the IAF conflict with the newer ones. Its far easier to train fresh hands in new tactics than for experienced pilots to first unlearn old tactics and then learn newer tactics! Thats why even the F-22 raptor pilots are fresh graduates rather than experienced pilots.

The sole purpose of red-flag for IAF was to let these new pilots learn new tactics which the USAF pilots were practicing against the tvc Raptor. What the pilots learnt will be evaluated, imporved, polished, and assimilated in the new IAF doctrine. 

The typical response of pilots in a TVC plane in a dogfight was to go in a post stall maneuver and then aim the nose of the a/c in the direction of the enemy. Raptor pilots were doing that, and the F-15 and F-16 pilots of USAF came up with new tactics to counter that advantage of tvc. IAF pilots too did the same maneuver but learnt that there was already a counter maneuver to that. It was quite a learning experience for these novices. It will surely help them to come up with new tactics and adapt them in future scenarios.

So you see, for all the hulla bulla about USAF trashing IAF, both sides came out of the exercise learning lots of new things! It will go a long way in developing new strategies in aerial warfare for both sides involved.


----------



## hocuspocush

gubbi said:


> It is actually true. Fresh pilots are being trained to fly the Su-30 MKI for the sole purpose that old school doctrines of the IAF conflict with the newer ones. Its far easier to train fresh hands in new tactics than for experienced pilots to first unlearn old tactics and then learn newer tactics! Thats why even the F-22 raptor pilots are fresh graduates rather than experienced pilots.
> 
> The sole purpose of red-flag for IAF was to let these new pilots learn new tactics which the USAF pilots were practicing against the tvc Raptor. What the pilots learnt will be evaluated, imporved, polished, and assimilated in the new IAF doctrine.
> 
> The typical response of pilots in a TVC plane in a dogfight was to go in a post stall maneuver and then aim the nose of the a/c in the direction of the enemy. Raptor pilots were doing that, and the F-15 and F-16 pilots of USAF came up with new tactics to counter that advantage of tvc. IAF pilots too did the same maneuver but learnt that there was already a counter maneuver to that. It was quite a learning experience for these novices. It will surely help them to come up with new tactics and adapt them in future scenarios.
> 
> So you see, for all the hulla bulla about USAF trashing IAF, both sides came out of the exercise learning lots of new things! It will go a long way in developing new strategies in aerial warfare for both sides involved.




Plus, newly trained pilots will serve the IAF for a longer time compared to experienced pilots who will be retiring early and training the new joinees.


----------



## hj786

godsavetheworld said:


> A fair fight is only possible if the MKI is put against multiple JF's at a time. Other than that, MKI reigns over in literally everything, leave alone dogfighting.
> Infact even the LCA would be a toughnut for the JF. Especially because of its avionics, and capability to carry more weapons, since is much lighter.
> 
> Again a conflict wouldnt be just a JF vs MKI. It would be PAF vs IAF. That means, everything that flies needs to complement everything on the ground supporting it.


It's not as simple as that. A fair fight is possible if JF is provided with force multipliers. You're wrong, LCA would be just as tough to JF as JF to LCA. JF has similar avionics, weapons load and lighter doesn't mean winner.



ironman said:


> Assuming JF-17 datalinked with AWAC
> 1.) What type of data link JF-17 will use for connect to AWAC?
> 2.) How many Aircrafts can be able connect to a single Erieye?
> 3.) Normally AWAC is used to find out ground based targets. So what is the azimuth of an Erieye?


JF-17 WILL be data-linked to AWACS. Why deny JF-17 will be datalinked when you don't deny Su-30, LCA will be data-linked? Even PAC's own website says it will be datalinked and that hasn't been updated in over 5 years. Ex Air Chief said many times datalinks between Erieye and Chinese jets would be set up. Everything you have asked about is kept secret, only monkey figures are released to the public.



maverick2009 said:


> JF17 in its current configuration is a fairly basic plane. when compared to modern 4th generation fighters.
> No composites, all alluminium build.
> *Yes it is fairly basic compared to other modern 4th gen planes. It does have composites, what the hell do you think the radar radome is made of? Full production planes will have carbon composite control surfaces according to one source I read.
> * NO CANARDS or TVC *
> So? F-16E has no canards, F-18E has no canards, Su-35 (the latest air superiority one, is it the Su-35BM?) has no canards.*
> Standard Russian RD93 engine comparable to that on MIG29.
> Will be replaced with a better engine.
> 
> Chinease KLJ radar which is inferior to Bars Pesa radar.
> Data-linked to Swedish Erieye radar and similar Chinese radar, both superior to Bars Pesa radar.
> Very limited range of weapons ie variety/MIX is minimal as china is stil behind Russia and the West in this respect.
> Nope and not for too long. You really don't know anything do you? China has three close combat AAMs (2 for export), an old BVRAAM comparable to Sparrow, a new BVRAAM comparable to R-77, satellite guided bombs newly developed, laser guided bombs plus targeting pods (the latest FILAT pod includes FLIR as well),anti-radiation missiles, a huge array of anti-ship cruise missiles. This is all the stuff that is already developed, they also have another close combat AAM comparable to A-darter and a ramjet BVRAAM in development. Then there's the Pakistani stuff - H-2/H-4 glide bombs, Ra'ad ALCM, HAFR-1/2 (Matra Durandal), cluster bombs, etc. This is just the stuff that I have read about, the list goes on for both Pakistan and China.
> 
> BVR capability for first time in PAF.
> Very low cost can BE acquired in LARGE nos.
> Great upgrade potential
> WILL BE LICENSE built in PAC. SO NO embargos...
> It won't be licence built, it will be built by its co-developer.
> 
> BUT JF17 in current block cannot live with SU30MKI without AWACS (true)
> and
> F16/52.. IN SUPPORT. (false) Thankfully (for PAF, not InAF) jf17 will have both as back up... and more.





Jako said:


> do you need more reasons to believe mki is better than jf17......what denial!!! But yes jf17 i think is good enough for mig29 and the mirages........mig21 is a generation behind(4 to 3.75)......thnx


You need more reasons to believe JF-17 can defend Pak airspace against MKI? What denial!


----------



## hocuspocush

Found a very good article which lists the sanctions/procurements and new purchases by the PAF:

southasiaanalysis.org/papers2/paper166.htm

NOTE: This article was written on 4-12-00.


----------



## zombie:-)

godsavetheworld said:


> Its completely farcical to compare the MKI to the JF-17. They are a class apart, MKI is a heavy air-superiority fighter, the JF is more a a backbone to the older F-15s PAF. So far, I have not seen any substantial stats that favour the JF over the MKI. Any person with a miniscule knowledge about military aviation would completely back the MKI.
> 
> A fair fight is only possible if the MKI is put against multiple JF's at a time. Other than that, MKI reigns over in literally everything, leave alone dogfighting.
> Infact even the LCA would be a toughnut for the JF. Especially because of its avionics, and capability to carry more weapons, since is much lighter.
> 
> Again a conflict wouldnt be just a JF vs MKI. It would be PAF vs IAF. That means, everything that flies needs to complement everything on the ground supporting it.



hullo arent we saying this from day one ....no one can predict untill it happens ...even our ACM F.HOMI MAJOR had said "jf-17 is no doubt a good aircraft ,but its not something we (IAF) will be really worrying about"...this sums up everything from the most important guy in IAF ...but its not the guy in an MKI would chicken out while facing it ...a pilot facing the MKI with indiffenrent and inferior equipment needs immense courage and daredevilry .....first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right


----------



## Jako

hj786 said:


> It's not as simple as that. A fair fight is possible if JF is provided with force multipliers. You're wrong, LCA would be just as tough to JF as JF to LCA. JF has similar avionics, weapons load and lighter doesn't mean winner.
> 
> JF-17 WILL be data-linked to AWACS. Why deny JF-17 will be datalinked when you don't deny Su-30, LCA will be data-linked? Even PAC's own website says it will be datalinked and that hasn't been updated in over 5 years. Ex Air Chief said many times datalinks between Erieye and Chinese jets would be set up. Everything you have asked about is kept secret, only monkey figures are released to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need more reasons to believe JF-17 can defend Pak airspace against MKI? What denial!



the thunder WILL have better engine......the thunder WILL have larger composites......the chinese WILL develop and you thus WILL have better weapons......and you dont even have a squadron yet.......new engine means modified airframe,which means more time.......whereas the su30mki is reality,and what we say to back it are already present in the mki........and why do you forget the phalcon awacs,i bet the mki and the phalcon together will give india a huge boost to gain air dominance.....btw, this is your first bvr capable jet,whereas even the indian mig21bison is bvr capable.....so there should'nt be any problem,taking the experience in this type of combats into consideration....thnx


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

zombie:-) said:


> hullo arent we saying this from day one ....



Yes - but it has also been argued from day one that it is 'farcical' to merely compare one fighter to another, 'on paper', when Air Combat will involve multiple systems and resources.

Its not as if the JF-17 would engage the MKI in a vacuum, with only on board systems and their respective capabilities employed.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Jako said:


> the thunder WILL have better engine.



Even with the existing engines, can the MKI or Thunder outrun AAM's or LRAAM's?


> the thunder WILL have larger composites


Even with existing materials, does the MKI not have a huge radar sig.? 


> the chinese WILL develop and you thus WILL have better weapons


It is moot to argue that the Chinese will develop better weapons - its pretty much guaranteed, as it is for almost any country involved in extensive R&D, but is the existing weaponry (say SD-10) inferior enough to make a significant difference? And if it is, why?


> and you dont even have a squadron yet


Numbers will increase, since production is on, and funds have been allocated. This discussion is over a hypothetical scenario of whether the Thunder will hold its own in combat between two air forces with all of their supporting systems and resources deployed

It will not be two AC in combat in a vacuum.


----------



## Screaming Skull

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Its not as if the JF-17 would engage the MKI in a vacuum, with only on board systems and their respective capabilities employed.



The reverse is also true. Isn't it? You think the MKI will take on any other aircraft in the world by itself when IAF has Phalcons, UAVs and spy sats in its inventory? If you are bringing in other systems into your argument then you should rename this thread to JF+AWACS+UAVs vs MKI. Else, am afraid its only JF+JF systems+JF subsystems vs MKI+MKI systems+MKI subsystems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

Jako said:


> the thunder WILL have better engine.....*
> The engine is in development NOW. What the hell do you think they WILL do with it, put in a freaking museum?*
> the thunder WILL have larger composites......
> I have seen several sources saying that it will. Can you provide several to me that say it won't? No? Then go post that crap somewhere else.
> the chinese WILL develop and you thus WILL have better weapons......
> The Chinese ARE developing better weapons, again, are they going to forget to arm their planes with them?
> you dont even have a squadron yet.......
> Are you a fool? There is a squadron of 8 small batch production (not prototypes, but not production models) aircraft undergoing weapons integration. Do I have to show you the pictures?
> 
> new engine means modified airframe,which means more time.......
> How do you know the new engine is not designed to fit the same airframe as the current engine?
> 
> whereas the su30mki is reality, and what we say to back it are already present in the mki........
> You don't know anything about what is currently present in the JF, only the PAF pilots flying it and the engineers integrating the weapons do. Stop whining when we back the JF if you want to back the MKI, hypocrite.
> 
> and why do you forget the phalcon awacs,i bet the mki and the phalcon together will give india a huge boost to gain air dominance.....
> Good for India. But they seem like overkill for shooting down unarmed aeroplanes.
> 
> btw, this is your first bvr capable jet,
> Wrong. F-16A is BVR capable, Mirage ROSE is BVR capable.
> whereas even the indian mig21bison is bvr capable.....so there should'nt be any problem,taking the experience in this type of combats into consideration....
> You think the PAF has no experience with BVRAAMs even though it has been sending pilots to fly for several Arab air forces who have the latest planes and BVRAAMs? Flying in exercises against air forces who have used BVRAAMs for decades?
> thnx For what? Providing you a nice clean space to post your BS on?





Screaming Skull said:


> The reverse is also true. Isn't it? You think the MKI will take on any other aircraft in the world by itself when IAF has Phalcons, UAVs and spy sats in its inventory? If you are bringing in other systems into your argument then you should rename this thread to JF+AWACS+UAVs vs MKI. Else, am afraid its only JF+JF systems+JF subsystems vs MKI+MKI systems+MKI subsystems.



Yes the reverse is true. But we don't live in a dream world, a real life "Air Fight" between the two aeroplanes WOULD involve other systems, therefore we can argue that other systems supporting the JF would help even the playing field and MKI is not so superior as it is being made out to be by the fanboys. 

I'll happily admit that a current JF would not be in a good position against an MKI, 1v1 with no support to either plane. But that better be the case when the MKI costs 3 times more. Of course 3 JF-17 against one MKI would be a different story. Then if you sink some of that money into the JF...



hocuspocush said:


> However, I am sure the Pakistan Defence Forces will be aware of this and might be taking appropriate steps to counter such huge advantages such as Saab2000 but I still doubt the huge advantageous position of satellite imaging system which can precisely indicate the enemy position be is Army, Navy or Air Force.



Good post, but I have some points to raise. The Chinese provide every kind of technology to Pakistan. Firstly, if Pakistan wanted it, wouldn't they provide a high resolution imaging satellite for intelligence? Secondly, even if they will not, don't you think they'd happily provide as much imagery as PAF wants? They'll happily sell pretty much anything else.


----------



## Jako

@hj786....does pakistan have the capability to make a engine?? I guess no....you have to buy it from someone,and that someone is not going to custom make and design the engine specifically for the thunder,otherwise the cost wd be high,which is not pakistan's choice........and this has been said earlier that the thunder will have certain airframe modifications.....and dont try to teach me what is bs........as screaming skull said,why are you comparing the thunder+awacs to the mki,in that case the phalcons and satellite backup comes to the frame.......now you say no one knows bout the real thunder configuration,so why are you continuing your bs.....you dont know if that unknown is for good or bad......so,we may debate on the known configuration of the aircrafts....btw,mods are there to check my posts for any prob,why you bother??thnx(heheh...not for you...you may ignore)


----------



## zombie:-)

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes - but it has also been argued from day one that it is 'farcical' to merely compare one fighter to another, 'on paper', when Air Combat will involve multiple systems and resources.
> 
> Its not as if the JF-17 would engage the MKI in a vacuum, with only on board systems and their respective capabilities employed.



isnt that what i said comparing on paper or a public forum is all the same we cant tell anything untill it really happens .....PLEASE READ MY POST CAREFULLY ...NOT JUST THE FIRST LINE


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Screaming Skull said:


> The reverse is also true. Isn't it?


Did I suggest the reverse is not true?


> You think the MKI will take on any other aircraft in the world by itself when IAF has Phalcons, UAVs and spy sats in its inventory?


Strawman - read above.


> If you are bringing in other systems into your argument then you should rename this thread to JF+AWACS+UAVs vs MKI. Else, am afraid its only JF+JF systems+JF subsystems vs MKI+MKI systems+MKI subsystems.


I am pointing out the obvious - I shouldn't have to rename the thread to do that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

zombie:-) said:


> isnt that what i said comparing on paper or a public forum is all the same we cant tell anything untill it really happens .....PLEASE READ MY POST CAREFULLY ...NOT JUST THE FIRST LINE



The rest of your posts suggested nothing of the sort that you are claiming

*"even our ACM F.HOMI MAJOR had said "jf-17 is no doubt a good aircraft ,but its not something we (IAF) will be really worrying about"...this sums up everything from the most important guy in IAF ...but its not the guy in an MKI would chicken out while facing it ...a pilot facing the MKI with indiffenrent and inferior equipment needs immense courage and daredevilry .....first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right"*

If you have changed your mind, then fine, we'll move on.


----------



## hj786

Jako said:


> @hj786....does pakistan have the capability to make a engine?? I guess no....you have to buy it from someone,and that someone is not going to custom make and design the engine specifically for the thunder,otherwise the cost wd be high,which is not pakistan's choice........and this has been said earlier that the thunder will have certain airframe modifications.....and dont try to teach me what is bs........



"Liyang Aero Engine Corporation in Guizhou is reportedly developing an indigenous turbofan engine designated WS-13 (or Tianshan-21) as an alterative powerplant option for the FC-1. The engine was said to have been based on the RD-93 design with some modifications." 
FC-1 (JF-17 Thunder) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

More info:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/3373-ws-13-nearing-completion.html (A Chinese article translated)


> &#32780;&#26089;&#22312;2003&#24180;&#65292;&#20851;&#38190;&#24615;&#30340;FC-1&#21160;&#21147;&#22269;&#20135;*As early as in 2003*, made a key driving force for the FTC-1 &#21270;&#24037;Chemical &#20316;&#23601;&#24050;&#32463;&#24320;&#22987;&#12290;For it has begun. &#20013;&#33322;&#19968;&#38598;&#22242;&#23459;&#24067;&#65292;&#36149;&#24030;&#33322;&#31354;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30740;&#31350;&#25152;&#37197;&#21512;FC-1&#30340;&#30740;&#21046;&#24037;&#20316;&#65292;&#24320;&#23637;&#20102;&#28065;&#36718;&#39118;&#25159;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20851;&#38190;&#25216;&#26415;&#30740;&#31350;&#21644;&#26032;&#22411;&#28065;&#36718;&#39118;&#25159;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#35774;&#35745;&#20986;&#22270;&#31561;&#24037;&#20316;&#65292;&#25289;&#24320;&#20102;&#40654;&#38451;AVIC Group &#8544; announced that *the FTC-1 with the Guizhou Institute of Aero-engine development work. Key Technology launched a turbofan engine turbofan engine design*, and a new work plan started hong &#20844;&#21496;Company &#28065;&#36718;&#39118;&#25159;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30740;&#21046;&#30340;&#24207;&#24149;&#12290;Turbofan engine developed in the district.



It has been known for years that WS-13 is under development. How can you sit there and post that "nobody will design an engine for JF" when every article on JF-17 mentions WS-13? This is why I have been calling your posts BS, you don't know what you're talking about. 

According to article, parts between current engine and WS-13 are interchangeable so the designs are similar, therefore it is could well be designed to fit the same plane. 



Jako said:


> as screaming skull said,why are you comparing the thunder+awacs to the mki,in that case the phalcons and satellite backup comes to the frame.......
> Answered in the above post I wrote. PAF has access to as much tech as they like from China, people like you always say all of Pakistan's technology is from China. Why wouldn't they give imagery and why wouldn't they sell a satellite?
> now you say no one knows bout the real thunder configuration,so why are you continuing your bs.....


I hope the people who are building it know the real configuration.
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....
"China may also develop its own power plant for the FC-1, although it is also possible that the co-produced version of the Klimov RD-93, called the WS-13, will equip future FC-1s. Also there are plans to include air-to-air refueling probes and modifications incorporating modern avionics.
Pakistan is also looking at adding advanced Western weapons and avionics in the future. It is also looking at the possibility of acquiring anti-radiation missiles, which could be the same as the BVR missile with a different seeker head."
"The capability would be built around highly modern state-of-the-art avionics equipment, which is as follows:
...
* Standard Armament Interface Unit
* Remote Interface Box
* BVR Datalink
* V / UHF Communication System (Qty 02)
* Comm Datalink" 

# Other essential equipment like

* Day/ night laser designator pod
* Self Protection Jammer
* IRST
* FLIR
* NVGs
* Helmet Mounted Sight/Display"

"Pakistan is also looking at adding advanced Western weapons and avionics in the future."

Datalinks, IRST, helmet mounted sights, more advanced Western weapons and avionics, new engine. Right from the co-developer and manufacturer. Unfortunately the website is very out-dated so it does not provide the full picture.

Looks like you're the one continuing to post BS, not me.


----------



## zombie:-)

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The rest of your posts suggested nothing of the sort that you are claiming
> 
> *"even our ACM F.HOMI MAJOR had said "jf-17 is no doubt a good aircraft ,but its not something we (IAF) will be really worrying about"...this sums up everything from the most important guy in IAF ...but its not the guy in an MKI would chicken out while facing it ...a pilot facing the MKI with indiffenrent and inferior equipment needs immense courage and daredevilry .....first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right"*
> 
> If you have changed your mind, then fine, we'll move on.



nothing to change here sir


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

zombie:-) said:


> first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right



What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## zombie:-)

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What is that supposed to mean?



sir that means we cant be sure until a conflict involving MKI and JF-17 takes place


----------



## Gucci Juice

guys plz stop saying the jf-17 will beat mki with help from eryie, remember mki has phalcon to help which is a full fledged aewacs, while eryie is only aewc.

not only that mki has a jammer that is probably an order of magnitude more powerful than the jf-17 (incase u dont know what a jammer is its a device that disrupts radar returns which basically reduces the rcs by a bit).

and in a real fight the mki has 3x as much endurance as the jf-17, after the long range missiles are fired and miss, than it will be a dogfight, that's when the endurance factor will be huge, at most jf-17 has 5-10 minutes of fuel for dogfighting, while mki has 20-30 minutes.

and the guy that's talking about jf-17 block 2... i did comparison of the current jf-17 and why is everyone talking about block 2 when block 1 hasn't even reached 1 squadron strength? block 2 is at max 5 years away.

the lca will be inducted around 2010-2012 and incase u dont know, there is an rfp for new engines (ej and ge-414), i think ej will win because its smaller and has potential to make lca supercruise without any weapons, and the aesa for lca has been confirmed.

but it is true, only after 2013-2014 will the lca have that engine and the aesa.


----------



## Manticore

first of all, that 'guys' name is body.. antibody
[i should have made my avatar name bond to make this dialogue look cool though]




Gucci Juice said:


> block 2 is at max 5 years away.*[ie 2013-2014]*
> 
> only after 2013-2014 will the lca have that engine and the aesa.



.
thats what i said that by the time lca is inducted, we would be directly inducting jf17 block2..as the trials prior to induction of jf17are being carried out these days
.
but it can be even earlier, as kamra is producing the first 50 jf17 block 1 at 30/year rate... so our block1 will be completed in one and a half years.. to take care of your flying coffins etc


----------



## ironman

hj786 said:


> JF-17 WILL be data-linked to AWACS. Why deny JF-17 will be datalinked when you don't deny Su-30, LCA will be data-linked? Even PAC's own website says it will be datalinked and that hasn't been updated in over 5 years. Ex Air Chief said many times datalinks between Erieye and Chinese jets would be set up. Everything you have asked about is kept secret, only monkey figures are released to the public.



Perhaps you are mistaken. I haven't denied anywhere that of data linking JF-17. I just quoted a scenario there and my question was what type of data link will it be using such as CEC, SLP,Link-22/NILE, CDL and TCDL (All US variants).


----------



## IceCold

Screaming Skull said:


> The reverse is also true. Isn't it? You think the MKI will take on any other aircraft in the world by itself when IAF has Phalcons, UAVs and spy sats in its inventory? If you are bringing in other systems into your argument then you should rename this thread to JF+AWACS+UAVs vs MKI. Else, am afraid its only JF+JF systems+JF subsystems vs MKI+MKI systems+MKI subsystems.



There is a difference. You see MKI will be used to maintain air superiority over Pakistan and plus to hit targets inside Pakistan thanks to its large payload capability however in a hostile environment you will not have the support of an AWAC unless you completely decimate PAF. JF-17 on the other hand will be in a home environment where it will not only have the backing of an AWAC but also SAMs and other ground related equipment( radars, AA guns etc) so you see MKI will be in a tougher position against a JF.


----------



## zombie:-)

IceCold said:


> There is a difference. You see MKI will be used to maintain air superiority over Pakistan and plus to hit targets inside Pakistan thanks to its large payload capability however in a hostile environment you will not have the support of an AWAC unless you completely decimate PAF. JF-17 on the other hand will be in a home environment where it will not only have the backing of an AWAC but also SAMs and other ground related equipment( radars, AA guns etc) so you see MKI will be in a tougher position against a JF.



WOW ....why do you think AWACS support will be un available ....coz it neds to fly in pak airspace(sorry it was a joke) ..ha the range is more than enough to cover important locations of PAK airspace...take a brake stop *speculating* ...there will be almost fool proof security for the awacs expect 4-6 MKIs with 12 A2A missiles each giving it cover...and SAMS AND AAA will be taken care of even before entering pak airspace...and lol about home environment ...i think its not much different from what we have all over india


----------



## MZUBAIR

Well,
MKI and JF-17 are of different classes.
But still, I think JF-17 can give tough time to MKI (either any one accepts it or not).

At the moment India have 60 MKI and Pak have 10 + JF-17. With this quantity strength I think PAF cant push back a strong reply, if insurgey.
Pakistan will rely on missels. Which is ofcourse a big threat for India.

PAF always look to counter IAF. 
For MKI, PAF would probabily put the combination of JF-17 & J-10B (Will be inducted in 2010-11). Mki wouldnt be a problem with this combination.
This combination will surely block them.

At the moment PAF has only F-16 which can or cannot be dangerous for MKI.

As much as I know If any thing happens at the moment, Pakistan will ask China for help and rely on missel technology.
China's J-11 is really some thing enough for MKI.

But before all these things we have to getrid of ourselves with terrorism.
*Getrid of bagger leaders and hope for good & petriotc leaders.*
Then improve our economy.
Induct/Buy more JF-17, J-10B, J-XX (Up coming China fighter).
May be we can also get F-35 after 10 years.

But all is important Pakisans sitituation. India is not a big problem. 60 Mki cant do or defend India against strong Billestic and cruise missels.

So dont worry abt India. They will think One thousand and one times before going for an adventure!!!

One thing more, I feel that JF-17 may get valueless aroung 2025-2030 as the technology is progressing very fast. I think PAF should induct almost 150 JF-17 and save money for new era birds.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

zombie:-) said:


> sir that means we cant be sure until a conflict involving MKI and JF-17 takes place


I don't think so - and I detest cocky trolls.

*"a pilot facing the MKI with indiffenrent and inferior equipment needs immense courage and daredevilry* .....*first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right"*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

> *"a pilot facing the MKI with indiffenrent and inferior equipment needs immense courage and daredevilry* .....*first the guy has to face the mki to fight it right*



Zombie PAF pilots faced an MKI in Mirage III and F-7 in that interception a few months back, is that enough daredevilry and courage? Why even bother saying that? 



Gucci Juice said:


> guys plz stop saying the jf-17 will beat mki with help from eryie, remember mki has phalcon to help which is a full fledged aewacs, while eryie is only aewc.
> *Doesn't matter. Go find out what AEWC and AWACS mean, you will find they mean exactly the same thing. Erieye is a fully fledged AEWC. Phalcon does not cancel out Erieye. *
> not only that mki has a jammer that is probably an order of magnitude more powerful than the jf-17 (incase u dont know what a jammer is its a device that disrupts radar returns which basically reduces the rcs by a bit).
> *No, a jammer does not reduce RCS. Jammers are emitters and emitters give away an aeroplane's location. You know the SD-10 has a home-on-jam mode? Whether MKI jams or not, the JF can send missiles to it. That means you have to elaborate on the kind of jammers employed. Jamming power is probably the main advantage of MKI. *
> and in a real fight the mki has 3x as much endurance as the jf-17, after the long range missiles are fired and miss, than it will be a dogfight, that's when the endurance factor will be huge, at most jf-17 has 5-10 minutes of fuel for dogfighting, while mki has 20-30 minutes.
> *So now you're making random numbers? When the JF is defending its own airspace, it should have plenty of endurance. Again, backup from force multipliers (tanker aircraft) is a factor. *






zombie:-) said:


> SAMS AND AAA will be taken care of even before entering pak airspace...


 Now who's speculating?


----------



## hj786

ironman said:


> Perhaps you are mistaken. I haven't denied anywhere that of data linking JF-17. I just quoted a scenario there and my question was what type of data link will it be using such as CEC, SLP,Link-22/NILE, CDL and TCDL (All US variants).



Sorry my bad, I meant it as a reply to that other guy I was replying to, I made the post in a hurry.


----------



## IceCold

zombie:-) said:


> WOW ....why do you think AWACS support will be un available ....coz it neds to fly in pak airspace(sorry it was a joke) ..ha the range is more than enough to cover important locations of PAK airspace...take a brake stop *speculating* ...there will be almost fool proof security for the awacs expect 4-6 MKIs with 12 A2A missiles each giving it cover...and SAMS AND AAA will be taken care of even before entering pak airspace...and lol about home environment ...i think its not much different from what we have all over india



Ohh comeon i know phalcon has range to see targets inside Pakistan but it has already being discussed and the topic is beaten to death that it will too have to fly cross to the border to fully cover locations inside Pakistan and like i said your MKI when in a hostile territory will be at a severe disadvantage against a smaller JF and vice verse. So you stop speculating and get out of the mki superiority paranoia against JFs. 
The rest is all rhetoric from you. Can you explain how will the SAMS and AAA will be taken care off unless you are talking about PAF getting completely decimated, a dream not even your ACM can think about having. I'll suggest you to wake up and smell the coffee though its hot still will be better to bring you back to earth.


----------



## godsavetheworld

hj786 said:


> Zombie PAF pilots faced an MKI in Mirage III and F-7 in that interception a few months back, is that enough daredevilry and courage? Why even bother saying that?



Cooked up news. Seems like it still creates machoism among naive fanboys in Pakistan. Just like Pranab Mukherjee called Zardari, and used a threatning tone and warned him of war. What utter foolishnes on behalf of Pakistani Media. Little do they know that a foreign minister cannot just call the prsident, and even so from the defence ministry. 
So, 


> Why even bother saying that?


----------



## hj786

godsavetheworld said:


> Cooked up news. Seems like it still creates machoism among naive fanboys in Pakistan. Just like Pranab Mukherjee called Zardari, and used a threatning tone and warned him of war. What utter foolishnes on behalf of Pakistani Media. Little do they know that a foreign minister cannot just call the prsident, and even so from the defence ministry.


Firstly, I don't think it is cooked up news, InAF admitted to there being a border violation due to "technical malfunction" if I remember right. 
Secondly, your fellow Indian poster Zombie started the machoism BS, so don't criticise me alone. Where is his reprimand for being one of the many naive fanboys in India? I'm waiting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

godsavetheworld said:


> Cooked up news. Seems like it still creates machoism among naive fanboys in Pakistan. Just like Pranab Mukherjee called Zardari, and used a threatning tone and warned him of war. What utter foolishnes on behalf of Pakistani Media. Little do they know that a foreign minister cannot just call the prsident, and even so from the defence ministry.


Firstly, I don't think it is cooked up news, InAF admitted to there being a border violation due to "technical malfunction" if I remember right. 
Secondly, your fellow Indian poster Zombie started the machoism BS, so don't criticise me alone. Where are your comments concerning the naive fanboys in India?


----------



## maverick2009

In Reply to MZUBAiR.

Your facts are incorrect.

SU30MKI equips 5 SQUADRONS already nos are 100+ check both Wipikedi and any other source you like. 

FC20/J10 will enter service in 2014-2015 again check PAF under wipi or sino defencse or even this forum as posted earlier. 

As for F16 these are a danger only if and wen USA upgrades them to Block 52 and supplies you with 18 more in 2011...

As for JF17 versis SU30MKI ... JF fan boys keep saying will give flanker "tough tim,e " but wat does that mean and with what .. 

The flankers have been studied to death by USA Austrilia & Europeans who all agree its a beast of a war plane. Its easily the best fighter Russia has produced ever. The flanker was designed to beat off USA legacy fighters like F15 F16 & EVEN EARLY F18s . In mock simulations fLANKETRS HAVE COME OUT ON TOP OF all of these. 

Now are we saying that the JF17 has something additional that USA F15 F16 don,t have


----------



## MZUBAIR

maverick2009 said:


> In Reply to MZUBAiR.
> 
> Your facts are incorrect.
> 
> SU30MKI equips 5 SQUADRONS already nos are 100+ check both Wipikedi and any other source you like.



Nobody believes on wikipei. 
Few weeks ago When one MKI crashed down, I read on paper and also heared news that India grounded all its *60 MKI's* right after the incident.

IAF Sukhoi fighter jet crashes; navigator killed



> New Delhi: One person was killed when a frontline Su-30MKI combat jet of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crashed while on a routine training mission in Rajasthan, an official said.
> 
> The crash occurred at 1030 hrs IST., some 70 km southeast of Jaisalmer, an IAF spokesperson said, adding that the aircraft had taken off from the Lohegaon air base near Pune.
> 
> The two-man crew ejected before the jet crashed. The pilot, Wing Commander S V Munje, survived but the navigator, Wing Commander P.S. Narah, succumbed to his injuries, the spokesperson added.
> 
> There were no reports of damage to property on the ground.
> 
> This is the first crash of a Su-30MKI, which was inducted into the IAF in 1997. *The IAF operates three squadrons (approximately 55 aircraft) of the jet*, which is being manufactured under license in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
> 
> It was not immediately clear whether the aircraft that crashed was among those purchased in fly away condition or had been manufactured in India



Please provide me any link except wiki that proves that IAF has 100+ SU-30. (May be ur right, but as much as I know I m sure that IAF have ~60 MKI's)



> FC20/J10 will enter service in 2014-2015 again check PAF under wipi or sino defencse or even this forum as posted earlier.



Again u refered with weki., its not a reliable source. 

J10-B (Not J10A) will be in PAF soon (PAF expecting in 2010 as said by ACM). 

Only the delay is coz of China was adding new features in J-10B. J-10B made its first flight in Dec 2008. So cant take it in days. PAF is always looking to counter IAF n J-10B is a good choice.



> J-10, J-11, FC-1
> The 01 prototype of the new J-10B was unveiled in March 2009, 3 months after its maiden flight in December 2008. This much improved variant features a DSI/bump engine inlet which not only cuts weight but also reduces RCS, *after a similar design was first tested onboard FC-1/JF-17.* The aircraft also features a J-11B style IRST/LR and a wide-angle holographic HUD. IRST enables passive detection of enemy aircraft, making J-10B more stealthy in combat. Its nose appears flatter too, similar to that of American F-16, and radar is thought to be PESA (of Russian origin?), the first of such type ever being developed for a Chinese fighter aircraft, giving J-10B a stronger multi-target engagement and ECCM capability. Two underwing inner pylons are strengthened for the heavier ASMs or LGBs. The tip of vertical tailfin was redesigned as well, featuring a large fairing containing communication and ECM antennas, which resembles that of French Mirage 2000. A rear facing MAWS sensor can be seen underneath the parachute boom. *A similar system was tested onboard FC-1/JF-17 as well*. All these improvements suggest that J-10B is equipped with a new generation of integrated electronic system, ranging from radar to EW system. Its mission may be changed from air-superiority to multi-purpose, such as AG. In addition, the aircarft is expected to be powered by an indigenous WS-10A turbofan. *Overall J-10B is thought to be comparable to American F-16E/Block 60.*
> - Last Updated 5/6/09



I think this statement is enough for you "Overall J-10B is thought to be comparable to American F-16E/Block 60".
Many features of J-10B are being incoprpoated in JF-17 so u can compare JF-17 with block 52+.
If u trust weki so much then u can refer to that else there r other websites that tells u abt JF-17. 



> As for F16 these are a danger only if and wen USA upgrades them to Block 52 and supplies you with 18 more in 2011...



PAF 44 F-16 are in process of MLU upgradation since August 2008. 
The upgradation will take them to block 50+
PAF 42 F-16 jets upgraded to block 50+

PAF have total 46 F16 eql to Block 50+/52. 18 will be recieved in 2010.



> As for JF17 versis SU30MKI ... JF fan boys keep saying will give flanker "tough tim,e " but wat does that mean and with what ..
> 
> The flankers have been studied to death by USA Austrilia & Europeans who all agree its a beast of a war plane. Its easily the best fighter Russia has produced ever. The flanker was designed to beat off USA legacy fighters like F15 F16 & EVEN EARLY F18s . In mock simulations fLANKETRS HAVE COME OUT ON TOP OF all of these.
> 
> Now are we saying that the JF17 has something additional that USA F15 F16 don,t have


I know about SU-30MKI capabilities. I know its one of the top fighters but at the same time I suggest u to study some thing abt JF-17 then put ur views.
Its true SU-30MKI is batter then JF-17 but JF-17 hav the capabilities to counter it.

One thing more Indian Su-30, Mirage 2000 violated PAkistan airspace few months ago in Lahore and Kashmir region. They were locked by F-16, F-7

Lahore: 2x Indian Air Force Su-30 (armed) &#8211; intercepted and escorted out by 3x Pakistan Air Force F-16s and 3x F-7s
Muzaffarabad: 3x Indian Air Force Mirage 2000 (armed) &#8211; intercepted and escorted out by 2x Pakistan Air Force F-16s and 2x F-7s.

Indian Jets violate the Pakistan&#8217;s airspace

*One thing more maverick2009, Please quote things with proper references.*


----------



## hocuspocush

MZUBAIR said:


> One thing more Indian Su-30, Mirage 2000 violated PAkistan airspace few months ago in Lahore and Kashmir region. They were locked by F-16, F-7
> 
> Lahore: 2x Indian Air Force Su-30 (armed)  intercepted and escorted out by 3x Pakistan Air Force F-16s and 3x F-7s
> Muzaffarabad: 3x Indian Air Force Mirage 2000 (armed)  intercepted and escorted out by 2x Pakistan Air Force F-16s and 2x F-7s.
> 
> Indian Jets violate the Pakistans airspace
> 
> *One thing more maverick2009, Please quote things with proper references.*



Here are couple of links denying the same(including Pakistani media):

=> geo.tv/12-14-2008/30640.htm

=> thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=62394

=> ibnlive.in.com/news/pakistan-cries-foul-india-says-no-airspace-violation/80526-3.html

=> hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=8ff72d7f-ede9-4b44-abfe-74127634fb85&ParentID=59336712-3ebc-42ed-90ae-57f436a98056&Headline=Flip-flop+Pakistan+cries+airspace+violation+again

So, your case in point???

Whether this incident happened or not, whether it was a technical incursion or a mistake and indeed a intended violation, what's the point??

The two countries were not at war. *IF *indian pilots did violate, it only made sense to retrieve back(regardless of, if F-16/F-7 were locked on) in order to de-escalate the situation unless india is looking to strike. 

So, does this incident make PAF braver or IAF weaker??

Let's just stick to the topic and make your post count! (No offence meant)


----------



## HarryPotter

Hmm, I don't think JF-17 is a advanced air superiority fighter, but rather a multi-role and more of a interceptor which properly fits into that role.

Flanker on the other hand is a proven advanced air superiority fighter which can hold itself even in a dog fight against f-18, typhoon inspite of having a higher RCS, but its radar and avionics might balance its higher RCS.

Now when u compare a aircraft and against other, in a neutral environment and in one-one mode JF-17 doesn't even stand a remote chance in dog fight as the advanced avionics of flanker and its already existing BVR capability, endurance of 25-30 mins dogfight fuel whereas jf-17 its hardly 10 mins, its radar and its current ammunition make Flanker a beast.

If you have to pitch JF-17 against Flanker against JF-17 in the current Pakistan and Indian environment, JF-17 will play only a defensive role may be an interceptor backed with credible SAM's of Pakistan and its SaaB Erieye awacs. And it will be pitched at 2-1 numbers, even if Pakistan inducted 2 - 3 squadrons by 2010-2011, India by that time will have 7-8 Squadrons of Flankers which is a numerical superiority of a better aircraft.

In India's advantage the acquisitions of Phalcons and RJ-77 and Brahmos if inducted into its weaponry will have a distinct advantage over JF-17 solely because of its BVR capabilities and better missiles.

I did find that there are keen enthusiasts of JF-17Block II upgrade but realistically by that time the first upgrade of Flanker to the level of MIG-35 will out run JF-17 upgrade as JF-17 block II upgrade will not even get JF-17 to the current capabilities of Flanker which is a fact and I believe people who have a basic knowledge in FC will not dispute this fact.

So, JF-17 in a 1*1 combat with Flanker will be very interesting and I believe will be very amusing.


----------



## hocuspocush

saadahmed said:


> Hi,
> Jf-17 is a forth generation fighter.
> 1) Fly by Wire Control System
> 2) BVR Missile Support
> 3) Much more Agile then 3rd Generation Fighters such as Mig21, Mirage 3/5.
> -
> Now I think PAF should equip All Jf-17's with GRIFO Radars and SD-70 Missile.
> GRFIO has a range of 100KM and SD-70 Missile has a range of 70 KM.
> Now Although Su30mKi radar range is 200KM+ how ever it will not have anything to fire at that range even if it detects JF-17 because the BVR Missile it carries has a range of 80KM and anything above 80K has a very low PKK and IFF is another issue.So, I believe along with Radar and other stuff PAF should also be careful about Agility as IAF and PAF Fighters may get into Dogfights because JF-17 should be able to handle any IAF Fighter except MRCA (If MRCa gets AESA) and SU30MKI (SU30MKI can also be handled by integrating better missiles with high range and good PKK).After reading the Missile Range i don't think SU30MKI will be a huge threat once AIM120C and SD10 are fully inducted in PAF.Radar as well as Missile Range is what matters in BVR Combat.Both Pilots will try to fire at each other within 60-70Km as anything above 70KM will have a very low chance of kill (No Escape Zone is best for BVR Kill).Can anyone with real reliable knowledge tell me range of KLJ-7 Radar?There is no point of radar with 200KM+ Range detection imo when you don't have anything to fire at those ranges.



I don't agree. Kindly refer to the article below where Su-30MKI's radar aperture is compared to that of JSF and F/A-18A-F.

It also compares R-77T/P range to that of AIM-120C.

With these comparisons and upcoming upgrades in the Su-30MKI, it would not make sense to compare JF-17 to a Su-30MKI. 

Not that thunder is not worthy enough, but to field it against Su-30MKI would not be less than foolish.

ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Now, some member may come up and say that this australian site it not a worthy one, BUT I would say it's the only site that has exhaustive figures on the flanker and its future upgrade path. It also directly compares the Russian missiles to that of american.....including the detecting capabilities and the RCS graph.

If anybody on this forum has any better site which indicates similar information in-terms of radars used by different Sukhoi variants and compares the BVR ranges, then please refer it otherwise think twice before rubbishing it.


----------



## Haanzo

hi 

how can some one compare single -engine fighter with twin engine .....comparing apples and oranges 

and how do you thank someone here ....????


----------



## hocuspocush

Another aspect of BVR combat which I don't think anybody has mentioned in this forum:

In Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, the Sukhoi will again have a kinematic advantage, which may be exploitable at the bounds of engagement radii, as the Sukhoi can gain separation in and out of the missile envelope of the F/A-18's and JSF faster - it has the extra thrust and combat fuel to play kinematic games both smaller fighters(read: especially JF-17) cannot.


----------



## Haanzo

one more question ...if jf-17 was soo good to counter the sukhoi...why does pakistan need f-16 blk52...the are also in the process of getting j-10 which is comparable to blk 60 right


----------



## MZUBAIR

HarryPotter said:


> Hmm, I don't think JF-17 is a advanced air superiority fighter, but rather a multi-role and more of a interceptor which properly fits into that role.
> 
> Flanker on the other hand is a proven advanced air superiority fighter which can hold itself even in a dog fight against f-18, typhoon inspite of having a higher RCS, but its radar and avionics might balance its higher RCS.
> 
> Now when u compare a aircraft and against other, in a neutral environment and in one-one mode JF-17 doesn't even stand a remote chance in dog fight as the advanced avionics of flanker and its already existing BVR capability, endurance of 25-30 mins dogfight fuel whereas jf-17 its hardly 10 mins, its radar and its current ammunition make Flanker a beast.
> 
> If you have to pitch JF-17 against Flanker against JF-17 in the current Pakistan and Indian environment, JF-17 will play only a defensive role may be an interceptor backed with credible SAM's of Pakistan and its SaaB Erieye awacs. And it will be pitched at 2-1 numbers, even if Pakistan inducted 2 - 3 squadrons by 2010-2011, India by that time will have 7-8 Squadrons of Flankers which is a numerical superiority of a better aircraft.
> 
> In India's advantage the acquisitions of Phalcons and RJ-77 and Brahmos if inducted into its weaponry will have a distinct advantage over JF-17 solely because of its BVR capabilities and better missiles.
> 
> I did find that there are keen enthusiasts of JF-17Block II upgrade but realistically by that time the first upgrade of Flanker to the level of MIG-35 will out run JF-17 upgrade as JF-17 block II upgrade will not even get JF-17 to the current capabilities of Flanker which is a fact and I believe people who have a basic knowledge in FC will not dispute this fact.
> 
> So, JF-17 in a 1*1 combat with Flanker will be very interesting and I believe will be very amusing.



I would like to suggest u once more.

Study about JF-17, Dont put any thing without any study.
Ur analysis is just creap abt Thunder.
Thanxs


----------



## MZUBAIR

Haanzo said:


> one more question ...if jf-17 was soo good to counter the sukhoi...why does pakistan need f-16 blk52...the are also in the process of getting j-10 which is comparable to blk 60 right



Thanxs,
Atleast some one of u come up with logical question.

Pakistan has ordered a total of 111 F-16A/B aircraft. Of these, 71 were embargoed by the US due to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Of these 71, 28 were actually built but were flown directly to the AMARC at Davis-Monthan AFB for storage.

Over the years, various plans were conceived for these 28 aircraft: Pakistan wanted to get the aircraft or their money back; they were offered to various nations, none of which were interested; ultimately, the US Navy and USAF entered them into service as aggressor aircraft.

After Pakistan's help in the war on terror, the US lifted the embargo. In 2005, Pakistan requested 24 new Block 50/52 F-16C/Ds (with option for as much as 55 aircraft). But After 2005 Earthquake PAF altered order for 18 F-16 C/D. Whihc will be delievered in 2010-11.

Now due to the era of embargoed (1991-2004), PAF was totally ignored and this forced Pakistan to build a new aircraft. Intially it was the plan of USA & China to build a fighter called Super 7 but due to political reasons USA cancelled it. 
Pakistan got a chance and asked China to continue the project with their support.
Pakistan needed the fighters in that era which would be more advanced then F-16 block A/B and they succeded in the form of JF-17 in 2006.
Pakistan & China still looking in improvements in JF-17 and planned to make it equvilant to F-16 Block 52+.

As u said 



> hi
> 
> how can some one compare single -engine fighter with twin engine .....comparing apples and oranges
> 
> and how do you thank someone here ....????



Yes, All on the board agree with u. JF-17 is of different class then MKI. MKI is more advanced and dangerous but In near future as planned JF-17 will be capable to compete Su-30.
JF-17 never designed to compete MKI. In reply to MKI PAF planned for J-10B.
JF-17 was planned to compete ur other fighter, but at the same time PAF looking to make it more advance, atleast to compete or give tough time to SU30.

Now for advancement.
Jf-17 is going to have new China fighter engine Woshan WS-13 TianShan (For more thrust and power) to raplace RD-93 turbofan engine (varient of RD-33 engine used in mig 29). PAF is also considering fitting European powerplants such as the French Snecma M88 (used in Raffel) to its aircraft

Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system will be encorporated shortly.

Minor airframe modifications to reduce the aircraft's radar cross-section by adding stealthy features

Beyond the initial 50 PAF JF-17s, the remaining production aircraft may also be equipped with European avionics, radars and weaponry (probabily French). Pakistan had begun negotiations with British and Italian defence firms over potential avionics and radars for JF-17 during initial development. Some of the radar options for JF-17 are the Italian Galileo Avionica Grifo S7 and the French Thomson-CSF RC400 (a variant of the RDY-2), along with the MBDA MICA IR/RF short/medium range air-to-air missiles

*Now as u said and i m glad atleast one Indian is ablt to agree that J-10A is equal to F-16 block 60. *

Pakistan is procuring J-10B, more advance then J-10A to counter SU-30 MKI. 
J-10B is more advanced then J10A (J-10 A is eql to F-16 block 60).

I hope things are cleared to u as u asked


----------



## Haanzo

yeah they are pretty much cleared ...what radar and electronics this j-10 and 17 have ....are they aqual to blk-50 and 60 in those too....

j-10 b is better than blk 60 doesit have an AESA and all is the weapons pakage as good as on the blk -60


----------



## sancho

MZUBAIR said:


> Nobody believes on wikipei.
> Few weeks ago When one MKI crashed down, I read on paper and also heared news that India grounded all its *60 MKI's* right after the incident.
> 
> IAF Sukhoi fighter jet crashes; navigator killed
> 
> Please provide me any link except wiki that proves that IAF has 100+ SU-30. (May be ur right, but as much as I know I m sure that IAF have ~60 MKI's)
> 
> Again u refered with weki., its not a reliable source.


It's always easy to say wiki is not reliable if you don't check at least the sources they are quoting:
List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> India eventually will acquire a total of 230 aircraft by 2014-15.[4]


Source 4:Top russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire


> The Indian Air Force, after years of negotiations, purchased 50 Su-30 aircraft in 1996 and acquired the license from Sukhoi and Russia to manufacture an additional 140 Su-30MKI aircraft. *Currently 116 Sukhoi-30MKI are in service.*


The numbers will rise fast, cause next year the first of 40 Mkis orderd from Russia in 2007 should arrive and the licence production will be faster. It is expected that around 2015 all 230 Mki should be in service and maybe the early once will get an upgrade (new engines and maybe AESA radar).


----------



## sancho

MZUBAIR said:


> *Now as u said and i m glad atleast one Indian is ablt to agree that J-10A is equal to F-16 block 60. *
> 
> Pakistan is procuring J-10B, more advance then J-10A to counter SU-30 MKI.
> J-10B is more advanced then J10A (J-10 A is eql to F-16 block 60).
> 
> I hope things are cleared to u as u asked


Without AESA radar it can't be equal to F16 Block 60 right? I belive J10A comes close to F16 block 52 but also needs time to improve.


----------



## Haanzo

so speaking of chinese weapons systems are they as mature as americans or russians ...*PLEASE REMEMBER PLANES ARE JUST THE DELIVERY PLATFORMS ...THE WEAPONS ARE THE REAL KILLERS ...PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPARE PLANES AND NOT THEIR WEAPONS*

also considering american planes are serius contenders in the MMRCA deal ..will the jf-17 ,j-10 be able to counter them too ( it might as your posts say they are similar to blk-50,60) 

here are some things i got from raytheon stall in aero india 2009 

they will be on the vipers and the superbugs ...and this is a whole new level of defence ...so whats pakistans\chinas answer to these as american planes might make their way into the IAF 





















all are welcome to comment not just MUZABIR


----------



## hocuspocush

MZUBAIR said:


> Thanxs,
> 
> As u said
> 
> Yes, All on the board agree with u. JF-17 is of different class then MKI. MKI is more advanced and dangerous but In near future as planned JF-17 will be capable to compete Su-30.
> JF-17 never designed to compete MKI. In reply to MKI PAF planned for J-10B.
> JF-17 was planned to compete ur other fighter, but at the same time PAF looking to make it more advance, atleast to compete or give tough time to SU30.
> 
> Now for advancement.
> Jf-17 is going to have new China fighter engine Woshan WS-13 TianShan (For more thrust and power) to raplace RD-93 turbofan engine (varient of RD-33 engine used in mig 29). PAF is also considering fitting European powerplants such as the French Snecma M88 (used in Raffel) to its aircraft
> 
> Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system will be encorporated shortly.
> 
> Minor airframe modifications to reduce the aircraft's radar cross-section by adding stealthy features
> 
> Beyond the initial 50 PAF JF-17s, the remaining production aircraft may also be equipped with European avionics, radars and weaponry (probabily French). Pakistan had begun negotiations with British and Italian defence firms over potential avionics and radars for JF-17 during initial development. Some of the radar options for JF-17 are the Italian Galileo Avionica Grifo S7 and the French Thomson-CSF RC400 (a variant of the RDY-2), along with the MBDA MICA IR/RF short/medium range air-to-air missiles
> 
> *Now as u said and i m glad atleast one Indian is ablt to agree that J-10A is equal to F-16 block 60. *
> 
> Pakistan is procuring J-10B, more advance then J-10A to counter SU-30 MKI.
> J-10B is more advanced then J10A (J-10 A is eql to F-16 block 60).
> 
> I hope things are cleared to u as u asked




You think that with future upgrades, JF-17 will be able to compete with Su-30MKI. Think again! ! ! !

It's good that JF-17 is getting its due upgrades in the future to make it a more competitive aircraft. However, you should also keep in the mind, the upgrades being done on its rival opponent.

Here are the future upgrade options for Sukhoi-30MKI:

1. Supersonic cruise 40,000 lbf class AL-41F engines replacing the AL-31F. 
2. Thrust vectoring (TVC) engine nozzles with 2D or 3D capability. 

3. Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) becoming standard for late build Flankers. The Su-37 included redundant sidestick controls for the pilot.

4. Canard foreplanes for enhanced high alpha agility. Production hardware on Su-33 and Su-30MKI.

5. An active phased array (AESA) fire control radar replacing the N-001 and N-011/011M series. 
6. A two color band FLIR/IRST sensor replacing the OLS-30, using QWIP imaging array technology. 
7. COTS based computer hardware running COTS based software. 
8. A Helmet Mounted Display with FLIR projection capability. Such an upgrade was being discussed some years ago, and would be easily accommodated with a FLIR/IRST sensor.

9. Full glass cockpit based on digital technology. Given the current delivery of first generation glass cockpits in Su-30MK and Su-27SKM, this is a natural progression.

10. Heatseeking and anti radiation variants of the R-77 Amraamski, and extended range ramjet powered variants of the R-77. All are in advanced development and actively being marketed.

11. Advanced digital variants of the R-73/74 Archer close-in air to air missile. These have been actively marketed.

12. AWACS killer long range missiles in the 160 to 200 nautical mile range category. *The R-37/AA-X-13 Arrow remains in development for the Su-35, the R-172 was recently reported as the subject of licence negotiations with India.* Su-35 upgrade marketing literature depicts the use of such missiles.

13. Cruise missiles for standoff attacks. China acquired Kh-55SM/AS-15 Kent cruise missiles from the Ukraine, and is manufacturing indigenous designs. *India intends to use the supersonic Brahmos on its Su-30MKIs.*
14. Advanced jam resistant fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalinks and networks. Further evolution of protocol software will see this technology grow to match current US capabilities.

15. Radar absorbent materials for radar observables reduction. Numerous Russian unclassified papers detail a range of technologies for surface wave suppression and edge signature reduction, with a specific aim of reducing legacy aircraft observables.

16. Aerial refuelling probes, pylon plumbing for drop tanks, and buddy refuelling stores. Production hardware available off the shelf.


----------



## maverick2009

MZUBAIR 

Re SU30 MKI the report suggest 3 Squadrons at 55 fighters approx. Which of course is where you got your nos from. 

But ALL OF HERE ARE FOLLWING su30 mki very closely i can tell you there are 5 operational squadrons. With a full squd having 18 fighters each minimum in IAF.

Bharat Raksha which is the equal of this Forum to indians confirms 5 squadrons too. " They both cant be wrong. 

Currently india is building 14 new SU30 MKI A YEAR off indian production lines since 2004. India had 50 fighters de;livered direct from Russia way back in period 2002-2006. 

Total production finishes by 2014 ie 230 fighters. in total. 

Second point see Hyper link off this forum re delivery of FC20 by 2014 not next year by your collegue HJ786

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/3218-j-10-fc-20-mrca-62.html

Again you got this info wrong


----------



## Munir

By the time J10 will be in Pak hands it will have more high tech then MKI. Just count the difference in delivery day and the time they had to evolve...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

Munir said:


> By the time J10 will be in Pak hands *it will have more high tech then MKI*. Just count the difference in delivery day and the time they had to evolve...


Can you explain what?


----------



## maverick2009

SU30MKI in 2014 will have Ibris Aesa Radar tracking at 400km with the ramjet BVR missle engaging at 200km..

FC20 and any other fighter you care mention (bar F22/JSF) WILL HAVE a real problem getting even close to a SU30MKI. 

There is nothing on the drawing board that come even close to Ibris Aesa in China. 

How ever you could look at USA APG79/81 AESA


----------



## Gucci Juice

1. the total amount of mki's is now over 120 not 55 their media is retarded as hell.

reasons for this is common sense... 1996 contract signed for 40 mki's 2000 delivery completed 10 more and licensed production contract signed so roughly 50 a/c made by 2004 when licensed production started at a rate of 1 squadron per year, so

04 2 sqds
05 3 sqds
06 3 squds (old mk varient sent back)
07 3 squad and 2 more ordered
08 5 squads (new mki's arrive to replace mk variant)
09 6-7 squads by the end of the year
10 8 squads
11 9 squads
12 10 squads
13 11 squads
14 12 squads and production is over and total of 239 a/c

2. and by 2014 the mki design will be 15 years old and there will be a need for an upgrade which could involve al-41 (which has same dimensions of al-31 but more high tech), aesa, new ew systems, a new 300 km aewacs killer aa missile (funding is similar to brahmos venture)


----------



## Keysersoze

maverick2009 said:


> SU30MKI in 2014 will have Ibris Aesa Radar tracking at 400km with the ramjet BVR missle engaging at 200km..
> 
> FC20 and any other fighter you care mention (bar F22/JSF) WILL HAVE a real problem getting even close to a SU30MKI.
> 
> There is nothing on the drawing board that come even close to Ibris Aesa in China.
> 
> How ever you could look at USA APG79/81 AESA



Sigh ! do you have a giant poster of the MKI that you have wet dreams over? Any more fo your crap and expect a ban as I am getting bored of your teenage antics.....

You know nothing! Oh BTW i got to talk to some of the guys involved with the recent exercises with the dreaded MKI!!!!!!  better stick to girls in future sunshine....

I would also love to know about your sources in China too......Apparently you are quite in the know........

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Munir

sancho said:


> Can you explain what?



Good question. If they went from copied J6 to J10 (or maybe JXX) in two decades... With millions of well qualified people (import and internal and inpressive spying) they will get a lot further then we expect in the next few years. The most difficult is the high performance jet engine and even that is expected to be mastered in 2014... Maybe that explains the delivery date for PAF cause the might not want AL31...

About the avionics... Just compare F7PG cockpit with JF17... I bet there a not many fighterjets that have that for that price... IRST is in development. AESA radars... New long range AAM's etc etc...

Let me alter the question. Why do you expect that they will be not top economy or top fighterjet technology producers?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Munir

maverick2009 said:


> SU30MKI in 2014 will have Ibris Aesa Radar tracking at 400km with the ramjet BVR missle engaging at 200km..
> 
> FC20 and any other fighter you care mention (bar F22/JSF) WILL HAVE a real problem getting even close to a SU30MKI.
> 
> There is nothing on the drawing board that come even close to Ibris Aesa in China.
> 
> How ever you could look at USA APG79/81 AESA



Talk to the hand cause the head ain't listening.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gucci Juice

no offense, but some ppl here are being very arrogant and i think they should stop. and have a good discussion

noone is trolling here

everything is backed up with news articles and other sources


----------



## MZUBAIR

Haanzo said:


> so speaking of chinese weapons systems are they as mature as americans or russians ...*PLEASE REMEMBER PLANES ARE JUST THE DELIVERY PLATFORMS ...THE WEAPONS ARE THE REAL KILLERS ...PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPARE PLANES AND NOT THEIR WEAPONS*
> 
> also considering american planes are serius contenders in the MMRCA deal ..will the jf-17 ,j-10 be able to counter them too ( it might as your posts say they are similar to blk-50,60)
> 
> here are some things i got from raytheon stall in aero india 2009
> 
> they will be on the vipers and the superbugs ...and this is a whole new level of defence ...so whats pakistans\chinas answer to these as american planes might make their way into the IAF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *all are welcome to comment not just MUZABIR*



Look at the jelous and emotional person.
U r bck to the typical Indian thinking.

Well, 

*Pakistan has more western weapons/avonics/Radars etc then chinees products.*

*Second thing is that Chinees products are influence of Russian products which u used mostly (ur old Mirage jets are western technology which u have).*

Now as for as JF-17 concerned, *Please you Indians study some thing about thunder*. Open up ur brains. Accept right things before shouting. Please have a look JF-17 official website. All weapons, Radars and even engines are not Chinees.

JF-17 official wesite.

How many times, I have to prove that JF-17 is using western Avoinics, weapons and Russian engine Klimov RD-93 Turbofan engine which is varient of Mig-29.

Even Pakistan is also making through air to air ,air to ground weapons for F-16, Mirage and JF-17 which are same as western.

*But India cant believe this coz they cant accept these things coz there minds are set for Anti - Pakistan and China.*


----------



## MZUBAIR

maverick2009 said:


> MZUBAIR
> 
> Re SU30 MKI the report suggest 3 Squadrons at 55 fighters approx. Which of course is where you got your nos from.
> 
> But ALL OF HERE ARE FOLLWING su30 mki very closely i can tell you there are 5 operational squadrons. With a full squd having 18 fighters each minimum in IAF.
> 
> Bharat Raksha which is the equal of this Forum to indians confirms 5 squadrons too. " They both cant be wrong.
> 
> Currently india is building 14 new SU30 MKI A YEAR off indian production lines since 2004. India had 50 fighters de;livered direct from Russia way back in period 2002-2006.
> 
> Total production finishes by 2014 ie 230 fighters. in total.
> 
> Second point see Hyper link off this forum re delivery of FC20 by 2014 not next year by your collegue HJ786
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/3218-j-10-fc-20-mrca-62.html
> 
> Again you got this info wrong



Well, I am not like Indians who dont want to accept or believe any thing, I havent find any thing that proves their quantity more then 60.
I am not Indian nither living in India so cant bet on it as I just read on papers and medis last week (When Su30 crashed) which I already refered u regarding MKi quantity.

I m Pakistani and can bet on wt I m saying abt ma country. 



> Total production finishes by 2014 ie 230 fighters. in total.


Well as abt ur this quote, I totally agree that PLAAF has planned for 230+ J-10B till 2014.

I would only say that, Pakistan needs J-10B quickly in their squad and surely Pakistan will get 36 out of initial 50 J10B and hope fully this would happen before 2014. 

*Coz PAF has to ground All old F-7 and Mirage and will keep only upgraded 50 and 80 respectively. Besides that PAF has new plans to implement from 2015 - 2025 to ground all remainng F-7 and Mirage.*

Most probabily F-16 and JF-17 will got till 2030 as they are of same class.

Till 2015 PAF is focused on following fleet (*Confirmed NEWS*)

Chengdu FC-20/J-10B *36* Advance Multirole & Air Superiority
Lockheed Martin F-16 C/D Block 52+ *18* Advanced Multi-Role 
Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BM *46* Multi-Role 
PAC JF-17 Thunder *250* Multi-Role 
Chengdu F-7PG/T Skybolt-G *50*
Dassault Mirage ROSE Upgrade *80* Naval and Ground Support

Total approx would be 480.
And remember that all F-16's, JF-17,F-7PG( upgraded), Mirage ROSE( upgraded) are all for 4th generation counter except for J-10B which is from and for 4.5th generation.


----------



## Haanzo

MZUBAIR said:


> *Look at the jelous and emotional person.
> U r bck to the typical Indian thinking.
> *
> Well,
> 
> *Pakistan has more western weapons/avonics/Radars etc then chinees products.*
> 
> *Now second thing is that Chinees products are influence of Russian products.*
> 
> Now as for as JF-17 concerned, *Please you Indians study some thing*. Open up ur brains. Accept right things before shouting. Please have a look JF-17 official website. All weapons, Radars and even engines are not Chinees.
> 
> JF-17 official wesite.
> 
> How many times, I have to prove that JF-17 is using western Avoinics, weapons and Russian engine Klimov RD-93 Turbofan engine which is varient of Mig-29.
> Even Pakistan is also making through air to air ,air to ground missels for F-16, Mirage and JF-17 same as westerrn.
> *But India cant believe this coz they cant accept these things coz there minds are set for Anti - Pakistan and China.*



point one 
please mind your language and think before categorizing anyone...

i never denied that jf-17 is equal to blk52 and j-10 is equal to blk 60 in terms of avionics and aerodynamics ...i just wanted to compare the weapons package ......in the jf-17 website there is no other A2A missile listed other than SD-10



> JF-17/FC-1 has 7 store stations and can carry up to 3,800 KG of external load.
> The Plane can carry a range of Short-Range, Long-Range, Anti-Ship and Anti-Radiation missiles. The Aircraft can be armed with LGBs and other unguided weaponry for Strike Purposes.
> Following is the list of weaponry readily available and/or which can be easily integrated with the Radar of Chinese origin.
> 
> AIR to AIR
> 
> - Shan Dian-10 (SD-10):
> SD-10 is beleived to be under development since 1997.
> 
> The SD-10 has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the SD-10 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse.
> The SD-10 is claimed to have an operational ceiling of 20 km, with a maximum effective range of 70 km and a minimum engagement range of 1,000 m. The missile has a 40 g manoeuvring limit and, according to CATIC, it has been tested for a 100-hour captive 'live flight' life.
> (From Jane's Air Launched Weapons 2003)
> 
> 
> Specifications
> 
> Length: 3.85 m
> Body diameter: 203 mm
> Wing span: n/k
> Launch weight: 180 kg
> Warhead: HE fragmentation
> Fuze: Active proximity fuse
> Guidance: Inertial mid-course and /or datalink updates, with active radar terminal homing
> Propulsion: Solid dual-thrust rocket motor
> Range: 70 km (in a head on engagement)
> 
> 
> 
> SD-10 (Credits: ZJC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - H-4 / H-2:
> First Reported by Dawn on 18th Dec 2003 (Link). The missiles are said to have ranges of 120 km/ 60 km respectivly. *It is not clear wether these are Air-to-Air missiles or Air-to-Ground*. Anyway, JF-17 will be able to equip them.
> 
> BOMBS
> MK-82 Snake Eye
> GBU-12
> GBU-10
> BL-755
> 
> ANTI-SHIP:
> -
> 
> ANTI-RADIATION:
> -




ENGINE 



> The contract between China and Russia over re-exporting the engines to Pakistan has ran into dispute. Russia is sending mixed signals whether the issue has been resolved or not. The issue is mainly political because Russia has never sold advanced weaponry or its components to Pakistan due to the regional politics. *Russia is also saying that FC-1s fitted with RD-93 are not allowed to compete where Russian Aircraft are competing*.
> 
> *China is also working on an indigenous engine which has the potential to power the FC-1 in future.*



WHAT DOES THE ABOVE SAY ??? ...we ,atleast i am not jelous of pakistan and its new fighter ...what does the above imply ....how will it result when a war is going between india and pakistan ......and about the chinese engine there are no specifications 


and anyway the first 51 fighters are gonna have chinese avionics and radar ...which is the official word ....if you cant PROVE YOUR CLAIMS REFRAIN FROM CALLING OTHERS EMOTIONAL AND DUMB ....you can do better than that ...just try


----------



## MZUBAIR

Haanzo said:


> point one
> please mind your language and think before categorizing anyone...



Okay, I hope next time we will talk in batter mood and would not get in conflict. We should try to undertstand and try to convience with proves.



> i never denied that jf-17 is equal to blk52 and j-10 is equal to blk 60 in terms of avionics and aerodynamics ...i just wanted to compare the weapons package ......in the jf-17 website there is no other A2A missile listed other than SD-10



JF-17 is developed on the concept of F-16. It can use all weapons of F-16.

*JF17 vs F-16*






JF-17 can be armed with a total of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) of air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry mounted externally on the aircraft's seven hardpoints.
Missiles:

Air-to-air missiles: PL-5E, PL-9C, PL-12 / SD-10 
Air-to-surface missiles: anti-radiation missiles; anti-ship missiles (AM-39 Exocet); cruise missiles (Ra'ad ALCM); etc. [65] 
Bombs:

Weapon used in F-17.
Gravity/Unguided bombs: general purpose (Mk-82, Mk-84); anti-runway (Matra Durandal); etc. [64] 
Precision guided munitions: laser-guided (GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2); satellite-guided; etc. [64] 
Cluster bombs: anti-armour (CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye); etc. 

JF-17 can use almost same weapons used in F-16, almost all of them are manufactured in local Air Weapons Complex (AWC).



*Loaded JF-17*






*JF-17 with weapons*





*JF-17 dimensions*




*Comparison with Gripen*




> ENGINE
> and anyway the first 51 fighters are gonna have chinese avionics and radar ...which is the official word ....if you cant PROVE YOUR CLAIMS REFRAIN FROM CALLING OTHERS EMOTIONAL AND DUMB ....you can do better than that ...just try


For engine, 
I agree but do u think china and Pakistan waist 2 Million for each engine which is not of good quality. Atleast Russia is sincere with China.

Pakistan took JF-17 to counter defeciency of last decayed when Pakistan banned for Miltary purchse by USA due to Nuclear developments.

Pakistan purchased engines from China not from Russia. Ofcourse first 50 will be with Chinees radar and Russian engine but as I said weapons of F-16 can also be used in Thunder. One more thing China products are not that bad to compete western technology example is JF-17, J10 & J11.

I agree JF17 cant match with Russian up-developments coz they are developing dual engine heavy fighters from SU-30 (including MKI  ) to onwards. 

PAF only wants to cover the last decay gap (not provided F-16 from USA) and counter Indian jets. India has only SU-30 which is ofcourse more then JF-17. 

Due to political reasons Pakistan is looking for French engine or chinees engine for JF-17. But this year we are getting 50 + JF-17 with RD-93

Chinees products are influence of Russian products. I hope u agree with this.

*Pakistan future future procurements.*
H-2 indigenous beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile 
H-4 indigenous beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile 
AIM-120C5 AMRAAM beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (500 ordered). 
AIM-9M-8/9 Sidewinder within-visual-range air-to-air missile (200 ordered). 
AIM-9M-1/2 Sidewinder within-visual-range air-to-air missile (upgraded to AIM-9M-8/9, 300 ordered). 
SD-10 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. 
PL-9C within-visual-range air-to-air missile. 
Denel A-Darter within-visual-range air-to-air missile. 
Harpoon Block II anti-ship missile. 
Mectron MAR-1 anti-radiation missile (100 received). 
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR targeting pod (18 ordered). 
Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) 
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)


----------



## Haanzo

^^^ ok lots of doubts have been cleared ....and about the weponization part ...i asked american representatives at the raytheon stall in aero india 09....weather american weapons can be used on russian platform ....they flatly said ....the competition is still underway and we are not at liberty to discuss that with the general public . but the gripen guys openly stated we will do whatever india requests ...any weapon for that matter irrespective of the origin can be used on the gripen ,...using an a2a missile is not that simple the country which developed the weapon and the delivery platform must agree upon it because the weapons are linked to the mission computer and if its a BVR it should also be linked to the radar ...so yes this looks like a mess ..but will it happen ...if yes ,please can you provide any official indication on this matter...ok coming to the point

will the americans allow their weapons to be integrated on a chinese platform ....if yes any news on it .....yes the jf-17 CAN carry american weapons BUT will the americans allow for the integration ...this remains the only MAJOR QUESTION on my mind....technical part satisfied me ...but i may have to disagree upon some of your points
*
EDIT*


> PAF only wants to cover the last decay gap (not provided F-16 from USA) and counter Indian jets. *India has only SU-30* which is ofcourse more then JF-17.
> 
> Due to political reasons Pakistan is looking for French engine or chinees engine for JF-17. But this year we are getting 50 + JF-17 with RD-93
> 
> Chinees products are influence of Russian products. I hope u agree with this.




india has mirages and the mig-29....presently the migs electronics are not up-to date but it is going to change soon,but aerodynamically they are just as lethal as the sukhoi ..and the mirages are good ...but IF the upgrades are finalized they will be more lethal

i am a bit out of date on the engine issue ..can you please provide me more information with that ..is it a direct sale ...or coming through china ....are the russians ok with it, when are they coming ....some news article related to it

yes i agree that chinese product are influence of the russians ....but the MAIN reason for the world to discredit them is for the fact that chinese are very secretive about it ..if they were more open in and transperent in their showcasing of their products the world might know their true potential ...what ever it may be


----------



## mean_bird

Haanzo said:


> will the americans allow their weapons to be integrated on a chinese platform ....if yes any news on it .....yes the jf-17 CAN carry american weapons BUT will the americans allow for the integration ...this remains the only MAJOR QUESTION on my mind



F-7P and sidewinders.


----------



## Haanzo

mean_bird said:


> F-7P and sidewinders.



ANY BVR ....comparable to SD-10 or better missiles


----------



## mean_bird

Haanzo said:


> ANY BVR ....comparable to SD-10 or better missiles



What kind of a question is that? We all know PAF has not had any BVR (or atleast US BVR) till now so the question of integrating a US BVR on Chinese aircraft doesn't arise.

What will happen in future? Only time will tell. 

Personally, I do not think PAF has even asked US to allow its missiles to be integrated, since all we want is get rid of US-specific material. PAF is looking towards SD-10, MICA, and/or R-Darter missiles. PAF chief has time and again mentioned they will be going for a 5th gen. WVRAAM. 

I think the amount of US weapons (if any) will depend on the radar. I personally believe we "might" see other weapons but not AAMs, but we I also believe we will see equal or better AAMs from non-US sources like those from Denel, and Meteor in future. China is also making their next gen Ramjet based missiles.


----------



## Gucci Juice

i think u should change thread to jf-17, j-10, and f-16 vs mki, mrca, lca, mig-29, and mirage 2000.

or even better

future paf vs future iaf

here's my estimate of future fleets

2020~
paf
-300 jf-17
-100 j-10
-60 f-16

iaf
-230 mki
-126 mrca(possibly increased to 200)
-100 lca
-100 mig-29
-50 mirage 2000
-20 paf-fa

i think with new government they will order either superhornet or mig-35.

ef=too expensive
rafael=out
gripen=like lca
f-16=paf has it


----------



## Super Falcon

i think JF 17 lacks a radar against SU 30 because radar of SU has bigger range than JF 17 so SU can have a first lock on to Jf 17 i think PAF should enhace the capability of Jf 17 it will make Jf 17 all together a different fighter jet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Owais

Super Falcon said:


> i think JF 17 lacks a radar against SU 30 because radar of SU has bigger range than JF 17 so SU can have a first lock on to Jf 17 i think PAF should enhace the capability of Jf 17 it will make Jf 17 all together a different fighter jet



JF17's engine cannot give enough power to support a big radar nor a Bigger radar can be fitted in its nose. the radar deficiency against su30 will be covered by AWACs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

as the jf17s would be phased out from2025 anyway, i dont think paf would take the no.s to 300... paf would only keep block 3 jf17s and take the no. of j10s to 200, perhaps come up with2 blocks of j10.[4.6/4.8 gen].. in this way we wont see a major deficit in paf inventoery , when all of a sudden jf17s become absolete.
any comments.. 
*i would definately like some paf officials to look into this point.*


----------



## Manticore

''-126 mrca(possibly increased to 200)
-100 lca
-100 mig-29
-50 mirage 2000''

*4 kind of mrcas ?
*including lca? 
*that too after 15 years from now with old airframes of m2k and mig29?
*you could have said 100 lca or 80 mrca[f-18]


----------



## Zarbe Momin

If PAF has better radar (Target detection and Lock on capability) and better BVR missel then SU-30 and JF-17 have 1:1 chance.


----------



## hj786

Zarbe Momin said:


> If PAF has better radar (Target detection and Lock on capability) and better BVR missel then SU-30 and JF-17 have 1:1 chance.



Brother, we have no idea about the chance. It could be 100:1 in favour of MKI. It just depends on the missiles and counter-measures. It isn't really MKI v JF-17.

It's MKI's missiles and counter-measures v JF-17's missiles and counter-measures.
Not one single poster here, Pakistani Indian or otherwise, knows anything important about either plane's missiles or its counter-measures, except maybe Sirs MuradK, X-man, PShammim. From what I have read in the posts by Sir MuradK, we have been mislead about the JF's performance figures as well as the electronics inside it. 

That's why, like PAFAce said, we should let this stupid trash-fest thread die. It really is pointless. The MKI has the advantage on paper and the trolls think that means it is an F-22.


----------



## notorious_eagle

hj786 said:


> Brother, we have no idea about the chance. It could be 100:1 in favour of MKI. It just depends on the missiles and counter-measures. It isn't really MKI v JF-17.
> 
> It's MKI's missiles and counter-measures v JF-17's missiles and counter-measures.
> Not one single poster here, Pakistani Indian or otherwise, knows anything important about either plane's missiles or its counter-measures, except maybe Sirs MuradK, X-man, PShammim. From what I have read in the posts by Sir MuradK, *we have been mislead about the JF's performance figures as well as the electronics inside it*.
> 
> That's why, like PAFAce said, we should let this stupid trash-fest thread die. It really is pointless. The MKI has the advantage on paper and the trolls think that means it is an F-22.



Thats exactly what i wanted to say, we have been completely misled about the performance of JF17 by PAF because they want our enemies to underestimate this beauty. Many so called analysts have claimed that JF17 is an improved version of MIG21, but in reality its design is based on our F16 Block 15's. The greatest asset that PAF has is its secrecy, on paper we have a fleet full of planes such as Mirage III/V, MIG21 and F16 Block15's. But if you go in detail and study them closely, things are not as black and white as they are made out to be. When MIG21 were upgraded, the Indians were claiming that it will be able to knock out F16. According to that logic shouldnt IAF be roaming all over Pakistan's airspace , they tried to engage in misadventure but were thoroughly shown the door. Hats off to PAF for keeping our skies safe

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sancho

Munir said:


> Good question. If they went from copied J6 to J10 (or maybe JXX) in two decades... With millions of well qualified people (import and internal and inpressive spying) they will get a lot further then we expect in the next few years. The most difficult is the high performance jet engine and even that is expected to be mastered in 2014... Maybe that explains the delivery date for PAF cause the might not want AL31...
> 
> About the avionics... Just compare F7PG cockpit with JF17... I bet there a not many fighterjets that have that for that price... IRST is in development. AESA radars... New long range AAM's etc etc...


So what you saying is that China improved their capabilities in the last decades very fast and that's why J10 will have better techs then Mki right?
As far as I know at the moment (and you are welcome to correct me) the J10 will have AL 31 engine but without TVC and maybe the Zhuk ME PESA radar right (China is working on an own radar and engine that are not ready yet)? 
The Mki also has the AL 31 with 2D TVC and will get AL 41 with 3D TVC and SC capabilities which are already reported on Su 35 with an early version of that engine. The PESA radar Mki has is superior to the Zhuk ME and it will get AESA radar with the MLU, most probably the same that Pak Fa/FGFA will have. These are not only my wishes, but facts that were reported severall times related to Mki.
So if you say it will have better techs then these, I would be very interested to hear what techs that will be. 


Munir said:


> Let me alter the question. Why do you expect that they will be not top economy or top fighterjet technology producers?


 Interesting what all you found out by reading such a simple sentence like


> Can you explain what?


I just asked what techs this will be, cause it sounds like you have more than just some guesses.


----------



## sancho

ANTIBODY said:


> ''-126 mrca(possibly increased to 200)
> -100 lca
> -100 mig-29
> -50 mirage 2000''
> 
> *4 kind of mrcas ?
> *including lca?
> *that too after 15 years from now with old airframes of m2k and mig29?
> *you could have said 100 lca or 80 mrca[f-18]


He is not so wrong, Mig 29 (60 - 70 not 100) will be upgraded to stay in service till 2020/25 and might be replaced by Pak Fa/FGFA. Reports said that the upgrade includes airframe overhaul, new engine, radar and added BVR combat capabilities (R77 missiles). Dassault makes an offer to upgrade around 50 Mirage 2k aircrafts, but the price for the upgrade is high (1,5 mil) and it's not decided yet, they could also be replaced by MMRCA winner.
4 kind of mrcas shouldn't be a problem, cause they are in different weight classes and for different roles. Su 30 Mki and Pak Fa, heavy class, Rafale and co in medium and LCA in the light class should be the future of IAF.


----------



## mean_bird

sancho said:


> So what you saying is that China improved their capabilities in the last decades very fast and that's why J10 will have better techs then Mki right?
> As far as I know at the moment (and you are welcome to correct me) the J10 will have AL 31 engine but without TVC and maybe the Zhuk ME PESA radar right (China is working on an own radar and engine that are not ready yet)?
> The Mki also has the AL 31 with 2D TVC and will get AL 41 with 3D TVC and SC capabilities which are already reported on Su 35 with an early version of that engine. The PESA radar Mki has is superior to the Zhuk ME and it will get AESA radar with the MLU, most probably the same that Pak Fa/FGFA will have. These are not only my wishes, but facts that were reported severall times related to Mki.
> So if you say it will have better techs then these, I would be very interested to hear what techs that will be.



J-10 and Su-30 use *the same engine*. If India can update its engine so can China (and by transition pakistan if it ever gets the Russian engine). How are you assuming just India with its mighty invincible Su-30 will be upgrading the engine and not China? As for pakistan, they will most probably go with a Chinese engine. Its still 5 years away and too early to speculate.

And wake me up when a contract is signed for this "MLU" of the Su-30MKI. 





sancho said:


> He is not so wrong, Mig 29 (60 - 70 not 100) will be upgraded to stay in service till 2020/25 and might be replaced by Pak Fa/FGFA. Reports said that the upgrade includes airframe overhaul, new engine, radar and added BVR combat capabilities (R77 missiles). Dassault makes an offer to upgrade around 50 Mirage 2k aircrafts, but the price for the upgrade is high (1,5 mil) and it's not decided yet, they could also be replaced by MMRCA winner.
> 4 kind of mrcas shouldn't be a problem, cause they are in different weight classes and for different roles. Su 30 Mki and Pak Fa, heavy class, Rafale and co in medium and LCA in the light class should be the future of IAF.



wrong.

Dassault is asking in the range of 20million for each upgrade not just 1,5m which is peanuts.


And just so you know, the "upgrade" includes making the M2K have

- STD-1553B bus (JF-17 already has it),
- Two displays and an advanced head-down display in a glass cockpit( JF-17 already has it, infact it has 3 MFDs and a complete glass cockpit) ,
- pulse doppler radar that can find objects out to 70 nautical miles ( JF-17 already has it), 
- Electronic warfare systems, including new radar warning receivers with instantaneous wide-bank receivers (depends on kind of ECM)
- advanced navigation system, mission computers (JF-17 has it)
- an integrated missile warning receiver with continuous time-to-impact information (JF-17 already has it)
- Increased fuel capacity (about the same).


----------



## hocuspocush

sancho said:


> He is not so wrong, Mig 29 (60 - 70 not 100) will be upgraded to stay in service till 2020/25 and might be replaced by Pak Fa/FGFA. Reports said that the upgrade includes airframe overhaul, new engine, radar and added BVR combat capabilities (R77 missiles). Dassault makes an offer to upgrade around 50 Mirage 2k aircrafts, but the price for the upgrade is high (1,5 mil) and it's not decided yet, they could also be replaced by MMRCA winner.
> 4 kind of mrcas shouldn't be a problem, cause they are in different weight classes and for different roles. Su 30 Mki and Pak Fa, heavy class, Rafale and co in medium and LCA in the light class should be the future of IAF.



The deal for the upgrade of the MIG-29 was signed in March 2008. 

"The upgrade, which will cost some $850 million, will convert the MiG-29 from an aerial interceptor and air dominance jet to a fighter-bomber capable of striking mobile and stationary targets on the ground and at sea with high-precision weapons under all weather conditions."

Under this deal, the Mig's will get:

"The aircrafts onboard data and sighting systems will be completely updated with the installation of the state-of-the-art Zhuk-ME multifunctional radar, an advanced onboard computing complex, a new weapon control system, an optronic station based on space technologies and colour multifunctional displays in the cockpit."

....
....

"*A top-notch avionics suite will include a number of up-to-date systems developed and produced by Indias Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, and Bharat Dynamics Ltd, as also some foreign companies.*

The armament upgrade will include the installation of modern weaponry like smart bombs and substantially improved air-to-air missiles and high-accuracy guided missiles to destroy ground and sea targets."

Refer: thaindian.com/newsportal/business/russia-to-upgrade-iafs-mig-29-combat-jets_10025181.html

So, clearly, the IAF tends to use this jets to strike ground and sea targets. I guess the air dominance role will be taken over by upgraded Mirage 2000 and MRCA.


----------



## bilal1219

Sorry off topic, but can you tell me how to thank posts from others.

Thanks


----------



## hocuspocush

mean_bird said:


> wrong.
> 
> Dassault is asking in the range of 20million for each upgrade not just 1,5m which is peanuts.
> 
> 
> And just so you know, the "upgrade" includes making the M2K have
> 
> - STD-1553B bus (JF-17 already has it),
> - Two displays and an advanced head-down display in a glass cockpit( JF-17 already has it, infact it has 3 MFDs and a complete glass cockpit) ,
> - pulse doppler radar that can find objects out to 70 nautical miles ( JF-17 already has it),
> - Electronic warfare systems, including new radar warning receivers with instantaneous wide-bank receivers (depends on kind of ECM)
> - advanced navigation system, mission computers (JF-17 has it)
> - an integrated missile warning receiver with continuous time-to-impact information (JF-17 already has it)
> - Increased fuel capacity (about the same).



WRONG ! ! !

"Under a parallel plan the IAF plans to upgrade its 52 French made Dassault Mirage 2000H fighters. India is currently in the final stage negotiating the 1.5-billion euro program with Thales and Dassault. Officials said, the upgrade of the Mirage 2000s will begin by June. "

Refer: defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/140307_mig29.htm


"While Thales was reluctant to state figures given a confidentiality clause, the project is believed to be worth $1.5 billion for upgrading the 51 Mirage-2000s in the IAF fleet to Dash-5 levels. This will give the jets multi-role capability with longer-range radars and fire-and-forget missiles, enabling less aircraft to perform a given mission thanks to greater fuel and weapon-delivery capacities."

The upgrade will involve providing the Mirage-2000:

-- a state-of-the-art fly-by-wire digital cockpit and an enhanced weapons-carrying capability.

-- longer range detection across the spectrum, improved tactical situation awareness, longer range weapon firing against multiple simultaneous targets, weapon stealth and extended operating envelope with the capability to engage ground targets while countering airborne threats,

-- For instance, a typical border protection mission involving two hours on station will require just two upgraded Mirage-2000 aircraft compared with the current six aircraft, Chaltiel pointed out.

Refer: thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/thales-awaits-iaf-nod-for-mirage-2000-upgrade_100152527.html



Mean_bird, please don't claim as you wish. Always, refer the links from where you are posting otherwise please refrain from stating false facts.


----------



## hocuspocush

Owais said:


> JF17's engine cannot give enough power to support a big radar nor a Bigger radar can be fitted in its nose. the radar deficiency against su30 will be covered by AWACs




It's not only about radar and range. One should also consider the state of the art KNIRTI L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive radar jammer. It is carried in wingtip pods. Unlike competing Western designs, this system uses a steerable mainlobe to maximise the Jam/Signal ratio at the threat emitter. The design uses a wideband phased array and dielectric lens arrangement (KNIRTI).

Refer: ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

This is a much more effective radar jamming pod as it has steerable mainlobe which maximizes the jam signal towards the threat.


Could you please throw some light on the jammer available on thunder? I checked the site : xxx.jf-17.com/ but couldn't find anything related to jamming pods.


----------



## mean_bird

hocuspocush said:


> WRONG ! ! !
> 
> "Under a parallel plan the IAF plans to upgrade its 52 French made Dassault Mirage 2000H fighters. India is currently in the final stage negotiating the 1.5-billion euro program with Thales and Dassault. Officials said, the upgrade of the Mirage 2000s will begin by June. "
> 
> Refer: defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/140307_mig29.htm



What exactly did you find "wrong" in my post?

I said 20 million per plane which amounts to around 1billion. If you say it is 1.5 billion then its even costlier. Either way, far from the 1.5 million which I contradicted.

India plans 1 billion euro Mirage upgrade - India - The Times of India



hocuspocush said:


> Mean_bird, please don't claim as you wish. Always, refer the links from where you are posting otherwise please refrain from stating false facts.



I don't google about something 2 mins before posting. My knowledge is collected over time and its impossible to maintain a reference list of all the books, journals,newspapers,airforce magazines that I have read to date.


And both your links, thaindians.com (a forum) and defense-update.com, an online defense website with no print publication, is not something I would call credible. 

Please contradict the "false facts" in my post.





bilal1219 said:


> Sorry off topic, but can you tell me how to thank posts from others.
> 
> Thanks



click on the "thumbs up" sign at the bottom right of each post, just next to the quote button.


----------



## MZUBAIR

Haanzo said:


> ^^^ ok lots of doubts have been cleared ....and about the weponization part ...i asked american representatives at the raytheon stall in aero india 09....weather american weapons can be used on russian platform ....they flatly said ....the competition is still underway and we are not at liberty to discuss that with the general public . but the gripen guys openly stated we will do whatever india requests ...any weapon for that matter irrespective of the origin can be used on the gripen ,...using an a2a missile is not that simple the country which developed the weapon and the delivery platform must agree upon it because the weapons are linked to the mission computer and if its a BVR it should also be linked to the radar ...so yes this looks like a mess ..but will it happen ...if yes ,please can you provide any official indication on this matter...ok coming to the point



Indian MRCA deal which could surely bring a new chapter in IAF. Any country can give any kind of support with 10Billion $ deal.



> will the americans allow their weapons to be integrated on a chinese platform ....if yes any news on it .....yes the jf-17 CAN carry american weapons BUT will the americans allow for the integration ...this remains the only MAJOR QUESTION on my mind....technical part satisfied me ...but i may have to disagree upon some of your points



I guerss they will never like it, but I think permission is not necessary as Pakistan have paid for those weapons, besides that Pakistan Air Weapons Complex (AWC) is also manufacturing F-16, JF17, Mirage 3,5 , F7 weapons. 

Pakistan have started mess production of JF-17 since feb 2009, Its impossible to imagine that jets are being developed without avoinics and weapons. I already said chinees avionics and weapons are not bad as the western world think. They can strongly compete with them.

Well, may be its hard for me to explain this.
Well Chinees are expert in re-engineering. They have SU-30 and other old russian fighters in their fleet and its not difficult for them to study and reengineer stuff.
Chinees weapons are surely like westerns/Russians



> *
> EDIT*
> 
> india has mirages and the mig-29....presently the migs electronics are not up-to date but it is going to change soon,but aerodynamically they are just as lethal as the sukhoi ..and the mirages are good ...but IF the upgrades are finalized they will be more lethal



Yes they can be lithel, but I think after 2015 every one wuld go for stealthy fighter of 5th generation.

Pakistan planned 2015 PAF fleet.

Chengdu FC-20 total 36
Lockheed Martin F-16 C/D Block52 total 18 
Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BM total 46 
PAC JF-17 Thunder total 250 Multi-Role 
Chengdu F-7PG/T Skybolt-G total 50 Multi-Role 
Dassault Mirage ROSE Upgrade total 80 

PAF will look for 5th generation after 2015.

So, I think upgradation of old generation (4th or below 4th) fighters will be valueless and waistage of money.



> i am a bit out of date on the engine issue ..can you please provide me more information with that ..is it a direct sale ...or coming through china ....are the russians ok with it, when are they coming ....some news article related to it



China has purchased RD engines for JF-17 from Russia and gicen to Pakistan. Ofcourse they are coiming to Pakistan through China.

There are some more info abt JF-17
 info abt jf17_thunder




> *yes i agree that chinese product are influence of the russians ....but the MAIN reason for the world to discredit them is for the fact that chinese are very secretive about it ..if they were more open in and transperent in their showcasing of their products the world might know their true potential ...what ever it may be *



Agree, but there are some of their own remarkable inventions, like their frigates, sumarines, Missels etc.


----------



## hocuspocush

mean_bird said:


> What exactly did you find "wrong" in my post?
> 
> I said 20 million per plane which amounts to around 1billion. If you say it is 1.5 billion then its even costlier. Either way, far from the 1.5 million which I contradicted.



I can throw a dozen more links which indicates the deal to be worth 1.5 Billion. However, we will only know once it is finalized.




mean_bird said:


> I don't google about something 2 mins before posting. My knowledge is collected over time and its impossible to maintain a reference list of all the books, journals,newspapers,airforce magazines that I have read to date.
> 
> 
> And both your links, thaindians.com (a forum) and defense-update.com, an online defense website with no print publication, is not something I would call credible.
> 
> Please contradict the "false facts" in my post.



Atleast, I don't blindly go ahead and start contradicting people on the forum till the time I confirm it with online news articles.

It's good that you have accrued knowledge over time, but with that kind of experience, you should always refer your source as it has been repeated time and again in this thread. I will only believe which is credible and has been backed by a news article.

I don't agree that unless a news article is in the print publication, it is not credit worthy. 

However, in regards to your post, I take my words back as I read wrong figures. I'm not one of those who blindly contradict with no facts/figures. What's right is right and wrong is wrong.


----------



## hj786

hocuspocush said:


> It's not only about radar and range. One should also consider the state of the art KNIRTI L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive radar jammer. It is carried in wingtip pods. Unlike competing Western designs, this system uses a steerable mainlobe to maximise the Jam/Signal ratio at the threat emitter. The design uses a wideband phased array and dielectric lens arrangement (KNIRTI).
> 
> Refer: ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
> 
> This is a much more effective radar jamming pod as it has steerable mainlobe which maximizes the jam signal towards the threat.
> 
> 
> Could you please throw some light on the jammer available on thunder? I checked the site : xxx.jf-17.com/ but couldn't find anything related to jamming pods.



Big deal, even JF-17's "low-tech Chinese" EW system can do that. 

Grande Strategy: A Light Sabre for the Third World: The FC-1 / JF-17


> The RWR is of note in that it is not only *part of an integrated system*, but also gives 360 degree range for missile approaching warning system with infra-red and ultra-violet spectrum detecting with a detection range of > 20km. It can not only detect but also track and position approaching missiles. A computer controlled infrared interference system, calculates the right timing to release countermeasures. *A &#8220;focused interference system&#8221;, that can directionally beam energy is included and creates the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction. *



FC-1 Prototype 04: the Saga Continues - Page 5 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Post number 124.


JohnWoo said:


> Find this in PDF, by Johndull.
> Quite impressive development, but don't know how true this article is:
> To Johndull, hopefully you don't mind I post your work here.
> 
> 
> 
> Recently a chinese megazine called Ordnance Industry Science Technology pulished an article that provided certain detailed information regarding JF-17 / FC-1 avionics. Given the fact that the megazine was published by an organization with military background, it seems the info is very creditable to me.
> 
> since I have been surfing this site for years and have limited contribution thus far, I try my best to summarize the points here. However, I was not trained in aviation, and English is not my native language either, I am not familiar with some special jargons ... ...
> 
> Reasons for changes (improvement over the opriginal designs / specs)
> 
> - initially specs were not as advanced as it is now for the cost reason. However, the US surdenly decided to sell more advanced F-16s to PAK aiming to kill JF-17/FC-1 project
> - the project team was forced to improve the specs and make it happen at prototype 04, and they did.
> 
> very advanced cockpit
> - control pannel is consisted by 3 color screens (20.3cm x 20.3 cm) only, all information is processed and displayed on them. the functions of each one is exchangeable. brightness & contrast can be adjusted either automatically or manually. each of the screen can be re-defined.
> - HUD is also state-of-the-art. many image / infomation can be displayed at the same time.
> - HUD is better than that of the latest su-30 for the reason that JF-17/FC-1 can display both raw signal as well as processed infomation (i.e. more meaningfull) whereas su-30 displays, by and large, raw signals directly.
> 
> HOTAS Control
> 
> Intelligence Avionics
> - avionics system is all digital and fully integrated
> - distributed structure, two independent but exchangeable (can back-up each other) STD-MTL-1553B data buses connected all equipment, plus two powerful control computers (also can back-up each other). Each computer controls one data bus
> - only very recent airplanes such as F-16 E/F have similar structure and powerful computers
> 
> - Radar. initially Pak wanted to use grifo ones (Grifo-S2000). However, Chinese one offers key advantages such as compatibility with Chinese weapon systems
> - Radar has multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air to ground, air to sea, etcs with strong anti-interference capacity.
> - it can handle > 40 targets, tracking 10 of them and guiding 2 BVR missiles to attack 2 of them at the same time
> - the detecting range for a typical air target of RC 3 square metter is > 75 km; looking down range is > 45 km; range for sea target is > 135 km
> - it has digital map, and is going to have 3D digital map.
> 
> - robust & advanced electronic warfare system
> - has all standard electronic warfare systems, such as radar warning, nissile approaching warning, etcs.
> - the computer can store more than 300 existing radar signals for identification, and actually already stored more than 100 known radar signal partens
> - 360 degree range for missile approaching warning system with both infra-red & ultra-violet spectrum detecting, very sensitive to "afterburn" of missiles and the detecting range is > 20km. one detecting sensor in the tail and two at the front. moreover, it can provide certain capacity of tracking and positioning the approaching missile.
> 
> - JF-17 / FC-1 has a computer controlled infra-red interference bullet (missile?) system, which automatically calculate the right timing (based on the rsult of detecting system) to release the interference bullets to maximaze the impact. Only recently released airplanes such as F-22 / Rafale have such system. Even F-18E/F and F-16 E/F need further upgrading to acquire such capacity.
> *
> - JF-17 also has an "focused interference system", which can beam the enegy on one direction (i.e. attacking missile's guiding system) to distrub it. By doing this, a small equipment can have the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction. Initially FJ-17 / Fc-1 did not have this system. However, in view of the fact that Pak's potential enemy is IAF equiped with Su-30 & R-77 missiles, CAC add this system into the plane.* As of today, non india airplane has such system nor do PAk's f-16s. *(hj786 note - this article is from ~2006 or earlier)*
> 
> - JF-17 has two communication radios. one of them has the capacity for data link, receiving data from either ground control center or AWACS.
> - all equipment has auto-detection function, i.e. at the time of maintanance, plug in a notebook computer and all working parameters can de displayed in the computer
> 
> - weaponary system is designed to be compatible with both western system (i.e. supporting MIL-STD-1760 data bus) and russia system (of course china system as well). at present, its standard missiles are PL-9C for close fight and SD-10 for BVR. However, it also support AIM-9L/M and AIM-7F etcs*
> - every weapon point has the data bus interface, i.e. each point can carry guided weapons.
> - for ground attacking weapon, already demonstrated laser guided bombs, it is going to have A2G missles. *
> 
> 
> OK. that is the summary of the article for your information.
Click to expand...


Focused interference EW system is most likely to be located in the JF-17's tail fin. There is some kind of fairing structure at the tip of the fin that was not present on the initial prototypes. Something interesting to note - other aircraft that have a tail fin fairing:
- Rafale
- Mirage 2000
- Blackburn Buccaneer (affectionately nicknamed the "Bucc", this British aircraft is widely believed to be one of the best low-level tactical strike bombers ever designed.)
The tail fin fairing position is supposed to give the best 360 degree coverage when the aircraft is flying a low level mission, hugging the terrain. Who said the JF-17 won't be used for strike missions again?


----------



## MZUBAIR

Haanzo said:


> ANY BVR ....comparable to SD-10 or better missiles




The following link gives u all answers abt JF-17.

Introduction & History
Characteristics of Note on the FC-1
EW Suite (Some thing which is not in SU-30)
Cockpit
Diverterless Inlets
Some Less Noted Characteristics of the FC-1

_The KLJ-7 radar has multiple modes and can handle greater than 40 targets, tracking 10 of them and guiding 4 BVR missiles to attack 4 of them at the same time. The detecting range for a typical air target of RCS 3 square meter is > 75 km; look-down-shoot-down range is > 45 km; range for sea target is > 135 km_

*The FC-1&#8217;s computer has the capacity to store 300 existing radar signals for identification*

Maneuverability and Handling
_(Chk out the video in this section, JF-17 vs F-16)_

Recent Improvements Analysis

(Chk this point in the article)
*The basic reason for the large scale changes to the FC-1 has been that Pakistan found her requirements going up, given the new Indian military buildup, with Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000s being fielded in numbers. Secondly, The US decision to sell advanced F-16s to Pakistan. Both these factors forced the FC-1 project team to improve the FC-1 to stay relevant.*

LGBs for the FC-1
Future Modernization Roadmap
Market viability 
A Comparison of the FC-1 / J-10 Pairing

A Light Sabre for the Third World: The FC-1 / JF-17

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haanzo

i beg you please provide a chinese source or atleast a source where the author ha previous knowledge of the field he is writing in 




> People to look for & Credits
> 
> This article would not have been possible without the contribution of some very knowledgeable people, who have given their time to explaining them to us. Chief amongst these individuals is crobato. Without crobato's vast knowldege and notable analytical skills on the FC-1 (and for that matter anything from ancient Chinese blades to modern military aviation), I definitely would never have been able to write half the issues given in this article. I would also like to name a dozen other individuals who deserve special mention, and who one as a Chinese / Pakistani aviation news and analysis informed follower should watch out for. These are given below, in alphabetical order. These fine gentlemen can be found at keypublishing, pakdef, sinodefenceforum or china-defense, amongst other forums.
> 
> Bryan C
> 
> Crobato
> 
> Deino
> 
> FarooqHafeez
> 
> Fighting Falcon
> 
> GoldenDragon
> 
> Kaduna2003
> 
> Khanasifm
> 
> Munir
> 
> Pshamim
> 
> Pinko
> 
> Plawolf
> 
> Rommel
> 
> Usman
> 
> vikasrehman



how would pakistanis react here if i posted an article about the LCA on a blog quoting prominent memebers on BHARAT RAKSHAK....or NDR ...come on mate arent there any journalists like ajay shukla's BROAD SWORD or shiv aroors LIVEFIST.....who actually interview people work on the project......the problem in your source is the people he has mentioned ....they are just handles found on sites like  ...yes they may be aeronautical engineers in real life but if they were so the author could have mentioned ...the person is related to the project ...or he is a defence analyst......come on please understand what i say ....OFFICIAL SOURCES PLEASE


----------



## Super Falcon

for me PAF and PN official are nuts


----------



## Arsalan

*for MUZBAIR*

can you please elaborate the points marked in blue!! especiall the 
future modernization roadmap and the market viaability!
can you please provide there links!!

regards!


----------



## Haanzo

arsalanaslam123 said:


> the points markde in blue!! especiall the
> future modernization roadmap and the market viaability!
> can you please provide there links!!
> 
> regards!


 check the link at the end of his post ..it has everything


----------



## Arsalan

Haanzo said:


> check the link at the end of his post ..it has everything



opss  thanks!


----------



## Arsalan

Super Falcon said:


> for me PAF and PN official are nuts



can you back up this ignorant statement of yours! sitting at net, signed in a forum and making or speculating deals is a different think and the real facts and groung realities are altogether different!
a senior member like you surely knows more about this fact sir and should try to be carefull while posting at the forum!
they deserve our respect sir!
sorry if you find my post offensive but i have just said what i felt after reading your post


regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gucci Juice

i just realised something...

if m2k upgrade costs 20 mil per a/c for just a bunch of new avionics, a radar and an engine...

how is it possible that jf-17 block 2 will have french systems but still cost the same?

i mean upgrading that mirage costs more than 1 jf-17.

even if u minus the engine that's still 15 million per a/c

if u minus radar+engine that's 10 million per a/c for just avionics

oh and how will pac produce 40-50 jf-17s per year? because that's how many u need to get 250 by 2015


----------



## maverick2009

Gucci Juice those nos 250 JETS by 2015 are pure speculation. 

Even the RAF where i live can only procure Typhoons at approx 15 fighters per year. 

To induct more than 1 Squadron a year,, Brand new plane,, New pilots,, Workshops for support, ground crew and quite simply the COST is almost impossible. 

eg. China has inducted 100 J10s since 2004
France has inducted 40 Rafale since 2005 and UK Typhoons around 50 in 5 years.. These are super rich nations inducting trheir own built fighters... 

India has barely inducted 100 flankers su30mki in 7 years. 

I remember reading a report by ACM Tanvir who predicted that PAF would have 50 JF17 by 2010-2011.. The Artcile was an interview in Air Forces Monthly.. 

Thus Far we know for certain PAF has 8 prototypes of JF17 FOR IOC by this year end. 

We Also know PAF has ordered 42 additional JF17 in version block 1 ie Russian engine & Chinease KLJ radar. 

PAF will order block 2 only when either a western engine has been intergrated or the chinease engine meets PAFs minimum paremeters. This could take several years.


----------



## mean_bird

maverick2009 said:


> PAF will order block 2 *only when* either a western engine has been intergrated or the chinease engine meets PAFs minimum paremeters. This could take several years.



How did you come about that conclusion?


----------



## bilal1219

click on the "thumbs up" sign at the bottom right of each post, just next to the quote button.[/QUOTE]

i dont see Thumbs up in any post Sir.


----------



## mean_bird

bilal1219 said:


> click on the "thumbs up" sign at the bottom right of each post, just next to the quote button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont see Thumbs up in any post Sir.
Click to expand...


See attached image


----------



## bilal1219

mean_bird said:


> See attached image



No sir i got nothing like that


----------



## MZUBAIR

maverick2009 said:


> Gucci Juice those nos 250 JETS by 2015 are pure speculation.
> 
> Even the RAF where i live can only procure Typhoons at approx 15 fighters per year.
> 
> To induct more than 1 Squadron a year,, Brand new plane,, New pilots,, Workshops for support, ground crew and quite simply the COST is almost impossible.
> 
> eg. China has inducted 100 J10s since 2004
> France has inducted 40 Rafale since 2005 and UK Typhoons around 50 in 5 years.. These are super rich nations inducting trheir own built fighters...
> 
> India has barely inducted 100 flankers su30mki in 7 years.
> 
> I remember reading a report by ACM Tanvir who predicted that PAF would have 50 JF17 by 2010-2011.. The Artcile was an interview in Air Forces Monthly..
> 
> Thus Far we know for certain PAF has 8 prototypes of JF17 FOR IOC by this year end.
> 
> We Also know PAF has ordered 42 additional JF17 in version block 1 ie Russian engine & Chinease KLJ radar.
> 
> PAF will order block 2 only when either a western engine has been intergrated or the chinease engine meets PAFs minimum paremeters. This could take several years.



Yes this is really a question, that How can PAF get 42 fighters this year. Its a huge number. Building 42 and then testing them according to the standards. It never seems realistic.

Pakistan desperatly wants to get 250 jets before 2015. They are paying China on 7 years loan and this is 2009 after 7 years it will be 2015.

PAF also wants to ground old F7 and Mirage by the end of 2014. PAF only want to keep latest 50F7 and ROSE upgraded 80 mirage.

*But as ACM has said that we would have 50+ jets in 2010-2011 and 1st JF-17 Sqd of Peshawar will get in operation by the end of this year then we have to believe this. *



> Pakistan and China on Saturday (7th March) signed an agreement for the serial production of 42 JF-17 Thunder jet fighter aircraft. JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft are expected to form the backbone of the Pakistani aerial combat fleet in the coming years. The agreement was signed at the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) headquarters by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Chairman Air Marshal Khalid Chaudhry and M A Zhiping, President of state-run China Aviation Import-Export Corporation.
> 
> Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood, the chief of the Pakistan Air Force, said the first batch of JF-17s would be inducted into the Pakistani force later this year. Mahmood also said that, the serial production of the aircraft is being started with the cooperation of the Chinese government. Under the agreement, China will provide credit financing for manufacturing the jets. Payments will be made to China in seven years. On its part, Pakistan has invested USD 600 million in this project.
> 
> The JF-17 is a lightweight, all-weather, multi-role combat jet aircraft. It is jointly developed by Pakistan and China. The Pakistan Air Force has so far received eight JF-17 jets that are being used for testing and evaluation. Mahmood further added that, Pakistan would receive its first Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft from China by the end of 2010.



pakistan china to jointly produce jf-17

I also heard that 20 will be developed in Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and 22 will be in Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation this year with russian engine and chinees weapons and avenoics. 

Next 100 will be with french engine or chinees engine with western weapons.

Last 100 would be the most advanced fighters in JF-17 series with aditional features.

First 50 Engine will be up graded after the 3rd batch of JF-17.


----------



## Haanzo

bilal1219 said:


> No sir i got nothing like that



you gotta make certain number of posts before you can thank anyone

and mubazir ...even if the PAF gets 50 gets ..where are all the pilots going to come from ...itll take time to master that aircraft as well as field it in numbers with good pilots


----------



## sancho

mean_bird said:


> J-10 and Su-30 use *the same engine*. If India can update its engine so can China (and by transition pakistan if it ever gets the Russian engine). How are you assuming just India with its mighty invincible Su-30 will be upgrading the engine and not China?


It is generally the same engine like I said too (AL31F), but different versions (Mki has AL31FP with TVC), China never got a TVC version of that engine, not even for Su 30 MKK. That should make clear that China don't get all the same Russian stuff India can get, also at upg.
Once again I just showed up what techs the Mki might get and am still interested what techs J10 will get that are better as Munir mentioned.


mean_bird said:


> As for pakistan, they will most probably go with a Chinese engine. Its still 5 years away and too early to speculate.
> Agree with that, specially that it's far to early to speculate how good it will be.
> 
> 
> mean_bird said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong.
> 
> Dassault is asking in the range of 20million for each upgrade not just 1,5m which is peanuts.
> 
> 
> 
> As hocuspocus link shows the 1,5 million are correct and that's double as much as we pay for upg more Mig 29 so I wouldn't call it peanuts. So what was wrong at my post?
> 
> 
> mean_bird said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just so you know, the "upgrade" includes making the M2K have
> 
> - STD-1553B bus (JF-17 already has it),
> - Two displays and an advanced head-down display in a glass cockpit( JF-17 already has it, infact it has 3 MFDs and a complete glass cockpit) ,
> - pulse doppler radar that can find objects out to 70 nautical miles ( JF-17 already has it),
> - Electronic warfare systems, including new radar warning receivers with instantaneous wide-bank receivers (depends on kind of ECM)
> - advanced navigation system, mission computers (JF-17 has it)
> - an integrated missile warning receiver with continuous time-to-impact information (JF-17 already has it)
> - Increased fuel capacity (about the same).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the info, but did I ever compared Mirage with JF 17? I even said before JF 17 is better than LCA mk1, so for sure it must be better then the Mirage right?
> 
> What I would found way more interesting then JF 17 VS Mki, or Mirage, would be a comparison between J10 vs upg Mig 29!
> In a2a combats they seems to be very comparable, because of same radar, highly maneuverable and both should have good BVR missiles.
Click to expand...


----------



## Arsalan

bilal1219 said:


> No sir i got nothing like that



well dear keep on posting any informative data that you have, after a certain number of posts you will be able to thanks other posts! it is a thumbs-up yellow colored sign at the bottom right corner of each post but will appear after a certain number of posts!

i hope this will help you! now dont forget to hit it when it appears to you 

by the way welcome to forum!

regards!


----------



## bilal1219

arsalanaslam123 said:


> well dear keep on posting any informative data that you have, after a certain number of posts you will be able to thanks other posts! it is a thumbs-up yellow colored sign at the bottom right corner of each post but will appear after a certain number of posts!
> 
> i hope this will help you! now dont forget to hit it when it appears to you
> 
> by the way welcome to forum!
> 
> regards!



Well, first of all, Thanks for the welcome, I joined here like 2 years ago, but never really took intrest in it. But now this is part of my part time job. LOL. I am applying for PAF next year. So thought why not go and read some informative stuff. Im really thankful to the senior members like yourself and other people like muradK, Munir who post really helpful information, be it planes or social life of PAF. I am glad to be part of this forum. I really look forward to learn more stuff.

Thanks again


----------



## mean_bird

sancho said:


> Once again I just showed up what techs the Mki might get and am still interested what techs J10 will get that are better as Munir mentioned.



As I said, its too early to speculate. But considering that its 5 years away, I am pretty sure there is enough time to incorporate lots of changes.

My personal feeling is, if AESA is being offered for JF-17 now then surely you can expect a pretty decent AESA for FC-20. Then the navigation system, weapons, missiles as mentioned by ex-PAF Chief. Which means better PGBs, better BVRAAM, better WVRAAM. If China can have a working WS-15 by then, then supercruise "might" be a possibility. Onboard computers, sensors, ECM are also things that can be improved by that time-frame. 



sancho said:


> As hocuspocus link shows the 1,5 million are correct and that's double as much as we pay for upg more Mig 29 so I wouldn't call it peanuts. So what was wrong at my post?
> 
> Thanks for the info, but did I ever compared Mirage with JF 17? I even said before JF 17 is better than LCA mk1, so for sure it must be better then the Mirage right?



You said 1.5 *m*illion from which it looks like you are saying 1.5million per plane. But its around 20-30 million per plane. It seems you meant 1.5 *b*illion.

Those details were just for information not against someone's post. Mirage is currently better than LCA MK1. Current LCA have some decent on-paper stats, but they haven't transferred into reality. Currently, LCA is suffering for quite a few hitches which need to be resolved. The details have been discussed a lot in the JF-17 vs LCA thread a couple of months ago. Upgraded Mirage should be quite a decent aircraft, not to be taken lightly.


----------



## sancho

mean_bird said:


> As I said, its too early to speculate. But considering that its 5 years away, I am pretty sure there is enough time to incorporate lots of changes.
> 
> My personal feeling is, if AESA is being offered for JF-17 now then surely you can expect a pretty decent AESA for FC-20. Then the navigation system, weapons, missiles as mentioned by ex-PAF Chief. Which means better PGBs, better BVRAAM, better WVRAAM. If China can have a working WS-15 by then, then supercruise "might" be a possibility. Onboard computers, sensors, ECM are also things that can be improved by that time-frame.


Sure that all could be, but the same things are expected for Mki and won't be better. That's why I asked what techs that will, or could be.
My guess is, that China won't concentrate too much on J10 and tries to push a 5. gen fighter, cause Russia and India will have in the next 10 years and the US already have it. But they have to get AESA radar and their indigenous engine done first, just like us.


mean_bird said:


> You said 1.5 *m*illion from which it looks like you are saying 1.5million per plane. But its around 20-30 million per plane. It seems you meant 1.5 *b*illion.


Oh ok my fault, billion of course not million.


----------



## Keysersoze

Gucci Juice said:


> no offense, but some ppl here are being very arrogant and i think they should stop. and have a good discussion
> 
> noone is trolling here
> 
> everything is backed up with news articles and other sources



Thanks for the advice but we have much better sources and we have gotten tired of hearing the same crap OVER and OVER again....It gets boring year after year.


----------



## Gucci Juice

^

i understand bout the sources...

but i dont see how its economically viable to go from block 1 jf-17 to block 2 jf-17 in 3-5 years time.

i mean look at the mki, its been at block 1 for 10 years? and is due for an upgrade around 2014. sure there's been new equipment every few years but thats very small stuff like new processors, new lcd panels, etc...

but what everyone here is talking about on the jf-17 is a major upgrade with aesa and new french avionics in 3-5 years time.

isn't the jf-17 good enough in its current state?

aesa is a new technology and it'll cost at least 3 million for 1 and french avionics are very expensive for 2 (they are charging 20 million euros per plane for the upgrade of mirage 2000s)


----------



## sancho

Gucci Juice said:


> ^
> 
> i understand bout the sources...
> 
> but i dont see how its economically viable to go from block 1 jf-17 to block 2 jf-17 in 3-5 years time.
> 
> i mean look at the mki, its been at block 1 for 10 years? and is due for an upgrade around 2014. sure there's been new equipment every few years but thats very small stuff like new processors, new lcd panels, etc...


I think you forget that JF 17 is a brand new aircraft, not all of it's capabilities will be ready right from the start, but will be added with every new block. Look at F16, EF, Rafale...., they did it just like that. Mki/Mkk instead was variants of a completely developed Su 27, so you don't have to add many new things in a next block and can wait till it's time for the MLU.
So new features for JF 17 in the next few years are realistic (more weapons, different engine, maybe radar), but if it's really going to be AESA radar is anther question cause it will be expensive. 
IMO it makes more sense to get AESA for best PAF fighters like F16 or J10, these are more capable and only in few numbers so costs won't be so high compared to the big numbers of JF 17.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bilal1219 said:


> No sir i got nothing like that



You can't thank people until you cross a certain number of posts.


----------



## IceCold

sancho said:


> I think you forget that JF 17 is a brand new aircraft, not all of it's capabilities will be ready right from the start, but will be added with every new block. Look at F16, EF, Rafale...., they did it just like that. Mki/Mkk instead was variants of a completely developed Su 27, so you don't have to add many new things in a the next block and can wait till it's time for the MLU.
> So new features for JF 17 in the next few years are realistic (more weapons, different engine, maybe radar), but if it's really going to be AESA radar is anther question cause it will be expensive.
> *IMO it makes more sense to get AESA for best PAF fighters like F16* or J10, these are more capable and only in few numbers so costs won't be so high compared to the big numbers of JF 17.



You cant modify an F-16 in Pakistan without US approval so forget about putting an AESA radar in the F-16s.


----------



## spurdozer

I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre. 
Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

JF 17 air frame is not designed around an engine as the case used to be on older aircraft---rather it is a modular design---a modular design can accept similiar out put design engines of a different variety with comparative ease.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gucci Juice

ok...

once in for all!!!

i haven't seen any news reports about new engine so stop talking about one. and i want to see some news reports about pac making 20 a year and china making 20 a year for a total of 40 a year.

also the jamming capabilities of the mki are VERY impressive, they are from IAI/Elta and i believe that they are quite proven since similar jammers must have been used to bomb syria(and in order to bomb them u must also fly over other unfriendly countries which requires a good jammer).

and since the biggest threat to the mki is the F-16 (not j-10b which i think is a concept that isn't real YET) i think the jammer will be optimized for an f-16 type radar (which is also used on the f-16I sufa), which will mean that it will be a good fight.

remember that in red flag the mki's didn't do well, but that was mainly because the radar was in training mode, no aewacs support, and also no jammers(i think).


----------



## satishkumarcsc

No jammers or ECM in Red Flag. Nor was the Radar in full mode.


----------



## mean_bird

satishkumarcsc said:


> No jammers or ECM in Red Flag.



That is incorrect. You can clearly hear the colonel say the MKI is jamming your missiles so you go vertically up and drill his brain.


----------



## hj786

Gucci Juice said:


> ok...
> 
> once in for all!!!
> 
> i haven't seen any news reports about new engine so stop talking about one. and i want to see some news reports about pac making 20 a year and china making 20 a year for a total of 40 a year.
> 
> also the jamming capabilities of the mki are VERY impressive, they are from IAI/Elta and i believe that they are quite proven since similar jammers must have been used to bomb syria(and in order to bomb them u must also fly over other unfriendly countries which requires a good jammer).
> 
> and since the biggest threat to the mki is the F-16 (not j-10b which i think is a concept that isn't real YET) i think the jammer will be optimized for an f-16 type radar (which is also used on the f-16I sufa), which will mean that it will be a good fight.
> 
> remember that in red flag the mki's didn't do well, but that was mainly because the radar was in training mode, no aewacs support, and also no jammers(i think).



"Once in for all", stop talking about MKI's jammers unless you have news reports that they are "very impressive". 

A news report stating China was interested in fitting Snecma M88 to the JF-17:
China considers Rafale/M88-02/04/1997-Flight International

A news report stating that Russia is interested in supplying thrust vectoring engines for the JF-17:
China and Russia in engine tie-up talks with Klimov looking at next-generation powerplants including improved version of RD-93 turbofan used on Chengdu FC-1 light fighter-07/11/2006-Zhuhai-Flight International
From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.

No, you're wrong as usual. The biggest threat to MKI is 250 upgraded JF-17.



spurdozer said:


> I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre.
> Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
> Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.


Lots of modifications will be made to the jet anyway. Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints, IRST, stealthy features such as twin tail fins, more carbon composites, possibly (I think very likely) AESA radar, etc. If enough planes are ordered then anything is viable, including engine changes. An example is K-8. The Chinese version uses a Ukrainian engine (which is now built in China under licence), whereas the export versions use a Honeywell engine from America - that's why it was planned that Pakistan would build the engine housing for the American engined version. I very much doubt PAF will get a European engine fitted when Russia and soon China are offering their own decent engines that are already integrated with the jet, but it depends on what PAF wants and what they can afford. When the JF is being built in Pakistan, they can do pretty much whatever they want if they have enough money.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gucci Juice

^

thanks now i believe u

sry bout my arrogance but i always want proof...

maybe the jf-17 is a formidable fighter

oh and it'd be nice if u can provide some articles on jf-17 block 2 upgrades... u know about avionics and stuff

thanks


----------



## gambit

hj786 said:


> Lots of modifications will be made to the jet anyway. Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints, IRST, *stealthy features such as twin tail fins,* more carbon composites, possibly (I think very likely) AESA radar, etc.


A vertical stabilator is next to the wings in terms of being a major contributor to an aircraft's highest Radar Cross Section (RCS) value. Two of them will quadruple it, if both are at perpendicular to the fuselage.

Here is why...







If a planar surface is even slightly off perpendicular to the signal, the signal will deflect 90deg away from the original direction, or from source direction.







Where a vertical stab meet the fuselage the joint will create a 'corner reflector' or 'target corner reflector' and that will actually amplify the deflected signal, after it had lost much of its power in its travel. Such loss is called 'atmospheric absorption' or 'atmospheric attenuation' and a corner reflector will act like an electronic beacon with every radar sweep telling the transmitter 'Here I am, come and get me !!'

That is why the SR-71's twin vertical stabs are canted inward so their joints does not create corner reflectors. Same for the F-18, F-117, F-22, F-35 and the new F-15SE. The B-2 does not have any vertical stabs, it uses wing tips deflectors, but that is another issue.

But even if the vertical stabs are canted and composite materials are employed, what you ask for -- *Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints* -- will absolutely have counter effects on any RCS reduction measures. You might just go back to where you started. It took years of development and radar range testings for the F-18 Super Hornet to have a lower RCS than the original Hornet. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction on an *EXISTING* airframe is not as simple an endeavor as popular media and Russians and the Chinese propaganda would like people to believe. The popular media can be excused for ignorance. But the Russians and the Chinese are just plain deceitful because they are at least a couple generation behind the US.


----------



## Arsalan

spurdozer said:


> I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre.
> Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
> Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.



the JF17 was designed on a modular design keeping in view the export market and option of varioues engines, avionics and radars as demanded by yhe customer!
so fitting a new engine wont be a lot difficult!

regards!


----------



## mean_bird

gambit said:


> A vertical stabilator is next to the wings in terms of being a major contributor to an aircraft's highest Radar Cross Section (RCS) value. Two of them will quadruple it, if both are at perpendicular to the fuselage.


What makes you think they will go for tails that are perpendicular to the fuselage?

Surely if you are looking for reducing your RCS, you would go for canted twin-tails. It also have the additional benefit if reduction in height and relatively shorter take-off runs/landing because the horizontal projection of the tail provide additional lift. 



gambit said:


> But even if the vertical stabs are canted and composite materials are employed, what you ask for -- *Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints* -- will absolutely have counter effects on any RCS reduction measures. You might just go back to where you started.



Nobody is making the JF-17 a stealth plane. But you may as well reduce whatever RCS you can. 

Aerial refueling and extra-hardpoint are there to come irrespective of what the tail will look like. The twin-tails might infact help generate more lift thereby assisting the addition of extra hardpoint.



gambit said:


> It took years of development and radar range testings for the F-18 Super Hornet to have a lower RCS than the original Hornet. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction on an *EXISTING* airframe is not as simple an endeavor as popular media and Russians and the Chinese propaganda would like people to believe. The popular media can be excused for ignorance. But the Russians and the Chinese are just plain deceitful because they are at least a couple generation behind the US.



I don't think anybody here is saying twin-tails will surface overnight or that you will remove the single tail from an already flying aircraft and replace it with two. 

Sure its going to take time if it ever happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> A news report stating China was interested in fitting Snecma M88 to the JF-17:
> China considers Rafale/M88-02/04/1997-Flight International
> 
> A news report stating that Russia is interested in supplying thrust vectoring engines for the JF-17:
> China and Russia in engine tie-up talks with Klimov looking at next-generation powerplants including improved version of RD-93 turbofan used on Chengdu FC-1 light fighter-07/11/2006-Zhuhai-Flight International
> From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.
> 
> No, you're wrong as usual. The biggest threat to MKI is 250 upgraded JF-17.


Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a *new* engine? That M88 source is 12 years old!
Also the source for RD-93 with TVC is from 2006, but the deal with China was signed in 2007 and *without TVC*!
So the same people who provides us AL 31TVC engine, PESA radar, R77 BVR missile for our Mki, offered you a slightly improved version of the engine we use in our old Mig 29 and offer us now the latest version of that engine with 3D TVC. I think it's clear who Russia loves more! 

The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?


----------



## maverick2009

250 JF17 is an astonshing High Figure. 

Thus far PAF have 8 prototype flying and have purchased 42 more via a soft loan of $650m from China. 

To upgrade the JF17 to the standards discuseed here if possible at all will require serious money and time.. 

i M NOT SAYING IT CAN,T HAPPEN it will just take time and money..AND WITH EACH UPGRADE the Thunder will become more and more expensive. esp for a country with limited resources..


----------



## holysaturn

arsalanaslam123 said:


> the JF17 was designed on a modular design keeping in view the export market and option of varioues engines, avionics and radars as demanded by yhe customer!
> so fitting a new engine wont be a lot difficult!
> 
> regards!



modular in the sense refers to avionics.they can be upgraded by just upgrading the software which is easy when compared to traditional ones,but changing an engine is different(hardware changes take time and money) the superhornet took time to rengine from the hornet ,gripen ng took time,lca will also take time so wat makes u think fitting m-88 will be easy.also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.


----------



## Arsalan

holysaturn said:


> modular in the sense refers to avionics.they can be upgraded by just upgrading the software which is easy when compared to traditional ones,but changing an engine is different(hardware changes take time and money) the superhornet took time to rengine from the hornet ,gripen ng took time,lca will also take time so wat makes u think fitting m-88 will be easy.also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.




very true, my post may have miss led you!
the fact is that this point have been dissucussed many times at this very forum that JF17 is designed keeping in view that engine, avionics, radar and weapon system can be selected from a wide range of choice as demanded by the customers!
it can accomodate engines with different origins after slightest of modification!
as i said earlier that this point have been disscussd over and over again so i suggest that you must go through the thread for more information!

i wish it helps you

regards!


----------



## hj786

Gucci Juice said:


> ^
> thanks now i believe u
> sry bout my arrogance but i always want proof...
> maybe the jf-17 is a formidable fighter
> oh and it'd be nice if u can provide some articles on jf-17 block 2 upgrades... u know about avionics and stuff
> thanks


Sorry if I sounded arrogant or cocky too. Use google search for interviews with the PAF Air Chief Marshal (they are on this forum somewhere). We don't know anything concrete about the JF-17's planned upgrades, just what has been offered, what PAF would like and info from inside sources.



sancho said:


> Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a *new* engine? That M88 source is 12 years old!
> Also the source for RD-93 with TVC is from 2006, but the deal with China was signed in 2007 and *without TVC*!
> So the same people who provides us AL 31TVC engine, PESA radar, R77 BVR missile for our Mki, offered you a slightly improved version of the engine we use in our old Mig 29 and offer us now the latest version of that engine with 3D TVC. I think it's clear who Russia loves more!
> 
> The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?



He commanded everybody to stop talking about M88 being fitted to the JF-17. I provided solid evidence that it has been considered - not by the PAF, but by the Chinese themselves. Not only that, the French were willing to sell the engine for fitting to the JF - albeit with a Rafale sale to China as well. It doesn't matter how old the source is, I proved Mr Gucci wrong, all you're proving you have an agenda and don't care about facts. Now you provide me a source that says M88 cannot be fitted to the JF or quit trolling.

I don't care what deal was signed, for all I know the Chinese are developing a TVC nozzle for WS-13 Tianshan, some sources say they are developing/have developed one for their WS-10 Taihang. The source I provided states that TVC variants of the Russian engine are on offer for being fitted to the Sino-Pakistani jet - I never said they would be, nor did I say Russia would allow them to be fitted to Pakistan's own aeroplanes. If I did, my mistake, that's not what I meant.

Those Al-31 TVC engines can't help the big bad flanker dodge the latest missiles. Those PESA radars will still be detected by radar warning receivers, yes even the "crap" Chinese ones. That R-77 was used as the benchmark for the JF's SD-10. TVC engines have been offered to China too, but China is actually capable of designing their own. I think its clear I don't care who loves who more, because the fact is the FC-1 and possibly PAF's JF-17 could end up being fitted with Russian TVC engines - deal with it and again, quit trolling.



> The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?


LOL. Clearly you have no concern for facts. On the one hand you say upgraded F-16s would be a threat, but on the other hand the JF-17 won't be even though we know it will also be upgraded with similar systems as those F-16s. Keep trying. By the time there will be 250 upgraded JF-17, PAF will be perfectly capable of using them to hold off 230 MKI in a defensive role.



maverick2009 said:


> i M NOT SAYING IT CAN,T HAPPEN it will just take time and money..
> *If it can happen, why the hell do you keep saying that? We know MKI is a better aeroplane than the JF, we know Pakistan is a very poor country. Are you happy? Will you make some decent posts now? I doubt it. *
> AND WITH EACH UPGRADE the Thunder will become more and more expensive. *
> With each upgrade to the JF, those big scary flankers will become more and more likely to get blown apart. *





holysaturn said:


> also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.
> *They are just rumours based on stuff told by inside sources. *


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> He commanded everybody to stop talking about M88 being fitted to the JF-17. I provided solid evidence that it has been considered - not by the PAF, but by the Chinese themselves. Not only that, the French were willing to sell the engine for fitting to the JF - albeit with a Rafale sale to China as well. It doesn't matter how old the source is, I proved Mr Gucci wrong, all you're proving you have an agenda and don't care about facts. Now you provide me a source that says M88 cannot be fitted to the JF or quit trolling.


This was his statement:


> i haven't seen any news reports *about new engine* so stop talking about one.


This was my question related to him:


> Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a *new* engine?


Better read the question carefully next time and you'll understand that there is no trolling and you don't have to be offended!


hj786 said:


> I think its clear I don't care who loves who more, because the fact is the FC-1 and possibly PAF's JF-17 could end up being fitted with Russian TVC engines - deal with it and again, quit trolling.


Really? I got another impression from your last post:


hj786 said:


> From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.


 and now you are offended because I used your own words? 
As you self explained, they could end up with a chinese made TVC, but it's doubtful that it will be Russian. If it was on offer in 2007 as the contract was signed, China would take and use it already in their aircrafts right? 


hj786 said:


> LOL. Clearly you have no concern for facts. On the one hand you say upgraded F-16s would be a threat, but on the other hand the JF-17 won't be even though we know it will also be upgraded with similar systems as those F-16s. Keep trying. By the time there will be 250 upgraded JF-17, PAF will be perfectly capable of using them to hold off 230 MKI in a defensive role.


Once again I request you to read carefully, I said


> They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles.


So as I learned from this thread and Pakistani members, JF 17 won't get AMRAAM, but the upgraded and new F16 block 52 will right? It was also posted several times here, that AMRAAM and R77 has ranges of 100 Km and more at latest versions, but SD 10 only 70 Km. To me that means, just as I said before, that these F16s will be the main threat for Mki in near future, because of better radar and BVR missiles!


----------



## gambit

mean_bird said:


> What makes you think they will go for tails that are perpendicular to the fuselage?


They may not have any choice, depending on structural limitations.



mean_bird said:


> Surely if you are looking for reducing your RCS, you would go for canted twin-tails. It also have the additional benefit if reduction in height and relatively shorter take-off runs/landing because *the horizontal projection of the tail provide additional lift.*


Dubious at best, depending on the degree off vertical.



mean_bird said:


> Nobody is making the JF-17 a stealth plane. But you may as well reduce whatever RCS you can.
> 
> *Aerial refueling and extra-hardpoint are there to come irrespective of what the tail will look like.* The twin-tails might infact help generate more lift thereby assisting the addition of extra hardpoint.


Air refueling probes and hard points are radar reflectors. If there is any reduction in RCS these additional reflectors will gain them back, may be not all but there will be a gain.



mean_bird said:


> I don't think anybody here is saying twin-tails will surface overnight or that you will *remove the single tail from an already flying aircraft and replace it with two. *
> 
> Sure its going to take time if it ever happens.


The Iranians did it with their modifications of their F-5s.


----------



## MZUBAIR

hocuspocush said:


> Here are couple of links denying the same(including Pakistani media):
> 
> => geo.tv/12-14-2008/30640.htm
> 
> => thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=62394
> 
> => ibnlive.in.com/news/pakistan-cries-foul-india-says-no-airspace-violation/80526-3.html
> 
> => hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=8ff72d7f-ede9-4b44-abfe-74127634fb85&ParentID=59336712-3ebc-42ed-90ae-57f436a98056&Headline=Flip-flop+Pakistan+cries+airspace+violation+again
> 
> So, your case in point???
> 
> Whether this incident happened or not, whether it was a technical incursion or a mistake and indeed a intended violation, what's the point??
> 
> The two countries were not at war. *IF *indian pilots did violate, it only made sense to retrieve back(regardless of, if F-16/F-7 were locked on) in order to de-escalate the situation unless india is looking to strike.
> 
> So, does this incident make PAF braver or IAF weaker??
> 
> Let's just stick to the topic and make your post count! (No offence meant)



Read the last paragraph of following article

F-16/ F-7 locked SU-30 (BBC.COM)

&#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606;&#1740; &#1601;&#1608;&#1580; &#1705;&#1746; &#1587;&#1585;&#1576;&#1585;&#1575;&#1729; &#1580;&#1606;&#1585;&#1604; &#1575;&#1588;&#1601;&#1575;&#1602; &#1662;&#1585;&#1608;&#1740;&#1586; &#1705;&#1740;&#1575;&#1606;&#1740; &#1606;&#1746;&#1548; &#1576;&#1575;&#1582;&#1576;&#1585; &#1593;&#1587;&#1705;&#1585;&#1740; &#1584;&#1585;&#1575;&#1574;&#1593; &#1705;&#1746; &#1605;&#1591;&#1575;&#1576;&#1602;&#1548; &#1662;&#1740;&#1585; &#1705;&#1740; &#1588;&#1576; &#1711;&#1574;&#1746; &#1575;&#1740;&#1672;&#1605;&#1585;&#1604; &#1605;&#1608;&#1604;&#1606; &#1705;&#1608; &#1576;&#1578;&#1575;&#1740;&#1575; &#1578;&#1726;&#1575; &#1705;&#1729; &#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606; &#1705;&#1746; &#1662;&#1575;&#1587; &#1575;&#1740;&#1587;&#1740; &#1605;&#1589;&#1583;&#1602;&#1729; &#1575;&#1591;&#1604;&#1575;&#1593;&#1575;&#1578; &#1605;&#1608;&#1580;&#1608;&#1583; &#1729;&#1740;&#1722; &#1705;&#1729; &#1576;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1578;&#1740; &#1601;&#1590;&#1575;&#1574;&#1740;&#1729; &#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606; &#1705;&#1746; &#1575;&#1606;&#1583;&#1585; &#1576;&#1593;&#1590; &#1605;&#1602;&#1575;&#1605;&#1575;&#1578; &#1662;&#1585; &#1581;&#1605;&#1604;&#1608;&#1722; &#1705;&#1740; &#1578;&#1740;&#1575;&#1585;&#1740;&#1575;&#1722; &#1605;&#1705;&#1605;&#1604; &#1705;&#1585; &#1670;&#1705;&#1740; &#1729;&#1746;&#1748; 

&#1576;&#1593;&#1590; &#1584;&#1585;&#1575;&#1574;&#1593; &#1705;&#1575; &#1740;&#1729; &#1576;&#1726;&#1740; &#1705;&#1729;&#1606;&#1575; &#1729;&#1746; &#1705;&#1729; &#1575;&#1740;&#1672;&#1605;&#1585;&#1604; &#1605;&#1608;&#1604;&#1606; &#1705;&#1608; &#1575;&#1587; *&#1576;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1578;&#1740; &#1575;&#1740;&#1587;&#1748;&#1740;&#1608; &#1578;&#1740;&#1587;* &#1580;&#1729;&#1575;&#1586; &#1705;&#1740; &#1578;&#1589;&#1575;&#1608;&#1740;&#1585; &#1576;&#1726;&#1740; &#1583;&#1705;&#1726;&#1575;&#1574;&#1740; &#1711;&#1574;&#1740;&#1722; &#1580;&#1608; &#1578;&#1605;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1587;&#1604;&#1581;&#1746; &#1587;&#1746; &#1604;&#1740;&#1587; &#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606; &#1705;&#1746; &#1589;&#1608;&#1576;&#1746; &#1662;&#1606;&#1580;&#1575;&#1576; &#1705;&#1746; &#1605;&#1585;&#1705;&#1586; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1608;&#1575;&#1602;&#1593; &#1601;&#1608;&#1580;&#1740; &#1670;&#1726;&#1575;&#1572;&#1606;&#1740; &#1705;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1740;&#1575;&#1722; &#1705;&#1746; &#1575;&#1608;&#1662;&#1585; &#1587;&#1746; &#1662;&#1585;&#1608;&#1575;&#1586; &#1705;&#1585; &#1585;&#1729;&#1575; &#1578;&#1726;&#1575;&#1748; 

&#1593;&#1587;&#1705;&#1585;&#1740; &#1584;&#1585;&#1575;&#1574;&#1593; &#1705;&#1746; &#1605;&#1591;&#1575;&#1576;&#1602; &#1580;&#1587; &#1580;&#1729;&#1575;&#1586; &#1606;&#1746; &#1576;&#1575;&#1585;&#1729; &#1583;&#1587;&#1605;&#1576;&#1585; &#1705;&#1746; &#1585;&#1608;&#1586; &#1604;&#1575;&#1729;&#1608;&#1585; &#1587;&#1740;&#1705;&#1657;&#1585; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606; &#1705;&#1740; &#1601;&#1590;&#1575;&#1574;&#1740; &#1581;&#1583;&#1608;&#1583; &#1705;&#1740; &#1582;&#1604;&#1575;&#1601; &#1608;&#1585;&#1586;&#1740; &#1705;&#1740; &#1578;&#1726;&#1740; &#1575;&#1587;&#1746; &#1662;&#1729;&#1604;&#1746; &#1587;&#1746; &#1605;&#1606;&#1578;&#1592;&#1585; &#1662;&#1575;&#1705;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606;&#1740; &#1604;&#1681;&#1575;&#1705;&#1575; &#1591;&#1740;&#1575;&#1585;&#1608;&#1722; &#1606;&#1746; &#1575;&#1662;&#1606;&#1740; &#8217;&#1601;&#1575;&#1574;&#1585;&#1606;&#1711; &#1585;&#1740;&#1606;&#1580;&#8217; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1604;&#1746; &#1604;&#1740;&#1575; &#1578;&#1726;&#1575; &#1604;&#1740;&#1705;&#1606; &#1605;&#1575;&#1585; &#1711;&#1585;&#1575;&#1606;&#1746; &#1587;&#1746; &#1662;&#1729;&#1604;&#1746; &#1583;&#1740; &#1580;&#1575;&#1606;&#1746; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1740; &#1578;&#1606;&#1576;&#1740;&#1729; &#1662;&#1585; &#1575;&#1587; &#1591;&#1740;&#1575;&#1585;&#1746; &#1606;&#1746; &#1608;&#1575;&#1662;&#1587;&#1740; &#1705;&#1575; &#1585;&#1575;&#1587;&#1578;&#1729; &#1575;&#1582;&#1578;&#1740;&#1575;&#1585; &#1705;&#1585; &#1604;&#1740;&#1575; &#1578;&#1726;&#1575;&#1748; &#1575;&#1587; &#1576;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1578;&#1740; &#1591;&#1740;&#1575;&#1585;&#1746; &#1705;&#1608; &#1605;&#1711; &#1575;&#1606;&#1578;&#1740;&#1587; &#1580;&#1729;&#1575;&#1586;&#1608;&#1722; &#1705;&#1740; &#1575;&#1740;&#1705; &#1657;&#1705;&#1681;&#1740; &#1705;&#1740; &#1662;&#1588;&#1578; &#1662;&#1606;&#1575;&#1729;&#1740; &#1740;&#1575; &#1576;&#1740;&#1705; &#1575;&#1662; &#1587;&#1662;&#1608;&#1585;&#1657; &#1576;&#1726;&#1740; &#1581;&#1575;&#1589;&#1604; &#1578;&#1726;&#1740; &#1580;&#1608; &#1576;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1578;&#1740; &#1601;&#1590;&#1575;&#1574;&#1740; &#1581;&#1583;&#1608;&#1583; &#1587;&#1746; &#1740;&#1729; &#1605;&#1606;&#1592;&#1585; &#1583;&#1740;&#1705;&#1726; &#1585;&#1729;&#1746; &#1578;&#1726;&#1746;&#1748;


----------



## mean_bird

gambit said:


> They may not have any choice, depending on structural limitations.
> 
> Dubious at best, depending on the degree off vertical.
> 
> Air refueling probes and hard points are radar reflectors. If there is any reduction in RCS these additional reflectors will gain them back, may be not all but there will be a gain.
> 
> The Iranians did it with their modifications of their F-5s.



Thats absurd. Its not like someone has taken a pledge to bring on twin-tails come what may. Its obvious that such a move will only happen if it brings about some improvement for whatever reason it is being planned for. Only if its advantages outweighs its potential disadvantages will you see them and that too not any time soon.

Twin-tails "might" appear. Nobody is sure of when, but we know there are thoughts along those areas an that's about it for now.

In-flight refueling is there to come for sure and so is the extra hardpoint and that has been stated by senior officials in interviews. The benefits outweighs the increase in weight or increase in RCS.


----------



## gambit

mean_bird said:


> *Thats absurd.* Its not like someone has taken a pledge to bring on twin-tails come what may. Its obvious that such a move will only happen if it brings about some improvement for whatever reason it is being planned for. Only if its advantages outweighs its potential disadvantages will you see them and that too not any time soon.
> 
> Twin-tails "might" appear. Nobody is sure of when, but we know there are thoughts along those areas an that's about it for now.
> 
> In-flight refueling is there to come for sure and so is the extra hardpoint and that has been stated by senior officials in interviews. The benefits outweighs the increase in weight or increase in RCS.


What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...


hj786 said:


> stealthy features such as twin tail fins,


Without providing a shred of technical support for such a claim. Now *THAT* argument is absurd. Whereas I provided basic radar principles to support my arguments on why such a claim if monumentally flawed. Even if the vertical stabs are canted, there is no guarantee that such a feature will lower an aircraft's RCS value without taking into consideration other factors such as fuselage dimensions and shapings. The claimant clearly does not know what he is talking about. This is not about supposedly improved aerodynamics at take-offs and landings but about basic radar principles.


----------



## hj786

sancho said:


> This was his statement:
> This was my question related to him:
> Better read the question carefully next time and you'll understand that there is no trolling and you don't have to be offended!
> 
> Really? I got another impression from your last post: and now you are offended because I used your own words?
> As you self explained, they could end up with a chinese made TVC, but it's doubtful that it will be Russian. If it was on offer in 2007 as the contract was signed, China would take and use it already in their aircrafts right?
> 
> Once again I request you to read carefully, I said
> So as I learned from this thread and Pakistani members, JF 17 won't get AMRAAM, but the upgraded and new F16 block 52 will right? It was also posted several times here, that AMRAAM and R77 has ranges of 100 Km and more at latest versions, but SD 10 only 70 Km. To me that means, just as I said before, that these F16s will be the main threat for Mki in near future, because of better radar and BVR missiles!



I'm not playing semantics games with you. He doubted claims that M88 could be fitted and told everybody to stop talking about it, I give a news report stating that it was considered. 

No China would not want Russian TVC engines in their aircraft, that is why they are developing their own engines. According to one interview with the ex PAF Air Chief Marshal, their version of J-10 will use Russian TVC engine technology. I don't believe that, but then again I don't want to believe it considering the reputation of Russian engines. I'm not offended if you use my own words, but I'll still defend myself if you take them out of context. I don't care who the Russians love more, the point is they are offering TVC engines to China and possibly Pakistan. 

About those BVR missiles. Some sources say the latest SD-10's range is just over 100 km. Either way, the most important thing is their no escape zone and ability to deal with jamming. If these are good enough, SD-10 can compete with the R-77 and 250 upgraded JF will be a greater threat than ~70 F-16. 



gambit said:


> What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...
> 
> Without providing a shred of technical support for such a claim. Now *THAT* argument is absurd. Whereas I provided basic radar principles to support my arguments on why such a claim if monumentally flawed. Even if the vertical stabs are canted, there is no guarantee that such a feature will lower an aircraft's RCS value without taking into consideration other factors such as fuselage dimensions and shapings. The claimant clearly does not know what he is talking about. This is not about supposedly improved aerodynamics at take-offs and landings but about basic radar principles.



Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill? You're right, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I never claimed to. 
Basic signature reduction principles, if you angle the surface away from the radar beam in one axis, the RCS goes down. If you angle it away in two axis, RCS goes down dramatically (I think it said exponentially, can't remember) according to one source I read. If that's true, then canted tail fins from a side-on perspective would have a reduced signature. Obviously there's a big *** fuselage and other bits to take into account too, but that's besides the point. I'm not saying it will be made into a stealth fighter, I'm talking about small signature reductions, minor modifications to the airframe like panel gaps, different materials in key areas, etc. None of this will happen unless they get some export orders anyway.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "stealthy" at all, perhaps reduced signature would be more appropriate, my bad.

The only reason I mentioned canted tail fins is because according to a respected inside source, they are a likely prospect. That's all I'm going on, you take into account as many factors as you like. 
About refuelling probe increasing RCS, the JF's refuelling probe seems to be an extendable one that folds away:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=97696



gambit said:


> What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...


Would "a slightly smaller radar signature from certain angles" structural feature be better?


----------



## Munir

The longer the BVR range the more time to react for the target (ecm/path). The longer the range the easier to get the shooter in the pic cause that one has to use the radar to track target... As predicted by some highly respected scientist the problem is not the range but electronics that can get countered. So in the end a decent canon with optical sight will do the trick. Hence the J10B with a huge IRIST... Same will be developed for JF17. (According my knowledge)


----------



## mean_bird

Sukhois resume flying, nearly a month after crash


NEW DELHI: The frontline Sukhoi Su-30 MKI combat jets of the Indian Air Force have resumed flying nearly a month after the entire fleet was grounded following the crash of one of the aircraft that broke a 12-year accident-free record, an official said.

The aircraft are again being flown even as a 20-member team of Russian experts have been conducting checkups on them. "The aircraft conducted a sortie last weekend," a senior Indian Air Force official said, but did not elaborate.

He, however, confirmed that the Russian team summoned to inspect the fleet is carrying on with the checks, inspecting the aircrafts' airframe and systems.

The IAF grounded its fleet of *approximately 55 Russian-origin Su-30s* after one of the aircraft crashed last week. Generally, an entire fleet is not grounded if an aircraft of a particular type crashes. *In the case of the Su-30, however, there have been "recurring complaints" by pilots about problems with the jet.
*
The grounding of the Su-30 fleet has given rise to the alarming possibility of "structural faults" with the aircraft.

In a blot on its otherwise unblemished record, a Su-30 MKI crashed in Jaisalmer April 30, killing the co-pilot. The pilot, Wing Commander S.V. Munje, and the co-pilot, Wing Commander P.S. Narah, managed to bail out in time but Narah was killed after he was apparently hit by the falling debris of the aircraft.

Ironically, Narah belonged to the IAF's Directorate General of Inspections and Safety and was putting the aircraft through its annual safety checks.

The aircraft had taken off from the Lohegaon air base in Pune on a routine sortie and crashed at 10.30 a.m. while returning to its base.

*The IAF operates three squadrons of the jet*, some of which were bought in a fly-away condition from its Russian manufacturer while the others were manufactured under licence by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

It was not immediately clear to which of these categories the crashed jet belonged.

*The Su-30 has won universal acclaim from the air forces of the US* (O really?), Britain and France whenever it has been fielded against them in war games. Eight Su-30s had participated in the prestigious Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, last year and had more than held their own against the US' F/A-18 and F-16 combat jets.


----------



## Munir

It must be an indian report. The plane was for air to ground work and not doing any air 2 air training during the war games...


----------



## paritosh

Munir said:


> It must be an indian report. The plane was for air to ground work and not doing any air 2 air training during the war games...



which war game are you talking about ?


----------



## Keysersoze

paritosh said:


> which war game are you talking about ?



Red Flag this year. The mKI's were pretty much bomb trucks


----------



## paritosh

and why were they bomb trucks?
because they coudn't get a visua link to the american awacs in a BVR combat scenario where they were not allowed to use their radars?


----------



## hj786

paritosh said:


> and why were they bomb trucks?
> because they coudn't get a visua link to the american awacs in a BVR combat scenario where they were not allowed to use their radars?



Because they realised that when its a fair fight (unlike Cope India), they aren't so superior to the latest F-15 and F-16 as some people wish they were.


----------



## paritosh

how..?
i am not interested in defending them...why do you think they are not?
apart from their causing friendlies because of no tv target link...and their suppressing the radar...they were praised...


----------



## Munir

Patriosh doesn't know basics and keeps asking stupid qestions... Waste of time.

Anyway... Talking about a versus b...

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment 

Saab-led Gripen International has revived its war of words linked to the Norwegian defence ministry's selection of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and rejection of its Gripen NG offering last November.

The move comes as the next-generation version of the Swedish fighter is in the final phase of competitions in Brazil and Switzerland, and as Saab attempts to revive stalled procurement efforts in three eastern European states.

Oslo prompted a furious response from Saab chief executive &#197;ke Svensson last year after eliminating the Gripen from its fighter contest on the grounds that the design "does not satisfy Norwegian requirements".

Branding the evaluation process "incomplete, or even faulty", Svensson challenged a decision by evaluators to more than treble his company's guaranteed bid price from NKr55 billion ($8.9 billion) to NKr195 billion: NKr30 billion higher than a JSF figure recently confirmed as only an estimate.



Saab was also angered by Norway's conduct of three secret simulations, which evaluators say favoured the F-35. The company subsequently launched its own series of 50 simulations involving the Gripen NG, JSF and a threat force represented by Sukhoi Su-35s, using all available data on the aircraft, countermeasures equipment and missile performance, it says.

Peter Nilsson, vice-president operational capabilities for Gripen International, says the results quash Lockheed's marketing claims that the JSF is over six times more capable than current-generation fighters in air-to-air combat.

Noting that a four-versus-four scenario between F-35s and Su-35s would pit eight Raytheon AIM-120D Amraam missiles and eight AIM-9X Sidewinders against 48 Vympel R-77s and eight R-73s, he comments: "They'd better be invincible. Because if you can't get past the 'Flankers' you'll never get to a ground target."

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson.

Meanwhile, Gripen International's senior vice-president sales and marketing, Bob Kemp, says the company is taking a new approach in its bid to secure pending fighter deals in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, potentially covering a combined total of 42 aircraft.

"We have been looking at our strategy for that region, recognising that there is a real, genuine financial problem," says Kemp. "We're working closely with the Swedish government to try to come up with some innovative financing arrangements to find a way so that they can get the capability now and pay for it later."

Sweden has already leased 14 Gripen C/Ds each to Czech Republic and Hungary.


----------



## maverick2009

HJ786...

Re: Your comment F15/F16 versis SU30MKI in USA. 

We have all seen/studied the Vedio from the USA Pilot several times. 

Regardless of wat happened in that Excercise the USA Officer pointed out the relative Strength of SU30MKI VERSIS F15/F16 VERSIS F22... 

" Using his arms he clearly states SU3OMKI is a good plane in the right circumstances used by experienced pilots and is in his words a tad (slightly/marginally) superior to USA teen planes meaning F15/F16... 

To demonstrate this gap he rises one hand slightly above the other = Marginal 

He then proceeds to compare SU30MKI v F22 and shows a huge gap between F22 su30mki saying that F22 was way above MKI... n

No argument there. 

With regards SU30MKI in South Asia context the flanker will not be fighting AESA equipped F15/F16 backed by multiple force multiplers like Awacs JSTARS & Satallites... anytime soon. 

For this reason unless PAF acquires in large nos a western combat plane in the tech range of F16/60 F15S or Rafale/ Typhoon the MKI sets the bar/standard. 

The reason i say large nos the MKI is already equipping 5 Sqds and will rise to 12 Sqds by 2014 or 230 Planes..

PAFs answer thus far is 36 FC20 in 2015 And 
If war in SWAT goes to USA likeing 18 F16 block52.. in 2010-2011..

IS THAT ENOUGH ???


----------



## Munir

In case of a war? I think India bugged out twice when it had chance to fight outdated F7p and later combo F7PG and block15 F16... No BVR's, no AWACS no refuelers and no Ra'ad or Babur... What makes you sure they will risk against a few more BVR armed planes like JF17's and Block52 from june 2010?


----------



## Gucci Juice

by the time those j-10s arrive the mki is due for an upgrade with a new aesa, al-41 engine, and new avionics/ew equipment.

and the mki by then will be backed by 6 networked aewacs, and a satellite.

i believe the structure will be like this

mki: intended to dominate the skies over both countries and shoot down anything that comes in the way.

mrca, m2k, and jaguar: strike a/c supported by the mki

lca, and mig-29: mainly used for airspace defense and sometimes for strike in the lca's case.

mig-27, mi-24/35, lch, and new attack chopper: ground attack on tanks and stuff

6 phalcons: primary radar and controllers and also signit, elint, and other ew roles.

other aew: secondary radars

satellites: provide networked communications and spy on enemy movements

12 refuellers: 4 for keeping aewacs/escourts in air 24/7 and the rest for the other planes.



that's compared with

f-16/j-10: ground attack and air superiority (although not to the extent of the mki due to range, combat load, and radar restrictions)

jf-17, mirage rose, and j-7: air defense

eryie, hawkeye, and y-8 aew: primary radars

tankers: will be used to keep the aewacs/escourts in the air 24/7


----------



## maverick2009

Munir 

If a SU30MKI pilot bugged out from shooting at a F7P OR F16 it was because of rules of engagement. 

These guys are professionals following strict guidelines. .. 

Don,t make the mistake that the MKI pilot chickened out.

_A single SU30MKI carries up to 12 BVR/WVR missles 
2 pilots 2 engines and combat radius of 1500km 
Radar that can track 16 targets and engage 6 planes at once at over 100km _

The flankers are the most talked about combat planes in the world and photographed like no other...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

JF17 FACT FILE:

Comparable flights to JF17 are

1.LCA- Tejas

2.F-16

3.MIG 29-A

Best comparable fighter to JF17 is Tejas and F-16.

Comparison:

Type: Tejas / LCA

Country: India
Function: fighter
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 (83.4 kN GTRE GTX-35VS augmented turbofan)
Wing Span: 8.20 m
Length: 13.20 m
Empty Weight: 5500 kg
Ceiling: 16400 m
Range: 850 km
Armament: GSh-23 twin-barrel 23mm cannon (220 rounds);
7 hardpoints, max external load over 4000 kg
G limit :8.5
Unit cost: 21 million USD

Type : F16C/D block 50+
Crew :1
Length :15.03m
Height : 5.1m
Span :10.0m
Max Speed :Mach 2.05
Max Weight :17010kg
Ceiling :16750m
Range :1000km
Armament :1 cannon, 2 Sidewinders, ext load 4500 kg.
Engines: P&amp;W F100-PW-220
Control Systems :Triplex DFCS with one Analog Backup on MIL STD 1553B Bus

Type : JF-17
Crew :One
Wingspan : 9.00 m
Height : 5.10 m
Length : 14 m
Weight : Empty 6,321 kg, Normal take-off 9,100 kg, Max take-off 12,700 kg, Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Max. Weapon Load : 4,000 kg
Max. Speed : Mach 1.6
Range : Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,355 km
Service Ceiling :16,500 m
G Limit : 8.5

There may be changes in configuration for LCA and JF17 when they enter service..

Ultimate Verdict:

LCA and JF17 will stand on same Level until operated by a clever pilot.


----------



## Munir

Gucci Juice said:


> by the time those j-10s arrive the mki is due for an upgrade with a new aesa, al-41 engine, and new avionics/ew equipment.
> 
> and the mki by then will be backed by 6 networked aewacs, and a satellite.
> 
> i believe the structure will be like this
> 
> mki: intended to dominate the skies over both countries and shoot down anything that comes in the way.
> 
> mrca, m2k, and jaguar: strike a/c supported by the mki
> 
> lca, and mig-29: mainly used for airspace defense and sometimes for strike in the lca's case.
> 
> mig-27, mi-24/35, lch, and new attack chopper: ground attack on tanks and stuff
> 
> 6 phalcons: primary radar and controllers and also signit, elint, and other ew roles.
> 
> other aew: secondary radars
> 
> satellites: provide networked communications and spy on enemy movements
> 
> 12 refuellers: 4 for keeping aewacs/escourts in air 24/7 and the rest for the other planes.
> 
> 
> 
> that's compared with
> 
> f-16/j-10: ground attack and air superiority (although not to the extent of the mki due to range, combat load, and radar restrictions)
> 
> jf-17, mirage rose, and j-7: air defense
> 
> eryie, hawkeye, and y-8 aew: primary radars
> 
> tankers: will be used to keep the aewacs/escourts in the air 24/7



We all know that D E L A Y is the most important factor in all Indian projects. Build or bought. I bet you wil not have a nice list but not realistic. Let me make it transparant. Which project in the Indian history was on time and within budget? It is your call.


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

Asim Aquil said:


> JF-17 will need a better radar. Current it cannot even be used against the Su-30 in a BVR mode. The R-77 has a higher range and they can track the JF-17 much before the JF-17 can do the same.
> 
> JF-17 would need to play the numbers game and will need it's Thrust Vectoring. It will be fired upon once before it gets a chance to fire back.
> 
> This is not a scenario the PAF will pit against the IAF. Unless the Su-30's already close by when the JF-17s are sent for interception. The SD-10 is a damn good missile given that it's in range.



further to add some comparable stats for JF17
LCA
Country: India
Function: fighter
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 (83.4 kN GTRE GTX-35VS augmented turbofan)
Wing Span: 8.20 m
Length: 13.20 m
Empty Weight: 5500 kg
Ceiling: 16400 m
Range: 850 km
Armament: GSh-23 twin-barrel 23mm cannon (220 rounds);
7 hardpoints, max external load over 4000 kg
G limit :8.5
Unit cost: 21 million USD

Type : F16C/D block 50+
Crew :1
Length :15.03m
Height : 5.1m
Span :10.0m
Max Speed :Mach 2.05
Max Weight :17010kg
Ceiling :16750m
Range :1000km
Armament :1 cannon, 2 Sidewinders, ext load 4500 kg.
Engines: P&amp;W F100-PW-220
Control Systems :Triplex DFCS with one Analog Backup on MIL STD 1553B Bus

Type : JF-17
Crew :One
Wingspan : 9.00 m
Height : 5.10 m
Length : 14 m
Weight : Empty 6,321 kg, Normal take-off 9,100 kg, Max take-off 12,700 kg, Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Max. Weapon Load : 4,000 kg
Max. Speed : Mach 1.6
Range : Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,355 km
Service Ceiling :16,500 m
G Limit : 8.5

There may be changes in configuration for LCA and JF17 when they enter service..

Ultimate Verdict:

LCA and JF17 will stand on same Level until operated by a clever pilot.


----------



## Munir

How can one compare basis data and say x is better then y? You talk about radars, weapons, avionics and real planes. Not something that is on the drawing board for three decades.


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

Country: India
Function: fighter
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 (83.4 kN GTRE GTX-35VS augmented turbofan)
Wing Span: 8.20 m
Length: 13.20 m
Empty Weight: 5500 kg
Ceiling: 16400 m
Range: 850 km
Armament: GSh-23 twin-barrel 23mm cannon (220 rounds);
7 hardpoints, max external load over 4000 kg
G limit :8.5
Unit cost: 21 million USD

Type : F16C/D block 50+
Crew :1
Length :15.03m
Height : 5.1m
Span :10.0m
Max Speed :Mach 2.05
Max Weight :17010kg
Ceiling :16750m
Range :1000km
Armament :1 cannon, 2 Sidewinders, ext load 4500 kg.
Engines: P&amp;W F100-PW-220
Control Systems :Triplex DFCS with one Analog Backup on MIL STD 1553B Bus

Type : JF-17
Crew :One
Wingspan : 9.00 m
Height : 5.10 m
Length : 14 m
Weight : Empty 6,321 kg, Normal take-off 9,100 kg, Max take-off 12,700 kg, Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Max. Weapon Load : 4,000 kg
Max. Speed : Mach 1.6
Range : Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,355 km
Service Ceiling :16,500 m
G Limit : 8.5

There may be changes in configuration for LCA and JF17 when they enter service..

Ultimate Verdict:

LCA and JF17 will stand on same Level until operated by a clever pilot.


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

Munir said:


> How can one compare basis data and say x is better then y? You talk about radars, weapons, avionics and real planes. Not something that is on the drawing board for three decades.



3 facts 
the design
the rated output
the performance

it is this permeter that describes the mean m/c and not some hogus bogus claims ..but yes it is as always said "men not machines"
regards


----------



## hj786

maverick2009 said:


> HJ786...
> Re: Your comment F15/F16 versis SU30MKI in USA.
> We have all seen/studied the Vedio from the USA Pilot several times.
> Regardless of wat happened in that Excercise the USA Officer pointed out the relative Strength of SU30MKI VERSIS F15/F16 VERSIS F22...
> " Using his arms he clearly states SU3OMKI is a good plane in the right circumstances used by experienced pilots and is in his words a tad (slightly/marginally) superior to USA teen planes meaning F15/F16...
> To demonstrate this gap he rises one hand slightly above the other = Marginal
> *Marginal difference in capability, you said it yourself. Can be overcome by tactics. *
> 
> With regards SU30MKI in South Asia context the flanker will not be fighting AESA equipped F15/F16 backed by multiple force multiplers like Awacs JSTARS & Satallites... anytime soon.
> *The flanker WILL be facing hundreds of BVR attack capable fighters, fitted with up to date ECM suites ("focused interference" jamming according to a Chinese article on JF's Chinese avionics suite) and data-linked to AWACS. *
> 
> For this reason unless PAF acquires in large nos a western combat plane in the tech range of F16/60 F15S or Rafale/ Typhoon the MKI sets the bar/standard.
> *Wrong, FC-20 will be comparable in terms of BVR attack capability to say the least - not factoring in advantages in supersonic agility provided by the delta-canard layout of the FC-20 airframe, which plays a large part in BVR combat. Phased array radar according to photos of prototype, TVC according to PAF.
> *
> 
> The reason i say large nos the MKI is already equipping 5 Sqds and will rise to 12 Sqds by 2014 or 230 Planes..
> PAFs answer thus far is 36 FC20 in 2015 And
> If war in SWAT goes to USA likeing 18 F16 block52.. in 2010-2011..
> *Wrong. By 2015 PAF, according to an interview with the PAF COAS, PAF will have: ~46 F-16AM and 18 F-16C/D armed with AIM-120C5, at least 36 FC-20 and ~240 JF-17 (upgraded). That's ~340 medium and high tech. fighters data-linked to 4 Erieye + 4 ZDK03 AEWC and refuelled by 4 IL-78. Plus ~50 F-7PG interceptors armed with AIM-9M.
> Oh and if the war in SWAT doesn't go to America's liking, PAF will replace ~64 F-16 with FC-20. PAF's high tech. requirement is 150 aircraft, to be fulfilled by F-16 and FC-20. Whether its 150 FC-20 or 150 F-16 and FC-20, these high tech fighters alone could defend against 230 flankers.*
> 
> IS THAT ENOUGH ???


For 230 flankers? Yes it is.



Gucci Juice said:


> by the time those j-10s arrive the mki is due for an upgrade with a new aesa, al-41 engine, and new avionics/ew equipment.
> *What's the big deal? Barring AESA (which may or may not happen), even the JF will be upgraded similarly.
> *
> and the mki by then will be backed by 6 networked aewacs, and a satellite.
> *PAF will have 8 networked AWACS and Pakistani satellites will be launched from 2011.
> *
> 
> f-16/j-10: ground attack and air superiority (although not to the extent of the mki due to range, combat load, and radar restrictions)
> *Wrong, no radar restrictions when datalinked to AEWC.
> *
> 
> jf-17, mirage rose, and j-7: air defense
> *Wrong, JF is multi-role and is being integrated with strike weapons. It has been clearly seen carrying dumb bombs in testing and the Durandal anti-runway bomb was sent to China for integration. In fact there is a new cruise missile based on Ra'ad under development specifically for carriage on the JF's under-wing hardpoints according to respected inside sources. Most ROSE Mirages are upgraded for low-level night-time strike missions.
> *





maverick2009 said:


> Munir
> If a SU30MKI pilot bugged out from shooting at a F7P OR F16 it was because of rules of engagement.
> These guys are professionals following strict guidelines. ..
> Don,t make the mistake that the MKI pilot chickened out.
> _A single SU30MKI carries up to 12 BVR/WVR missles
> 2 pilots 2 engines and combat radius of 1500km
> Radar that can track 16 targets and engage 6 planes at once at over 100km _ The flankers are the most talked about combat planes in the world and photographed like no other...



A single mki will jettison nearly all BVR/WVR missiles as soon as an inbound AMRAAM or SD-10 is detected. 2 pilots means InAF loses more each time one aeroplane gets shot down. 2 engines means mki has to spend double the time in maintenance, flies less missions. Combat radius 1500 km means mki will face opponents with more fuel weight, reducing its performance. An mki can't engage other fighters at anywhere near 100km, R-77 does not have enough NEZ. Lastly, flankers are the most talked about by fanboys, nobody else. Photographed like no other by fanboys too.


----------



## paritosh

Munir said:


> Patriosh doesn't know basics and keeps asking stupid qestions... Waste of time.



what is your problem?
just yesterday on some different thread you called me stupid...while others gave me valid answers...i refrained myself from engaging you the other time....be sober for your own good.
and about this thread...if you cant prove a point dont vent your angst on me...


----------



## maverick2009

HJ786 

you talk about a FC20 as cutting edge which won,t arrive in PAF until 2015. 

You claim it will have canards for extreme agility and phassed array radar..

Thats great wen these 36 planes arrive in 2015. 

Yet SU30MKI x 5 SQDS have Canards TVC & Bars radar here and now. The best part of 100 planes. 

In 2015 THE ENTIRE MKI programmed will have finished. Tranch3 of the SU30MKI IS A Ibris Aesa equipped mki with a KH172 ramjet missle. 

Do you honestly believe the next 140 mki are going to be identical to the first 100..


----------



## Gucci Juice

hj786

i understand where ur coming from, but the satellite ur talking about isn't for military its for communications.

the 100s of bvr planes is true by 2015 it should be around 350

although those planes will have a good jammer the mki's will be better since mki is 3x heavier than the jf-17 and 2x heavier than the f-16/j-10. 2 engines means more electric power which means more jamming power.

and the bvr thing... mki flies higher, faster, and longer not to mention the rear facing radar which allows it to turn the other way and still guide missiles i can see the f-16 being comparable to the mki in bvr due to the aim-120 but the jf-17 and j-10... no they wont have aim-120.

and 150<230 and even the pilot from red flag said the mki was a tad better than the f-16 and the f-15 and those were both top of the line with aesa, the best avionics available, etc... the f-16 block 52 come close but not close enough.

and 230 is almost 100 more than 150... so i dont know about that, and u forgot to mention 126-200 mrca fighters as well and from the looks of it it could be either typhoon, mig-35 and f/a-18. if the typhoon/f-18 win the meteor comes in if the mig-35 wins the new ramjet r-77 comes in.

the big deal with the mki upgrade? it will have the newest stuff available in terms of ew equipment and avionics and the al-41 will allow it to supercruise, and i just dont see the jf-17 going for an upgrade in just 6 years time, it took the mki almost 15 years for an upgrade.

and the jf-17 wont jettison its payload as well? remember in airshows the mki has done manuveres with full payload.

and the opposite is true in dogfights the more fuel u have the better since u can stay and fight longer, if the opponent runs out of fuel and runs u can shoot them down easily.

and yes the 2 engines part is right it means more maintenence but that can be overcome with good training on the maintenence crews part and in red flag the mkis had a good sortie rate.

also the j-10 uses the same engine as the mki and the jf-17 uses another engine build by the same country.


----------



## hj786

maverick2009 said:


> HJ786
> you talk about a FC20 as cutting edge which won,t arrive in PAF until 2015. *
> The first 36-40 (36 single seat, 4 duel seat trainers) will arrive BY 2015 according to interviews.*
> 
> You claim it will have canards for extreme agility and phassed array radar..
> *It HAS canards for extreme agility and according of pictures of the prototype, it is specifically designed for phased array radar installation.
> *
> 
> Yet SU30MKI x 5 SQDS have Canards TVC & Bars radar here and now. The best part of 100 planes.
> *So? *
> 
> In 2015 THE ENTIRE MKI programmed will have finished. Tranch3 of the SU30MKI IS A Ibris Aesa equipped mki with a KH172 ramjet missle.
> *Exactly. mki will be finished, FC-20 will have only just begun.
> *
> 
> Do you honestly believe the next 140 mki are going to be identical to the first 100..
> *Do you honestly believe PAF think the next 140 mki are going to be identical to the first 100?
> *



asdsadsafsadasd sad asd


----------



## Myth_buster_1

maverick2009 said:


> HJ786
> 
> you talk about a FC20 as cutting edge which won,t arrive in PAF until 2015.
> 
> You claim it will have canards for extreme agility and phassed array radar..
> 
> Thats great wen these 36 planes arrive in 2015.
> 
> Yet SU30MKI x 5 SQDS have Canards TVC & Bars radar here and now. The best part of 100 planes.
> 
> In 2015 THE ENTIRE MKI programmed will have finished. Tranch3 of the SU30MKI IS A Ibris Aesa equipped mki with a KH172 ramjet missle.
> 
> Do you honestly believe the next 140 mki are going to be identical to the first 100..



haha u are a funny guy.. i agree that without shadow of dough MKI is supirior to JF-17 but it does not mean MKI is invincible.. JF-17 with BVR missile Plus AEW will be a pain in @ss for MKIs which will be IAF front line fighter for the next 2 decades. 
You like a small hearted fanboy that you are tend to believe in fantasy lists.. At the moment IAF only operates 55 MKIs and it will be a feat for HAL to produce 100 in 5 years let alone meet 220 or so goal by 2015 just becasue they say so... HAL like a fanboy they are they tend to spread romurs about their plans which never ever meets the deadlines.. prime example are Arjun and LCA. and lol fanboy.. it will take aleast 10-15 years for atleast 25-50 MKI to be upgraded to next tranch.. but since u are a fanboy you are most welcome to be deluded and believe in your own list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Growler said:


> haha u are a funny guy.. i agree that without shadow of dough MKI is supirior to JF-17 but it does not mean MKI is invincible.. JF-17 with BVR missile Plus AEW will be a pain in @ss for MKIs which will be IAF front line fighter for the next 2 decades.
> You like a small hearted fanboy that you are tend to believe in fantasy lists.. At the moment IAF only operates 55 MKIs and it will be a feat for HAL to produce 100 in 5 years let alone meet 220 or so goal by 2015 just becasue they say so... HAL like a fanboy they are they tend to spread romurs about their plans which never ever meets the deadlines.. prime example are Arjun and LCA. and lol fanboy.. it will take aleast 10-15 years for atleast 25-50 MKI to be upgraded to next tranch.. but since u are a fanboy you are most welcome to be deluded and believe in your own list.


i simply cannot unnderstand what makes them beleive at there figures!! they point fingers at pakistan poducing 30 JF per year regardless of the fact that it will be produced both in china and pakistan incereasing the numbers to 35 -40 planes per year! on the other hand they think that DRDO will be able to produce 20 MLIs per year regardless of the fact that india have only been able to induct 50 planes since there induction started years back!

anyway i am very happy about the DRDO going to produce the MKI locally because with the word DRDO the other word that pops up in mind in FIALED!!! so i hope it will be the same with DRDO MKIs as it was with lots of other indian military projects!!
regards!


----------



## Cockpuncher

when will this thread stop?

we all know the answer


----------



## Haanzo

Cockpuncher said:


> when will this thread stop?
> 
> we all know the answer



answer is when people stop feeding their own ego


----------



## pakpower

> JF-17 with BVR missile Plus AEW will be a pain in @ss for MKIs



JF-17 will be more then that which they dont understand because they thought that their so called mighty SU-30MKI is some sort of their GOD in between their lot's of GOD's you name it. Many of those.


----------



## sancho

pakpower said:


> JF-17 will be more then that which they dont understand because they thought that their so called mighty SU-30MKI is some sort of their GOD in between their lot's of GOD's you name it. Many of those.


No, because all FACTS are clearly speaking in favour of the Mki if you compare it one on one! 
Just read the last several post and you read about JF 17 with BVR missile and AEW support, upgraded JF 17, J10 with AESA, hj786 even listed up half of PAF to compete Mki. The Mki is not invisible, nor the greatest fighter on earth, but in this region it is one of, or maybe the most capable fighter at the moment. That will only change if China and you might get J10B with AESA radar, or if we get the first squad of MMRCA (which should be earlier). And if that happen you will see the same posts, some will talk about lower RCS and low costs, others about greater numbers and ramjets, or again about future upgrades and 5. gen fighters. You will always find something to complain about Mki if you really want, but still at present and one on one the Mki is superior against JF 17!


----------



## Muradk

Growler said:


> haha u are a funny guy.. i agree that without shadow of dough MKI is supirior to JF-17 but it does not mean MKI is invincible.. JF-17 with BVR missile Plus AEW will be a pain in @ss for MKIs which will be IAF front line fighter for the next 2 decades.
> You like a small hearted fanboy that you are tend to believe in fantasy lists.. At the moment IAF only operates 55 MKIs and it will be a feat for HAL to produce 100 in 5 years let alone meet 220 or so goal by 2015 just becasue they say so... HAL like a fanboy they are they tend to spread romurs about their plans which never ever meets the deadlines.. prime example are Arjun and LCA. and lol fanboy.. it will take aleast 10-15 years for atleast 25-50 MKI to be upgraded to next tranch.. but since u are a fanboy you are most welcome to be deluded and believe in your own list.



Yar why are you spoiling his dreams, They can have 300 or 400 MKI's wouldn't matter much, Pakistan's missile tech is way advanced for some Indians to think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gucci Juice

mm hmm

the only missiles pakistan can make are ballistic missiles, that's it.

drdo has designed SUCCESSFUL abm missiles, an aam, a sam (akash), a top attack anti tank, and agni iii mrbm, on top of they isro has designed gslv, and pslv with the gslv mk iii on its way which can carry 4? tons to leo.

yes there have been failures arjun and trishul to name a few, but i wouldn't call lca a failure it actually has higher performance (in terms of engine power) than the jf-17 but that wasn't good enough and their standard in performance is a bit higher so it will take some time to get a new engine. also the lca DOES have an aesa the stockholm peace instutite reported that 5 elta 2052 aesa radars were ordered for the lca.

also even if production is scaled up to 40 a year by 2012, u still wont have 250 by 2015.

thats because for the 1st 2-3 years you'll only produce 20 or so than production can be ramped up.

by 2015 at max 190 jf-17s.


----------



## Munir

The DRDO is our best friend cause they produce zero. And even if they do... We do not mind. As Murad said... Pak tech has more then most would predict. The Babur, Ra'ad and many other BM are just the top of it... Pak had copied Matra Magic that well that French engineers could not tell the difference. We talk about decades ago.

About JF17... Well, I have told you more then once... They wil have mulitple production lines in China. So the numbers will be realistic and not based on bollywood logic like you are used to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

sancho said:


> No, because all FACTS are clearly speaking in favour of the Mki if you compare it one on one!
> *The facts state that 1v1, the JF has every chance at BVR when supported by an AEWC. The helmet-mounted sights mean it has every chance WVR. If you guys aren't interested in facts, what can I do?
> *
> 
> Just read the last several post and you read about JF 17 with BVR missile and AEW support, upgraded JF 17, J10 with AESA, hj786 even listed up half of PAF to compete Mki.
> *Actually I've been listing 250 JF and AEWC to compete with MKI and that's with the current specification as per the PAC website, no upgrades. You're so desperate you're putting words in my mouth?
> *
> 
> The Mki is not invisible, nor the greatest fighter on earth, but in this region it is one of, or maybe the most capable fighter at the moment. That will only change if China and you might get J10B with AESA radar, or if we get the first squad of MMRCA (which should be earlier). And if that happen you will see the same posts, some will talk about lower RCS and low costs, others about greater numbers and ramjets, or again about future upgrades and 5. gen fighters. You will always find something to complain about Mki if you really want, but still at present and one on one the Mki is superior against JF 17!


Doesn't matter to me, it will never fight 1v1 against MKI. 



Gucci Juice said:


> mm hmm
> the only missiles pakistan can make are ballistic missiles, that's it.
> drdo has designed SUCCESSFUL abm missiles, an aam, a sam (akash), a top attack anti tank, and agni iii mrbm, on top of they isro has designed gslv, and pslv with the gslv mk iii on its way which can carry 4? tons to leo.
> yes there have been failures arjun and trishul to name a few, but i wouldn't call lca a failure it actually has higher performance (in terms of engine power) than the jf-17 but that wasn't good enough and their standard in performance is a bit higher so it will take some time to get a new engine. also the lca DOES have an aesa the stockholm peace instutite reported that 5 elta 2052 aesa radars were ordered for the lca.
> also even if production is scaled up to 40 a year by 2012, u still wont have 250 by 2015.
> thats because for the 1st 2-3 years you'll only produce 20 or so than production can be ramped up.
> *by 2015 at max 190 jf-17s.*


This know-it-all must be the PAF Chief Of Air Staff or something.

Telling a combat veteran who was chosen by PAF to evaluate the F-16 and Mirage 2000, what types of missiles his country can develop. That's just funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick2009

Thus far Pakistan have ordered 42 JF17 for definite. 

There is a loan arrangement of $650m for PAF to buy these from China. 

This is a follow on from 8 prototypes that are currently going thru IOC.

Recently a PAF spokesman suggested the first PAF JF17 wil,be raised by the year end 2009 early 2010. 

All these other posts of 250 JF17 with western radar and weapons a new engine and AESA etc are threads started on this forum.. 

Whislt i appreciate that JF17 like LCA SU30MKI or Typhoon. wil have different tranches with each tranche improving on the other what i don,t see happening is the time line being suggested of 250 JF17 by 2015. 

If the JF17 is being treated as a true 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER as some claim it is ...* Then it can,t be built or acquired in the nos suggested so quickly. * Let me explain the argument.

Even the first basic 42 JF17 are coming via soft loans. Where will PAF find enuf funds to buy 250 IN 5 YEARS. 

Secondly if the next batch of 50 are to incorporate new engine radar and weapons surely this will take time to intergrate and test before induction. Yet again thev cost issue is also to be factored. 

What about the infrastucture and pilots to support these planes . The workshops. JF17 is currently relying on a Russian engine we all know how they take their time delivering hardware/spares/ Ask the indians... 

The chinease are asking for 5 years to deliver a improved FC20 for PAF and 36 of these will arrive by 2015. *thats 6 years to deliver 36 planes. * 

Su30mki entered service in 2003. In 2009 we have barely 90 SU30MKI in SERVICE. despite both Russia & india delivering them now. *It will take 10 possibly 12 years to deliver 230 planes from 2004.*

The Typhoon and i live in UK so i know as barely touched 40 planes. This in 3 years. *
* I can see why PEOPLE say 250 JF17 by 2014 ITS TO COUNTER the 230 SU30MKI by 2014. But SU30MKI programme started 5 years ago. JF17 will start 2010.. 

Its takes time to fully build air bases, workshops, license production, tranche improvements *and lots and lots of money.*

UK France India have between them 10 to 5 times the air force budgets of PAF yet *they struggle to induct more than 10 planes per year. * The reasons i have listed above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gucci Juice

yes not even china can build 20 jf-17s a year, they have their own af to worry about.

they are also building j-10s, j-11s, and other a/c for their af i dont think they have time for 20 jf-17s.

also they have been known to cut corners to get that cheap 15 million dollar cost, its not all just labour the skin could be thinner, less rivets, cheaper canopy, cheaper electronics, etc...

so its better to build in ur own country than china which i believe will be done.

if u want proof of this 

Foreign Policy: The Top 10 Stories You Missed in 2008

Shanghai's steel fails basic tests​Shanghais futuristic skylinethe city has more than 900 high-rises, with hundreds more under constructionis one of the most potent symbols of Chinas economic rise. But the materials undergirding all that growth might be shakier than anyone can imagine. In March, the English-language Shanghai Daily reported that fully half of the steel sold to construction companies in Shanghais wholesale markets failed basic quality tests. Nearly a quarter of the tested samples failed tension tests, meaning structures built with them would not be able to withstand earthquakes and would be more likely to decay over time.

*Of the 52 batches of steel tested by the Shanghai Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau, 27 were too light to meet Chinas legal standards.* Some batches were nearly five times lighter than the legal standard, meaning that they were less than the weight of iron, steels primary ingredient. If your steel is less than the weight of iron, thats pretty incredible, says Christopher Earls, professor of civil engineering at Cornell University. That means youre replacing the iron with something else, so what you have isnt really steel at all.

The bureau ordered construction sites using the inferior steel to halt work, but, troublingly, did not publicly reveal where it was being used. Adam Minter, a Shanghai-based journalist who blogged the story after it broke, asked, What will happen to twenty-year home mortgages taken out on Shanghai apartments which will only laststructurallyfor ten years? At some point, Im pretty sure this is going to become an issue. After the collapse of substandard schoolhouses during this years Sichuan earthquake, tremors of which were felt in Shanghai, the prospect of something similar happening to an urban high-rise isnt an issue anyone should take lightly.

and this was in skyscrapers in shanghai where 100s of thousands of people live.


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> The facts state that 1v1, the JF has every chance at BVR when supported by an AEWC. The helmet-mounted sights mean it has every chance WVR. If you guys aren't interested in facts, what can I do?


Try to understand that this is a fighter vs fighter comparison, not a fighter plus added this and that, just to let the JF 17 look a bit better comparison. And even if you do so, you have to add it on both sides and you will see that it still remains inferior. The Mki has also AWACS support, it has BVR missiles with longer range and can carry more of them, the Mki provides more power to the EWS to jam missiles. These are FACTS!
Compare facts that are given now and not anytime in future, compare it equal with all capabilities on both side not only in favour for JF 17, otherwise you will also look like a fanboy.

I said it often enough, the JF 17 seems to be (it's not operational and not all capabilities are ready yet) a good fighter (against Mig 21 and 27, Jags, Mirage 2k and LCA mk 1), but it will remain BEHIND F16 block 52 and J10 when it comes to capabilities. So a comparison of PAFs and IAFs most capable fighters would make much more sense!


hj786 said:


> Actually I've been listing 250 JF and AEWC to compete with MKI and that's with the current specification as per the PAC website, no upgrades. You're so desperate you're putting words in my mouth?


Why you always post things first and deny them later?


hj786 said:


> Wrong. By 2015 PAF, according to an interview with the PAF COAS, *PAF will have: ~46 F-16AM and 18 F-16C/D armed with AIM-120C5, at least 36 FC-20 and ~240 JF-17 (upgraded). That's ~340 medium and high tech. fighters data-linked to 4 Erieye + 4 ZDK03 AEWC and refuelled by 4 IL-78. Plus ~50 F-7PG interceptors armed with AIM-9M.*
> Oh and if the war in SWAT doesn't go to America's liking, PAF will replace ~64 F-16 with FC-20. PAF's high tech. *requirement is 150 aircraft, to be fulfilled by F-16 and FC-20. Whether its 150 FC-20 or 150 F-16 and FC-20, these high tech fighters alone could defend against 230 flankers.*


So as you can see (again), I don't have to put anything in your mouth and denying his own words instead of arguing is what I would call desperate.


----------



## Gucci Juice

how about mods close this thread and open up a new thread called "j-10/f-16 vs mki"

actually i'll open it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bilal1219

That would make a lot of sense. Couz clearly, JF cannot take down MKI based on 1 on 1. However, maybe on a lucky day, it may happen as you cannot say anything about what may happen, considering the pilot, missles, ECM etc.

I wouldnt say lock the thread, it still has some value.


----------



## Munir

maverick2009 said:


> Thus far Pakistan have ordered 42 JF17 for definite.
> 
> There is a loan arrangement of $650m for PAF to buy these from China.
> 
> This is a follow on from 8 prototypes that are currently going thru IOC.
> 
> Recently a PAF spokesman suggested the first PAF JF17 wil,be raised by the year end 2009 early 2010.
> 
> All these other posts of 250 JF17 with western radar and weapons a new engine and AESA etc are threads started on this forum..
> 
> Whislt i appreciate that JF17 like LCA SU30MKI or Typhoon. wil have different tranches with each tranche improving on the other what i don,t see happening is the time line being suggested of 250 JF17 by 2015.
> 
> If the JF17 is being treated as a true 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER as some claim it is ...* Then it can,t be built or acquired in the nos suggested so quickly. * Let me explain the argument.
> 
> Even the first basic 42 JF17 are coming via soft loans. Where will PAF find enuf funds to buy 250 IN 5 YEARS.
> 
> Secondly if the next batch of 50 are to incorporate new engine radar and weapons surely this will take time to intergrate and test before induction. Yet again thev cost issue is also to be factored.
> 
> What about the infrastucture and pilots to support these planes . The workshops. JF17 is currently relying on a Russian engine we all know how they take their time delivering hardware/spares/ Ask the indians...
> 
> The chinease are asking for 5 years to deliver a improved FC20 for PAF and 36 of these will arrive by 2015. *thats 6 years to deliver 36 planes. *
> 
> Su30mki entered service in 2003. In 2009 we have barely 90 SU30MKI in SERVICE. despite both Russia & india delivering them now. *It will take 10 possibly 12 years to deliver 230 planes from 2004.*
> 
> The Typhoon and i live in UK so i know as barely touched 40 planes. This in 3 years. *
> * I can see why PEOPLE say 250 JF17 by 2014 ITS TO COUNTER the 230 SU30MKI by 2014. But SU30MKI programme started 5 years ago. JF17 will start 2010..
> 
> Its takes time to fully build air bases, workshops, license production, tranche improvements *and lots and lots of money.*
> 
> UK France India have between them 10 to 5 times the air force budgets of PAF yet *they struggle to induct more than 10 planes per year. * The reasons i have listed above.



Would je expect from China to produce j10b or copy Flanker while a decade ago they will doing Mig19's (J6's) and would have tough times with copying mig21F (J7)? That is because they have the money, the workforce and the will to do it faster and better. It is not Indian style with big words and zero items. WE have seen LCA and now even the Indians accept planes that crashes and being overweight... Why no topics about that?


----------



## BATMAN

> This is a follow on from 8 prototypes that are currently going thru IOC.


 Your statement above suggest that it is useles to furnish answers to your inquiries... you are simply here with intents of sabotage.
PAF have already inducted, one full squardon of JF-17 and if you are not willing to accept it than why bother discuss it!



> PEOPLE say 250 JF17 by 2014 ITS TO COUNTER the 230 SU30MKI by 2014


 and what is the basis of your claim of 230su30 by 2014?


----------



## hj786

sancho said:


> Try to understand that this is a fighter vs fighter comparison, not a fighter plus added this and that, just to let the JF 17 look a bit better comparison.
> *I think they are in different classes and comparing them like that is pointless. One costs 12 million dollars, the other costs ~40 million.
> *
> 
> And even if you do so, you have to add it on both sides and you will see that it still remains inferior.
> *The JF has many advantages also.
> *
> 
> The Mki has also AWACS support,
> *But that doesn't mean the JF's AWACS support doesn't count, does it?
> *
> it has BVR missiles with longer range and can carry more of them,
> *
> - According to some sources, SD-10 has range of ~100km.
> - The No Escape Zone is far more important than max range and you don't have reliable NEZ figures for either missile.
> - China has their own stockpiles of R-77, so I don't think they'd develop an inferior missile.
> - Won't the flanker just jettison most of its missiles as soon as an SD-10 or AMRAAM is on its way?*
> 
> the Mki provides more power to the EWS to jam missiles.
> *Of course. But according to you guys even the Mig-21 bison provides enough power to the EWS to stop F-15 and F-16 firing at it in exercises, so does that argument hold water? How much jamming power is needed? How important is jamming power compared to jamming technique? *
> 
> Compare facts that are given now and not anytime in future, compare it equal with all capabilities on both side not only in favour for JF 17, otherwise you will also look like a fanboy.
> * Then this whole argument is pointless because as far as we know, the JF is not integrated with all the systems in its specifications. It still isn't finished, the flanker is. *
> [/COLOR][/B]
> 
> I said it often enough, the JF 17 seems to be (it's not operational and not all capabilities are ready yet) a good fighter (against Mig 21 and 27, Jags, Mirage 2k and LCA mk 1), but it will remain BEHIND F16
> block 52 *(no doubt)* and J10 when it comes to capabilities.
> *What do you know about J-10's capabilities? The JF appears to have the same MAWS as the J-10B. What does that say about your argument? *
> 
> So a comparison of PAFs and IAFs most capable fighters would make much more sense!
> *I agree.*
> 
> Why you always post things first and deny them later?
> 
> So as you can see (again), I don't have to put anything in your mouth and denying his own words instead of arguing is what I would call desperate.



But you ARE trying to put words into my mouth. I never denied what I wrote at all. 

In that first quote I make a statement about 250 JF + AEWC and 230 MKI, in the other I make a statement about what PAF should have inducted by 2015. They have nothing to do with each other.

You're proving just how desperate you are to put me down.


----------



## SBD-3

MKIs though, are potent fighters but provided that the senario over pakistani airspace I think the extensive sam network along with BVR capable JF-17s along with AEW&C MKIs will face a game on not to mention J-10s and possible J-11s


----------



## holysaturn

Munir said:


> Would je expect from China to produce j10b or copy Flanker while a decade ago they will doing Mig19's (J6's) and would have tough times with copying mig21F (J7)? That is because they have the money, the workforce and the will to do it faster and better. It is not Indian style with big words and zero items. WE have seen *LCA and now even the Indians accept planes that crashes and being overweight*... Why no topics about that?



correction.india did not accept migs now.lca still not accepted fully accepted..
a big AF defenitely will have more crashes when compared to smaller ones.

russians dont use single engined fighters(mig-29,su-27),u no y because they no that even their best engines r not highly reliable.jf-17 has the rd-93 which is not even the best russian engine,the other case j-10(which resulted in a crash due to the engine).so i think we will see some crash activity from the jf-17 in a decade if pak continues with this engine.


----------



## Youdiedz

Jf-17 is a good plane IMO. Pakistan and China ^^. Anyways, i found an article on this while i was searching jets.

In December 2008, rumors were rife of the J-10's latest incarnation, the J-10B, had taken off for the first time. Now in April 2009, we see the initial leak of images for this plane. The J-10B appears as the next iteration of China's vaunted 4th Generation fighter and looks to take the J-10 to the 4.5 Generation level. 

The differences that have been identified from the earlier J-10 include a DSI intake, similar to the one on the FC-1/JF-17. The nose is now oval, more similar to an F-16's and is slightly canted downwards. An IRST similar to the J-11Bs also feature on top of the nose. Slanted radome paint along with some of the other features suggest an AESA radar.

The J-10B incorporates a new small ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer and this stabilizer also appears to be longer and ending in a "shark-fin". The ECM housing is similar to the housing on the JF-17. The two ventral fins are also extended further and are larger irrespective of the shark-fin. The aerodynamic refinements of the longer vertical stabilizer and the ventral fins appear to be a result of the DSI intakes which create greater lateral forces on the aircraft. 

The wide angle HUD featured on the J-11Bs seem to have also appeared on the J-10B. While it cannot be confirmed, it appears that the cockpit itself has been redesigned extensively. Other than the new ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer, new MAWs appear on the tail bump. Just below these, curious breaks appear on the fuselage that some observers are referring to as possible formation lights "slime lights", but expert opinion from a Lockheed Martin source suggest that they are FLIR sensors. A redesigned satellite communication unit appears right behind the cockpit. 

A retractable refueling probe is likely, given the development of the J-10 thus far, and is possibly located on the port side, not visible in the latest photographs. The photographs also suggest new under-wing pylons. These appear to be strengthened for a variety of possible uses, ranging from larger drop tanks to ASMs. 

The engine is likely to be either a redesigned WS-10A (B?) or possibly the WS-15, a new generation engine currently in advanced development. This would not only have higher thrust than the AL-31s, but also feature TVCs, giving the J-10Bs vaunted agility an even greater boost. The actual engine on the aircraft presently on the released pictures, is the AL-31. 

Like the J-10S, a J-10BS is also eventually likely. This would be an advanced trainer with the 360 degree view similar to the J-10S. EW/Wild Weasel variants could also eventually be possible.

PAF 

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has shown a great deal of interest in the J-10 project as a possible substitute for Western combat aircraft for its high end requirements. The PAF, however, wanted a more modern version. Just as the FC-1s (and before the FC-1, the F-7s) were significantly upgraded due to the PAF's push for improvements, the J-10 appears to be going through a similar phase. The reason for this is that the PAF has a far closer view of Western technologies and trends and thus can provide deeper insight than more insulated Chinese expertise. The J-10B in all likelihood has had major input from the PAF and is the FC-20 that the PAF has ordered. 

While there were rumors of the PAF receiving its first J-10s as early as 2009, the purchase has been delayed to 2014/2015. However, there is no doubt that the PAF sees its future inextricably linked to the J-10Bs/FC-20s. Informed sources suggest that PAF is not only looking to purchase, but to set up the necessary infrastructure to maintain and upgrade these birds. According to well informed sources, the aforementioned delay is primarily as a result of engine issues. The AL-31 would create maintenance and logistics problems for the PAF, given the lack of a working relationship with Russia. The WS-10A/B has not met quality standards. This leaves the PAF high and dry for now vis-a-vis the J-10. Their engine options now are to either to wait for a more reliable WS-10A version or to go for the WS-15, a new generation engine with similar dimensions.

WS-15 Milestone Celebration 

*The delay in procurement is critical for PAF as it needs a quality high end to counter the larger IAF with her MKIs, Mirage-2000s and MRCA*. *With a new sensor rich environment dominated by AWACS on both sides and a large number of BVR platforms, higher altitude BVR engagements would become vital. J-10s are ideally suited for such combat given their aerodynamics including low wing loading in an A2A configuration. The instantaneous turn rates achievable on the J-10 (or the Euro canards) are likely to give an advantage* in such engagements, as opposed to the high wing loadings on the over-evolved F-16s which were essentially designed for turning dog fights rather than high altitude BVR slash and dash maneuvers. 

With the AESA equipped new *J-10Bs, higher thrust engines and better EW/Avionics, PAF would reclaim the qualitative edge over the IAF. These J-10s would be superior in air combat than anything that the IAF fields today and would only be matched by a possible MRCA acquisition by India*. Even then, with the 5 present contenders left in the MRCA, only the Eurofighter (assuming AESA radars) would be able to match the J-10 in air-to-air combat. 

The PAF is looking for a total of 150 high end aircraft like the F-16 Block 52s and the FC-20 (J-10Bs or J-10Ps). The FC-20s could be procured in greater numbers, depending on relations with the U.S. and the operability of the F-16s. The J-10Ps and the JF-17s make a perfect pair - one ideal for high altitude air superiority and deep strike missions while the other ideal as a true multirole fighter. Where the J-10 lacks in deep strike, the F-16s make up for it. Where the J-10s lack in CAS, the JF-17s make up for it. Where the JF-17 lacks in high altitude BVR engagements, the J-10s make up for it. 

The J-10s, F-16s and JF-17s also fit into the AFFDP-2019 requirements. The AFFDP-2019 is the core document on the strategic planning of Pakistan's armed forces over 15 years. While this document is not available in the public domain, informed sources note that the PAF has been assigned procurement of only single engine combat aircraft. The J-10Ps/FC-20s coupled with the JF-17s and F-16s thus ideally meet these requirements. 

In the event that the Indian Air Force decides to procure massive numbers of Western 4.5 generation fighters, beyond the 126 MRCA, while increasing the Su-30MKI numbers and upgrades their MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s, the PAF has a clear charted path in increasing JF-17s and FC-20s, having by then set up the infrastructure and training for these planes. *Further, the JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time* and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots. 

The PAF is looking to add as much potency as possible, within its budget constraints; shopping for avionics from Western sources to add further potential to its JF-17s and FC-20s. Thus far, Chinese developments have been so rapid that by the time decisions were to be made at the PAF, the Chinese would meet or exceed requirements and the competition at a lower price. It remains to be seen if this can be pulled off again by the Chinese when PAF goes shopping for the next block of JF-17s and the new FC-20s. For the FC-20s, EW, cockpit interface and reliability of the new Chinese AESA radar will play a critical role. The PAF is meanwhile keeping open options with European equivalents, including the M-AESA (Multi-role Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) being developed by Saab and Selex and a French AESA, yet to be revealed. 

By 2014, some of PAF's F-16s would be ready for retirement as well. While they have been better kept than many other air forces, some of these birds would by then have been in service for more than 30 years. FC-20s could also be used to replace these. 

J-10Bs for Iran? 

There have been some reports of Iran being interested in purchasing the J-10Bs from China. Looking at Iran's present arsenal, there is no doubt Iran needs new planes. In fact, it has been seen as surprising that Iran has not procured new fighter planes from China since a small purchase of J-7s. They certainly have shown interest in the new J-7Gs and the JH-7s, both perfect substitutes for Iranian F-5s, Su-24s and F-4s. With some Israeli lineage in the J-10s, some commentators have questioned if their may not be an agreement that these birds never be sold to Iran, as a condition for Israeli technical help. Another reason is that Iran and China have not always seen eye-to-eye on patent related issues. Life is stranger than fiction it appears, as China has had issues with its products being reverse-engineered by Iran. 



J-10 Vs F-16 Technical Comparison 

The F-16 was designed from the outset as a dog-fighter. The moderate sweep of the wings and aspect ratios were ideal for this. The trade-off however, was greater supersonic resistance. The thrust offered by the two engine options on the F-16 is impressive even to this day. TWR in air combat is about 1.15, ensuring impressive climbing rates and sustained turn rates. As noted, the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance, not only in its wing design but also in its fixed air intakes. In supersonic flight, engine thrust is lost. While it can reach Mach 2.0, pragmatically it has poor supersonic performance. 

While the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance for subsonic dogfighting, the J-10 did not make the same sacrifice. Thus, while when the F-16 was designed, turning dogfights were what was projected as the bread and butter of air combat, when the J-10 was being designed, the BVR era had arrived (or re-arrived). The J-10s aerodynamic design, including wing design and inlet design, take this into account. For instance, the J-10 visibly has greater wing sweep and a variable inlet. With the J-10B, a DSI intake. While the J-10B sacrifices maximum theoretical top speeds with its DSI intakes, for all relevant combat speeds, it gives the J-10 superior performance. 

Under modern BVR conditions and higher altitude combat, the J-10 is significantly superior to the F-16. This is also reflected in its higher instantaneous turn rates. The Mirage-2000s have been a point of major concern both for the Pakistanis and the Turkish air forces, because of these aerodynamic issues, despite the Mirages weak engines. The Greeks, who operated both the Mirage 2000 and F-16C considered the F-16 to be better at low altitude, low speed, hard turning fights, and Mirage 2000 to be superior at hi-hi.The F-16 would have to attempt to survive the first merge in an air combat scenario, which becomes increasingly suicidal with high off-bore sight missiles. BVR further compounds these problems for the F-16s. In previous eras, flying hi and fast was fine, but you often had to come down low to engage a low flying enemy aircraft. Today, that becomes less relevant with longer range BVR missiles and look-down shoot-down capabilities. 

The F-16 has also been adding weight over time and attempting to counterbalance this with increased engine thrust. However, since wing area remained the same, maneuverability has been sacrificed. Higher wing loading is particularly detrimental for higher altitude maneuverability. The J-10 on the other hand, has all the wing area it could ever need with a delta canard layout. 

The newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery. The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker. CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.

Chinese 5th Gen 
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> 
<!--[endif]-->

The 5th Generation Chinese stealth plane is what would eventually close down J-10 production. The XXJ or J-XX as it is often referred to, has been the subject of intense competition between China's two premier fighter design institutions - CAC and SAC. While CAC's 611 Institute lost the bid to SAC's 601 Institute, both entities have begun joint development of the new fighter. How the rivalry plays out remains to be seen. It appears Chengdu has the upper hand as it is perceived to have been more successful. J-10 program director Liu Gaozhou recently stated that, " we are researching and developing a fourth generation to meet the requirements of defending the motherland." China's fourth generation is of course, the 5th generation we refer to in the West. 

The design is a conventional layout in direct similarity to the F-22. The J-XX will be powered by the WS-15, a new generation engine in development. Normal TO weight would roughly measure to 20 tons and thus be in the heavy fighter class.*The J-XX would possibly be superior to all but the PAKFA and the F-22, being inferior to the latter.* 

What has escaped most observer radars is the MiG-E and a yet unnamed fighter from China that represent a direct counterpart to the F-35. According to an informed source, the configuration of the MiG-E is a canard delta while the configuration for the Chinese equivalent is hitherto not known. It is however, this author's opinion that we will not see (as in leaked photographs on the internet) any development on the 5th Generation front for at least the next decade. Meanwhile, we will see steady evolution of the J-10 and J-11 with every new block and reworked configurations.

Just wanted to show you that topic. The J-10b would be more advanced than anything that india would field and and could counter the MRCA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cockpuncher

dont forget *ECONOMY* (ability to sustain battle)
the one with a better economy almost always wins. eg. cold war


----------



## holysaturn

Youdiedz said:


> Jf-17 is a good plane IMO. Pakistan and China ^^. Anyways, i found an article on this while i was searching jets.
> 
> In December 2008, rumors were rife of the J-10's latest incarnation, the J-10B, had taken off for the first time. Now in April 2009, we see the initial leak of images for this plane. The J-10B appears as the next iteration of China's vaunted 4th Generation fighter and looks to take the J-10 to the 4.5 Generation level.
> 
> The differences that have been identified from the earlier J-10 include a DSI intake, similar to the one on the FC-1/JF-17. The nose is now oval, more similar to an F-16's and is slightly canted downwards. An IRST similar to the J-11Bs also feature on top of the nose. Slanted radome paint along with some of the other features suggest an AESA radar.
> 
> The J-10B incorporates a new small ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer and this stabilizer also appears to be longer and ending in a "shark-fin". The ECM housing is similar to the housing on the JF-17. The two ventral fins are also extended further and are larger irrespective of the shark-fin. The aerodynamic refinements of the longer vertical stabilizer and the ventral fins appear to be a result of the DSI intakes which create greater lateral forces on the aircraft.
> 
> The wide angle HUD featured on the J-11Bs seem to have also appeared on the J-10B. While it cannot be confirmed, it appears that the cockpit itself has been redesigned extensively. Other than the new ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer, new MAWs appear on the tail bump. Just below these, curious breaks appear on the fuselage that some observers are referring to as possible formation lights "slime lights", but expert opinion from a Lockheed Martin source suggest that they are FLIR sensors. A redesigned satellite communication unit appears right behind the cockpit.
> 
> A retractable refueling probe is likely, given the development of the J-10 thus far, and is possibly located on the port side, not visible in the latest photographs. The photographs also suggest new under-wing pylons. These appear to be strengthened for a variety of possible uses, ranging from larger drop tanks to ASMs.
> 
> The engine is likely to be either a redesigned WS-10A (B?) or possibly the WS-15, a new generation engine currently in advanced development. This would not only have higher thrust than the AL-31s, but also feature TVCs, giving the J-10Bs vaunted agility an even greater boost. The actual engine on the aircraft presently on the released pictures, is the AL-31.
> 
> Like the J-10S, a J-10BS is also eventually likely. This would be an advanced trainer with the 360 degree view similar to the J-10S. EW/Wild Weasel variants could also eventually be possible.
> 
> PAF
> 
> The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has shown a great deal of interest in the J-10 project as a possible substitute for Western combat aircraft for its high end requirements. The PAF, however, wanted a more modern version. Just as the FC-1s (and before the FC-1, the F-7s) were significantly upgraded due to the PAF's push for improvements, the J-10 appears to be going through a similar phase. The reason for this is that the PAF has a far closer view of Western technologies and trends and thus can provide deeper insight than more insulated Chinese expertise. The J-10B in all likelihood has had major input from the PAF and is the FC-20 that the PAF has ordered.
> 
> While there were rumors of the PAF receiving its first J-10s as early as 2009, the purchase has been delayed to 2014/2015. However, there is no doubt that the PAF sees its future inextricably linked to the J-10Bs/FC-20s. Informed sources suggest that PAF is not only looking to purchase, but to set up the necessary infrastructure to maintain and upgrade these birds. According to well informed sources, the aforementioned delay is primarily as a result of engine issues. The AL-31 would create maintenance and logistics problems for the PAF, given the lack of a working relationship with Russia. The WS-10A/B has not met quality standards. This leaves the PAF high and dry for now vis-a-vis the J-10. Their engine options now are to either to wait for a more reliable WS-10A version or to go for the WS-15, a new generation engine with similar dimensions.
> 
> WS-15 Milestone Celebration
> 
> *The delay in procurement is critical for PAF as it needs a quality high end to counter the larger IAF with her MKIs, Mirage-2000s and MRCA*. *With a new sensor rich environment dominated by AWACS on both sides and a large number of BVR platforms, higher altitude BVR engagements would become vital. J-10s are ideally suited for such combat given their aerodynamics including low wing loading in an A2A configuration. The instantaneous turn rates achievable on the J-10 (or the Euro canards) are likely to give an advantage* in such engagements, as opposed to the high wing loadings on the over-evolved F-16s which were essentially designed for turning dog fights rather than high altitude BVR slash and dash maneuvers.
> 
> With the AESA equipped new *J-10Bs, higher thrust engines and better EW/Avionics, PAF would reclaim the qualitative edge over the IAF. These J-10s would be superior in air combat than anything that the IAF fields today and would only be matched by a possible MRCA acquisition by India*. Even then, with the 5 present contenders left in the MRCA, only the Eurofighter (assuming AESA radars) would be able to match the J-10 in air-to-air combat.
> 
> The PAF is looking for a total of 150 high end aircraft like the F-16 Block 52s and the FC-20 (J-10Bs or J-10Ps). The FC-20s could be procured in greater numbers, depending on relations with the U.S. and the operability of the F-16s. The J-10Ps and the JF-17s make a perfect pair - one ideal for high altitude air superiority and deep strike missions while the other ideal as a true multirole fighter. Where the J-10 lacks in deep strike, the F-16s make up for it. Where the J-10s lack in CAS, the JF-17s make up for it. Where the JF-17 lacks in high altitude BVR engagements, the J-10s make up for it.
> 
> The J-10s, F-16s and JF-17s also fit into the AFFDP-2019 requirements. The AFFDP-2019 is the core document on the strategic planning of Pakistan's armed forces over 15 years. While this document is not available in the public domain, informed sources note that the PAF has been assigned procurement of only single engine combat aircraft. The J-10Ps/FC-20s coupled with the JF-17s and F-16s thus ideally meet these requirements.
> 
> In the event that the Indian Air Force decides to procure massive numbers of Western 4.5 generation fighters, beyond the 126 MRCA, while increasing the Su-30MKI numbers and upgrades their MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s, the PAF has a clear charted path in increasing JF-17s and FC-20s, having by then set up the infrastructure and training for these planes. *Further, the JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time* and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots.
> 
> The PAF is looking to add as much potency as possible, within its budget constraints; shopping for avionics from Western sources to add further potential to its JF-17s and FC-20s. Thus far, Chinese developments have been so rapid that by the time decisions were to be made at the PAF, the Chinese would meet or exceed requirements and the competition at a lower price. It remains to be seen if this can be pulled off again by the Chinese when PAF goes shopping for the next block of JF-17s and the new FC-20s. For the FC-20s, EW, cockpit interface and reliability of the new Chinese AESA radar will play a critical role. The PAF is meanwhile keeping open options with European equivalents, including the M-AESA (Multi-role Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) being developed by Saab and Selex and a French AESA, yet to be revealed.
> 
> By 2014, some of PAF's F-16s would be ready for retirement as well. While they have been better kept than many other air forces, some of these birds would by then have been in service for more than 30 years. FC-20s could also be used to replace these.
> 
> J-10Bs for Iran?
> 
> There have been some reports of Iran being interested in purchasing the J-10Bs from China. Looking at Iran's present arsenal, there is no doubt Iran needs new planes. In fact, it has been seen as surprising that Iran has not procured new fighter planes from China since a small purchase of J-7s. They certainly have shown interest in the new J-7Gs and the JH-7s, both perfect substitutes for Iranian F-5s, Su-24s and F-4s. With some Israeli lineage in the J-10s, some commentators have questioned if their may not be an agreement that these birds never be sold to Iran, as a condition for Israeli technical help. Another reason is that Iran and China have not always seen eye-to-eye on patent related issues. Life is stranger than fiction it appears, as China has had issues with its products being reverse-engineered by Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> J-10 Vs F-16 Technical Comparison
> 
> The F-16 was designed from the outset as a dog-fighter. The moderate sweep of the wings and aspect ratios were ideal for this. The trade-off however, was greater supersonic resistance. The thrust offered by the two engine options on the F-16 is impressive even to this day. TWR in air combat is about 1.15, ensuring impressive climbing rates and sustained turn rates. As noted, the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance, not only in its wing design but also in its fixed air intakes. In supersonic flight, engine thrust is lost. While it can reach Mach 2.0, pragmatically it has poor supersonic performance.
> 
> While the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance for subsonic dogfighting, the J-10 did not make the same sacrifice. Thus, while when the F-16 was designed, turning dogfights were what was projected as the bread and butter of air combat, when the J-10 was being designed, the BVR era had arrived (or re-arrived). The J-10s aerodynamic design, including wing design and inlet design, take this into account. For instance, the J-10 visibly has greater wing sweep and a variable inlet. With the J-10B, a DSI intake. While the J-10B sacrifices maximum theoretical top speeds with its DSI intakes, for all relevant combat speeds, it gives the J-10 superior performance.
> 
> Under modern BVR conditions and higher altitude combat, the J-10 is significantly superior to the F-16. This is also reflected in its higher instantaneous turn rates. The Mirage-2000s have been a point of major concern both for the Pakistanis and the Turkish air forces, because of these aerodynamic issues, despite the Mirages weak engines. The Greeks, who operated both the Mirage 2000 and F-16C considered the F-16 to be better at low altitude, low speed, hard turning fights, and Mirage 2000 to be superior at hi-hi.The F-16 would have to attempt to survive the first merge in an air combat scenario, which becomes increasingly suicidal with high off-bore sight missiles. BVR further compounds these problems for the F-16s. In previous eras, flying hi and fast was fine, but you often had to come down low to engage a low flying enemy aircraft. Today, that becomes less relevant with longer range BVR missiles and look-down shoot-down capabilities.
> 
> The F-16 has also been adding weight over time and attempting to counterbalance this with increased engine thrust. However, since wing area remained the same, maneuverability has been sacrificed. Higher wing loading is particularly detrimental for higher altitude maneuverability. The J-10 on the other hand, has all the wing area it could ever need with a delta canard layout.
> 
> The newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery. The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker. CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.
> 
> Chinese 5th Gen
> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
> 
> The 5th Generation Chinese stealth plane is what would eventually close down J-10 production. The XXJ or J-XX as it is often referred to, has been the subject of intense competition between China's two premier fighter design institutions - CAC and SAC. While CAC's 611 Institute lost the bid to SAC's 601 Institute, both entities have begun joint development of the new fighter. How the rivalry plays out remains to be seen. It appears Chengdu has the upper hand as it is perceived to have been more successful. J-10 program director Liu Gaozhou recently stated that, " we are researching and developing a fourth generation to meet the requirements of defending the motherland." China's fourth generation is of course, the 5th generation we refer to in the West.
> 
> The design is a conventional layout in direct similarity to the F-22. The J-XX will be powered by the WS-15, a new generation engine in development. Normal TO weight would roughly measure to 20 tons and thus be in the heavy fighter class.*The J-XX would possibly be superior to all but the PAKFA and the F-22, being inferior to the latter.*
> 
> What has escaped most observer radars is the MiG-E and a yet unnamed fighter from China that represent a direct counterpart to the F-35. According to an informed source, the configuration of the MiG-E is a canard delta while the configuration for the Chinese equivalent is hitherto not known. It is however, this author's opinion that we will not see (as in leaked photographs on the internet) any development on the 5th Generation front for at least the next decade. Meanwhile, we will see steady evolution of the J-10 and J-11 with every new block and reworked configurations.
> 
> Just wanted to show you that topic. The J-10b would be more advanced than anything that india would field and and could counter the MRCA.



prove it pal.


----------



## Munir

holysaturn said:


> prove it pal.



Idians need prove and the rest can live with their paper projects.


----------



## sancho

hj786 said:


> But you ARE trying to put words into my mouth. I never denied what I wrote at all.
> 
> In that first quote I make a statement about 250 JF + AEWC and 230 MKI, in the other I make a statement about what PAF should have inducted by 2015. They have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> You're proving just how desperate you are to put me down.


First of all, I never tried to put you down or something, if I wanted I directly replied to your post, but I only replied to Pakpower and later answerd to you!
The fact that I mentioned you name was, because you did field half of PAF to compete Mki (your last sentence in that particular post, which I missed to copy was: For 230 flankers? Yes it is!), so you can't deny that it was not related to Mki and that you didn't compare the actual Mki with upgraded JF 17 as I showed before.


hj786 said:


> I think they are in different classes and comparing them like that is pointless. One costs 12 million dollars, the other costs ~40 million.


Of course they are, not because of their costs, but mainly because of there different capabilities. And still you and many others keep saying that it will be a match.


hj786 said:


> The JF has many advantages also. Did
> 
> But that doesn't mean the JF's AWACS support doesn't count, does it?


That's what I meant, if you count awacs support in future on the one side, you have to count it on the other side too!


hj786 said:


> - According to some sources, SD-10 has range of ~100km.
> - The No Escape Zone is far more important than max range and you don't have reliable NEZ figures for either missile.
> - China has their own stockpiles of R-77, so I don't think they'd develop an inferior missile.
> - Won't the flanker just jettison most of its missiles as soon as an SD-10 or AMRAAM is on its way?


As far as I know China got some techs of R77 and developed on that base the SD 10, but the most sources I saw and like I said before many Pakistani members here confirmed, speakes about a range around 70 km and not the 100+ Km that R77 and AMRAAM have. Can you have a reliable source for 100 Km?
They first will try to outperform, or jam the missile, what you are talking about might be the last possibility, but I don't think a JF 17 pilot would do differently?


hj786 said:


> Of course. But according to you guys even the Mig-21 bison provides enough power to the EWS to stop F-15 and F-16 firing at it in exercises, so does that argument hold water? How much jamming power is needed? How important is jamming power compared to jamming technique?


I never said that and I won't, cause I know it will be a mix of power and a good EWS. Imo the Bisons are a good aircraft for IAF at the moment, cause unlike many of PAF fighters they offer BVR capabilities and the same situation that you talked about for JF 17 (low RCS and BVR with awacs support) is already available for them with Mki, or now Phalcon support. But without and especially WVR I don't think they will have a big chance. 


hj786 said:


> Then this whole argument is pointless because as far as we know, the JF is not integrated with all the systems in its specifications. It still isn't finished, the flanker is.


No it is not, you can compare the actual Mki and it's capabilities with the JF 17 and the capabilities that it should have in the operational block 1 version (BVR weapons, radar, t/w ratio, range, weapon stations...).


hj786 said:


> What do you know about J-10's capabilities? The JF appears to have the same MAWS as the J-10B. What does that say about your argument?


I know at the moment that it has the more powerful engine compared to JF, the longer range radar (Zhuk ME), it is more maneuverable with canards and these are only the points for J10A. The B version with AESA, possibly TVC and more new techs will be much better and like I said several times before, it will be the main threat to IAF for the near future.


----------



## Arsalan

Munir said:


> Idians need prove and the rest can live with their paper projects.



 yeap!!
atleast i am!!


----------



## Cockpuncher

Youdiedz said:


> Jf-17 is a good plane IMO. Pakistan and China ^^. Anyways, i found an article on this while i was searching jets.
> 
> In December 2008, rumors were rife of the J-10's latest incarnation, the J-10B, had taken off for the first time. Now in April 2009, we see the initial leak of images for this plane. The J-10B appears as the next iteration of China's vaunted 4th Generation fighter and looks to take the J-10 to the 4.5 Generation level.
> 
> The differences that have been identified from the earlier J-10 include a DSI intake, similar to the one on the FC-1/JF-17. The nose is now oval, more similar to an F-16's and is slightly canted downwards. An IRST similar to the J-11Bs also feature on top of the nose. Slanted radome paint along with some of the other features suggest an AESA radar.
> 
> The J-10B incorporates a new small ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer and this stabilizer also appears to be longer and ending in a "shark-fin". The ECM housing is similar to the housing on the JF-17. The two ventral fins are also extended further and are larger irrespective of the shark-fin. The aerodynamic refinements of the longer vertical stabilizer and the ventral fins appear to be a result of the DSI intakes which create greater lateral forces on the aircraft.
> 
> The wide angle HUD featured on the J-11Bs seem to have also appeared on the J-10B. While it cannot be confirmed, it appears that the cockpit itself has been redesigned extensively. Other than the new ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer, new MAWs appear on the tail bump. Just below these, curious breaks appear on the fuselage that some observers are referring to as possible formation lights "slime lights", but expert opinion from a Lockheed Martin source suggest that they are FLIR sensors. A redesigned satellite communication unit appears right behind the cockpit.
> 
> A retractable refueling probe is likely, given the development of the J-10 thus far, and is possibly located on the port side, not visible in the latest photographs. The photographs also suggest new under-wing pylons. These appear to be strengthened for a variety of possible uses, ranging from larger drop tanks to ASMs.
> 
> The engine is likely to be either a redesigned WS-10A (B?) or possibly the WS-15, a new generation engine currently in advanced development. This would not only have higher thrust than the AL-31s, but also feature TVCs, giving the J-10Bs vaunted agility an even greater boost. The actual engine on the aircraft presently on the released pictures, is the AL-31.
> 
> Like the J-10S, a J-10BS is also eventually likely. This would be an advanced trainer with the 360 degree view similar to the J-10S. EW/Wild Weasel variants could also eventually be possible.
> 
> PAF
> 
> The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has shown a great deal of interest in the J-10 project as a possible substitute for Western combat aircraft for its high end requirements. The PAF, however, wanted a more modern version. Just as the FC-1s (and before the FC-1, the F-7s) were significantly upgraded due to the PAF's push for improvements, the J-10 appears to be going through a similar phase. The reason for this is that the PAF has a far closer view of Western technologies and trends and thus can provide deeper insight than more insulated Chinese expertise. The J-10B in all likelihood has had major input from the PAF and is the FC-20 that the PAF has ordered.
> 
> While there were rumors of the PAF receiving its first J-10s as early as 2009, the purchase has been delayed to 2014/2015. However, there is no doubt that the PAF sees its future inextricably linked to the J-10Bs/FC-20s. Informed sources suggest that PAF is not only looking to purchase, but to set up the necessary infrastructure to maintain and upgrade these birds. According to well informed sources, the aforementioned delay is primarily as a result of engine issues. The AL-31 would create maintenance and logistics problems for the PAF, given the lack of a working relationship with Russia. The WS-10A/B has not met quality standards. This leaves the PAF high and dry for now vis-a-vis the J-10. Their engine options now are to either to wait for a more reliable WS-10A version or to go for the WS-15, a new generation engine with similar dimensions.
> 
> WS-15 Milestone Celebration
> 
> *The delay in procurement is critical for PAF as it needs a quality high end to counter the larger IAF with her MKIs, Mirage-2000s and MRCA*. *With a new sensor rich environment dominated by AWACS on both sides and a large number of BVR platforms, higher altitude BVR engagements would become vital. J-10s are ideally suited for such combat given their aerodynamics including low wing loading in an A2A configuration. The instantaneous turn rates achievable on the J-10 (or the Euro canards) are likely to give an advantage* in such engagements, as opposed to the high wing loadings on the over-evolved F-16s which were essentially designed for turning dog fights rather than high altitude BVR slash and dash maneuvers.
> 
> With the AESA equipped new *J-10Bs, higher thrust engines and better EW/Avionics, PAF would reclaim the qualitative edge over the IAF. These J-10s would be superior in air combat than anything that the IAF fields today and would only be matched by a possible MRCA acquisition by India*. Even then, with the 5 present contenders left in the MRCA, only the Eurofighter (assuming AESA radars) would be able to match the J-10 in air-to-air combat.
> 
> The PAF is looking for a total of 150 high end aircraft like the F-16 Block 52s and the FC-20 (J-10Bs or J-10Ps). The FC-20s could be procured in greater numbers, depending on relations with the U.S. and the operability of the F-16s. The J-10Ps and the JF-17s make a perfect pair - one ideal for high altitude air superiority and deep strike missions while the other ideal as a true multirole fighter. Where the J-10 lacks in deep strike, the F-16s make up for it. Where the J-10s lack in CAS, the JF-17s make up for it. Where the JF-17 lacks in high altitude BVR engagements, the J-10s make up for it.
> 
> The J-10s, F-16s and JF-17s also fit into the AFFDP-2019 requirements. The AFFDP-2019 is the core document on the strategic planning of Pakistan's armed forces over 15 years. While this document is not available in the public domain, informed sources note that the PAF has been assigned procurement of only single engine combat aircraft. The J-10Ps/FC-20s coupled with the JF-17s and F-16s thus ideally meet these requirements.
> 
> In the event that the Indian Air Force decides to procure massive numbers of Western 4.5 generation fighters, beyond the 126 MRCA, while increasing the Su-30MKI numbers and upgrades their MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s, the PAF has a clear charted path in increasing JF-17s and FC-20s, having by then set up the infrastructure and training for these planes. *Further, the JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time* and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots.
> 
> The PAF is looking to add as much potency as possible, within its budget constraints; shopping for avionics from Western sources to add further potential to its JF-17s and FC-20s. Thus far, Chinese developments have been so rapid that by the time decisions were to be made at the PAF, the Chinese would meet or exceed requirements and the competition at a lower price. It remains to be seen if this can be pulled off again by the Chinese when PAF goes shopping for the next block of JF-17s and the new FC-20s. For the FC-20s, EW, cockpit interface and reliability of the new Chinese AESA radar will play a critical role. The PAF is meanwhile keeping open options with European equivalents, including the M-AESA (Multi-role Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) being developed by Saab and Selex and a French AESA, yet to be revealed.
> 
> By 2014, some of PAF's F-16s would be ready for retirement as well. While they have been better kept than many other air forces, some of these birds would by then have been in service for more than 30 years. FC-20s could also be used to replace these.
> 
> J-10Bs for Iran?
> 
> There have been some reports of Iran being interested in purchasing the J-10Bs from China. Looking at Iran's present arsenal, there is no doubt Iran needs new planes. In fact, it has been seen as surprising that Iran has not procured new fighter planes from China since a small purchase of J-7s. They certainly have shown interest in the new J-7Gs and the JH-7s, both perfect substitutes for Iranian F-5s, Su-24s and F-4s. With some Israeli lineage in the J-10s, some commentators have questioned if their may not be an agreement that these birds never be sold to Iran, as a condition for Israeli technical help. Another reason is that Iran and China have not always seen eye-to-eye on patent related issues. Life is stranger than fiction it appears, as China has had issues with its products being reverse-engineered by Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> J-10 Vs F-16 Technical Comparison
> 
> The F-16 was designed from the outset as a dog-fighter. The moderate sweep of the wings and aspect ratios were ideal for this. The trade-off however, was greater supersonic resistance. The thrust offered by the two engine options on the F-16 is impressive even to this day. TWR in air combat is about 1.15, ensuring impressive climbing rates and sustained turn rates. As noted, the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance, not only in its wing design but also in its fixed air intakes. In supersonic flight, engine thrust is lost. While it can reach Mach 2.0, pragmatically it has poor supersonic performance.
> 
> While the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance for subsonic dogfighting, the J-10 did not make the same sacrifice. Thus, while when the F-16 was designed, turning dogfights were what was projected as the bread and butter of air combat, when the J-10 was being designed, the BVR era had arrived (or re-arrived). The J-10s aerodynamic design, including wing design and inlet design, take this into account. For instance, the J-10 visibly has greater wing sweep and a variable inlet. With the J-10B, a DSI intake. While the J-10B sacrifices maximum theoretical top speeds with its DSI intakes, for all relevant combat speeds, it gives the J-10 superior performance.
> 
> Under modern BVR conditions and higher altitude combat, the J-10 is significantly superior to the F-16. This is also reflected in its higher instantaneous turn rates. The Mirage-2000s have been a point of major concern both for the Pakistanis and the Turkish air forces, because of these aerodynamic issues, despite the Mirages weak engines. The Greeks, who operated both the Mirage 2000 and F-16C considered the F-16 to be better at low altitude, low speed, hard turning fights, and Mirage 2000 to be superior at hi-hi.The F-16 would have to attempt to survive the first merge in an air combat scenario, which becomes increasingly suicidal with high off-bore sight missiles. BVR further compounds these problems for the F-16s. In previous eras, flying hi and fast was fine, but you often had to come down low to engage a low flying enemy aircraft. Today, that becomes less relevant with longer range BVR missiles and look-down shoot-down capabilities.
> 
> The F-16 has also been adding weight over time and attempting to counterbalance this with increased engine thrust. However, since wing area remained the same, maneuverability has been sacrificed. Higher wing loading is particularly detrimental for higher altitude maneuverability. The J-10 on the other hand, has all the wing area it could ever need with a delta canard layout.
> 
> The newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery. The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker. CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.
> 
> Chinese 5th Gen
> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
> 
> The 5th Generation Chinese stealth plane is what would eventually close down J-10 production. The XXJ or J-XX as it is often referred to, has been the subject of intense competition between China's two premier fighter design institutions - CAC and SAC. While CAC's 611 Institute lost the bid to SAC's 601 Institute, both entities have begun joint development of the new fighter. How the rivalry plays out remains to be seen. It appears Chengdu has the upper hand as it is perceived to have been more successful. J-10 program director Liu Gaozhou recently stated that, " we are researching and developing a fourth generation to meet the requirements of defending the motherland." China's fourth generation is of course, the 5th generation we refer to in the West.
> 
> The design is a conventional layout in direct similarity to the F-22. The J-XX will be powered by the WS-15, a new generation engine in development. Normal TO weight would roughly measure to 20 tons and thus be in the heavy fighter class.*The J-XX would possibly be superior to all but the PAKFA and the F-22, being inferior to the latter.*
> 
> What has escaped most observer radars is the MiG-E and a yet unnamed fighter from China that represent a direct counterpart to the F-35. According to an informed source, the configuration of the MiG-E is a canard delta while the configuration for the Chinese equivalent is hitherto not known. It is however, this author's opinion that we will not see (as in leaked photographs on the internet) any development on the 5th Generation front for at least the next decade. Meanwhile, we will see steady evolution of the J-10 and J-11 with every new block and reworked configurations.
> 
> Just wanted to show you that topic. The J-10b would be more advanced than anything that india would field and and could counter the MRCA.



this is from rupeenews.com its a crap website famous for producing crap articles


----------



## hj786

sancho said:


> First of all, I never tried to put you down or something, if I wanted I directly replied to your post, but I only replied to Pakpower and later answerd to you!
> The fact that I mentioned you name was, because you did field half of PAF to compete Mki (your last sentence in that particular post, which I missed to copy was: For 230 flankers? Yes it is!), so you can't deny that it was not related to Mki and that you didn't compare the actual Mki with upgraded JF 17 as I showed before.
> *
> Wrong. Show where I stated PAF needs that entire list to fend off 230 flankers? You can't because you are talking crap.
> 
> If you want to have a discussion about semantics rather than aeroplanes, I suggest you take that BS to an english literature discussion board, I'm not interested.*
> 
> Of course they are, not because of their costs, but mainly because of there different capabilities. And still you and many others keep saying that it will be a match.
> *Different capabilities due to cost. Yes, under certain conditions they can be a match.*
> 
> That's what I meant, if you count awacs support in future on the one side, you have to count it on the other side too!
> *But your country fellows are saying the MKI is a mini-AWACS, it doesn't even need AWACS support to "dominate"? Does it or doesn't it? If it does, so what? You don't seem to understand, if both aircraft have AEWC support then they are equal in situational awareness and if datalinked for remote targeting, equal in terms of BVR capability.*
> 
> As far as I know China got some techs of R77 and developed on that base the SD 10, but the most sources I saw and like I said before many Pakistani members here confirmed, speakes about a range around 70 km and not the 100+ Km that R77 and AMRAAM have. Can you have a reliable source for 100 Km?
> *I can give you something straight from the manufacturer.
> 
> 
> 
> "Operation Range: >= (greater than or equal to) 70 km"
> So basically, you don't know the max. range and you don't know the no escape zone. You DO know the designers studied R-77 to build it. The fact that you are mentioning AMRAAM in the same sentence as R-77 would be considered laughable by many analysts and goes to show how important the missile's "max. range" is. It isn't.
> *
> 
> They first will try to outperform, or jam the missile, what you are talking about might be the last possibility, but I don't think a JF 17 pilot would do differently?
> *No, he wouldn't. Do you deny that the flanker jettisoning most of his missiles removes the advantage of carrying more missiles?*
> 
> I never said that and I won't, cause I know it will be a mix of power and a good EWS. Imo the Bisons are a good aircraft for IAF at the moment, cause unlike many of PAF fighters they offer BVR capabilities and the same situation that you talked about for JF 17 (low RCS and BVR with awacs support) is already available for them with Mki, or now Phalcon support. But without and especially WVR I don't think they will have a big chance.
> *So in other words you have no idea how a "lack of power" will affect the JF's EW performance. What you DO know is that it will have more power than any of the bison's systems due to a more powerful turbofan engine. I've never seen anyone complain about lack of power for the bison's jammers, rather they are glorified because of their Israeli origin.
> *
> 
> I know at the moment that it has the more powerful engine compared to JF, the longer range radar (Zhuk ME), it is more maneuverable with canards and these are only the points for J10A. The B version with AESA, possibly TVC and more new techs will be much better and like I said several times before, it will be the main threat to IAF for the near future.*
> The JF will be getting a more powerful engine, this has been confirmed by Chinese sources if you check the JF-17 thread. Chinese sources say J-10 is using a Chinese radar. Will it be the main threat to InAF if JF-17 is full of similar technologies? Like I said before, the J-10B already appears to have the same missile approach warning system as the JF. Sensors look exactly the same and are in the same position.
> *
> 12345
> 
> 
> 
> Cockpuncher said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from rupeenews.com its a crap website famous for producing crap articles
> 
> 
> 
> Crap article to YOU only. They seem to have copied the article from elsewhere and it seems to be very comprehensive.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SBD-3

Cockpuncher said:


> dont forget *ECONOMY* (ability to sustain battle)
> the one with a better economy almost always wins. eg. cold war



Dear dont expect regular war between the countires now it would be only a limited war and to talk about economy when one side will exhaust,it will resort to its nukes


----------



## Cockpuncher

hasnain0099 said:


> Dear dont expect regular war between the countires now it would be only a limited war and to talk about economy when one side will exhaust,it will resort to its nukes



why dint USSR use nukes then? dont be


----------



## Zob

Cockpuncher said:


> dont forget *ECONOMY* (ability to sustain battle)
> the one with a better economy almost always wins. eg. cold war



correction my friend AFGHANISTAN is a clear example and so is IRAQ and so is VIETNAM!! infact the one with a poor economy actually does better because it has not much to loose!!! while the good economy starts spiralling down that causes panic


----------



## Owais

Cockpuncher said:


> why dint USSR use nukes then? dont be



because nobody ever reached Moscow to conquer it. nobody attacked on USSR. its was soviet forces who ran over Afghanistan.


----------



## Youdiedz

Cockpuncher said:


> Jf-17 is a good plane IMO. Pakistan and China ^^. Anyways, i found an article on this while i was searching jets.
> 
> "In December 2008, rumors were rife of the J-10's latest incarnation, the J-10B, had taken off for the first time. Now in April 2009, we see the initial leak of images for this plane. The J-10B appears as the next iteration of China's vaunted 4th Generation fighter and looks to take the J-10 to the 4.5 Generation level.
> 
> The differences that have been identified from the earlier J-10 include a DSI intake, similar to the one on the FC-1/JF-17. The nose is now oval, more similar to an F-16's and is slightly canted downwards. An IRST similar to the J-11Bs also feature on top of the nose. Slanted radome paint along with some of the other features suggest an AESA radar.
> 
> The J-10B incorporates a new small ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer and this stabilizer also appears to be longer and ending in a "shark-fin". The ECM housing is similar to the housing on the JF-17. The two ventral fins are also extended further and are larger irrespective of the shark-fin. The aerodynamic refinements of the longer vertical stabilizer and the ventral fins appear to be a result of the DSI intakes which create greater lateral forces on the aircraft.
> 
> The wide angle HUD featured on the J-11Bs seem to have also appeared on the J-10B. While it cannot be confirmed, it appears that the cockpit itself has been redesigned extensively. Other than the new ECM housing on the vertical stabilizer, new MAWs appear on the tail bump. Just below these, curious breaks appear on the fuselage that some observers are referring to as possible formation lights "slime lights", but expert opinion from a Lockheed Martin source suggest that they are FLIR sensors. A redesigned satellite communication unit appears right behind the cockpit.
> 
> A retractable refueling probe is likely, given the development of the J-10 thus far, and is possibly located on the port side, not visible in the latest photographs. The photographs also suggest new under-wing pylons. These appear to be strengthened for a variety of possible uses, ranging from larger drop tanks to ASMs.
> 
> The engine is likely to be either a redesigned WS-10A (B?) or possibly the WS-15, a new generation engine currently in advanced development. This would not only have higher thrust than the AL-31s, but also feature TVCs, giving the J-10Bs vaunted agility an even greater boost. The actual engine on the aircraft presently on the released pictures, is the AL-31.
> 
> Like the J-10S, a J-10BS is also eventually likely. This would be an advanced trainer with the 360 degree view similar to the J-10S. EW/Wild Weasel variants could also eventually be possible.
> 
> PAF
> 
> The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has shown a great deal of interest in the J-10 project as a possible substitute for Western combat aircraft for its high end requirements. The PAF, however, wanted a more modern version. Just as the FC-1s (and before the FC-1, the F-7s) were significantly upgraded due to the PAF's push for improvements, the J-10 appears to be going through a similar phase. The reason for this is that the PAF has a far closer view of Western technologies and trends and thus can provide deeper insight than more insulated Chinese expertise. The J-10B in all likelihood has had major input from the PAF and is the FC-20 that the PAF has ordered.
> 
> While there were rumors of the PAF receiving its first J-10s as early as 2009, the purchase has been delayed to 2014/2015. However, there is no doubt that the PAF sees its future inextricably linked to the J-10Bs/FC-20s. Informed sources suggest that PAF is not only looking to purchase, but to set up the necessary infrastructure to maintain and upgrade these birds. According to well informed sources, the aforementioned delay is primarily as a result of engine issues. The AL-31 would create maintenance and logistics problems for the PAF, given the lack of a working relationship with Russia. The WS-10A/B has not met quality standards. This leaves the PAF high and dry for now vis-a-vis the J-10. Their engine options now are to either to wait for a more reliable WS-10A version or to go for the WS-15, a new generation engine with similar dimensions.
> 
> WS-15 Milestone Celebration
> 
> The delay in procurement is critical for PAF as it needs a quality high end to counter the larger IAF with her MKIs, Mirage-2000s and MRCA. With a new sensor rich environment dominated by AWACS on both sides and a large number of BVR platforms, higher altitude BVR engagements would become vital. J-10s are ideally suited for such combat given their aerodynamics including low wing loading in an A2A configuration. The instantaneous turn rates achievable on the J-10 (or the Euro canards) are likely to give an advantage in such engagements, as opposed to the high wing loadings on the over-evolved F-16s which were essentially designed for turning dog fights rather than high altitude BVR slash and dash maneuvers.
> 
> With the AESA equipped new J-10Bs, higher thrust engines and better EW/Avionics, PAF would reclaim the qualitative edge over the IAF. These J-10s would be superior in air combat than anything that the IAF fields today and would only be matched by a possible MRCA acquisition by India. Even then, with the 5 present contenders left in the MRCA, only the Eurofighter (assuming AESA radars) would be able to match the J-10 in air-to-air combat.
> 
> The PAF is looking for a total of 150 high end aircraft like the F-16 Block 52s and the FC-20 (J-10Bs or J-10Ps). The FC-20s could be procured in greater numbers, depending on relations with the U.S. and the operability of the F-16s. The J-10Ps and the JF-17s make a perfect pair - one ideal for high altitude air superiority and deep strike missions while the other ideal as a true multirole fighter. Where the J-10 lacks in deep strike, the F-16s make up for it. Where the J-10s lack in CAS, the JF-17s make up for it. Where the JF-17 lacks in high altitude BVR engagements, the J-10s make up for it.
> 
> The J-10s, F-16s and JF-17s also fit into the AFFDP-2019 requirements. The AFFDP-2019 is the core document on the strategic planning of Pakistan's armed forces over 15 years. While this document is not available in the public domain, informed sources note that the PAF has been assigned procurement of only single engine combat aircraft. The J-10Ps/FC-20s coupled with the JF-17s and F-16s thus ideally meet these requirements.
> 
> In the event that the Indian Air Force decides to procure massive numbers of Western 4.5 generation fighters, beyond the 126 MRCA, while increasing the Su-30MKI numbers and upgrades their MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s, the PAF has a clear charted path in increasing JF-17s and FC-20s, having by then set up the infrastructure and training for these planes. Further, the JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots.
> 
> The PAF is looking to add as much potency as possible, within its budget constraints; shopping for avionics from Western sources to add further potential to its JF-17s and FC-20s. Thus far, Chinese developments have been so rapid that by the time decisions were to be made at the PAF, the Chinese would meet or exceed requirements and the competition at a lower price. It remains to be seen if this can be pulled off again by the Chinese when PAF goes shopping for the next block of JF-17s and the new FC-20s. For the FC-20s, EW, cockpit interface and reliability of the new Chinese AESA radar will play a critical role. The PAF is meanwhile keeping open options with European equivalents, including the M-AESA (Multi-role Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) being developed by Saab and Selex and a French AESA, yet to be revealed.
> 
> By 2014, some of PAF's F-16s would be ready for retirement as well. While they have been better kept than many other air forces, some of these birds would by then have been in service for more than 30 years. FC-20s could also be used to replace these.
> 
> J-10Bs for Iran?
> 
> There have been some reports of Iran being interested in purchasing the J-10Bs from China. Looking at Iran's present arsenal, there is no doubt Iran needs new planes. In fact, it has been seen as surprising that Iran has not procured new fighter planes from China since a small purchase of J-7s. They certainly have shown interest in the new J-7Gs and the JH-7s, both perfect substitutes for Iranian F-5s, Su-24s and F-4s. With some Israeli lineage in the J-10s, some commentators have questioned if their may not be an agreement that these birds never be sold to Iran, as a condition for Israeli technical help. Another reason is that Iran and China have not always seen eye-to-eye on patent related issues. Life is stranger than fiction it appears, as China has had issues with its products being reverse-engineered by Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> J-10 Vs F-16 Technical Comparison
> 
> The F-16 was designed from the outset as a dog-fighter. The moderate sweep of the wings and aspect ratios were ideal for this. The trade-off however, was greater supersonic resistance. The thrust offered by the two engine options on the F-16 is impressive even to this day. TWR in air combat is about 1.15, ensuring impressive climbing rates and sustained turn rates. As noted, the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance, not only in its wing design but also in its fixed air intakes. In supersonic flight, engine thrust is lost. While it can reach Mach 2.0, pragmatically it has poor supersonic performance.
> 
> While the F-16 sacrificed supersonic performance for subsonic dogfighting, the J-10 did not make the same sacrifice. Thus, while when the F-16 was designed, turning dogfights were what was projected as the bread and butter of air combat, when the J-10 was being designed, the BVR era had arrived (or re-arrived). The J-10s aerodynamic design, including wing design and inlet design, take this into account. For instance, the J-10 visibly has greater wing sweep and a variable inlet. With the J-10B, a DSI intake. While the J-10B sacrifices maximum theoretical top speeds with its DSI intakes, for all relevant combat speeds, it gives the J-10 superior performance.
> 
> Under modern BVR conditions and higher altitude combat, the J-10 is significantly superior to the F-16. This is also reflected in its higher instantaneous turn rates. The Mirage-2000s have been a point of major concern both for the Pakistanis and the Turkish air forces, because of these aerodynamic issues, despite the Mirages weak engines. The Greeks, who operated both the Mirage 2000 and F-16C considered the F-16 to be better at low altitude, low speed, hard turning fights, and Mirage 2000 to be superior at hi-hi.The F-16 would have to attempt to survive the first merge in an air combat scenario, which becomes increasingly suicidal with high off-bore sight missiles. BVR further compounds these problems for the F-16s. In previous eras, flying hi and fast was fine, but you often had to come down low to engage a low flying enemy aircraft. Today, that becomes less relevant with longer range BVR missiles and look-down shoot-down capabilities.
> 
> The F-16 has also been adding weight over time and attempting to counterbalance this with increased engine thrust. However, since wing area remained the same, maneuverability has been sacrificed. Higher wing loading is particularly detrimental for higher altitude maneuverability. The J-10 on the other hand, has all the wing area it could ever need with a delta canard layout.
> 
> The newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery. The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker. CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.
> 
> Chinese 5th Gen
> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
> 
> The 5th Generation Chinese stealth plane is what would eventually close down J-10 production. The XXJ or J-XX as it is often referred to, has been the subject of intense competition between China's two premier fighter design institutions - CAC and SAC. While CAC's 611 Institute lost the bid to SAC's 601 Institute, both entities have begun joint development of the new fighter. How the rivalry plays out remains to be seen. It appears Chengdu has the upper hand as it is perceived to have been more successful. J-10 program director Liu Gaozhou recently stated that, " we are researching and developing a fourth generation to meet the requirements of defending the motherland." China's fourth generation is of course, the 5th generation we refer to in the West.
> 
> The design is a conventional layout in direct similarity to the F-22. The J-XX will be powered by the WS-15, a new generation engine in development. Normal TO weight would roughly measure to 20 tons and thus be in the heavy fighter class.The J-XX would possibly be superior to all but the PAKFA and the F-22, being inferior to the latter.
> 
> What has escaped most observer radars is the MiG-E and a yet unnamed fighter from China that represent a direct counterpart to the F-35. According to an informed source, the configuration of the MiG-E is a canard delta while the configuration for the Chinese equivalent is hitherto not known. It is however, this author's opinion that we will not see (as in leaked photographs on the internet) any development on the 5th Generation front for at least the next decade. Meanwhile, we will see steady evolution of the J-10 and J-11 with every new block and reworked configurations."
> 
> Just wanted to show you that topic. The J-10b would be more advanced than anything that india would field and and could counter the MRCA.
> 
> 
> 
> Cockpuncher said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from rupeenews.com its a crap website famous for producing crap articles
Click to expand...


LOL Lemme just say the website, Go on google and type "The Dragon's New Claws: J-10B Emerging" 


Oh yeah and btw, you really think this article is crap? TBH i read through it and this guy must be a pro. 

I do think MKI is atm better but JF-17 is well being updated atm to satisfy Pak needs, wait till 2020 when India has their MRCA and LCA and HAL Tejas, the sad thing is that Chinas J-10B will be the same as the most advanced indian jet (MCA) and Pakistan will have ordered about 100 J-10b by then while operating over 250 Jf-17


----------



## MZUBAIR

holysaturn said:


> correction.india did not accept migs now.lca still not accepted fully accepted..
> a big AF defenitely will have more crashes when compared to smaller ones.
> 
> russians dont use single engined fighters(mig-29,su-27),u no y because they no that even their best engines r not highly reliable.jf-17 has the rd-93 which is not even the best russian engine,the other case j-10(which resulted in a crash due to the engine).so i think we will see some crash activity from the jf-17 in a decade if pak continues with this engine.



Yes, thats in the mind of PAF, thats y they are not going with RD-93.
Soon they will get off with it.


Any ways Russia and China is also using these engines which India but they dont have that much crashes as India have especially in case of Mig-29.


----------



## FulcrumD

The attrition rate of the Fulcrums is not bad,moreover IAF MiG-29s fly much more than those in the Russian AF,so there will be attrition.


----------



## skyhawk77

su-30mki vs gripen c/d 
please


----------



## Manticore

at the article on previous page, it was written by mods of this forum.. i posted the complete links here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...houldve-invested-more-j-10s-7.html#post365392


----------



## Tempest II

Hi good people,

The leatest photos showing the FC-1 releasing tanks and bombs came with an interview. In the interview with Li Pei, Head of Aviation R&D Division, CATIC he said,


> "... ... General performance is comparable with F16A/B, avionics is comparable to F16C/D Block 50, with basic datalink capability."



This says the JF-17 has better ACM than the F16C/D and matches it for avionics. The means OVERALL the JF-17 is superior to the F-16C/D Block 50. 

The J-10, as the the Pentagon white paper in China 2006 - approaches the Eurofighter - http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China&#37;20Report 2006.pdf ,


> "China&#8217;s indigenous fourth-generation fighter, the F-10, completed development in 2004. DIA estimates production of 1,200 aircraft over the life of the program. *Reported to be similar in weight and performance to the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, newer variants of the F-10, the F-10A, and Super-10, now under development, feature improved weapons, engines, and radars*.&#8221;



Am I the only one who understands it that way?


----------



## mean_bird

The J-10 has a delta wing with canards that make it "similar" to EF and Rafale, but the J-10a definitely lags behind in avionics to either of EF or Rafale. A lot of these "official reports" are just to convince congressmen for more funding. A similar report had also claimed Saddam had WMDs. 

I think the J-10 should be quite good in terms of aerodynamic performances but lacks in avionics, super-cruise (EF) and EW(Rafale). Those gaps,however, should be massively bridged in the J-10b or so it seems given they have a separate EW housing on the Tail, MAWS, possibly an AESA radar, IRST, and it should also have a glass cockpit like JF-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tempest II

I think you are correct mean_bird, the sentence reads:



> Reported to be similar in weight and performance to the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, newer variants of the F-10, the F-10A, and Super-10, now under development, feature improved weapons, engines, and radars.



The sentence is discussing "*newer variants of the F-10*". So yes, the West expect J-10B to be in the same class as the Eurocanards. And again with the Chinese saying the JF-17, "*avionics is comparable to F16C/D Block 50*" - I can see why, the J-10B, costing over twice as much can be in the same performance category as the Eurocanards.


----------



## Gucci Juice

umm

j-10 has a t/w ratio of .98 while ef has 1.18 and rafael has 1.13 so definately not the same performance wise.

the rf and rafael also carry more weapons and have much better performance with those weapons than a j-10 with weapons due to their 2 engines.

not to mention electronics are at least a generation ahead, yes a generation ahead.

and j-10b isn't a 5th gen fighter but a 4.5 gen and by the time it arrives 2015 mki is due for an upgrade with a new ibris aesa, al-41 supercruise engine, new ew equipment, new avionics, and possibly some stealthy features but i doubt that since airframe wont change. all of those upgrades could make it a 4.75 gen fighter but still not 5th gen.


----------



## Tempest II

Gucci Juice said:


> umm
> 
> j-10 has a t/w ratio of .98 while ef has 1.18 and rafael has 1.13 so definately not the same performance wise.
> 
> the rf and rafael also carry more weapons and have much better performance with those weapons than a j-10 with weapons due to their 2 engines.
> 
> not to mention electronics are at least a generation ahead, yes a generation ahead.
> 
> and j-10b isn't a 5th gen fighter but a 4.5 gen and by the time it arrives 2015 mki is due for an upgrade with a new ibris aesa, al-41 supercruise engine, new ew equipment, new avionics, and possibly some stealthy features but i doubt that since airframe wont change. all of those upgrades could make it a 4.75 gen fighter but still not 5th gen.



I am not saying they are the same. I am saying same class.

Taking the J-10 from 0.98 TWR to 1.13 (the TWR for the Rafael as you gave above) is a 15&#37; increase. Considering that the JF-17 is scheduled to get a 13% TWR increase with a Chinese engine - you mean that puts the JF-17 in a different class? 

I was not going to look at range and payload - if it can carry 2 or 4 MRAAMs, that is good enough. Looks like the J-10 can carry 6 - maybe 8. Consider the Gripen (lighter and shorter range) designed to take on the Flanker - so I am not looking at weight, paylod or size. Lets talk weapons and avionics.

Can we be more specific about what we know on both planes. While it maybe be true, the thing is there is a generally accepted notion that Chinese avionics have to be inferior - there is a taboo to say they have improved and are getting there. Forumites comfort/content in a whitewash statement that "but the Chinese avionics or weapons systems are not as good as the West". We have been pleasantly surprised by the JF-17 over the past 3-4 years as we see what has been achieved - why not expect the same "ooohs and aaahs" for the J-10? I would expect even more since China is building for itself. I am just saying - GIVE ME TANGIBLE FIGURES. Give me specifics on why the EF2000 is better. We don't even know what radar is on J-10 let alone its characteristics - we cannot argue with those in the know - those involved in the projects or Pentagon Defence Intelligence Agents. I am not what they say as gospel - but I am pretty sure they have a lot more info than the mojority here and if I am to take my chances, I believe them. 

I just find it hard that we measure the JF-17 against the F-16. We now know it is superior to the F-16A/Bs. We have just been told it is comparable to F-16C/D in AVIONICS. We know J-10 is better but we still want to peg it at the F-16C/D level? Does that not say there is something wrong with our logic here. Methematically this is what we are saying: F-16C/D = JF-17. JF-17 < J-10B. By simple logic J-10B < F-16C/D.

Most people fear challenging the thinking that China is producing anything that surpasses the F-16C/D. Moreso for PAF enthusiasts because it has been built into us to see the F-16C/D as the gold standard and flagship of the air force.

I am not going to talk about generations - the devil is in the actual details. I don't have them - but enlighten me on what you know. I am asking for a good hard discussion and again NOT CLAIMING THAT I KNOW.

However concerning general quality, the FC-1 (JF-17) radar, the KLJ-7, is a miniturised version of the radar on the J-10. Now, the KLJ-7 beat French, Italian, British, Russian and Israeli radars for the PAF order = I am sure that says a lot about its capabilities and quality.


----------



## Manticore

yes, according to the airchief KLJ-7 is markedly better than the existing radar on paf f16s...
i think peolpe confuse a lot on specs because jf17 ultimately ended up a better aircraft than originally planned fc1/super7..

*
i doubt you would get any credible details before j10b is inducted into paf.. before that all posts here are speculative, some credible, some wishful and some biased*


who knows in 5 years it comes up with aesa and becomes comparable to block60 etc... who knows china might get some avionics teck from france or russia.. one thing is for sure , they want j10 for themselves, and they do have experience in producing j11b... markets are always open for the highest bidder

regarding j10 vs jf17 , there roles are different
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...houldve-invested-more-j-10s-7.html#post365392


----------



## mean_bird

Gucci Juice said:


> umm
> 
> j-10 has a t/w ratio of .98 while ef has 1.18 and rafael has 1.13 so definately not the same performance wise.
> 
> the rf and rafael also carry more weapons and have much better performance with those weapons than a j-10 with weapons due to their 2 engines.



Its not easy a comparison. Can you quote me one official source that gives the weight of J-10 and its Thrust? All we have are speculated figures from forums. 

The F-16 with a single engine is competing against twin-engine aircrafts for the indian MRCA. 

As I said, I do not believe the J-10a has the same capabilities as EF or Rafale, however they are compared because of similar designs and that they are bridging the gap quite fast. 



Gucci Juice said:


> not to mention electronics are at least a generation ahead, yes a generation ahead.
> 
> and j-10b isn't a 5th gen fighter but a 4.5 gen and by the time it arrives 2015 mki is due for an upgrade with a new ibris aesa, al-41 supercruise engine, new ew equipment, new avionics, and possibly some stealthy features but i doubt that since airframe wont change. all of those upgrades could make it a 4.75 gen fighter but still not 5th gen.



Man, you gotta love indian forumers here. While we are still trying to gather bits of information about the J-10b, indian forumers seem to have already assigned it a generation and calculated its comparison with the mighty invincible MKI that has magically now grown to 4.75 generation.

( just for your information, 5th gen as its usually called has to do with stealth and the MKI's fat RCS is probably worse than a 3rd generation fighter.)

Please enlighten the rest of us just what information you know about the J-10b to already start making a comparison . 

Just tell me what exactly you know about J-10b's engine, radar or EW suite? I think I can help you on this account and the answer is "nothing at all".


----------



## sancho

mean_bird said:


> I think the J-10 should be quite good in terms of aerodynamic performances but lacks in avionics, super-cruise (EF) and EW(Rafale). Those gaps,however, should be massively bridged in the J-10b or so it seems given they have a separate EW housing on the Tail, MAWS, possibly an AESA radar, IRST, and it should also have a glass cockpit like JF-17.


Combine that all with a powerful TVC engine and you have an aircraft that could be easily compared to F16 block 60, Gripen NG and even Rafale when it comes to a2a performance. But like you said how comparable will be the avionics compared to western?


----------



## SBD-3

Cockpuncher said:


> why dint USSR use nukes then? dont be



was there a conventional war between US and USSR? if there was plz let me know about it as well 

back to the topic 
hay guyz can any one confirm the roumers about delay of induction of FC-20? i heard that PAF is going to get them with ToT and futhermore that another Sino-Pak fighter is scheduled to be revealed on 2012 any updates?

For MKI fans
with Ra'ad ALCM in PAF arsenal PAF jets would be saying "asta lavesta baby" before MKI would even see them or even taken off 
I doubt IAF would bring this valuable asset to FOBs to aviod these "4.75 gen" fighthers to be destroyed on ground so long for R-77 "boostings"


----------



## satishkumarcsc

The FOBs operate mainly the interceptors. How is the Ra'ad ALCM a threat for Su 30 MKI?


----------



## SBD-3

satishkumarcsc said:


> The FOBs operate mainly the interceptors. How is the Ra'ad ALCM a threat for Su 30 MKI?



Dont tell me IAF needs *230* MKIs for Deep srtikes/Bombing only and as far as second part is concerned I guess your right MKI can be parked in air.


----------



## Gucci Juice

hasnain0099 said:


> was there a conventional war between US and USSR? if there was plz let me know about it as well
> 
> back to the topic
> hay guyz can any one confirm the roumers about delay of induction of FC-20? i heard that PAF is going to get them with ToT and futhermore that another Sino-Pak fighter is scheduled to be revealed on 2012 any updates?
> 
> For MKI fans
> with Ra'ad ALCM in PAF arsenal PAF jets would be saying "asta lavesta baby" before MKI would even see them or even taken off
> I doubt IAF would bring this valuable asset to FOBs to aviod these "4.75 gen" fighthers to be destroyed on ground so long for R-77 "boostings"



that ra'ad would be spotted as soon as its launched and dont forget the spyder system able to shoot down slow cruise missiles and ra'ad doesn't even fly supersonic

if that does happen than expect a salvo of brahmos at ur bases that's at least 2-3x larger.

and u cant defend against that since it flies mach 3.


----------



## ironman

hasnain0099 said:


> was there a conventional war between US and USSR? if there was plz let me know about it as well
> 
> *back to the topic *
> hay guyz can any one confirm the roumers about delay of induction of FC-20? i heard that PAF is going to get them with ToT and futhermore that another Sino-Pak fighter is scheduled to be revealed on 2012 any updates?
> 
> For MKI fans
> with Ra'ad ALCM in PAF arsenal PAF jets would be saying "asta lavesta baby" before MKI would even see them or even taken off
> I doubt IAF would bring this valuable asset to FOBs to aviod these "4.75 gen" fighthers to be destroyed on ground so long for R-77 "boostings"



I think you better deal with off topic's..


----------



## Keysersoze

Gucci Juice said:


> that ra'ad would be spotted as soon as its launched and dont forget the spyder system able to shoot down slow cruise missiles and ra'ad doesn't even fly supersonic
> 
> if that does happen than expect a salvo of brahmos at ur bases that's at least 2-3x larger.
> 
> and u cant defend against that since it flies mach 3.



Ok the original poster did spout a load of rubbish but seriously "can't defend against it because it flies mach 3"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keysersoze

hasnain0099 said:


> was there a conventional war between US and USSR? if there was plz let me know about it as well
> 
> back to the topic
> hay guyz can any one confirm the roumers about delay of induction of FC-20? i heard that PAF is going to get them with ToT and futhermore that another Sino-Pak fighter is scheduled to be revealed on 2012 any updates?
> 
> For MKI fans
> with Ra'ad ALCM in PAF arsenal PAF jets would be saying "asta lavesta baby" before MKI would even see them or even taken off
> I doubt IAF would bring this valuable asset to FOBs to aviod these "4.75 gen" fighthers to be destroyed on ground so long for R-77 "boostings"



Hasnain I suggest a lot more study before you keep posting more rubbish. Take this as a warning.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Gucci Juice

Keysersoze said:


> Ok the original poster did spout a load of rubbish but seriously "can't defend against it because it flies mach 3"



sry

i admit raad is also not easy to defend against since its kinda stealth


----------



## moha199

Gucci Juice said:


> sry
> 
> i admit raad is also not easy to defend against since its kinda stealth



I didn't get that? will you explain it " i am just seeking information"


----------



## SBD-3

Keysersoze said:


> Hasnain I suggest a lot more *study* before you keep posting more rubbish. Take this as a warning.



oh! ryt 
study? by this you mean documents or posts on other forums?
but there is another very good trait known as RESPECT I hope your familliar with the concept (if it seems rude which it is certainly not please pardon me)


----------



## Keysersoze

hasnain0099 said:


> oh! ryt
> study? by this you mean documents or posts on other forums?
> but there is another very good trait known as RESPECT I hope your familliar with the concept (if it seems rude which it is certainly not please pardon me)



Respect is earned. And it is earned here by learning and posting in a useful manner. Posting rubbish will merely earn you scorn.. Now I would take the advice I have given you.


----------



## desiman

Hi Guys
I am new to this website and i must say its very very interesting, the only thing that bothers me is that every thread turns into an India vs Pakistan thread and the language can be offensive sometimes, all i can say that we are here to discuss meaningfully and lets just keep it at that. 

In regards to the topic it is important to understand the difference between the jf-17 and the su-20mkk or mki. 

JF-17 is a Originally designed to be a small and capable light-weight fighter powered by a single engine to reduce costs, the JF-17 was supposed to be a simple and inexpensive solution for replacing large fleets of obsolete types in the air forces of developing countries. The JF-17 evolved into a more advanced fighter during the later stages of development with revised terms of reference by the Pakistan Air Force and the incorporation of more modern features and technologies.

this is as it is quoted by wiki and i get similar info from other websites also that i can say are pretty neutral. 

The su-30mki is (NATO reporting name Flanker-H) is a variant of the Sukhoi Su-30 jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). It is an air superiority fighter which can also act as a multirole, strike fighter jet.

The development of the variant started after India signed a deal with Russia in 2000 to manufacture 140 Su-30 fighter jets.[3] The first Russian-made Su-30MKI variant was integrated into the IAF in 2002,[4] while the first indigenous Su-30MKI entered service with the IAF in 2004.[5] In 2007, the IAF ordered 40 additional MKIs.[6] As of July 2009, the IAF has 98 MKIs under active service and it plans to have an operational fleet of 230 MKIs by 2015

Capable of carrying nuclear weapons and tailor-made for Indian specifications, the fighter jet integrates Indian systems and avionics.[8] It also contains French and Israeli subsystems.[9] The MKI variant features several improvements over the basic K and MK variants and is classified as a 4.5 generation fighter.[10][11] Due to similar features and components, the MKI variant is often considered to be a customized Indian variant of the Sukhoi Su-35.

i have just quoted wiki as i dont want to type everything i already know. 

jf-17 cannot be compared in anyway to the MKI as its not even in the same class of fighters. The MKI is a 4.5 generation fighter as confirmed by many sources and the Russian have admitted themselves that its the best jet they have ever made (i will get you the link ). Equipped with Isrealy electronics and fine tuned to Indian needs the MKI is truly the most dominant fighter in the region and among the 5 best in the world. With almost 250 planned to be part of the IAF, it will truly give India the edge over the PAF. 

JF-17 is amazing achievement for Pakistan to make the full aircraft themselves and will give them a nice start in terms of making a good fighter jet in the future, but it cannot be compared to a MKI. JF-17 is a low cost alternative for nations that cannot afford to buy modern generation aircrafts. I know everyone will say that JF-17 will get this or that in the futue but as of now there is not comparison. It better off to compare the MKI with a j10(Even which i dont think is good enough) or maybe j-xxx whenever that jet acutally comes to being. 

I hope guys agree, feel free to prove me wrong ( constructively lol )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAL_FGFA

desidog said:


> Hi Guys
> I am new to this website and i must say its very very interesting, the only thing that bothers me is that every thread turns into an India vs Pakistan thread and the language can be offensive sometimes, all i can say that we are here to discuss meaningfully and lets just keep it at that.
> 
> In regards to the topic it is important to understand the difference between the jf-17 and the su-20mkk or mki.
> 
> JF-17 is a Originally designed to be a small and capable light-weight fighter powered by a single engine to reduce costs, the JF-17 was supposed to be a simple and inexpensive solution for replacing large fleets of obsolete types in the air forces of developing countries. The JF-17 evolved into a more advanced fighter during the later stages of development with revised terms of reference by the Pakistan Air Force and the incorporation of more modern features and technologies.
> 
> this is as it is quoted by wiki and i get similar info from other websites also that i can say are pretty neutral.
> 
> The su-30mki is (NATO reporting name Flanker-H) is a variant of the Sukhoi Su-30 jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). It is an air superiority fighter which can also act as a multirole, strike fighter jet.
> 
> The development of the variant started after India signed a deal with Russia in 2000 to manufacture 140 Su-30 fighter jets.[3] The first Russian-made Su-30MKI variant was integrated into the IAF in 2002,[4] while the first indigenous Su-30MKI entered service with the IAF in 2004.[5] In 2007, the IAF ordered 40 additional MKIs.[6] As of July 2009, the IAF has 98 MKIs under active service and it plans to have an operational fleet of 230 MKIs by 2015
> 
> Capable of carrying nuclear weapons and tailor-made for Indian specifications, the fighter jet integrates Indian systems and avionics.[8] It also contains French and Israeli subsystems.[9] The MKI variant features several improvements over the basic K and MK variants and is classified as a 4.5 generation fighter.[10][11] Due to similar features and components, the MKI variant is often considered to be a customized Indian variant of the Sukhoi Su-35.
> 
> i have just quoted wiki as i dont want to type everything i already know.
> 
> jf-17 cannot be compared in anyway to the MKI as its not even in the same class of fighters. The MKI is a 4.5 generation fighter as confirmed by many sources and the Russian have admitted themselves that its the best jet they have ever made (i will get you the link ). Equipped with Isrealy electronics and fine tuned to Indian needs the MKI is truly the most dominant fighter in the region and among the 5 best in the world. With almost 250 planned to be part of the IAF, it will truly give India the edge over the PAF.
> 
> 
> 
> desidog said:
> 
> 
> 
> JF-17 is amazing achievement for Pakistan to make the full aircraft themselves and will give them a nice start in terms of making a good fighter jet in the future, but it cannot be compared to a MKI. JF-17 is a low cost alternative for nations that cannot afford to buy modern generation aircrafts. I know everyone will say that JF-17 will get this or that in the futue but as of now there is not comparison. It better off to compare the MKI with a j10(Even which i dont think is good enough) or maybe j-xxx whenever that jet acutally comes to being.
> 
> I hope guys agree, feel free to prove me wrong ( constructively lol )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think that Pakistan had made Jf-17 aur has played any role in any of its part. They simply shared the funding.(I guess)
Click to expand...


----------



## IceCold

HAL_FGFA said:


> I dont think that Pakistan had made Jf-17 aur has played any role in any of its part. They simply shared the funding.(I guess)



Does your thinking really matter or is it because JF-17 is a reality while LCA on the other hand is still a pipe dream, you come out with a rubbish post like this. Get over the self superiority complex and face the reality.

I agree with the original poster on lines that the comparision between JF-17 and MKI does not make sense because both the planes are meant for different missions and needs of two different airforce.


----------



## IceCold

ISRO2 said:


> Please dont insult sukhoi-30MKI by matching with JF-17 hehe thank you.



Now dont flatter yourself.


----------



## ISRO2

IceCold said:


> Now dont flatter yourself.



Sir i just told the truth hehe. Please dont get offended. In a way am the one who got offended by reading sukhoi-30MKI vs JF-17 sir hehe.


----------



## IceCold

ISRO2 said:


> Sir i just told the truth hehe. Please dont get offended. In a way am the one who got offended by reading sukhoi-30MKI vs JF-17 sir hehe.



While the comparision does not make sense as both fighter jet belong to different roles in their respective airforce, your remark however was a long over rated shot. Remember when ever a JF-17 comes across an MKI it will not be like two men fighting one on one, there will be alot of factors involved which will decide the out come of that fight. Hope you get the clue.


----------



## ISRO2

IceCold said:


> While the comparision does not make sense as both fighter jet belong to different roles in their respective airforce, your remark however was a long over rated shot. Remember when ever a JF-17 comes across an MKI it will not be like two men fighting one on one, there will be alot of factors involved which will decide the out come of that fight. Hope you get the clue.



No sir i didn't get the clue. Please try to explain in a simple way like which jet fighter will drop dead in dog fight and if winner is JF-17 then sir i would like to know on which planet does JF-17 been build? Hehe thank you.


----------



## Storm Force

The roles are the same i think. 

but 

SU30MKI is far closer in profile to F15 F18 Rafale & Typhoon because its twin engined multi role fighter. 

JF17 is closer in profile to F16 J10 & mirage being single engined multi role. 

Who would win ??? 

The poster who said too many variables to say who wins is correct !!! 

but all things being equal ie numbers of planes same awacs support and same height and speed i think the plane with more radar coverage more weapons and better electroincs will have the edge.


----------



## desiman

IceCold said:


> Does your thinking really matter or is it because JF-17 is a reality while LCA on the other hand is still a pipe dream, you come out with a rubbish post like this. Get over the self superiority complex and face the reality.
> 
> I agree with the original poster on lines that the comparision between JF-17 and MKI does not make sense because both the planes are meant for different missions and needs of two different airforce.



Thank you for agreeing with me my Pakistani brother, but again please dont turn this into a india vs pakistan thread. We are just comparing these two wonderful jets for the sake of knowledge and fun. I hope everyone agrees with that, no hard feelings here


----------



## ISRO2

Storm Force said:


> The roles are the same i think.
> 
> but
> 
> SU30MKI is far closer in profile to F15 F18 Rafale & Typhoon because its twin engined multi role fighter.
> 
> JF17 is closer in profile to F16 J10 & mirage being single engined multi role.
> 
> Who would win ???
> 
> The poster who said too many variables to say who wins is correct !!!
> 
> but all things being equal ie numbers of planes same awacs support and same height and speed i think the plane with more radar coverage more weapons and better electroincs will have the edge.



Sir am bit shocked. i have read in this forum JF-17 vs F-16. Pakistanis vote went to F-16 and most of them said comparing JF-17 with F-16 is a joke. While while mig29 was build to take on F-16 and not sukhoi-30MKI. so when F-16 cant match sukhoi-30MKI then why JF-17 been compared with sukhoi-30MKI? Sir better ask PAF why they want more F-16s then JF-17. JF-17 is in catogory of LCA. They are produced in large number. Even LCA avionics will be far better then JF-17. even chinese airforce dont have JF-17 because its export product. please dont keep JF-17 in F-16 catogory sir. Better read JF-17 vs F-16 and you will know the answer. Thank you.


----------



## desiman

IceCold said:


> While the comparision does not make sense as both fighter jet belong to different roles in their respective airforce, your remark however was a long over rated shot. Remember when ever a JF-17 comes across an MKI it will not be like two men fighting one on one, there will be alot of factors involved which will decide the out come of that fight. Hope you get the clue.



What i think is that this thread is totally wrong. The jf-17 is pakistans replacement for its aging fleet of J-7 and mirage planes. It will be inducted in large numbers ( around 250 im guessing eventually ), and it will be based on the principle of defeating the enemy using quantity , just like how India currently uses its mig-21s. The JF-17 is a very good plane with good avionics but is still in its infancy and still needs to get more teeth to take on beast like the su-30mki. JF-17 is supposed to be an interceptor just like Indias mig 21s, and not go out to hunt other planes on a attacking role. I think that gap would be filled by F-16 and in the future by J-10. 
On the other hand the MKI is air dominance fighter and only true 4.5 generation aircraft in the subcontinent. Its meant to be big, give out a huge RCS and scare the opponent away. Equipped with Israeli and Indian avionics, the mki is easily the best in the area. The only thing that currently comes close is the su-30s that China has but even they are not as good as the MKI because of the absence of the Israeli avionics. Costing close to $50 million per piece it can no where be compared to the JF-17 which cost less than half that amount. The MKI is always been rated among the best in the world and among the few aircrafts that totally dominate the ski when flying. 
It would be more fair to compare the JF-17 with maybe one of the planes that India plans to get for its mrca program or even the LCA. 
I am not here to condemn any nation, the JF-17 is a wonderful aircraft, but I am just saying that please do not disregard the MKI just because of patriotism as there is little doubt that its an amazing piece of machinery and easily among the best. 
Feel free to disagree &#61514;


----------



## gambit

Here is a bit of information that is important in this kind of discussions...

Air dominance -- The amount and frequency of air assets that one side, at *ANY* time, can deploy over a region. It does not automatically equate to victory every time there is a fight, but it does force the inferior side to change tactics and plans for the war.

Air superiority -- The ability of one side to achieve consistent battle victories over an area and whose losses, if any, does *NOT* affect its ability to achieve the same condition over time, meaning that if this side leave the airspace and return to the same area the next day, it will regain control of that airspace, with or without losses, and those losses will not give the enemy any advantages or even a potential to change the condition.

Air supremacy -- He flies, he dies. Simple as that. Naturally...One should have air supremacy over one's territorial airspace.

Equipments and how they are used determined if any side can achieve any of the above conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IceCold

ISRO2 said:


> Sir am bit shocked. i have read in this forum JF-17 vs F-16. Pakistanis vote went to F-16 and most of them said comparing JF-17 with F-16 is a joke. While while mig29 was build to take on F-16 and not sukhoi-30MKI. so when F-16 cant match sukhoi-30MKI then why JF-17 been compared with sukhoi-30MKI? Sir better ask PAF why they want more F-16s then JF-17. JF-17 is in catogory of LCA. They are produced in large number. Even LCA avionics will be far better then JF-17. even chinese airforce dont have JF-17 because its export product. please dont keep JF-17 in F-16 catogory sir. Better read JF-17 vs F-16 and you will know the answer. Thank you.



this is Sir Murad answer to another poster in thread *Pakistan's Top Gun Obsession* who said similar to what you just said above, i am posting it here for your convenience:



Muradk said:


> Jesus Christ where did you come up with this theory, You and 99% Pakistanis have not seen its capabilities nor do people know about its new avionics and weapon systems so I would avoid making such claims.


----------



## IceCold

desidog said:


> I am not here to condemn any nation, the JF-17 is a wonderful aircraft, * but I am just saying that please do not disregard the MKI* just because of patriotism as there is little doubt that its an amazing piece of machinery and easily among the best.
> Feel free to disagree &#61514;



No sane Pakistani has ever disregarded the MKI out of sheer patriotism and ignorance. MKI is a superb plane and indeed a threat for the PAF, no one has ever denied this fact. When we discuss JF-17 or for that matter any other plane it does not mean we are disregarding the MKI but instead discussing options that PAF has once a situation arises where we need to counter IAF.


----------



## Join

I to be honest.... JF-17 has no chanse against The sukhoi MKI .... But It all depends upon the pilot....


----------



## IceCold

Storm Force said:


> The roles are the same i think.



I would argue, the reason for my argument would be that JF-17 will be primarily used in air defence role with secondary role as a strike jet where as the MKI would be used for deep penetration stirke missions into the enemy territory.


----------



## IceCold

Join said:


> I to be honest.... JF-17 has no chanse against The sukhoi MKI .... But It all depends upon the pilot....



Really? any logic behind or just an ignornat assumption based on BR facts.


----------



## Owais

Join said:


> I to be honest.... JF-17 has no chanse against The sukhoi MKI .... But It all depends upon the pilot....



dude, you need to read the Whole thread before posting these stupid comments


----------



## BATMAN

Join said:


> I to be honest.... JF-17 has no chanse against The sukhoi MKI .... But It all depends upon the pilot....



Ahh... so su-30 faring bad in red flag was merely a poor piloting!

JF-17 may have lesser chance against any bvr so does is su-30 chances.
Jf-17 has inferior radar but it is very much off set by its smaller size and vice versa.

Now... when we talk about pure dog fight with guns... su-30 is a dead meat before it begins.
Off course this may happen rarely in modern warfare but it will happen every time su-30 cross the line.

This concludes that su-30 is not going to help win battels for india inside Pakistan air space.


----------



## desiman

BATMAN said:


> Ahh... so su-30 faring bad in red flag was merely a poor piloting!
> 
> JF-17 may have lesser chance against any bvr so does is su-30 chances.
> Jf-17 has inferior radar but it is very much off set by its smaller size and vice versa.
> 
> Now... when we talk about pure dog fight with guns... su-30 is a dead meat before it begins.
> Off course this may happen rarely in modern warfare but it will happen every time su-30 cross the line.
> 
> This concludes that su-30 is not going to help win battels for india inside Pakistan air space.



I think i would disagree to that if you dont mind, in a pure dog fight there are few planes in the world that would be able to match up to the MKI because of its amazing agility. There are countless videos on the web showing the amazing turning and agility of the MKI, i doubt just because the JF-17 is lighter it can outmatch the MKI. It terms of agility and dog fight ability i would say only the typhoon and the f-22 are currently capable of standing up to the MKI ( Feel free to disagree). Again my point is that this is a wrong comparison, the MKI cannot be compared to the JF-17 because they are not the same class of aircraft. This is like comparing a bomber with a fighter and trying to figure out who is better. The MKI is air dominance and deep penetration aircraft where on the other hand jf-17 is a interceptor and is not meant to go deep into enemy territory, PAF has F-16 for that. The Mig-21 plays the same role for India. So we should stop comparing and trying to demean any one these wonderful aircraft. More suitable to compare the MKI with F-16 i guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sancho

BATMAN said:


> Now... when we talk about pure dog fight with guns... su-30 is a dead meat before it begins.


Why? Isn't the MKI more maneuverable, doesn't the MKI have a better t/w ratio and more speed? So why should the JF be better in a dog fight if it's capabilities are even inferior to PAFs F16s?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

sancho said:


> Why? Isn't the MKI more maneuverable, doesn't the MKI have a better t/w ratio and more speed? So why should the JF be better in a dog fight if it's capabilities are even inferior to PAFs F16s?



LOL WELL SAID

It is confusing sometimes when the PAF themselves say that the F-16 is their best and the F-16 itself inferior to the MKI, then how can the JF-17 be superior to the MKI when it not even the best aircraft that the PAF has. Can a pakistani brother shed some light on this ? no offence im just confused


----------



## BATMAN

sancho said:


> Why? Isn't the MKI more maneuverable, doesn't the MKI have a better t/w ratio and more speed? So why should the JF be better in a dog fight if it's capabilities are even inferior to PAFs F16s?



Because it will be a dog fight not formulae one!!!! not even at formulae one big engine and size is going to win you any race!

Now again you have to read all of my post.... and you should be able to get your answers... key word RED FLAG which is a glaring fact......but stubborness has its meaning..

BTW... what parameters help you conclude your judgement about manuverability?


----------



## desiman

BATMAN said:


> Because it will be a dog fight not formulae one!!!! not even at formulae one big engine and size is going to win you any race!
> 
> Now again you have to read all of my post.... and you should be able to get your answers... key word RED FLAG which is a glaring fact......but stubborness has its meaning..



OMG not red flag again, i know people in the IAF and the news going around is that the video that became very popular on youtube and other sites criticizing the MKI was basically done to push India to speed up the MRCA deal and buy the F-16 or the F-18 which were involved in Red flag and supposedly "outmatched" the MKI. You must understand that the MKI was not allowed to use many of its lethal features to keep the real strength of the MKI hidden. ill quote wiki on this (which i know many wont agree to but ill try to find other sources ) - 

The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is the most potent fighter jet in service with the Indian Air Force in the late 2000s.[31] The MKIs are often fielded by the IAF in bilateral and multilateral air exercises. India exercised its Su-30MKIs against the Royal Air Force's Tornado ADVs in October 2006.[32] This was the first large-scale bilateral aerial exercise with any foreign air force during which the IAF used its Su-30MKIs extensively. This exercise was also the first in 43 years with the RAF. During the exercise, RAF's Air Chief Marshall, Glenn Torpy, was given permission by the IAF to fly the MKI.[33] RAF's Air-Vice Marshall, Christopher Harper, praised the MKI's dogfight ability, calling it "absolutely masterful".[34]

In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise.[35][36] The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.[37] During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.[38]

An earlier variant of the Su-30MKI, the MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21. The results have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions".[39].In July 2008, the IAF sent 6 Su-30MKIs and 2 aerial-refueling tankers, the Il-78MKI, to participate in the Red Flag exercise.[40] In October 2008, a video surfaced on the internet which featured a USAF colonel, Corkey Fornoff, criticizing Su-30MKI's high friendly kill rate and serviceability issues during the Red Flag exercise.[41][42] Several of his claims were later rebutted by the Indian side, the USAF disassociated itself from his comments and it was stated that he did not even participate in the exercise. [43]


Again what i am saying is that dont undermine the MKI. Tech plays the most important roles in air warfare today, pilot skill is truly very imp but just with that you can dream of shooting down another way more advanced aircraft, it is was like that then we should also have JF-17 vs F-22 threads lol ? again i dont mean to offend anyone but i really annoys me when people just undermine the MKI. common people get over it, its the best in the subcontinent by far period. 

Feel free to disagree, again no personal comments please.


----------



## HAL_FGFA

can anyone plz explain this to me that if JF-17 is much more capable than Su-30 MKI then why China is not inducting JF-17 and why they rely on their 100 SU-30 MKK???

Thanks


----------



## desiman

BATMAN said:


> Because it will be a dog fight not formulae one!!!! not even at formulae one big engine and size is going to win you any race!
> 
> Now again you have to read all of my post.... and you should be able to get your answers... key word RED FLAG which is a glaring fact......but stubborness has its meaning..
> 
> BTW... what parameters help you conclude your judgement about manuverability?



please read this article 

Assessing JSF Air Combat Capabilities


it talks about how the MKI or its su-30 variants are even superior in many ways to the JSF and how the SU-30 family one of the best competitors against the F-22. I will find more links and post them up soon for those who doubt the accuracy of these links.


----------



## sancho

BATMAN said:


> Because it will be a dog fight not formulae one!!!! not even at formulae one big engine and size is going to win you any race!
> 
> Now again you have to read all of my post.... and you should be able to get your answers... key word RED FLAG which is a glaring fact......but stubborness has its meaning..
> 
> BTW... what parameters help you conclude your judgement about manuverability?


First of all, if you follow the formular one you should know what is possible with the biggest, or most powerful engine (Force India with Mercedes engines). 
Secondly I am not interested in blame games and Red Flag discussions, I am talking about JF 17 that didn't attend Red Flag and as I said is inferior in dog fights than F16s.
Those parameters that I mentioned, t/w ratio, speed and of course the benefits you get by using techs like canards, or TVC.


----------



## IceCold

sancho said:


> Why? Isn't the MKI more maneuverable, doesn't the MKI have a better t/w ratio and more speed? So why should the JF be better in a dog fight if it's capabilities are even inferior to PAFs F16s?



Who said its capabilities are inferior to the F-16. Dude you dont even know the specs of the JF-17 to begin with and here you are making tall assumptions about something you dont know squat about.
I'll suggest you re read Sir Murad's comment about JF-17.


----------



## haawk

HAL_FGFA said:


> can anyone plz explain this to me that if JF-17 is much more capable than Su-30 MKI then why China is not inducting JF-17 and why they rely on their 100 SU-30 MKK???
> 
> Thanks



now that is a good question that members would find it difficult to answer........

actually your question brings this thread to an end ,if people tend 
take this to their heads....
otherwise this thread with full of baseless rantlings will continue


----------



## IceCold

sancho said:


> First of all, if you follow the formular one you should know what is possible with the biggest, or most powerful engine (Force India with Mercedes engines).
> Secondly I am not interested in blame games and Red Flag discussions, I am talking about JF 17 that didn't attend Red Flag and as *I said is inferior in dog fights than F16s.*
> Those parameters that I mentioned, t/w ratio, speed and of course the benefits you get by using techs like canards, or TVC.



lolzzz. Well this sums up about your knowledge on JF-17. No point in going any further.
Just a hint have you seen that video in which the comparision between F-16 and JF-17 is shown. I'll suggest you go and watch that before you make another stupid assumption.


----------



## IceCold

HAL_FGFA said:


> can anyone plz explain this to me that if JF-17 is much more capable than Su-30 MKI then why China is not inducting JF-17 and why they rely on their 100 SU-30 MKK???
> 
> Thanks



Thats a stupid question to ask and has been answered many times. Different airforces have different requirements and just because PLAAF is not inducting it for *NOW*, does not automatically means that the jet is inferior.


----------



## Guest

Guest said:


> 2) "superior avionic" is good, but i'm affraid you have to be close enough, 80KM is the max rang of R77 and 50KM is the non-escapable rang, to launch the missiles. so even if there is no AWACS support, big targets like MKI will be deceted by MKK at least 150KMs away.
> and if connected with AWACS datalink, even UAVs could take their shoot. a pistol is by far better than an sword, but a M4 is not that superior than a AK-47.



this was what i said in IAF vs PLAAF thread, and i think it would be almost the same for JF vs MKI. the only different is MKK can carry more R77 then JF17, so JF17 could definitely hold MKIs back if they have quantity edges


----------



## HAL_FGFA

> Thats a stupid question to ask and has been answered many times. Different airforces have different requirements and just because PLAAF is not inducting it for NOW, does not automatically means that the jet is inferior.



Now thats an stupid answer. At one time members say that JF-17 beat MKI in every field and at the same time you say China dont need it. My dear friend do you really think that if China can make a plane better than MKI, it will not immediately induct them into its forces?? It will give China an upper hand. Why they will go for other planes when they are themselves making good planes. 

Indigenous production of JF-17 will definitely cost less to China and if JF-17 is better than they will get a better plane in less price and then why they opted for MKK and that too 100's of them???

I am not saying that JF-17 is a bad plane but dont you think that it raises serious doubt regarding comparing it with su-30. Instead China is developing a better plane to induct which will be definitely better than JF-17.

Thanks......


----------



## ironman

BATMAN said:


> Ahh... so su-30 faring bad in red flag was merely a poor piloting!
> 
> JF-17 may have lesser chance against any bvr so does is su-30 chances.
> Jf-17 has inferior radar but it is very much off set by its smaller size and vice versa.
> 
> Now... *when we talk about pure dog fight with guns... su-30 is a dead meat before it begins*.
> Off course this may happen rarely in modern warfare but it will happen every time su-30 cross the line.
> 
> This concludes that su-30 is not going to help win battels for india inside Pakistan air space.



Can you prove that?..


----------



## Owais

HAL_FGFA said:


> Now thats an stupid answer. At one time members say that JF-17 beat MKI in every field and at the same time you say China dont need it. My dear friend do you really think that if China can make a plane better than MKI, it will not immediately induct them into its forces?? It will give China an upper hand. Why they will go for other planes when they are themselves making good planes.
> 
> Indigenous production of JF-17 will definitely cost less to China and if JF-17 is better than they will get a better plane in less price and then why they opted for MKK and that too 100's of them???
> 
> I am not saying that JF-17 is a bad plane but dont you think that it raises serious doubt regarding comparing it with su-30. Instead China is developing a better plane to induct which will be definitely better than JF-17.
> 
> Thanks......



China opted for MKK before J10/JF17 were developed. now they have enough money to buy J10! which have more range and payload. thats why they are not going for JF17.

MKI only have Radar advantage over JF17 and it will be nullified by AWACs support. please debate with facts instead of claiming that super duper MKI is better. I know that MKI is better but I also wana know that How a small, lightweight, highly maneuverable fighter cannot stand against a heavy, Huge MKI when it have AWACs support?? also, I have a point for your MKi's TVC. Do you even know how TVC works? lemme give you and Idea that TVC is not Effective at high speed because it creates so much drag due to inertia and your plane starts loosing altitude. so TVC at slow speed may be effective but can the use of TVC save Mki from a BVR/WVRAAM coming with 20+gs and speed of mach4?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ironman

> China opted for MKK before J10/JF17 were developed.



False..



> now they have enough money to buy J10! which have more range and payload. thats why they are not going for JF17.



Yes, J-10 have more range and payload than JF-17. But still JF-17 at par with Su-30MKI which have 2 engines(same of J-10), better payload, range and radar than of J-10.



> MKI only have Radar advantage over JF17 and it will be nullified by AWACs support.



Point is taken, but in this scenario what will JF-17 will do after seeing MKI? (Could you please aside AWAC from this, I think we talking about plane v/s plane.)


----------



## IceCold

HAL_FGFA said:


> Now thats an stupid answer. At one time members say that JF-17 beat MKI in every field and at the same time you say China dont need it. My dear friend do you really think that if China can make a plane better than MKI, it will not immediately induct them into its forces?? It will give China an upper hand. Why they will go for other planes when they are themselves making good planes.
> 
> Indigenous production of JF-17 will definitely cost less to China and if JF-17 is better than they will get a better plane in less price and then why they opted for MKK and that too 100's of them???
> 
> I am not saying that JF-17 is a bad plane but dont you think that it raises serious doubt regarding comparing it with su-30. Instead China is developing a better plane to induct which will be definitely better than JF-17.
> 
> Thanks......



Seriously at first i thought you were indeed serious in debating over the capabilities of JF-17 vis-via-vis MKI however now there remains no doubt that your purpose here is to troll and flame. 
And for the last part it does not matter what you may think about JF-17, as far as we are concerned you may compare it with Mig-21 or maybe even Mig-19 after all its Pakistani how good can it be.


----------



## IceCold

ironman said:


> Point is taken, but in this scenario what will JF-17 will do after seeing MKI? (*Could you please aside AWAC from this*, I think we talking about plane v/s plane.)



Why? Havent we saying this for so long that it would not be a one on one man fight for the world heavy weight championship rather there will be alot of factors involved which will determine the out come of the conflict and which fighter comes on top. 
JF-17s primary role is point defence where as the MKI will be used for deep strike missions which means that the MKI will not only have to worry about the incoming PAF interceptors(JF-17) but also against SAM batteries and AAG. Moreover because the JF-17s will be under the umbrella of the AWACS and not using its own radar, it will track MKI with a much bigger RCS first before the MKI tracks the JF-17 with a much smaller RCS. And please now dont start talking about how the MKI can perform as a mini AWAC.


----------



## PakShaheen79

^^ That is a point but thing is tracking something first only work when you have that kind of AA missiles as well. Let's say due to its large RCS Thunder detect MKI at 150 KM but do we have weapons to have a first shot at MKI or does MKI have that kind of missiles right now? I don't think so. AWACS will already tell both pilots about their adversaries on both side much earlier than fighters can themselves can detect each other.

I agree with your point of MKI over in Pakistani skies will face some considerable challenges but what about if Pakistani squadron are planning to take on some SEAD/DEAD mission. Similar threat will be there in Indian skies for Pakistani fighters as well. For this reason PAF itself has accepted MKI as a real threat and all this FC-20 thing is for countering this threat. How well FC-20 will make sure that only time will tell.

Rest there is no comparison between JF-17 with MKI both are of different type and class so it is not sensible to compare them in real terms for the sake of argument even F-6 can take on anything. Hypothesis has no limits.


----------



## HAL_FGFA

> And please now dont start talking about how the MKI can perform as a mini AWAC.



I think in a fight Indian AWACS (Falcon) will not be used to give support to MKI


----------



## Owais

ironman said:


> False..



please explain!



> Yes, J-10 have more range and payload than JF-17. But still JF-17 at par with Su-30MKI which have 2 engines(same of J-10), better payload, range and radar than of J-10.



*Read the Name of this Thread CAREFULLY!!* having two engines and more payload doesn't mean that a BVRAAM or WVRAAM fired from JF17 cannot hunt an MKI


> Point is taken, but in this scenario what will JF-17 will do after seeing MKI? (Could you please aside AWAC from this, I think we talking about plane v/s plane.)



why put AWACs aside?? are we buying AWACs to get weather details?? ok I turn this question on you, what will MKI will do after seeing JF17(outnumbering MKI) having ground support as well as AWAC support?


----------



## Arsalan

HAL_FGFA said:


> I think in a fight Indian AWACS (Falcon) will not be used to give support to MKI



well ok, to finish it off, i agree with you,
infact the MKI are so good they can sneak behind the F22 and shoot them with there guns. and yes ths is true for indian planes. moreover if the pilot is also an indian they may not even require to firs there guns and the Mki can just come close to the F22 and the pilot will shoot the enemy pilot with his lethal state of the art 9 mm pistol!!!

i hope you are happy now, 
its party time 

regards!
*NOTE:* sorry for quoting you HAL, my comments are about the general discussion going here. have a look at post 932, 925, 923 and the list goes on.. 
i hope you will understand the point and wont start addind fuel to the fire!


----------



## IceCold

PakShaheen79 said:


> ^^ That is a point but thing is tracking something first only work when you have that kind of AA missiles as well. Let's say due to its large RCS Thunder detect MKI at 150 KM but do we have weapons to have a first shot at MKI or does MKI have that kind of missiles right now? I don't think so. AWACS will already tell both pilots about their adversaries on both side much earlier than fighters can themselves can detect each other.



The way i understand is that an AWAC will detect enemy formations long before they enter into Pakistani territory meaning that the PAF interceptors will be scrambled to intercept the in coming inturders with the target locations without having the need to turn on their own radars and seach for incoming bogies thus eliminating the chance of radar frequency being detected by the MKI because of its superior radar. First detection has its own advantages and lets not forget that it would be minutes before the MKI does come into the firing range of the SD-10 which according to a recent article from the PLA news paper(source wiki) the missile has a range of over 100 kms.( I might have missed something or perhaps over looked, feel free to correct me) 



> I agree with your point of MKI over in Pakistani skies will face some considerable challenges *but what about if Pakistani squadron are planning to take on some SEAD/DEAD mission. Similar threat will be there in Indian skies for Pakistani fighters as well*. For this reason PAF itself has accepted MKI as a real threat and all this FC-20 thing is for countering this threat. How well FC-20 will make sure that only time will tell.



True however that is not what we are discussing. The argument revolves typically around JF-17 vs the MKI and Indians believe that every time such event takes place, MKI will come on top. My point is that JF being a point defence fighter will have a home advantage and will thus negate any advantage the MKI has because of its radar.



> Rest there is no comparison between JF-17 with MKI both are of different type and class so it is not sensible to compare them in real terms for the sake of argument even F-6 can take on anything. Hypothesis has no limits.



I have been saying this for ages as both jets are meant for different roles w.r.t their respective airforce so a one on one comparision does not make sense. Moreover the out come of conflict will not just depend upon one on one fight but the different factors involved some of which i tried to explain with my limited knowledge in this field.


----------



## IceCold

HAL_FGFA said:


> I think in a fight Indian AWACS (Falcon) will not be used to give support to MKI



We are talking about hostile environment, how far are you willing to take your falcon?


----------



## HAL_FGFA

> We are talking about hostile environment, how far are you willing to take your falcon?



Jaha tak ja sake


----------



## desiman

Owais said:


> China opted for MKK before J10/JF17 were developed. now they have enough money to buy J10! which have more range and payload. thats why they are not going for JF17.
> 
> MKI only have Radar advantage over JF17 and it will be nullified by AWACs support. please debate with facts instead of claiming that super duper MKI is better. I know that MKI is better but I also wana know that How a small, lightweight, highly maneuverable fighter cannot stand against a heavy, Huge MKI when it have AWACs support?? also, I have a point for your MKi's TVC. Do you even know how TVC works? lemme give you and Idea that TVC is not Effective at high speed because it creates so much drag due to inertia and your plane starts loosing altitude. so TVC at slow speed may be effective but can the use of TVC save Mki from a BVR/WVRAAM coming with 20+gs and speed of mach4?



Dont take it personally but the way you talk it seems like you made the JF-17 yourself lol Common people when you guys talk about awacs, i hope you know that India has the Phalcon awacs from isreal. We already have one in serive with 6 on order. The phalcon is way more advanced that the saab 2000 system that pakistan has and that is a fact which you cannot argue against. 
Secondly even with awacs support the JF-17 will have to use its own radar to fire the missile which again is not even close to the radar on the MKI. I can give you exact specs on the radars but its no use because i know someone will couter that using some weird argument. People tell me that the JF-17 is light weight, can you please explain how? it does not use any composites and is a full metal frame. it weighs just as much as any other aircraft. Yes thats for sure that the MKI weighs more but it also houses a much more advanced engine and have 2 TVC. Dog fight or BVR fight, JF-17 is not even in the same league as the MKI. The JF-17 is economical jet that can be effective only in numbers against the MKI. One on one fight with the MKI will be very deadly for the JF-17 

Guys common please again dont come up with wish list for the JF-17. Even if Pakistan uses Awacs it will not be used with the JF-17 because the PAF will be too busy protecting its F-16 which are superior to the JF-17. Common guys accept the facts and dont come with the wishlist and future predictions. The MKI wins hands down, awacs no awacs. If you think the JF-17 can match up to the MKI just because of pilot skill then you could also compare it to the F-22 LOL im sure some members can even argue that  

feel free to disagree again with no personal comments please


----------



## ironman

Owais said:


> please explain!



Both aircraft's development process have started in almost same time frame that in early 90's on the other hand the MKK decision took at late 90's.



> *Read the Name of this Thread CAREFULLY!!* having two engines and more payload doesn't mean that a BVRAAM or WVRAAM fired from JF17 cannot hunt an MKI



I believe the thread name should be like "Counter Su-30MKI with JF-17". MKI is not an alien aircraft to invisible against those missiles, the point is, to fire those missiles JF-17 has to reach its maximum BVRAAM range some what like <100 km that is really a dead game against MKI.



> why put AWACs aside?? are we buying AWACs to get weather details?? ok I turn this question on you, what will MKI will do after seeing JF17(outnumbering MKI) having ground support as well as AWAC support?



Theoretically there is not a fight possible under with AWAC support between those aircrafts. The on board electronic supportive measure suite of AWAC can detect the missile at the moment of launch and it leads to jam the missile with enough time. What missing here is the fight between JF-17 and MKI. That's why I prefer to stick with topic.


----------



## bilal1219

Guyz, 

I was browsing through the youtube and i found something interesting. Please have a look






Regards,
Bilal


----------



## kursed

If Sukhois were in fact the 'best' in its present form, Russian won't be working on PAK-FA. It's a propaganda video, take it as such.


----------



## Owais

ironman said:


> Both aircraft's development process have started in almost same time frame that in early 90's on the other hand the MKK decision took at late 90's.



when I talked about development process?? am talking about DEVELOPED jet! China didn't developed J10 at that time. hell Its still in process of getting mature


> *I believe the thread name should be like "Counter Su-30MKI with JF-17"*. MKI is not an alien aircraft to invisible against those missiles, the point is, to fire those missiles JF-17 has to reach its maximum BVRAAM range some what like <100 km that is really a dead game against MKI.


so go and make that thread. and please explain that how JF17 equipped with BVR cannot takeon Mki. not to forget that Mki's Huge Rcs make it detected from morethan 100km with KLJ10.



> _Dont take it personally but the way you talk it seems like you made the JF-17 yourself lol _Common people when you guys talk about awacs, i hope you know that India has the Phalcon awacs from isreal. We already have one in serive with 6 on order. The phalcon is way more advanced that the saab 2000 system that pakistan has and that is a fact which you cannot argue against.



what can I say if Talking with facts made you think like that. ofcourse IAF have phalcon. so that means MKI+Phalcon vs JF17+Saab2000=MKI vs JF17?? No way dude! saab2000's advantage cannot be nullified by phalcon



> Secondly even with awacs support the JF-17 will have to use its own radar to fire the missile which again is not even close to the radar on the MKI.


I have no Idea what are you trying to say! are you trying to say that an MKi with RCS of 10.2m2 CANNOT be detected by JF's radar from 100+km??


> People tell me that the JF-17 is light weight, can you please explain how? it does not use any composites and is a full metal frame. it weighs just as much as any other aircraft.



so you think that the aircraft in which composites are used are in light weight category? Think again! you need to first check the weight of JF and then analyze in which category it belongs to


> Yes thats for sure that the MKI weighs more but it also houses a much more advanced engine and have 2 TVC. Dog fight or BVR fight, JF-17 is not even in the same league as the MKI. The JF-17 is economical jet that can be effective only in numbers against the MKI. One on one fight with the MKI will be very deadly for the JF-17


Again same BS! you even didnt read my post regarding TVC!  then what is the use of flooding that forum??


> Guys common please again dont come up with wish list for the JF-17. Even if Pakistan uses Awacs it will not be used with the JF-17 *because the PAF will be too busy protecting its F-16 which are superior to the JF-17*.




Thats the most funniest thing I've ever heard! yea PAF will protect its F16 instead of its airspace lol. you made me laugh champ!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

Owais said:


> so go and make that thread. and please explain that how JF17 equipped with BVR cannot takeon Mki. *not to forget that Mki's Huge Rcs make it detected from morethan 100km with KLJ10.*



Thanxs for nice post.
I would like to know more(bold) what u quoted.


----------



## Haanzo

> what can I say if Talking with facts made you think like that. ofcourse IAF have phalcon. so that means MKI+Phalcon vs JF17+Saab2000=MKI vs JF17?? No way dude! saab2000's advantage cannot be nullified by phalcon



can you please explain the above instead of firing on your keyboard


----------



## ironman

Owais said:


> when I talked about development process?? am talking about DEVELOPED jet! China didn't developed J10 at that time. hell Its still in process of getting mature



Are you forgetting that J-10's first flight is on 1998 and care to explain what do you mean by mature ? ..in that sense F-16 is not matured enough yet.



> so go and make that thread. and please explain that how JF17 equipped with BVR cannot takeon Mki. not to forget that *Mki's Huge Rcs* make it detected from morethan 100km with KLJ10.



KLJ-10 will sit like a duck in front of N011M BARS anywhere its range (leaving the role of Elta EL/L-8222)... Huge RCS


----------



## Sapper

ironman said:


> KLJ-10 will sit like a duck in front of N011M BARS anywhere its range (leaving the role of Elta EL/L-8222)... Huge RCS



Meanwhile ... Su30 will stand like empire state building 
Dear, I know Su30 has a great Radar, much better than that of any possible upgrade of F16s, FC20s and JF17s of PAF in near future, but do remember that F-16 has 1.2~2m2 radar cross section as compared to 10~15m2 of Su30s.

If the RCS of Su30 is reduced by 2~3 TIMES, then the excellent radar it possesses will be a great threat to its adversaries ... while in current specifications, an F16E (UAE not Pakistan) will detect Su30 some 50 miles before Su30 manages to get a lock on Viper. While Pakistani Vipers and Indian Su30s will be almost evenly matched against each other (minus BVR missile and ECM/EECM comparison). JF17's might be a bit inferior to F16-B52, so it will be a bit on losing side, but we still don't know the ACTUAL details of JF17's RCS or its radar (even if it is KLJ10).

If Su30 manages to get to WVR, it will really be a formidable enemy with its excellent sustained turn rate, excellent TWR, great thrust vectoring and marvelous post stall maneuvering, but at that time, the situation of fighting over friendly or enemy territory will be the deciding factor. If fighting over friendly skies, Su30 will have chance to kill and survive, on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none.

Regards,
Sapper

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## desiman

Owais said:


> when I talked about development process?? am talking about DEVELOPED jet! China didn't developed J10 at that time. hell Its still in process of getting mature
> 
> so go and make that thread. and please explain that how JF17 equipped with BVR cannot takeon Mki. not to forget that Mki's Huge Rcs make it detected from morethan 100km with KLJ10.
> 
> 
> 
> what can I say if Talking with facts made you think like that. ofcourse IAF have phalcon. so that means MKI+Phalcon vs JF17+Saab2000=MKI vs JF17?? No way dude! saab2000's advantage cannot be nullified by phalcon
> 
> 
> I have no Idea what are you trying to say! are you trying to say that an MKi with RCS of 10.2m2 CANNOT be detected by JF's radar from 100+km??
> 
> 
> so you think that the aircraft in which composites are used are in light weight category? Think again! you need to first check the weight of JF and then analyze in which category it belongs to
> 
> Again same BS! you even didnt read my post regarding TVC!  then what is the use of flooding that forum??
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the most funniest thing I've ever heard! yea PAF will protect its F16 instead of its airspace lol. you made me laugh champ!




LOL ok Owais, i am not an expert on jets so i try to be one but i know enough to prove what i am saying by facts not just words, ok lets start.

1)Just by having BVR does not mean you can go around shooting any plane in the sky. If you know more about BVR then i hope you know that firstly MKI'S radar range is far greater than the JF-17 and the MKI houses a very strong jammer. It is one of the reason's why the MKI can even act as a mini AWACS. Also with this far superior agility and speed it can outrun almost anything but that depends on the pilot. Just by firing a BVR missile, it does not mean a 100% kill rate. And if you do think that the MKI will fire its BVR a long time before the JF-17 does. 

2) just by having a huge rcs it does not mean its easy to shoot down the MKI. LOL buddy i respect the fact that you like the JF-17, even i do, its a nice aircraft but that does not mean it can go and shoot down as aircraft that is way more advanced than it just because it has a huge rcs, lol there is way more to shooting down an aircraft than just seeing it on your radar because of it rcs. And if you know anything about the MKI, it is meant to give of a huge rcs to almost intimidate the opponent, it is not trying to be stealth aircraft unlike western jets. 

3)I did not say that composites are the only way for a aircraft to me light. Ill give you the specs myself - 
General characteristics

Crew: 1 
Length: 14.0 m [73] (45.9 ft) 
Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) [73] (31 ft) 
Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in) 
Wing area: 24.4 m² [73] (263 ft²) 
Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb) 
Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles [5][74] (20,062 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg [74] (28,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan 
Dry thrust: 49.4 kN [2][7] (11,106 lbf) 
Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN [2][75] (18,973 lbf) 
G-limit: +8.5 g [2] 
Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb) [5] 
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 [5][34] (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph) 
Combat radius: 1,352 km [2] (840 mi) 
Ferry range: 3,000 km [7] (2,175 mi) 
Service ceiling: 16,700 m [7] (54,790 ft) 
Thrust/weight: 0.99 [2][5] 
Armament


Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2) 
Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance, 
Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods [77] 

and the MKI - 
General characteristics

Crew: 2 
Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft) 
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft) 
Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft) 
Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft²) 
Empty weight: 18,400 kg [1] (40,565 lb) 
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust vectoring, 131 kN (29,449 lbf) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft) 
Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi) at altitude; (1,270 km, 690 nmi near ground level)(With Internal Fuel Tank) 
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft) 
Rate of climb: >355 m/s (70,000 ft/min) 
Wing loading: 401 kg/m² (98 lb/ft²) 
Thrust/weight: 1.07 (at loaded weight & 1.15 with 50% fuel) 
If you read this properly then you can easily see which is the better aircraft, even after being way lighter than the MKI, the JF-17 does not even come close to the performance of the MKI, so the next time you say that just because you say that the JF-17 is lighter it will beat the MKI support it with some facts. 

3) lets compare the missile and armament now Owais - 
JF-17
Armament


Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2) 
Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance, 
Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods [77] 
Missiles:

Air-to-air missiles: 
Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C 
Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10 
Air-to-surface missiles: 
Anti-radiation missiles 
Anti-ship missiles: AM-39 Exocet 
Cruise missiles: Ra'ad ALCM 
Bombs:

Unguided bombs: 
Mk-82, Mk-84 general purpose bombs 
Matra Durandal anti-runway bomb 
CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye anti-armour cluster bomb 
Precision guided munitions (PGM): 
GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2 laser-guided bombs 
H-2, H-4 electro-optically guided,[6] LS-6 satellite-guided glide bombs [76] 
Satellite-guided bombs [6] 
Others: 
Up to 3 external fuel drop-tanks (1× under-fuselage 800 litres, 2× under-wing 800/1100 litres each) for extended range/loitering time 

Now lets look at the MKI - 
Air to Air Missiles:

6 × R-27R/AA-10A/Astra[46] semi-active radar homing medium range AAM of range 80 km. 
6 × R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range AAM, 70 km 
2 × R-27P (AA-10C) passive radar seeker, long range AAM 
10 × R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km 
6 × R-73 (AA-11) short range AAM, 30 km 
3 × Novator KS-172 AAM-L Indian/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer" 
Air to Surface Missiles:

2 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km 
2 × Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile, 130 km 
4 × Kh-35 Anti-Ship Missile, 130 km 
3 × PJ-10 Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile,300 km 
6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km 
6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missile, 30 km 
4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets) 
4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets) 
Bombs:

6 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs 
3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs 
8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs 
28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs 
32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs 
8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs 
The air to air version of the bahmos will also be used on the MKI soon. 

As you can see again, there is no comparison. So the next time you say that the jf-17 can shoot down the MKI with BVR missiles, prove it. 

4) The phalcon can jam and almost render the saab system useless, i will post you the links soon for that so that you cant argue . You can also read about the phalcon anywhere to understand the true strength of this amazing awacs, the saab system is not even close. 

5)LOL the f-16 in the PAF are their best aircrafts by far and almost double thee cost of the jf-17, im pretty sure in the event of a war, PAF would want to spend most of its resources protecting the f-16 when they are facing the IAF. Loosing 2 jf-17 is still better than loosing 1 f-16 lol. The f-16 are proven and deadly asset to the PAF and are truly aircraft that the IAF needs to think about specially the new ones that the PAF are getting which i think are block 52. Buddy the JF-17 is economical replacement for the PAFs mirage 3 and f7 . So please again dont compare it with the MKI which is high end aircraft and the best at what it does. And ya if you think what i said was funny, continue to laugh because thats what i am doing right now at your comments lol Please base you comments on fact not just big sounding words like bvr, awacs, tvc lol 
Feel free to argue again and try to read this whole post before replying lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

Sapper said:


> Meanwhile ... Su30 will stand like empire state building
> Dear, I know Su30 has a great Radar, much better than that of any possible upgrade of F16s, FC20s and JF17s of PAF in near future, but do remember that F-16 has 1.2~2m2 radar cross section as compared to 10~15m2 of Su30s.
> 
> If the RCS of Su30 is reduced by 2~3 TIMES, then the excellent radar it possesses will be a great threat to its adversaries ... while in current specifications, an F16E (UAE not Pakistan) will detect Su30 some 50 miles before Su30 manages to get a lock on Viper. While Pakistani Vipers and Indian Su30s will be almost evenly matched against each other (minus BVR missile and ECM/EECM comparison). JF17's might be a bit inferior to F16-B52, so it will be a bit on losing side, but we still don't know the ACTUAL details of JF17's RCS or its radar (even if it is KLJ10).
> 
> If Su30 manages to get to WVR, it will really be a formidable enemy with its excellent sustained turn rate, excellent TWR, great thrust vectoring and marvelous post stall maneuvering, but at that time, the situation of fighting over friendly or enemy territory will be the deciding factor. If fighting over friendly skies, Su30 will have chance to kill and survive, on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none.
> 
> Regards,
> Sapper




This is the funniet comment by far lol ya your right sapper the JF-17 is sooo good that it will shoot down every jet in the IAF and come back safely where else the MKI will be shot down before it even enter Pakistani airspace by an F-7 lol Please base your comments on reality not on your dreams lol


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> 2) just by having a huge rcs it does not mean its easy to shoot down the MKI. LOL buddy i respect the fact that you like the JF-17, even i do, its a nice aircraft but that does not mean it can go and shoot down as aircraft that is way more advanced than it just because it has a huge rcs, lol there is way more to shooting down an aircraft than just seeing it on your radar because of it rcs. *And if you know anything about the MKI, it is meant to give of a huge rcs to almost intimidate the opponent, it is not trying to be stealth aircraft unlike western jets. *


Now that is an outright silly statement. By that argument, air forces worldwide would be clamoring to either build or buy the largest aircrafts they could. By that argument, why did we bother with our 'stealth' aircrafts? Why not just send up B-52s and any potential enemy would run the moment they had a gander at their radar scopes? Please refrain from making statements like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> Now that is an outright silly statement. By that argument, air forces worldwide would be clamoring to either build or buy the largest aircrafts they could. By that argument, why did we bother with our 'stealth' aircrafts? Why not just send up B-52s and any potential enemy would run the moment they had a gander at their radar scopes? Please refrain from making statements like this.




Gambit i respect your argument and i agree also but i think you got me wrong, what i meant to say is that the MKI does not try for stealth as its not meant to be a stealth aircraft unlike the f-22 or jsf. The mki just like other Russian fighters till now relies on agility and firepower to provide itself with that sting it needs. Instead of stealth, the MKI uses a great radar, superior maneuverability ability and deadly firepower to get its point across. Not every aircraft plans to be be stealthy. I hope you understood my point now.


----------



## deep.ocean

gambit said:


> Now that is an outright silly statement. By that argument, air forces worldwide would be clamoring to either build or buy the largest aircrafts they could. By that argument, why did we bother with our 'stealth' aircrafts? Why not just send up B-52s and any potential enemy would run the moment they had a gander at their radar scopes? Please refrain from making statements like this.



What silly statement? this whole thread is looking silly to me, we are comparing a 3.5th gen plane with 4.5th gen plane, while their roles are totally different. You can look Su 30 from a distance of 300 or 500 KMs but point is that what else you can do instead of only watching it. You can not dare to go near of Su-30, it would be like suicide.. You need long range BVR missiles that should be used before Su-30 locks on you... I suspect whether JF-17 can reach any near to MKI with in 100 KMs range... 

off-topic but I think Mig-21-Bison will do most of the kills in near future due its Smaller RCS and good BVR capabilities.. So you guys need to compare how JF-17 will counter Mig-21 Bison supported by Phalcon...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

deep.ocean said:


> What silly statement? this whole thread is looking silly to me, we are comparing a 3.5th gen plane with 4.5th gen plane, while their roles are totally different. You can look Su 30 from a distance of 300 or 500 KMs but point is that what else you can do instead of only watching it. You can not dare to go near of Su-30, it would be like suicide.. You need long range BVR missiles that should be used before Su-30 locks on you... I suspect whether JF-17 can reach any near to MKI with in 100 KMs range...
> 
> off-topic but I think Mig-21-Bison will do most of the kills in near future due its Smaller RCS and good BVR capabilities.. So you guys need to compare how JF-17 will counter Mig-21 Bison supported by Phalcon...



get a grip and while i certainly would not want to comment unnecessarily on your rant, Is JF-17 a 3.5th generation according to you? Where did you get those facts.....let be guess BR.


----------



## deep.ocean

IceCold said:


> get a grip and while i certainly would not want to comment unnecessarily on your rant, Is JF-17 a 3.5th generation according to you? Where did you get those facts.....let be guess BR.



Sorry for my rant, but i found some comments on f16.net and world affair board..
plz visit these forums...


----------



## desiman

deep.ocean said:


> What silly statement? this whole thread is looking silly to me, we are comparing a 3.5th gen plane with 4.5th gen plane, while their roles are totally different. You can look Su 30 from a distance of 300 or 500 KMs but point is that what else you can do instead of only watching it. You can not dare to go near of Su-30, it would be like suicide.. You need long range BVR missiles that should be used before Su-30 locks on you... I suspect whether JF-17 can reach any near to MKI with in 100 KMs range...
> 
> off-topic but I think Mig-21-Bison will do most of the kills in near future due its Smaller RCS and good BVR capabilities.. So you guys need to compare how JF-17 will counter Mig-21 Bison supported by Phalcon...



lol Nice try deep ocean but i have tried to show them the reality and its not working lol i dont know why no one can just accept the fact that there is no competition in any way between the MKI and the jf-17 and just close this thread lol


----------



## Sapper

desidog said:


> This is the funniet comment by far lol ya your right sapper the JF-17 is sooo good that it will shoot down every jet in the IAF and come back safely where else the MKI will be shot down before it even enter Pakistani airspace by an F-7 lol Please base your comments on reality not on your dreams lol



OMG ... did you even READ my message ... i said JF17 will be on the losing side ...
but gave some FACTS about the latest generation of F16s that will be able to match Su30's radar detection advantage, but still may lack the superior maneuvering of Su30 in WVR.

Read my post clearly ... and try to understand what is written in it ... i hope its not beyond your comprehension. For ease ... i am copy pasting my OPINION in this post once again


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper View Post
Meanwhile ... Su30 will stand like empire state building
Dear, I know Su30 has a great Radar, much better than that of any possible upgrade of F16s, FC20s and JF17s of PAF in near future, but do remember that F-16 has 1.2~2m2 radar cross section as compared to 10~15m2 of Su30s.

If the RCS of Su30 is reduced by 2~3 TIMES, then the excellent radar it possesses will be a great threat to its adversaries ... while in current specifications, an F16E (UAE not Pakistan) will detect Su30 some 50 miles before Su30 manages to get a lock on Viper. While Pakistani Vipers and Indian Su30s will be almost evenly matched against each other (minus BVR missile and ECM/EECM comparison). JF17's might be a bit inferior to F16-B52, so it will be a bit on losing side, but we still don't know the ACTUAL details of JF17's RCS or its radar (even if it is KLJ10).

If Su30 manages to get to WVR, it will really be a formidable enemy with its excellent sustained turn rate, excellent TWR, great thrust vectoring and marvelous post stall maneuvering, but at that time, the situation of fighting over friendly or enemy territory will be the deciding factor. If fighting over friendly skies, Su30 will have chance to kill and survive, on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none.

Regards,
Sapper

try to stick to what i have said ... I never said JF17 could kill everything in IAF nor did i imply that f-7 will be able to bring down Su30s.
Please do remember that my comment "on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none." is because of excellent Air defence SAM systems employed by both nations and not due to the capabilities of Mig-21 CAPs.


----------



## deep.ocean

desidog said:


> lol Nice try deep ocean but i have tried to show them the reality and its not working lol i dont know why no one can just accept the fact that there is no competition in any way between the MKI and the jf-17 and just close this thread lol



no-one can do anything.. its called "blind faith"


----------



## desiman

Sapper said:


> OMG ... did you even READ my message ... i said JF17 will be on the losing side ...
> but gave some FACTS about the latest generation of F16s that will be able to match Su30's radar detection advantage, but still may lack the superior maneuvering of Su30 in WVR.
> 
> Read my post clearly ... and try to understand what is written in it ... i hope its not beyond your comprehension. For ease ... i am copy pasting my OPINION in this post once again
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Sapper View Post
> Meanwhile ... Su30 will stand like empire state building
> Dear, I know Su30 has a great Radar, much better than that of any possible upgrade of F16s, FC20s and JF17s of PAF in near future, but do remember that F-16 has 1.2~2m2 radar cross section as compared to 10~15m2 of Su30s.
> 
> If the RCS of Su30 is reduced by 2~3 TIMES, then the excellent radar it possesses will be a great threat to its adversaries ... while in current specifications, an F16E (UAE not Pakistan) will detect Su30 some 50 miles before Su30 manages to get a lock on Viper. While Pakistani Vipers and Indian Su30s will be almost evenly matched against each other (minus BVR missile and ECM/EECM comparison). JF17's might be a bit inferior to F16-B52, so it will be a bit on losing side, but we still don't know the ACTUAL details of JF17's RCS or its radar (even if it is KLJ10).
> 
> If Su30 manages to get to WVR, it will really be a formidable enemy with its excellent sustained turn rate, excellent TWR, great thrust vectoring and marvelous post stall maneuvering, but at that time, the situation of fighting over friendly or enemy territory will be the deciding factor. If fighting over friendly skies, Su30 will have chance to kill and survive, on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none.
> 
> Regards,
> Sapper
> 
> try to stick to what i have said ... I never said JF17 could kill everything in IAF nor did i imply that f-7 will be able to bring down Su30s.
> Please do remember that my comment "on the other hand, over hostile skies, the possibility to KILL and return safely is next to none." is because of excellent Air defence SAM systems employed by both nations and not due to the capabilities of Mig-21 CAPs.




hmmm i am sry if i read you post differently before that would be my bad but i dont agree with your statement that the MKI wont be able to come bck from enemy airspace. SAM systems have a celing that they cam aim under and the MKI can easily fly over these celings and still carry out its misisons easily. Correct me if i am wrong again sorry for the misunderstanding im at work lol


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> Gambit i respect your argument and i agree also but i think you got me wrong, *what i meant to say is that the MKI does not try for stealth as its not meant to be a stealth aircraft* unlike the f-22 or jsf. The mki just like other Russian fighters till now relies on agility and firepower to provide itself with that sting it needs. Instead of stealth, the MKI uses a great radar, superior maneuverability ability and deadly firepower to get its point across. Not every aircraft plans to be be stealthy. I hope you understood my point now.


What you said was...


> ...huge rcs to almost intimidate the opponent...


Which is utterly wrong. The Su-30's RCS is the result of its design, not of its designer's intention. No one is going to be intimidated by a large echo on his scope.


----------



## gambit

deep.ocean said:


> What silly statement? this whole thread is looking silly to me, we are comparing a 3.5th gen plane with 4.5th gen plane, while their roles are totally different. *You can look Su 30 from a distance of 300 or 500 KMs but point is that what else you can do instead of only watching it. You can not dare to go near of Su-30, it would be like suicide..* You need long range BVR missiles that should be used before Su-30 locks on you... I suspect whether JF-17 can reach any near to MKI with in 100 KMs range...
> 
> off-topic but I think Mig-21-Bison will do most of the kills in near future due its Smaller RCS and good BVR capabilities.. So you guys need to compare how JF-17 will counter Mig-21 Bison supported by Phalcon...


More silliness...If I can see you *BEFORE* you can see me, and if I know you have a weapons reach excess of mine, since you cannot see me, what is to prevent me from getting behind you where your radar does not reach? Seeing the enemy and knowing his movements without him knowing yours and you have the advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## deep.ocean

gambit said:


> More silliness...If I can see you *BEFORE* you can see me, and if I know you have a weapons reach excess of mine, since you cannot see me, what is to prevent me from getting behind you where your radar does not reach? Seeing the enemy and knowing his movements without him knowing yours and you have the advantage.



Sorry I am not getting your point.. as my opinion Su30 will not be flying alone.. There would be overall support provided by Phalcon and Sattellites.. so there would no place to play hide and seek..


----------



## IceCold

deep.ocean said:


> Sorry for my rant, but i found some comments on f16.net and world affair board..
> plz visit these forums...



Just because you found some comments on F-16.net claiming JF-17 a low end 3.5th generation jet, you by default took them right and posted here. Seriously you are embarrassing yourself so stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> What you said was...Which is utterly wrong. The Su-30's RCS is the result of its design, not of its designer's intention. No one is going to be intimidated by a large echo on his scope.



Again your getting me wrong, i know that its rcs is due to its design but again they never tried to make the su-30 a stealth aircraft in its design state itself. As per Russian requirements that jet was more focused on firepower and agility than stealth which itself is not dependable and cost too much. Having an aircraft that relies heavily on stealth and has to remain in shop for 90% of the time just like the f22 is not what the Russian aimed for. That is being done on the pakfa. And by your point that no one is going to be intimidated by su-30 on their radar lol i hope your joking because if i am in a F-7 or mirage 3 with no bvr or any comparable weapon to a su-30 and i see an MKI on my radar, i would run for my life lol because if you dont get intimidated by a MKI lol i can only call that overconfident 
feel free to disagree, again dont mean to insult you just trying to get my point across

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Is it fair to compare a Su30mki ( Fully evolved flanker with over 1000 in service worldwide) 

against a 

JF17 new mid range low cost fighter yet to pass operational clearance. 

Thunder carries a chinease mechancial radar KLJ 7 the SU30 mki carries a PESA bars radar.A Pesa radar is currently being worked on by china to fit future PLAAF fighters. 

Thunder carries a 3rd generation engine the russian RD93 which powered the 1980s built mig29. The mki is powered by a 4th generation TVC engine. Again a new concept in AFL31. 

Thunder only carries chinease weapons like the new SD10 BVR yet untested. The Russian fighter has r77 r27 vympel bvr missles which have seen a decade of service. 

The mki is packed with israeli jammers and french avionics to give the mki the edge over all other flankers as oppose Thunder which has no western influence as yet. 

Finally the IAF already has 6 sqds of mki in service with 100+ planes. Already thanks to PAK FA FGFA 5th generation work the new ibris AESA radar and a ramjet version of R77 bvr missle aong with new smart skins to reduce RCS are to be added to MKI in next few years 

 Versis 

PAF that have 8 prototypes of the thunder stil at intial operational clearance stage. 

adding engines radars from a western nation is many years away .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

The link below gives you some of the highly advanced features of the mki 

The shear number of missles and massive tracking range of its pesa radar is a mind boggle 

deviantART Shop: Sukhoi Su-30 MKI

Also check out IAF engineering plans to increase composites to reduce weight and RCS on future variants using TEJAS tech programme skills

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Storm Force said:


> The link below gives you some of the highly advanced features of the mki
> 
> The shear number of missles and massive tracking range of its pesa radar is a mind boggle
> 
> deviantART Shop: Sukhoi Su-30 MKI
> 
> *Also check out IAF engineering plans to increase composites to reduce weight and RCS on future variants using TEJAS tech programme skills*



i hope this happens fast as it surely will ruine a fine plane in there arsenal,,, 
DRDO   

regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## batmannow

6 sqdns of MKIs , can finish PAKISTAN?
THIS thrd , Would be better, if we compare "FLYING COFINS" VS "THUNDER"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

Storm Force said:


> The link below gives you some of the highly advanced features of the mki
> 
> The shear number of missles and massive tracking range of its pesa radar is a mind boggle
> 
> deviantART Shop: Sukhoi Su-30 MKI
> 
> Also check out IAF engineering plans to increase composites to reduce weight and RCS on future variants using TEJAS tech programme skills



very nice post Storm Force, i hope people who think that the JF-17 can match up to the MKI read this post first lol This thread is a real joke, like comparing a Fiat to a Ferrari lol Sorry its blunt but thats the truth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

arsalanaslam123 said:


> i hope this happens fast as it surely will ruine a fine plane in there arsenal,,,
> DRDO
> 
> regards!



Lol now that is what you call stupid lol Do you even have any idea what the LCA is capable of lol The LCA program has been totally developed from 0 by India alone not like the JF-17 which was made by China ( which itself is copied from a previously failed designs of which i will give you more info later on ). China made 90% of the aircraft with pakistani's scientist only contributing a small amount or just finance. The LCA has totally been designed and tested by the DRDO and is a classified 4.5 generation aircraft and also uses composite material. It has completed over 530 hours of testing with over 1000 test flights. LOL the JF-17 was manufactured in China totally with minimal Pakistani involvement and when compared to the amount of work done on the LCA, it is a joke lol So please dont ever criticize the DRDO before you actually know what it is capable off. We dont just test something one day and then start producing it the other day like other people lol Sorry if this is offensive to you but you again made the post personal by criticizing the DRDO so a suitable answer had to be given

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

desidog said:


> Lol now that is what you call stupid lol Do you even have any idea what the LCA is capable of lol The LCA program has been totally developed from 0 by India alone not like the JF-17 which was made by China ( which itself is copied from a previously failed designs of which i will give you more info later on ). China made 90% of the aircraft with pakistani's scientist only contributing a small amount or just finance. The LCA has totally been designed and tested by the DRDO and is a classified 4.5 generation aircraft and also uses composite material. It has completed over 530 hours of testing with over 1000 test flights. LOL the JF-17 was manufactured in China totally with minimal Pakistani involvement and when compared to the amount of work done on the LCA, it is a joke lol So please dont ever criticize the DRDO before you actually know what it is capable off. We dont just test something one day and then start producing it the other day like other people lol Sorry if this is offensive to you but you again made the post personal by criticizing the DRDO so a suitable answer had to be given



Brother let me give you a good piece of advice; before making a fool out of yourself go over this entire thread and look at the posts of senior members. Than go through the thread LCA vs Thunder, you will get your answer. Try refutting what the senior members have said, making blind statements like these is not doing you any good because i personally dont have the patience to go over topics that have been discussed to death. I hope you get my point


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> Again your getting me wrong, i know that its rcs is due to its design but again they never tried to make the su-30 a stealth aircraft in its design state itself.


The Su-30 is not low observable because the Russians currently *CANNOT* design and produce such an aircraft. To say the Russians 'never tried' imply they could, which is not true.



desidog said:


> As per Russian requirements that jet was more focused on firepower and agility than *stealth which itself is not dependable* and cost too much.


Really? Care to show the readership which points in the radar low observability, aka 'clutter' region, that *YOU* deemed to be unreliable?



desidog said:


> Having an aircraft that relies heavily on stealth and has to *remain in shop for 90% of the time just like the f22* is not what the Russian aimed for. That is being done on the pakfa.


This is peace time, which many people who are desperate in trying to downplay the threats posed by US 'stealth' aircrafts often confused with war time. In peace time operations, many safety and equipment longevity procedures and programs are strictly observed so that when the need arises -- war -- we will have warriors and their equipments trained just short of full combat capabilities.



desidog said:


> And by your point that no one is going to be intimidated by su-30 on their radar lol i hope your joking because if i am in a F-7 or mirage 3 with no bvr or any comparable weapon to a su-30 and i see an MKI on my radar, *i would run for my life* lol because if you dont get intimidated by a MKI lol i can only call that overconfident
> feel free to disagree, again dont mean to insult you just trying to get my point across


If that is from personal experience I feel sorry for whatever air force you are serving or have served. You watched too many B-rated war movies where apparently the radar scope can inform the pilot exactly what lies beyond their visual capabilities. I can tell you from personal experience that nothing comes even halfway close to your fantasy. The most anyone can *INFER* from a radar display as to what lies beyond is based upon target altitude, speed and aspect angle, not the size of the return. The US Navy is transitioning to an all F-18 carrier air wing. Between an EF-18 and a ground strike configured F-18, there will be almost no discernable RCS differences between them. The point here is that the size of the radar return is almost irrelevant unless it is accompanied with certain target flight characteristics that is consistent with a type of aircraft. So if an Su-30 is flying at the same at the same speed, altitude and heading as the giant C-5, it would be reasonable to assume that there are two transports of different sizes, not a fighter and a transport. Now if both radar returns are flying at Mach 2 when it is known that a certain RCS figure is consistent with a slow transport, then either the enemy has a new weapon in the area or that one's own radar is on the fritz.

Your comment remain silly in that somehow the size of a radar return is indicative of a specific aircraft and that alone would be able to intimidate an opponent into avoiding a fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## desiman

notorious_eagle said:


> Brother let me give you a good piece of advice; before making a fool out of yourself go over this entire thread and look at the posts of senior members. Than go through the thread LCA vs Thunder, you will get your answer. Try refutting what the senior members have said, making blind statements like these is not doing you any good because i personally dont have the patience to go over topics that have been discussed to death. I hope you get my point



Lol ok ill try this once more, just because some senior members say something it does not make it right lol I am not going against them i have read all the threads and not one gives me one good reason why the JF-17 is being rated so high, everyone just gives me wishlist that it will have this, it will have that but nothing concrete. I am again not saying that it is not a bad plane but its not NOTHING compared to the MKI no matter what anyone says lol give me facts not wishlist and dont give scenarios like the JF-17 will have AWACS coverage or it will see the MKI before it does lol. In regards to the LCA, this is not the thread to argue that but ill post some details on the LCA - General characteristics

Crew: 1 
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in) 
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) 
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in) 
Wing area: 38.4 m&#178; (413 ft&#178 
Empty weight: 5,500 kg (14,100 lb) 
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (20,700 lb (in fighter configuration)) 
Max takeoff weight: 12,500 kg[verification needed] (27,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 1&#215; General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan 
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf) 
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,100 lbf) 
Internal fuel capacity: 3000 liters 
External fuel capacity: 5&#215;800 liter tanks or 3&#215;1,200 liter tanks, totaling 4,000/3,600 liters 
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m 
Range: 3000 km (1,840 mi (without refueling)) 
Service ceiling: 15,950+ m (54,000 ft (engine re-igniter safely capable)) 
Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m&#178; (45.35 lb/ft&#178 
Thrust/weight: 1.02 
g limits : +8.5 g / 9g 
Armament


Guns: 1&#215; mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition. 
Hardpoints: 8 total: 1&#215; beneath the port-side intake trunk, 6&#215; under-wing, and 1&#215; under-fuselage with a capacity of >4000 kg external fuel and ordnance, 
Missiles:

air-to-air missiles: 
Astra BVRAAM 
Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: AA-12 Adder) 
Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name: AA-11 Archer) 
Air-to-surface missiles: 
Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile 
Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile 
Anti-ship missile 
Kh-35 
Kh-31 
Bombs:

KAB-1500L laser guided bombs 
FAB-500T dumb bombs 
OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs 
OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs 
RBK-500 cluster bombs 
Avionics
EL/M-2052 AESA radar


Now compare this with the JF-17 and tell me how it even better than the LCA let alone the MKI lol. Base your arguments on facts and real figures. Brother i have not against you but before calling someone else a fool please check your own facts and talk reality and dont loose sight of facts over patriotism. The JF-17 is a great jet and an achievement of the PAF but again do not start comparing it with everything in the sky before you base that on facts and not future wishlist. I hope you get my point now and dont take it personally


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> The Su-30 is not low observable because the Russians currently *CANNOT* design and produce such an aircraft. To say the Russians 'never tried' imply they could, which is not true.
> 
> Really? Care to show the readership which points in the radar low observability, aka 'clutter' region, that *YOU* deemed to be unreliable?
> 
> This is peace time, which many people who are desperate in trying to downplay the threats posed by US 'stealth' aircrafts often confused with war time. In peace time operations, many safety and equipment longevity procedures and programs are strictly observed so that when the need arises -- war -- we will have warriors and their equipments trained just short of full combat capabilities.
> 
> If that is from personal experience I feel sorry for whatever air force you are serving or have served. You watched too many B-rated war movies where apparently the radar scope can inform the pilot exactly what lies beyond their visual capabilities. I can tell you from personal experience that nothing comes even halfway close to your fantasy. The most anyone can *INFER* from a radar display as to what lies beyond is based upon target altitude, speed and aspect angle, not the size of the return. The US Navy is transitioning to an all F-18 carrier air wing. Between an EF-18 and a ground strike configured F-18, there will be almost no discernable RCS differences between them. The point here is that the size of the radar return is almost irrelevant unless it is accompanied with certain target flight characteristics that is consistent with a type of aircraft. So if an Su-30 is flying at the same at the same speed, altitude and heading as the giant C-5, it would be reasonable to assume that there are two transports of different sizes, not a fighter and a transport. Now if both radar returns are flying at Mach 2 when it is known that a certain RCS figure is consistent with a slow transport, then either the enemy has a new weapon in the area or that one's own radar is on the fritz.
> 
> Your comment remain silly in that somehow the size of a radar return is indicative of a specific aircraft and that alone would be able to intimidate an opponent into avoiding a fight.



Lol and now to you gambit, it looks like your taking all this very personally but thats fine. 
1) Only USA currently operates jets that claim to be truly stealth aircraft. The Russians have already built and tested the su-47 which has reduced RCS and are almost in the final stages of design of the PAKFA which will be true "Stealth aircraft" , if you know anything about the history of aviation you would know how USA and Russia have followed different paths when its comes to jets. Stealth is still a very much debatable quality of an aircraft because of the cost attached and the actual effectiveness of it. But i wont debate that here as its not a thread about that. I can give you hard facts also but then my replies would be as long as essays lol 

2)If you have read other thread you would know about the huge maintenance cost of "Stealth" aircraft, which is one of the huge reasons that the F-22 is not deployed anywhere in the world. I will post you articles from very credible sources telling you about the cost attached to these aircraft and how they are 10 times that of normal aircrafts. Being so expensive and difficult to maintain the f-22is to sensitive to be used in even Iraq because losing a jet that cost so much wont be very fun lol Being a military professional correct me if i am wrong, yourself i hope you know that. Peace time or not all aircraft have to meet a certain availability criteria as per USA standards and currently the F-22 is not even close to the time it needs to spend in the air. I can again post many articles and videos but that again would make this very long but if anyone wants more details please feel free to msg me anytime lol. 

3) LOL i dont watch any b-grade movies and i hope you are not also because i guess you dint understand that when i said that if a jet sees the MKI on its radar it should run i was being sarcastic lol. Thanks for educating me but i know enough to know what i am saying. My point was that by comparing the JF-17 to a MKI you are truly underestimating the MKI and if ever i am in a JF-17 or F-7 or mirage 3 (jets that PAF has), and i get into a dogfight or a BVR fight with a suspected MKI the chances for a win for anyone of the PAF jets is slim to none. 

My comments aren&#8217;t silly its yours that are not backed on any logic please give me facts about the JF-17 about how its better or even in the same league at a MKI only then i can agree which i am really waiting for. Till now I have not seen even one reason why the JF-17 wont survive let alone beat the MKI lol Again refrain from making personal comments and stick to the topic.


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> Lol and now to you gambit, it looks like your taking all this very personally but thats fine.


Now why would you say that? Do not like a challenge to your claim?



desidog said:


> 1) Only USA currently operates jets that claim to be truly stealth aircraft. The Russians have already built and tested the su-47 which has reduced RCS and are almost in the final stages of design of the PAKFA which will be true "Stealth aircraft" ,...


The PAKFA seems to be perpetually 'in the final stages' year after year. The Russians claimed the Su-47's RCS to be .3 m2, below the F-16, which I doubt. The F-117's RCS is estimated to be between .001-0.0001 m2. These are frontal RCS figures. Until the Russians have at the least a flying version of the F-117, not necessarily a deployable squadron, I would not put too much stock into what the Russians claim about the PAKFA.



desidog said:


> ...if you know anything about the history of aviation you would know how USA and Russia have followed different paths when its comes to jets.


Yes...The Soviets/Russians have a lower technology level than we do.



desidog said:


> Stealth is still a very much *debatable* quality of an aircraft because of the cost attached and the actual *effectiveness of it*. But i wont debate that here as its not a thread about that.


Really? Once again you avoided the question of presenting your arguments on the efficacy of 'stealth'. The Iraqi military, who used Soviet equipments, would certain disagree with you. Cost? Losing a war is costlier than building a military capable of winning a war.



desidog said:


> I can give you hard facts also but then my replies would be as long as essays lol


I suggest you read up on some of my explanations and debunkings of Soviet/Russian and Chinese junks here.



desidog said:


> 2)If you have read other thread you would know about the huge maintenance cost of "Stealth" aircraft, which is one of the huge reasons that the F-22 is not deployed anywhere in the world. I will post you articles from very credible sources telling you about the cost attached to these aircraft and how they are 10 times that or normal aircrafts. Being a military professional yourself i hope you know that. Peace time or not all aircraft have to meet a certain availability criteria as per USA standards and currently the F-22 is not even close to the time it needs to spend in the air. I can again post many articles and videos but that again would make this very long but if anyone wants more details please feel free to msg me anytime lol.


I read enough of those news reports about maintenance requirements and cost of the current generation of US VLO aircrafts. Maintenance cost in no way affect the behavior of radar waves on a body and the efficacy of a design in combat. This is a red herring argument.



desidog said:


> 3) LOL i dont watch any b-grade movies and i hope you are not also because i guess you dint understand that when i said that if a jet sees the MKI on its radar it should run i was being sarcastic lol. Thanks for educating me but *i know enough to know what i am saying.*


I doubt that.



desidog said:


> My point was that by comparing the JF-17 to a MKI you are truly underestimating the MKI and if ever i am in a JF-17 or F-7 or mirage 3 (jets that PAF has), and i get into a dogfight or a BVR fight with a suspected MKI the chances for a win for anyone of the PAF jets is slim to none.


I am not comparing Chinese junks to Russian junks. I have ten years of avionics in the USAF, including actual testings of Soviet avionics. I also have nearly ten years of weapons testing and development in my civilian life. You tread into my area of experience when you make the silly claim that the Su-30's RCS was for intimidation purposes. No aircraft is ever designed to intentionally emphasize its RCS. The truth is that though opponents may be at parity with each other, neither would dare risk losing a fight by engaging each other in the WVR regime. So even if the JF-17 is inferior to the Su-30 in many aspects, the Su-30 pilot would not engage a pair of JF-17s unless he is mutually supported via numerical superiority. He would not hope that his large RCS on the JF-17's scopes would frighten off the JF-17's pilots. If the Su-30 pilot realized that he is outnumbered, the wiser thing for him to do is go home or call for assistance *BEFORE* taking on the fight. A pair of JF-17s in a 2km spread would be lethal for a lone Su-30 in a WVR engagement. Once the Su-30 pilot is busy with a JF-17, he would be on a the receiving end of heat seeker from the other JF-17, no matter how capable is his aircraft.

There is something called a 'radar resolution cell' and I made a couple comments about it before here...

Definition: radar resolution cell


> *radar resolution cell*: The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar *cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell*.


A pair of JF-17s could be in a tight enough formation that both would show up as a single target on the Su-30's radar scope *IF* the Su-30's radar beam is broader than the JF-17s' formation, and keep in mind that this is a wave that spread with distance known as 'beam dispersal'...

RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS


> As pulses travel away from the antenna, the beam takes on a cone-like appearance and expands in all directions. This expansion or beam broadening increases pulse volume, resulting in decreased signal strength (fig. 2-11). Distant targets appear distorted, in fact, they may not be seen at all. Beam broadening also causes "partial beam filling," which implies that distant targets occupy proportionally less of an expanded beam. Thus, the *true characteristics of a target may be hidden or altered during display*.


A flight of Su-30s could be seriously outnumbered and they would not even know it until too late. There are proven tactics that exploit weaknesses inherent in everything that would allow a seemingly inferior foe to win. The Su-30's larger RCS is a liability, not an asset as you naively believed and proposed here.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Sapper

Hi gambit,

1. Can Su30 (or any aircraft) use its radar to full potential (seek,lock,fire) while its jammer is in jamming mode ?

2. How jammers work, especially in the context that Su30 utilizes most modern Israeli jammers.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> Now why would you say that? Do not like a challenge to your claim?
> 
> The PAKFA seems to be perpetually 'in the final stages' year after year. The Russians claimed the Su-47's RCS to be .3 m2, below the F-16, which I doubt. The F-117's RCS is estimated to be between .001-0.0001 m2. These are frontal RCS figures. Until the Russians have at the least a flying version of the F-117, not necessarily a deployable squadron, I would not put too much stock into what the Russians claim about the PAKFA.
> 
> Yes...The Soviets/Russians have a lower technology level than we do.
> 
> Really? Once again you avoided the question of presenting your arguments on the efficacy of 'stealth'. The Iraqi military, who used Soviet equipments, would certain disagree with you. Cost? Losing a war is costlier than building a military capable of winning a war.
> 
> I suggest you read up on some of my explanations and debunkings of Soviet/Russian and Chinese junks here.
> 
> I read enough of those news reports about maintenance requirements and cost of the current generation of US VLO aircrafts. Maintenance cost in no way affect the behavior of radar waves on a body and the efficacy of a design in combat. This is a red herring argument.
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> I am not comparing Chinese junks to Russian junks. I have ten years of avionics in the USAF, including actual testings of Soviet avionics. I also have nearly ten years of weapons testing and development in my civilian life. You tread into my area of experience when you make the silly claim that the Su-30's RCS was for intimidation purposes. No aircraft is ever designed to intentionally emphasize its RCS. The truth is that though opponents may be at parity with each other, neither would dare risk losing a fight by engaging each other in the WVR regime. So even if the JF-17 is inferior to the Su-30 in many aspects, the Su-30 pilot would not engage a pair of JF-17s unless he is mutually supported via numerical superiority. He would not hope that his large RCS on the JF-17's scopes would frighten off the JF-17's pilots. If the Su-30 pilot realized that he is outnumbered, the wiser thing for him to do is go home or call for assistance *BEFORE* taking on the fight. A pair of JF-17s in a 2km spread would be lethal for a lone Su-30 in a WVR engagement. Once the Su-30 pilot is busy with a JF-17, he would be on a the receiving end of heat seeker from the other JF-17, no matter how capable is his aircraft.
> 
> There is something called a 'radar resolution cell' and I made a couple comments about it before here...
> 
> Definition: radar resolution cell
> 
> A pair of JF-17s could be in a tight enough formation that both would show up as a single target on the Su-30's radar scope *IF* the Su-30's radar beam is broader than the JF-17s' formation, and keep in mind that this is a wave that spread with distance known as 'beam dispersal'...
> 
> RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS
> 
> A flight of Su-30s could be seriously outnumbered and they would not even know it until too late. There are proven tactics that exploit weaknesses inherent in everything that would allow a seemingly inferior foe to win. The Su-30's larger RCS is a liability, not an asset as you naively believed and proposed here.



Gambit your experience is truly overwhelming and i respect that. You do make a good point when it comes to radar resolution cells and 2 JF-17 sticking together but here we are comparing one jf-17 to one su-30 MKI, if there are 2 JF-17 then there will be 2 su-30's. Keep in mind that India will be inducting more SU-30MKI that the amount of JF-17 Pakistan will have. It is best to compare them one on one and not use scenarios because then i can also give scenarios where the MKI will have the upper hand no matter what. 

Now in regards to Russian tech, i never said and you can have a look at my post before, that Russian's have better tech, I have always said that Russia and USA have followed different paths when it comes to aviation tech. I would not like to quote my experience but I can easily say that you take on Russian tech is not right. Just by saying that Russian tech is not good wont be right. I do except that the Americans are easily the winners but the amount of resources available to them is far greater than the Soviets ever had. As the Russian make a resurgence now and with many high end projects coming to the table now, i am gussing the gap in tech will be filled soon enough. The PAKFA is in its last stages of design and the first prototype will role out early next year as confirmed by many newspapers and Russian news agencies. Even the project 1.27 fifth generation aircraft is within a couple of years of being completed. I really doubt the F-22 claims of 100:1 ratio and all that has been said about it. It is truly a magnificent jet with no comparison but it and most usa fighters have not been up against even comparable aircrafts till now so just plainly saying that they are better than Russian tech is not fair. Currently in the USA aresenal expect for the F-22 I dont see any other fighter jet that is any better than a su-30 or 35 or mig 35, but again the Americans are still far off and it will take sometime to catch up. The cost of stealth is debatable and i will not try to argue that because you can have different takes on it. I can just say that there are other ways to win a war than spending billions of dollars on one jet. When you say "junk" i really hope you are referring to Chinese tech and not russian because then you are wrong. The Chinese jets are basically copy's of other jets in the world which either they cannot afford or have sanctions against. The jf-17, j-10, j-11, j-7 are all copies of either Russian or western jets which i dont think even you are refute. I think this argument about Russian vs usa will go on forever, all i can say that is lets stick to the topic and compare the MKI with the JF-17(however stupid that is) and not loose sight of the topic. I respect your experience and the details you give are really nice, i can do that also but then the thread would get too technical and no one would understand anything but msg me personally anytime and i will bore you to death with all details possible lol  mate, im just here to have fun not start another cold war lol


----------



## Owais

desidog said:


> Gambit your experience is truly overwhelming and i respect that. You do make a good point when it comes to radar resolution cells and 2 JF-17 sticking together but here we are comparing *one jf-17 to one su-30 MKI*, if there are 2 JF-17 then there will be 2 su-30's.



Read the Topic name again! there is no 1 on 1 competition. the situation will be: 2-4 MKI(with migs or Mirage2000) intrude in Pakistani airspace which will be intercepted by 4-6 JF17 and 2-4 F16s. PAF will send more numbers of JF than incoming intruders. I always said that JF17 is an ADF (in its current configuration) and PAF will use FC20 and F16s for deep strike roles. comparing JF 1 on 1 with MKi is not fair as MKi have more AAM on its hardpoints so it can take more shots on JF and have better chances to win but that doesn't mean that MKi is invincible in front of JF17


----------



## desiman

Owais said:


> Read the Topic name again! there is no 1 on 1 competition. the situation will be: 2-4 MKI(with migs or Mirage2000) intrude in Pakistani airspace which will be intercepted by 4-6 JF17 and 2-4 F16s. PAF will send more numbers of JF than incoming intruders. I always said that JF17 is an ADF (in its current configuration) and PAF will use FC20 and F16s for deep strike roles. comparing JF 1 on 1 with MKi is not fair as MKi have more AAM on its hardpoints so it can take more shots on JF and have better chances to win but that doesn't mean that MKi is invincible in front of JF17



lol the topic name is Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight, I dont see where it says that the JF-17 will have more numbers lol. Again scenarios which can go both ways, you cannot compare scenarios again because it does not make any sense, i can give you a scenario where 4 MKI vs 4 jf-17, tell me who will win, like this is stupid to compare using all these scenarios. The only way to compare is using one on one comparison because thats the most fair way of comparing. And as you said 1 vs 1 JF-17 has almost no chance then i guess we already have an answer about who is better but again the MKI has many more advantages over the JF-17 than just the number of hard points or missiles it uses you can read any one of my previous post for that.


----------



## Storm Force

Maybe the Thread should be retitled 

*PAF VERSIS SU30MKI IN A AIR FIGHT*

The reason i suggest this change is because the standard answer to taking on and defeating a su30mki seems to be 

_That the JF17 will out number the mki.. because the IAF will be over PAF air space. This means it will not be 1 versis 1 or 2 v 2

That PAF will give JF17 Awacs support. ToTAKE away MKI bars radar advantage
That JF17 wil be supported by F16/52. Added hi tech support like a force multiplier. _

Everybody is being very presumtious in this scenario. 

Firstly they assume somehow PAF will have more thunders then india,s 230 su30 mki ..

Secondly they seem to consider that IAF may not have awacs support in attack mode. 

That their will be no accompanying support fighter like mirage2000-5
0r mig29smt/k or even a MMRCA like F18 super hornet. 

The thread is it a little lopsided. 

PAF WILL have to consider alot more than just 230 mki in the near future if their is a full scale war from the IAF

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAFAce

Storm Force said:


> Firstly they assume somehow PAF will have more thunders then india,s 230 su30 mki ..


And you will be flying all 230 at once? I doubt it. You won't be flying more than a few formations at a time, especially since it takes upwards of 60 seconds between launches (Red Flag USA, something to do with Foreign Object Damage). Heck, since now you've moved 'em close to the border, stranded Su-30MKIs will litter the skies and PAF pilots may just have the time of their lives. That's not presumptuous, it's facts, straight from a USAF Colonel's mouth. In a game where split-seconds make all the difference, 60 seconds is decades.



> Secondly they seem to consider that IAF may not have awacs support in attack mode.


And do what with them. Can't bring them over Pakistani airspace, they'll get shot to hell. If they loiter within their own boundaries, close to us, we might just sneak by. So you'll keep them well back, so I don't know what you mean by "support in attack mode". 



> That their will be no accompanying support fighter like mirage2000-5 0r mig29smt/k or even a MMRCA like F18 super hornet.


Now you're talking. These aircraft the PAF would gladly take one-on-one if needed. Yes, even if we're talking the mighty F-18, PAF F-16 pilots would _pray_ for a dogfight. The JF-17, according to PAF pilots, is just as capable in the pit.



> PAF WILL have to consider alot more than just 230 mki in the near future if their is a full scale war from the IAF


Again, 230 Su-30MKIs will be a worry, but not all at once. And what of the Chinese border? will you leave it open? You need your aircraft spread in all directions, so the numerical superiority, relative to the PAF, is grossly inflated (much like the economy, I might add).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, what ticks me off is the fact that, for some reason, the the Su-30MKI is considered the heavy favourite in 1-vs-1 dogfight compared to any aircraft in the PAF inventory. We forget that the F-16 is the greatest conventional dogfighting aircraft every produce, and that the Cobra maneuver, the Super Cobra maneuver, the Hyper Cobra maneuver and whatever else the Russians invent, are useless in Air Combat (according to experts with big degrees and bigger books). I mean, two words defeat any Indian argument of Su-30MKI immortality, Red Flag!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## batmannow

PAFAce said:


> And you will be flying all 230 at once? I doubt it. You won't be flying more than a few formations at a time, especially since it takes upwards of 60 seconds between launches (Red Flag USA, something to do with Foreign Object Damage). Heck, since now you've moved 'em close to the border, stranded Su-30MKIs will litter the skies and PAF pilots may just have the time of their lives. That's not presumptuous, it's facts, straight from a USAF Colonel's mouth. In a game where split-seconds make all the difference, 60 seconds is decades.
> 
> 
> And do what with them. Can't bring them over Pakistani airspace, they'll get shot to hell. If they loiter within their own boundaries, close to us, we might just sneak by. So you'll keep them well back, so I don't know what you mean by "support in attack mode".
> 
> 
> Now you're talking. These aircraft the PAF would gladly take one-on-one if needed. Yes, even if we're talking the mighty F-18, PAF F-16 pilots would _pray_ for a dogfight. The JF-17, according to PAF pilots, is just as capable in the pit.
> 
> 
> Again, 230 Su-30MKIs will be a worry, but not all at once. And what of the Chinese border? will you leave it open? You need your aircraft spread in all directions, so the numerical superiority, relative to the PAF, is grossly inflated (much like the economy, I might add).
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, what ticks me off is the fact that, for some reason, the the Su-30MKI is considered the heavy favourite in 1-vs-1 dogfight compared to any aircraft in the PAF inventory. We forget that the F-16 is the greatest conventional dogfighting aircraft every produce, and that the Cobra maneuver, the Super Cobra maneuver, the Hyper Cobra maneuver and whatever else the Russians invent, are useless in Air Combat (according to experts with big degrees and bigger books). I mean, two words defeat any Indian argument of Su-30MKI immortality, Red Flag!



DEAR PAFAce;sir!
thanks for indepth, lock on!
HERE comes my, SALUTE for you!


----------



## PakShaheen79

desidog said:


> Lol now that is what you call stupid lol Do you even have any idea what the LCA is capable of lol The LCA program has been totally developed from 0 by India alone not like the JF-17 which was made by China ( which itself is copied from a previously failed designs of which i will give you more info later on ). China made 90% of the aircraft with pakistani's scientist only contributing a small amount or just finance. *The LCA has totally been designed and tested by the DRDO and is a classified 4.5 generation aircraft and also uses composite material.* It has completed over 530 hours of testing with over 1000 test flights. LOL the JF-17 was manufactured in China totally with minimal Pakistani involvement and when compared to the amount of work done on the LCA, it is a joke lol So please dont ever criticize the DRDO before you actually know what it is capable off. We dont just test something one day and then start producing it the other day like other people lol Sorry if this is offensive to you but you again made the post personal by criticizing the DRDO so a suitable answer had to be given



-Wing Design came from Italy 
-Engine is from US (future one will be build by France)
-Radar and Jammers are Israeli

If it is still all Indian design and tested... May god help DRDO guys.

Next, As i have said earlier why people are comparing Thunders with MKI. I don't think it was made to counter MKI at first place and not by taking one-on-one at least. Both belong to two different classes and have different roles.

Next, On a positive side Thunder will evolve further in future and MKI has adopted all the goodies which IAF wanted. Now PAF is in position to catch up with incorporating things like AESA, Advanced BVR AAM, IRST, HMD etc. I am not saying these thing will make one plane superior than other but it will increase the odds of win in air combat. 
-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> Gambit your experience is truly overwhelming and i respect that. You do make a good point when it comes to radar resolution cells and 2 JF-17 sticking together but here we are comparing one jf-17 to one su-30 MKI, if there are 2 JF-17 then there will be 2 su-30's. Keep in mind that *India will be inducting more SU-30MKI that the amount of JF-17 Pakistan will have*. It is best to compare them one on one and not use scenarios because then i can also give scenarios where the MKI will have the upper hand no matter what.


Even if India can have more Su-30 in inventory than Pakistan has for the JF-17, it does not translate to the same amount of flight capable aircrafts. Anyone who has any experience in any air force, and I have ten years in the USAF in actual flying squadrons, will know that it is extremely rare for any squadron to have %100 'code one' aircrafts. Most commanders would be thrilled to have around %90 'flight mission capable' (FMC) status and mid-80s is the acceptable median. This is not WW II where massed formations of bombers and fighters are the norm. But even if we use WW II as an example, a good example would be the Battle of Britain where the RAF was continually outnumbered but always managed to isolate enough German aircrafts and shot them down. That is how the air battlefield works. India cannot deploy overwhelming numbers at *EVERY* sortie. Not even US can and we had to rely on allies in Desert Storm for the air campaign. So even though Pakistan may be outnumbered on the ground, in the air, it will be up to how creative Pakistan's air commanders could be that may put a serious hurting on India's Su-30s. For that subject I will leave it up to the Pakistanis here to debate on how good are their air generals.



desidog said:


> Now in regards to Russian tech, i never said and you can have a look at my post before, that Russian's have better tech, I have always said that Russia and USA have followed different paths when it comes to aviation tech. I would not like to quote my experience but I can easily say that you take on Russian tech is not right. Just by saying that Russian tech is not good wont be right. I do except that the Americans are easily the winners but the amount of resources available to them is far greater than the Soviets ever had. As the Russian make a resurgence now and with many high end projects coming to the table now, i am gussing the gap in tech will be filled soon enough. The PAKFA is in its last stages of design and the first prototype will role out early next year as confirmed by many newspapers and Russian news agencies. Even the project 1.27 fifth generation aircraft is within a couple of years of being completed.


The Soviets/Russians have no lack of resources, especially intellectual. It was a Russian mathematician, Petr Umfimtsev, who came up with the predictive behavioral equations of a wave upon impact of a surface. The Soviets ignored his creation but we did not. The Soviets/Russians are behind US solely because of their societal and institutional failings, not for lack of resources. If Russia is to catch up or perhaps even surpasss US, Russia will have to go back to being a dictatorship where military needs takes highest priority for national resources.

Fly MiG and Sukhoi Fighter Jets in Moscow!

When the Russian Air Force has to resort to giving wealthy tourists flights in its front line and export fighters, that does not say much about the state of the Russian military overall and the ability of native Russian technological base to do anything other than to maintain, not innovate, its military.



desidog said:


> I really doubt *the F-22* claims of 100:1 ratio and all that has been said about it. It is truly a magnificent jet with no comparison but it *and most usa fighters have not been up against even comparable aircrafts* till now so just plainly saying that they are better than Russian tech is not fair.


I find that criticism amusing at best. Hardly valid. Is there a comparable car to Lamborghini? Yes...There is Ferrari and several others. When the models of these brands are less than %10 of each other in terms of performance, we can say they are statistically comparable, if not outright identical, and it become more reliant upon driver skills and experience, less on the hardwares, that who, not what brand, would win a race. But if there is no Ferrari, then what is Lambo to do? How about pitting its cars against each other? Likewise, since there is nothing comparable to the F-22, what make you think we have not perform any analysis on how we could deal with a potential F-22 rival by using another F-22? Same for the F-15 when it came out. Same for the F-16 when it showed the world its exceptional maneuverability and versatility. We have *ALWAYS* had comparable aircrafts -- our own -- to test our mettles. But I do have sad news for you...

Constant Peg


> For more than a decade, until just before the November 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, a *secret Air Force aggressor unit flew Soviet MiGs* in more than 15,000 sorties against US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots.


We have always had access to Soviet fighters, if not in our hands, then at least through former Soviet allies such as Egypt. If not in numbers, then at least we have a few that we worked hard to keep them flying so we can study their performance.

Viktor Belenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Belenko was not the only pilot to have defected from the USSR in this way, nor was he the first such to defect from a Soviet-bloc country. In March and May 1953, two Polish pilots flew MiG-15s to Denmark. In 1985 and 1987, USSR-owned helicopters in the Afghanistan theatre of operations defected to Pakistan. Captain Alexander Zuyev flew his MiG-29 to Trabzon, Turkey on May 20, 1989.


The data we gleaned from these few aicrafts and from defectors we incorporated them into adversary air programs like the USAF's Fighter Weapons School and the US Navy's Top Gun. We used US aircrafts to simulate how Soviet fighters would perform and how those performance envelopes influence Soviet tactics. We do not need %100 accuracy, just like the supercars, all we need is %90 for our pilots to come up with Dissimilar Air Combat Tactics (DACT) to train each other. A good analogy is using the machine gun to simulate an adversary with a single shot weapon, then change to be another adversary who is equiped with machine guns. Each simulation will create different tactics and outcomes. When the Soviet Union collapsed, former Soviet satellites needed hard currency to support themselves and as they were in physical possession of many Soviet arms, from rifles to tanks to aircrafts to even missiles, they had every incentive to call US and certainly we were interested. What could Russia do about Soviet arms sold under the table to US? Lodge a protest at the UN? I was not joking about actually worked on Soviet equipments that spanned the entire Cold War era. By the way...India benefited from our adversary air programs starting with the first Cope India exercise. Indians (falsely) gloated on how the Indian Air Force prevailed over US F-15s, never mind that US pilots did exactly what was asked of them -- simulate Pakistani tactics. If US pilots were allowed to unleash what they know...



desidog said:


> Currently in the USA aresenal expect for the F-22 I dont see any other fighter jet that is any better than a su-30 or 35 or mig 35, but again the Americans are still far off and it will take sometime to catch up.


The current Suckhy series is playing catch up to the F-15 and F-16 and our aircrafts have established combat records. Everyone expected the F-15 and F-16 to have a gradual evolution into a class similar to the Su-30. With the F-117 we introduced a new element in air warfare, including aerial combat, and that element is 'uncertainty'. With the F-22 and F-35 we decided to bypass the Su-30 series altogether. In other words, we eliminated the Su-30 class from our planning. This is what you failed to understand about 'stealth'. Even if we remove the 'stealth' features from the F-22 and the F-35, both are still at least one generation ahead of the Su-30 class. There is no need for US to match the Su-30 and its brethens.



desidog said:


> The cost of stealth is debatable and i will not try to argue that because you can have different takes on it. I can just say that *there are other ways to win a war than spending billions of dollars on one jet*.


Of course there are other ways. They just take more time and are costlier, in terms of human and materiels.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Sapper said:


> Hi gambit,
> 
> 1. Can Su30 (or any aircraft) use its radar to full potential (seek,lock,fire) while its jammer is in jamming mode ?


Yes...However, it is possible to jam oneself if the jamming freqs are either the same as the radar's transmissions or close to it where there is 'parasitic' or 'contaminant' energy into the radar's receiver operation. Remember that in %99.999 of radar systems out there, the antenna does both jobs: transmit and receive. So when the antenna rest in order to 'listen' for any echo that should be in the freq that it transmit, if the jammer just happened to be in full operation in the same freq or in broadband mode, there is self-jamming. There are times when imminent threats, such as from a closing missile, necessitate broadband jamming measures, especially if the ECM system detect frequency agility from the missile. In this situation, there is nothing to do by fly blind and hope for the best.



Sapper said:


> 2. How jammers work, especially in the context that Su30 utilizes most modern Israeli jammers.


If it is implied that Israeli equipments are better, which is a valid point, then the aircraft that is so equiped will be more capable at ECM tactics. Radar detection generally works in three modes: Search, Track and Target. A couple of good examples of how each mode uses what freqs...

Radar Frequency Bands
eEngineer -- Radio Frequency Band Designations

These modes are usually in the centimetric (cm) bands with the high ghz bands reserved for 'Targeting'. The reason why jamming is broadband is because of the many missile guidance techniques. Each has advantages and disadvantages. One of them is 'Track Via Missile' (TVM)...

Track-via-missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Self protection jammers are less flexible to deal with these many missile guidance techniques and this is why dedicated ECM platforms are developed.






ECM is just as complex and dedicated a discipline as radar detection.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShaheen79

gambit said:


> Yes...However, it is possible to jam oneself if the jamming freqs are either the same as the radar's transmissions or close to it where there is 'parasitic' or 'contaminant' energy into the radar's receiver operation. Remember that in %99.999 of radar systems out there, the antenna does both jobs: transmit and receive. So when the antenna rest in order to 'listen' for any echo that should be in the freq that it transmit, if the jammer just happened to be in full operation in the same freq or in broadband mode, there is self-jamming. There are times when imminent threats, such as from a closing missile, necessitate broadband jamming measures, especially if the ECM system detect frequency agility from the missile. In this situation, there is nothing to do by fly blind and hope for the best.
> 
> If it is implied that Israeli equipments are better, which is a valid point, then the aircraft that is so equiped will be more capable at ECM tactics. Radar detection generally works in three modes: Search, Track and Target. A couple of good examples of how each mode uses what freqs...
> 
> Radar Frequency Bands
> eEngineer -- Radio Frequency Band Designations
> 
> These modes are usually in the centimetric (cm) bands with the high ghz bands reserved for 'Targeting'. The reason why jamming is broadband is because of the many missile guidance techniques. Each has advantages and disadvantages. One of them is 'Track Via Missile' (TVM)...
> 
> Track-via-missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self protection jammers are less flexible to deal with these many missile guidance techniques and this is why dedicated ECM platforms are developed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ECM is just as complex and dedicated a discipline as radar detection.



Great
and i just want to say... *"Clear like mud"* Thanks  Yet again sir.


----------



## ironman

Thanks Gambit for an excellent post...
.................................................. ................................................

Here a marketing video of Northrop Grumman for the APG-81 just an add on to the post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> Even if India can have more Su-30 in inventory than Pakistan has for the JF-17, it does not translate to the same amount of flight capable aircrafts. Anyone who has any experience in any air force, and I have ten years in the USAF in actual flying squadrons, will know that it is extremely rare for any squadron to have %100 'code one' aircrafts. Most commanders would be thrilled to have around %90 'flight mission capable' (FMC) status and mid-80s is the acceptable median. This is not WW II where massed formations of bombers and fighters are the norm. But even if we use WW II as an example, a good example would be the Battle of Britain where the RAF was continually outnumbered but always managed to isolate enough German aircrafts and shot them down. That is how the air battlefield works. India cannot deploy overwhelming numbers at *EVERY* sortie. Not even US can and we had to rely on allies in Desert Storm for the air campaign. So even though Pakistan may be outnumbered on the ground, in the air, it will be up to how creative Pakistan's air commanders could be that may put a serious hurting on India's Su-30s. For that subject I will leave it up to the Pakistanis here to debate on how good are their air generals.
> 
> The Soviets/Russians have no lack of resources, especially intellectual. It was a Russian mathematician, Petr Umfimtsev, who came up with the predictive behavioral equations of a wave upon impact of a surface. The Soviets ignored his creation but we did not. The Soviets/Russians are behind US solely because of their societal and institutional failings, not for lack of resources. If Russia is to catch up or perhaps even surpasss US, Russia will have to go back to being a dictatorship where military needs takes highest priority for national resources.
> 
> Fly MiG and Sukhoi Fighter Jets in Moscow!
> 
> When the Russian Air Force has to resort to giving wealthy tourists flights in its front line and export fighters, that does not say much about the state of the Russian military overall and the ability of native Russian technological base to do anything other than to maintain, not innovate, its military.
> 
> I find that criticism amusing at best. Hardly valid. Is there a comparable car to Lamborghini? Yes...There is Ferrari and several others. When the models of these brands are less than %10 of each other in terms of performance, we can say they are statistically comparable, if not outright identical, and it become more reliant upon driver skills and experience, less on the hardwares, that who, not what brand, would win a race. But if there is no Ferrari, then what is Lambo to do? How about pitting its cars against each other? Likewise, since there is nothing comparable to the F-22, what make you think we have not perform any analysis on how we could deal with a potential F-22 rival by using another F-22? Same for the F-15 when it came out. Same for the F-16 when it showed the world its exceptional maneuverability and versatility. We have *ALWAYS* had comparable aircrafts -- our own -- to test our mettles. But I do have sad news for you...
> 
> Constant Peg
> We have always had access to Soviet fighters, if not in our hands, then at least through former Soviet allies such as Egypt. If not in numbers, then at least we have a few that we worked hard to keep them flying so we can study their performance.
> 
> Viktor Belenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The data we gleaned from these few aicrafts and from defectors we incorporated them into adversary air programs like the USAF's Fighter Weapons School and the US Navy's Top Gun. We used US aircrafts to simulate how Soviet fighters would perform and how those performance envelopes influence Soviet tactics. We do not need %100 accuracy, just like the supercars, all we need is %90 for our pilots to come up with Dissimilar Air Combat Tactics (DACT) to train each other. A good analogy is using the machine gun to simulate an adversary with a single shot weapon, then change to be another adversary who is equiped with machine guns. Each simulation will create different tactics and outcomes. When the Soviet Union collapsed, former Soviet satellites needed hard currency to support themselves and as they were in physical possession of many Soviet arms, from rifles to tanks to aircrafts to even missiles, they had every incentive to call US and certainly we were interested. What could Russia do about Soviet arms sold under the table to US? Lodge a protest at the UN? I was not joking about actually worked on Soviet equipments that spanned the entire Cold War era. By the way...India benefited from our adversary air programs starting with the first Cope India exercise. Indians (falsely) gloated on how the Indian Air Force prevailed over US F-15s, never mind that US pilots did exactly what was asked of them -- simulate Pakistani tactics. If US pilots were allowed to unleash what they know...
> 
> The current Suckhy series is playing catch up to the F-15 and F-16 and our aircrafts have established combat records. Everyone expected the F-15 and F-16 to have a gradual evolution into a class similar to the Su-30. With the F-117 we introduced a new element in air warfare, including aerial combat, and that element is 'uncertainty'. With the F-22 and F-35 we decided to bypass the Su-30 series altogether. In other words, we eliminated the Su-30 class from our planning. This is what you failed to understand about 'stealth'. Even if we remove the 'stealth' features from the F-22 and the F-35, both are still at least one generation ahead of the Su-30 class. There is no need for US to match the Su-30 and its brethens.
> 
> Of course there are other ways. They just take more time and are costlier, in terms of human and materiels.





Great post Gambit, but again i dont know how we got to russia vs usa in this thread lol. Again you have given me a lot of technical details and probably overwhelmed many non-tech members but i dont want to do that becuse i am already bored from all the technical stuff i do at work lol so want to get away from that. You comments are truly enlightening and it was fun reading them but i dont get your point again. I agree that with superior tactics any air force can beat the best. I guess you would be knowing that from the Veitnam war where a inferior air force totally " ran over " USA's air force, i dont need to give you the facts for that. I guess if you want to compare Russian and usa fighters you can go over the Vietnam war and see what happened there. What Russian mig-21's did to the usa air force is world known fact and i guess i dont need to stress more on the fact that you cannot just write off the Russian planes in front of usa tech. Again i am not saying that USA tech is not gud but the f-22 and jsf are still very much unproven and by my opinion highly over-rated, They have yet to face a "real enemy" and only then we can see what they are capable off. 

I think we are loosing sight of this thread, this is about jf-17 vs the MKI. And on that aspect when you said that superior tactics can win then you are using variable to compare aircrafts. We should only compare the MKI with the jf-17 one on one not using awacs or military planning or w.e. because it makes no sense. I have been saying this again and again dont using scenarios and variables to compare them. Im sure that you have enough knowledge of jets to say clearly that when comparing the jf-17 to the MKI "one on one " without any variables, the MKI wins hands on, just like how if we compare a j-7 to a f22, there is no comparison there also. I hope you agree with me but again i really enjoyed your post.


----------



## gambit

desidog said:


> I agree that with superior tactics any air force can beat the best. I guess you would be knowing that from the *Veitnam war where a inferior air force totally " ran over " USA's air force*, i dont need to give you the facts for that. I guess if you want to compare Russian and usa fighters you can go over the Vietnam war and see what happened there. What *Russian mig-21's did to the usa air force is world known fact* and i guess i dont need to stress more on the fact that you cannot just write off the Russian planes in front of usa tech.


If you had actually *READ* up on the Vietnam War instead of trying to pass the impression that you know anything about it, you would have known that the majority of USAF losses in Vietnam were because of ground anti-aircraft efforts, not from air-air combat. Even wiki has it...

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> There were a great many aircraft losses during the Vietnam War. Hundreds of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft were lost to ground fire of antiaircraft artillery (AAA), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and fighter interceptors (MiG)s. *The great majority of U.S. combat losses in all areas of Southeast Asia were to AAA*. The Royal Australian Air Force also flew combat and airlift missions in South Vietnam, as did the Republic of Vietnam. Among fixed-wing aircraft, more F-4 Phantoms were lost than any other type in service with any nation.


What the North Vietnamese did with what little air force they had was pure hit-and-run tactic due to the USAF's overwhelming numerical superiority, and even when the NVA had the formidable Mig-21 the targets were the less maneuverable fighter-bomber F-105, which was the workhorse of the USAF in Vietnam. It was widely believed that without Chinese or even Soviet pilots the North Vietnamese would have nearly nothing to boast about regarding air combat.

Here are a couple of items for your further education...

Robin Olds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Of the 16 MiG-21s known to be in the VPAF inventory, 11 to 14 had been engaged (depending on the source), with 7 destroyed and two others probably shot down (by Combies and Maj. Herman L. Knapp, Rambler 03).
> 
> For the North Vietnamese (and their Soviet allies who supplied the MiG-21 aircraft and helped set up the integrated air defense network), the two reverses forced them to husband their assets by grounding the MiGs for several months for retraining and devising of new tactics.


The Vietnam War at large and Operation Bolo in particular are instructive that despite the factor of numerical superiority, the nature of aerial combat consistently encourages one-on-one engagement and this is where superior airmanship and creative tactics are proven to be apolitical, meaning the side that has an abundance of superior airmanship and creative tactics will win, not necessarily through superior numbers. The Mig-21 has superior maneuverability over the F-4 but the American pilots possessed superior airmanship with their training, which forced the Mig-21 pilots to either engage the heavier F-4 but with superior speed advantage, or to break off the fight and run. Operation Bolo was a harsh lesson for the North Vietnamese, Chinese and Soviets. I suggest you cast aside personal biases and start being more objective before making these comments that contradict history.



desidog said:


> Again i am not saying that USA tech is not gud but the f-22 and jsf are still very much unproven and by my opinion highly over-rated, They have yet to face a "real enemy" and only then we can see what they are capable off.


The difference between a bullet and a radar pulse is that no one die with a radar pulse. In Electronic Warfare, we consider a radar pulse to be as 'lethal' to the body as a bullet, with the benefit that no human die in our battles. In that, we EWarriors take our crafts no less serious than other branches of the military. Because no one dies in our battles, EW is constantly fought in any part of the world by any military, usually without the public's knowledge. The outcomes are always 'classified' super-duper ultra secret. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts, as the old saying goes. Opinions should be based upon facts, not as replacements for facts. The fact is that the B-2 and F-22 have faced more 'real' enemies than you think, even before their first flights...







The above is called a 'radar range'. The facility itself is often mistaken for a small airport from the air. Full size models are mounted in various angles and they are bombarded with radar pulses from many positions. Baseline RCS figures are established, predictions are made as to how the models should fare in flight and finally correlate against actual 'real world' data. The B-2 and F-22 flies with radar transponders to mask their true RCS and to assist air traffic controllers regarding their locations in the sky. This was done worldwide with all types of equipments, civilian and military. It cannot get any more 'real' than this. The only thing left are real missiles and bullets and we leave them to others to worry about. American 'stealth' aircrafts have elevated EW to a new level and for now we are winning. Your fellow Indians should be glad that India's generals are not as shortsighted as you have shown here so far.



desidog said:


> I think we are loosing sight of this thread, this is about jf-17 vs the MKI. And on that aspect when you said that superior tactics can win then you are using variable to compare aircrafts. We should only *compare the MKI with the jf-17 one on one* not using awacs or military planning or w.e. because it makes no sense. I have been saying this again and again dont using scenarios and variables to compare them. Im sure that you have enough knowledge of jets to say clearly that when comparing the jf-17 to the MKI "one on one " without any variables, the MKI wins hands on, just like how if we compare a j-7 to a f22, there is no comparison there also. I hope you agree with me but again i really enjoyed your post.


Going back to Operation Bolo above...In combat, not just in the air, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by you obeying his. Advantages are rules and the Su-30 does not possess all the rules. Even so...The extremes of air combat does not allow the pilot much time seize the moment when his opponent fell into disadvantage. If you actually read any honest pilot accounts from past wars, you will find no shortage of instances where advantages were gained and equally rapidly lost. So it is intellectually dishonest to demand a blanket dismissal of variables that could force a flight of Indian Su-30s into fighting under Pakistani JF-17s' rules. The Americans in Operation Bolo did not have airborne radars or much of the modern day assistance. They had only their training and cunning. This is not an auto race where everyone get together for a party after the contest. This is a fight to the death, cheating is allowed and the loser die a spectacular death.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

No matter how we dress this up No Russian built fighter has ever stirred up so much debate/ argument/ analysis has the Flankers. 

Be it The Austrialian studies of the chinease Flanker threat , 
Pakistanis threat perception with the su30 mki pogramme or the Americans and british in their insistence to engage the su30mki in redflag and cope india excercises. 

Whislt the su30 mki is not the best in the world it is nevertheless a high end mid 4th generation fighter. The reasons are 

Only plane in the world to depoly TVC engine accept F22 Raptor
First Russian plane to intergrate avdanced French/ Israeli jammers electronic suites.
First russian plane to carry a PESA bars radar
First russian built fighter with a IRST system. 

The reason this thread is 66 pages long is a testimoney to this fighter and long may we continue to debate how PAF will tackle this adversary in a war

The su30mki GAVE birth to new soon to be induced super flanker the SU35B

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> If you had actually *READ* up on the Vietnam War instead of trying to pass the impression that you know anything about it, you would have known that the majority of USAF losses in Vietnam were because of ground anti-aircraft efforts, not from air-air combat. Even wiki has it...
> 
> Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> What the North Vietnamese did with what little air force they had was pure hit-and-run tactic due to the USAF's overwhelming numerical superiority, and even when the NVA had the formidable Mig-21 the targets were the less maneuverable fighter-bomber F-105, which was the workhorse of the USAF in Vietnam. It was widely believed that without Chinese or even Soviet pilots the North Vietnamese would have nearly nothing to boast about regarding air combat.
> 
> Here are a couple of items for your further education...
> 
> Robin Olds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Vietnam War at large and Operation Bolo in particular are instructive that despite the factor of numerical superiority, the nature of aerial combat consistently encourages one-on-one engagement and this is where superior airmanship and creative tactics are proven to be apolitical, meaning the side that has an abundance of superior airmanship and creative tactics will win, not necessarily through superior numbers. The Mig-21 has superior maneuverability over the F-4 but the American pilots possessed superior airmanship with their training, which forced the Mig-21 pilots to either engage the heavier F-4 but with superior speed advantage, or to break off the fight and run. Operation Bolo was a harsh lesson for the North Vietnamese, Chinese and Soviets. I suggest you cast aside personal biases and start being more objective before making these comments that contradict history.
> 
> The difference between a bullet and a radar pulse is that no one die with a radar pulse. In Electronic Warfare, we consider a radar pulse to be as 'lethal' to the body as a bullet, with the benefit that no human die in our battles. In that, we EWarriors take our crafts no less serious than other branches of the military. Because no one dies in our battles, EW is constantly fought in any part of the world by any military, usually without the public's knowledge. The outcomes are always 'classified' super-duper ultra secret. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts, as the old saying goes. Opinions should be based upon facts, not as replacements for facts. The fact is that the B-2 and F-22 have faced more 'real' enemies than you think, even before their first flights...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is called a 'radar range'. The facility itself is often mistaken for a small airport from the air. Full size models are mounted in various angles and they are bombarded with radar pulses from many positions. Baseline RCS figures are established, predictions are made as to how the models should fare in flight and finally correlate against actual 'real world' data. The B-2 and F-22 flies with radar transponders to mask their true RCS and to assist air traffic controllers regarding their locations in the sky. This was done worldwide with all types of equipments, civilian and military. It cannot get any more 'real' than this. The only thing left are real missiles and bullets and we leave them to others to worry about. American 'stealth' aircrafts have elevated EW to a new level and for now we are winning. Your fellow Indians should be glad that India's generals are not as shortsighted as you have shown here so far.
> 
> Going back to Operation Bolo above...In combat, not just in the air, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by you obeying his. Advantages are rules and the Su-30 does not possess all the rules. Even so...The extremes of air combat does not allow the pilot much time seize the moment when his opponent fell into disadvantage. If you actually read any honest pilot accounts from past wars, you will find no shortage of instances where advantages were gained and equally rapidly lost. So it is intellectually dishonest to demand a blanket dismissal of variables that could force a flight of Indian Su-30s into fighting under Pakistani JF-17s' rules. The Americans in Operation Bolo did not have airborne radars or much of the modern day assistance. They had only their training and cunning. This is not an auto race where everyone get together for a party after the contest. This is a fight to the death, cheating is allowed and the loser die a spectacular death.



I really dont know what you are trying to prove gambit with all your technical post, i can give you much more technical details if you want but that does not make any any sense as it is not a thread for that. Im not sure but it looks like your trying to prove that only Americans have done the right research in aviation and only Americans are right. I dont want to make this an anti-american post but history is history and the Vietnam war is the only war that the american's lost and i dont think even you can deny that. All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft, 1,737 because of hostile action and 514 for operational reasons. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II. North Vietnam lost MiG-17Fresco 100 (110 claimed), MiG-19 Farmer 10 claimed (more destroyed on ground) , MiG-21 Fishbed 86 (90 claimed). Again i can also give you technical details in regards to who was better and why they lost etc etc but that does not make any sense as this is not a thread for that. Please stick to the topic, and the topic here is jf17vs MKI. Please give inputs on that and not stress on the "superiority" of American aviation. And on that, dont worry gambit, apart from the technical details, the rest of the world is not far behind, many upcoming jets will not only be supirior in every way to the latest amercian jets but will also cost many times less. I dont want to stress more on this so please stick to the topic and argue about that.


----------



## hack

stop digging yourself further into a hole desidog.....gambit has probably forgotten a lot more than you will ever learn.


----------



## desiman

hack said:


> stop digging yourself further into a hole desidog.....gambit has probably forgotten a lot more than you will ever learn.



LOL its not me who is digging a hole but its gambit that is coming up with topics that dont make any any in this thread so im just replying to those. Lol im sure that gambit knows a lot and i can see that, but be careful before you make any assumptions about someone else because you may be very wrong lol


----------



## r0ck

It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it? Would it be doomed as per the assumptions of, a few, of our fellow members?

Let me elaborate, and this is not off-topic. Consider the Su-30Mki as a car with a very powerful engine, big in size and, therefore, harder to maneuver. The JF-17 is a relatively smaller car, with a smaller engine and, henceforth, easier to maneuver. Question arises, which track would the race take place on? Naturally, the bigger car would go for a straight track with less corners to maneuver. Whilst the smaller car would go for a congested track with many corners to maneuver. Now the bigger car can take its chances on the congested track because of its big engine and can still outrun the smaller car. Whilst the smaller car has got slim chances on the straight-ish track but can cut a few corners, slide into shortcuts and can, possibly, come out victorious on the congested track!

Now please don't be naive enough to consider this as a benchmark. This is just an example of how an inferior vehicle has got 'SOME' chance of outrunning the superior vehicle. Further to the discussion of 'playing by the rules'. Saying it is not possible 'AT ALL' for JF-17 to go up against the SU-30Mki is ill-advised. No doubt, there would be chances and situations favoring the Su-30Mki but, would'nt there be any for the JF-17?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hack

Any modern aircraft can potentially take down another modern aircraft ...even the F22 can be taken down under the right circumstances. I think that is what gambit was trying to explain here.These X versus Y threads are pretty useless.


----------



## hj786

You Su-30 fanboys can sit there posting constantly about the Su-30's Israeli radar jammers being far superior to the JF-17's systems WITHOUT PROOF. The TVC engines making it impossible to shoot down, WITHOUT PROOF. The Russian R-77 missile being superior to the Chinese SD-10 missile WITHOUT PROOF. The list of ridiculous arguments and their very simple counter-arguments goes on. Doesn't make a tiny bit of difference to reality, the PAF has enough confidence in the design and its armament to double the ordered number... BEFORE the thing even officially enters service, and they know a few things about the aeroplane that you guys don't. 



r0ck said:


> It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it?


At the end of the day, the only real test of the counter-measures you mentioned is combat. Yet even here, certain posters deny that the comparison should include AWACS aircraft and other force multipliers which, in reality, would indeed be present. Its obvious why; the Su-30 would no longer look so "unbeatable" on paper.

This guy "desidog" compares the Su-30 to the F-22, despite the fact that the former has been beaten in combat many many times by legacy fighters (which were much less capable than the JF-17 in some respects), while the latter has yet to be beaten properly by any other combat aircraft in existence today. He actually thinks the Su-30 is invincible despite an ex-USAF engineer telling him he's talking crap (bear in mind, the same engineer firmly believes the JF-17 is Chinese junk compared to Western aircraft anyway). Expecting many of the Su-30 fanboys here to "be honest" is a lost cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zagahaga

Adux said:


>



go to youtube and type future dog fights then u will know the SU family complete jarbage u indians think ur su-30 is soooo good? LOOOOL u cant detect a stealth fighter !!! on ur russian radars


----------



## gambit

r0ck said:


> It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it? Would it be doomed as per the assumptions of, a few, of our fellow members?
> 
> Let me elaborate, and this is not off-topic. *Consider the Su-30Mki as a car with a very powerful engine, big in size and, therefore, harder to maneuver. The JF-17 is a relatively smaller car, with a smaller engine and, henceforth, easier to maneuver. Question arises, which track would the race take place on? Naturally, the bigger car would go for a straight track with less corners to maneuver. Whilst the smaller car would go for a congested track with many corners to maneuver. Now the bigger car can take its chances on the congested track because of its big engine and can still outrun the smaller car. Whilst the smaller car has got slim chances on the straight-ish track but can cut a few corners, slide into shortcuts and can, possibly, come out victorious on the congested track!*
> 
> Now please don't be naive enough to consider this as a benchmark. This is just an example of how an inferior vehicle has got 'SOME' chance of outrunning the superior vehicle. Further to the discussion of 'playing by the rules'. Saying it is not possible 'AT ALL' for JF-17 to go up against the SU-30Mki is ill-advised. No doubt, there would be chances and situations favoring the Su-30Mki but, would'nt there be any for the JF-17?


That is an analogy often used in classes in that the analogy impose an environmental factor -- the medium -- on everyone. This medium is land and it is two-dimensional. This is largely a mental exercise and this medium restrict everyone's freedom of movement and demand the designer to chose what kind of vehicle he is going to create and for what purpose. Tires meeting ground has a set of restrictions. So do aerodynamic forces on surfaces. Granted, in the sky, there are three dimensions for the design team to consider but there are still environmental factors, such as friction heat, metallurgy, air flows, etc...etc...That will still force the design to either compromise to create a jack-of-all-trades like the F-16 or a dedicated speed demon like the SR-71.

The point here is that currently there are no design that can fly at speed like the SR-71, maneuver like the F-16, and is as electronically silent like the F-22. Only wealthy countries like the US or the once USSR can afford such specialized platforms and even we admit our limits. The trend today is versatility, aka being a jack-off-all-trades -- *BUT* -- with increasing potency for each trade. In other words, if the previous jack-off-all-trades design could carry 4 missiles and 12 bombs, then the new jack-off-all-trades design should carry 6 missiles and 18 bombs. That is the trend but not everyone will make the same degrees of compromises. Some designers, for whatever reasons such as technical feasibility or political, will create a jack-off-all-trades that leans slightly towards more missiles than bombs, or vice versa, for example. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to create an SR-71 equivalent, for example, so both could do what we did, create a dedicated variant from an existing platform -- the RF-4 -- a heavily biased variant off a proven platform.

For a large body like the F-15 or the Su-series it is possible to raise the bar for all trades to the same degree. For smaller bodies like the F-16, then more investigative work is necessary to determine how to modify the airframe to raise these bars and to lean to which direction, air defense or being a bomber, for example. Want longer range, then develope a better engine. Cannot develop a better engine? Then add more fuel at the expense of ordnance. But with improved guidance technology, then each bomb (or missile) can be made smaller but still retain its lethality so now it is possible to go back to the original amount of bombs or even increase that amount. A couple of performance criterias were raised. This philosophy applies to new designs as well and perhaps it is even more important that the designers should pay extra attention to demands from the military establishment, technical feasibility, human resources, and potential threats.

The last item -- potential threats -- often influence the design as to which direction the new aircraft will lean if it is not possible to create a dedicated response. For example...The US Navy had a dedicated response to the potential threat to its aircraft carriers, the F-14. India has a potential threat to Pakistan -- the Su series. If the JF-17 is all that Pakistan can afford, what can Pakistan do in terms of modifying the aircraft to developing new air combat tactics, to create a response to this threat? Remember that the JF-17 was originally designed to be a relatively 'low tech' and low cost jack-off-all-trades platform. Since then, thanks to progress in technology, the JF-17 had raised the bars in all trades. How close are the new performance levels of the new JF-17 to those of the Su-series? If they are not at least within &#37;10 to the Su, then what can Pakistan do to modify certain items on the JF-17, in other words to lean the aircraft, to create a credibly potent response to the threat?

This is why it is deceptive to just make a comparison between the two aircrafts based upon items like hardpoints or which has a 'glass' cockpit. The comparison is valid only if no modifications are possible, but if the JF-17 can be modified to carry more missiles and have an avionics package comparable to the Su-30, then such a variant is a credible and potent response to the threat and even more potent a defense if the Pakistani Air Force has superior airmanship, this subject I will leave to the Pakistanis here. The point of being a jack-off-all-trades platform is to allow the customer flexibility as he consider *HIS* needs, not yours, and to create variants to meet each need. That is why the F-16 is such a success, despite being a 30yr old platform. The F-4 has two engines and a higher top speed than the F-16, but any pilot who has flown both, and there are plenty of them, will most likely prefer the F-16. Why? Pakistani JF-17s can be a credible and potent response to India's Su-30 -- *IF* -- Pakistan is willing to be generous in allocating resources to the program. Who is the more immediate threat to Pakistan, US or South Africa or Timbuktu or Marvin the Martian or -- India?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## desiman

hj786 said:


> You Su-30 fanboys can sit there posting constantly about the Su-30's Israeli radar jammers being far superior to the JF-17's systems WITHOUT PROOF. The TVC engines making it impossible to shoot down, WITHOUT PROOF. The Russian R-77 missile being superior to the Chinese SD-10 missile WITHOUT PROOF. The list of ridiculous arguments and their very simple counter-arguments goes on. Doesn't make a tiny bit of difference to reality, the PAF has enough confidence in the design and its armament to double the ordered number... BEFORE the thing even officially enters service, and they know a few things about the aeroplane that you guys don't.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, the only real test of the counter-measures you mentioned is combat. Yet even here, certain posters deny that the comparison should include AWACS aircraft and other force multipliers which, in reality, would indeed be present. Its obvious why; the Su-30 would no longer look so "unbeatable" on paper.
> 
> This guy "desidog" compares the Su-30 to the F-22, despite the fact that the former has been beaten in combat many many times by legacy fighters (which were much less capable than the JF-17 in some respects), while the latter has yet to be beaten properly by any other combat aircraft in existence today. He actually thinks the Su-30 is invincible despite an ex-USAF engineer telling him he's talking crap (bear in mind, the same engineer firmly believes the JF-17 is Chinese junk compared to Western aircraft anyway). Expecting many of the Su-30 fanboys here to "be honest" is a lost cause.



LOL if your calling me a fanboy then i can say that ur antifanboy for the MKI. I never said that the MKI is comparable to a f-22, you can look at my previous post. when did someone best the su-30 im combat ? dont even quote red flag because that has become every jf-17 fanboys talking point. i dont want to elaborate on red flag again, but all i am saying is that gambit is right that we cannot compare 2 aircraft like this because there are soo many variables involved. I dont want to reveal my profession but if gambits is an ex-usaf engineer i have worked a feild very similar to his, thats why i know what he is saying makes sense. you cannot compare 2 aircraft but rather 2 air forces and see how they will assist their aircrafts and the war plan they follow. If you realy want to compare them then use technical details and the specs of each aircraft and going by that i can say that the MKI far superior to the jf-17. It does not mean that the MKI is "invincible" or cannot be shot down by a jf-17 but for that to happen the jf-17 would have to have many circumstances in its favor. If i was a fanboy i would totally ridicule this thread for even comparing these two aircraft but i am trying to give you guys as much details as possible to make sense of things, please read my previous post for more details. If someone still wants to continue, ill truly enjoy that lol have enough time at work to counter any argument lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

gambit said:


> That is an analogy often used in classes in that the analogy impose an environmental factor -- the medium -- on everyone. This medium is land and it is two-dimensional. This is largely a mental exercise and this medium restrict everyone's freedom of movement and demand the designer to chose what kind of vehicle he is going to create and for what purpose. Tires meeting ground has a set of restrictions. So do aerodynamic forces on surfaces. Granted, in the sky, there are three dimensions for the design team to consider but there are still environmental factors, such as friction heat, metallurgy, air flows, etc...etc...That will still force the design to either compromise to create a jack-of-all-trades like the F-16 or a dedicated speed demon like the SR-71.
> 
> The point here is that currently there are no design that can fly at speed like the SR-71, maneuver like the F-16, and is as electronically silent like the F-22. Only wealthy countries like the US or the once USSR can afford such specialized platforms and even we admit our limits. The trend today is versatility, aka being a jack-off-all-trades -- *BUT* -- with increasing potency for each trade. In other words, if the previous jack-off-all-trades design could carry 4 missiles and 12 bombs, then the new jack-off-all-trades design should carry 6 missiles and 18 bombs. That is the trend but not everyone will make the same degrees of compromises. Some designers, for whatever reasons such as technical feasibility or political, will create a jack-off-all-trades that leans slightly towards more missiles than bombs, or vice versa, for example. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to create an SR-71 equivalent, for example, so both could do what we did, create a dedicated variant from an existing platform -- the RF-4 -- a heavily biased variant off a proven platform.
> 
> For a large body like the F-15 or the Su-series it is possible to raise the bar for all trades to the same degree. For smaller bodies like the F-16, then more investigative work is necessary to determine how to modify the airframe to raise these bars and to lean to which direction, air defense or being a bomber, for example. Want longer range, then develope a better engine. Cannot develop a better engine? Then add more fuel at the expense of ordnance. But with improved guidance technology, then each bomb (or missile) can be made smaller but still retain its lethality so now it is possible to go back to the original amount of bombs or even increase that amount. A couple of performance criterias were raised. This philosophy applies to new designs as well and perhaps it is even more important that the designers should pay extra attention to demands from the military establishment, technical feasibility, human resources, and potential threats.
> 
> The last item -- potential threats -- often influence the design as to which direction the new aircraft will lean if it is not possible to create a dedicated response. For example...The US Navy had a dedicated response to the potential threat to its aircraft carriers, the F-14. India has a potential threat to Pakistan -- the Su series. If the JF-17 is all that Pakistan can afford, what can Pakistan do in terms of modifying the aircraft to developing new air combat tactics, to create a response to this threat? Remember that the JF-17 was originally designed to be a relatively 'low tech' and low cost jack-off-all-trades platform. Since then, thanks to progress in technology, the JF-17 had raised the bars in all trades. How close are the new performance levels of the new JF-17 to those of the Su-series? If they are not at least within %10 to the Su, then what can Pakistan do to modify certain items on the JF-17, in other words to lean the aircraft, to create a credibly potent response to the threat?
> 
> This is why it is deceptive to just make a comparison between the two aircrafts based upon items like hardpoints or which has a 'glass' cockpit. The comparison is valid only if no modifications are possible, but if the JF-17 can be modified to carry more missiles and have an avionics package comparable to the Su-30, then such a variant is a credible and potent response to the threat and even more potent a defense if the Pakistani Air Force has superior airmanship, this subject I will leave to the Pakistanis here. The point of being a jack-off-all-trades platform is to allow the customer flexibility as he consider *HIS* needs, not yours, and to create variants to meet each need. That is why the F-16 is such a success, despite being a 30yr old platform. The F-4 has two engines and a higher top speed than the F-16, but any pilot who has flown both, and there are plenty of them, will most likely prefer the F-16. Why? Pakistani JF-17s can be a credible and potent response to India's Su-30 -- *IF* -- Pakistan is willing to be generous in allocating resources to the program. Who is the more immediate threat to Pakistan, US or South Africa or Timbuktu or Marvin the Martian or -- India?



Good post gambit, i disagree on some parts but overall a gud post


----------



## nightrider_saulat

*i think with FC-1 block II things would be quite different*


----------



## Sapper

nightrider_saulat said:


> *i think with FC-1 block II things would be quite different*



Only two things need improvement allowing FC-1 to be a potent threat to MKI in Indo-Pak scenario.

1. AESA Low Probability of Intercept Radar with good enough range (150km for 5m2).
2. Advanced AMRAAM with range comparable to R77-M1 / AIM120D with AESA sensor (for avoiding warhead jamming)

(i am purposely ignoring better engine and more hardpoint upgrades since Su30 is so far ahead in these that we cannot compete at all)

And thats it. IFF we manage to get these items, FC-1 will lock Su30 target before it is even detected (thanks to low RCS of FC-1 and huge RCS of Su30). It will also be able to fire from same range as Su30, and will be at advantage since its lock will be earlier than Su30's. 

It will still lag in ECM tactics, since Su30 will use bigger more sophisticated jammer.
It will still be vulnerable in WVR because of excellent maneuvering of Su30.
It will also be running short on missiles very early in the fight.


Under current conditions, there are only a few scenarios (probably 5 out of 100) during which FC-1 can give tough time to Su30, and surely Su30 pilots will do their best to avoid those scenarios. On the other hand PAF pilots will have to produce miracles to drive Su30s into disadvantageous position.

If we get the above mentioned upgrades, the tough fight scenarios will increase drastically from 5/100 to almost 50/100, giving PAF pilots an even battle to jump into.

Do remember that the above two upgrades are ONLY money and sanction dependent since China doesn't have these techs. It is also possible that China can produce a miracle out of its hat and produce these upgrades at a cheap and affordable price ... in which case PAF management will start jumping like crazy 

Regards,
Sapper


----------



## Haanzo

> It will still lag in ECM tactics, since Su30 will use bigger more sophisticated jammer.
> It will still be vulnerable in WVR because of excellent maneuvering of Su30.
> It will also be running short on missiles very early in the fight.


you forgot to add one more point ...it will also run short on fuel ...so less time to play cat and mouse games


----------



## Sapper

Haanzo said:


> you forgot to add one more point ...it will also run short on fuel ...so less time to play cat and mouse games



sure ... you are correct ... shall i edit my original post ??

but do remember that Su30 will be aggressor and will travel from far away and will have to get back to friendly soil to land. FC-1 doctrine constricts it mostly to protecting its own soil (PAF will use F16s and FC20s as agressors and probably never opt for lone FC-1s for aggressor role).
I am not rejecting your premise, i acknowledge it, just that the real world scenarios during which FC-1 will get low on fuel will be limited to probably 2~3/100.

But nice addition to my list. Thanks.


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

quite funny thread....people just start comparing apple with oranges...........it is like how ISRO can become EADS or NASA...by altering this or that...............my dear all.....when you compare two things always remember.....you are comparing Flanker .........which has a proven flight hours......if anybody here know about...the term is called RAM......reliabilty, availability, maintainability......everything is proven......here with all those data' s available with Russians........than we come to chinese platforms........it may come out from that chinese have produced a replicated prototype with varoius ingredients...however full creditworthyness will be tested.....when it will be 1-on-1 with Flanker.........


----------



## Sapper

ouiouiouiouiouioui said:


> quite funny thread....people just start comparing apple with oranges...........it is like how ISRO can become NASA...by altering this or that...............my dear all.....when you compare two things always remember.....you are comparing Flanker .........which has a proven flight hours......if anybody here know about...the term is called RAM......reliabilty, availability, maintainability......everything is proven......here with all those data' s available with Russians........than we come to chinese platforms........it may come out from that chinese have produced a replicated prototype with varoius ingredients...however full creditworthyness will be tested.....when it will be 1-on-1 with Flanker.........



russian equipment fails your beloved RAM criterion inside and out (I am not saying that Chinese are better ... just that Russians are bad).

Do remember that Pakistan has russian equipment as well. the Mi17 heli's with Pak Army are a pain in the @ss when compared to french Puma. I have an army engineer friend maintaining those birds who can't stop bull$hitting russians on the level of maintenance their birds require. India has had many difficulties in past maintaining Su30s ... lots of reports are their ... just find on google.

If you mean that flanker reliability is proven ... yes ... its proven BAD ... just watch red flag video to see how indians fear getting one of their engines into a "maintanance" cycle 

(During this post i have carefully avoided saying FC-1 has good maintenance record, as no one knows, not us, not them, it will still take some time, but it will probably end up in the same $hitty league as flanker)


----------



## Sapper

blueoval79 said:


> Reminds me of an old Bollywood song......
> 
> '' main aur meri tanhai....aksar yeh batain karte hain.....tum hoti toh yeh hota.....tum hoti to woh hota.....tum is baat pe kitna hasti...tum us baat pe hairaan hoti.......tum hoti toh ..........main aur meri tanhai...aksar yeh batain karte hain....''
> 
> LOL....done....now ..somthing meaningfull.....your politicians have failed Pakistan miserably.... More than half of the world looks towards Pakistanwith skepticisim...the otherelesser half does not even care.....Pakistan needs some agressive CBMs in place for world to start thinking of Pakistan as a viable trade partner...in all aspects...from defence to civil services.....now please dont say youve got China on your side.....till 10 yr back ou were proud of your American friendship...and now your people want America wiped from the face of the earth.........may be you will think of something same for China a decade down the line....
> 
> People giving Pakistan cash for nation building would never let the money to be thrown into some extacy project...so make your own money to buy whatever you want......



dear ... stick to tech debate ... this is not political forum ... i probably shouldn't have dignified your post with a reply

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haanzo

> sure ... you are correct ... shall i edit my original post ??
> 
> but do remember that Su30 will be aggressor and will travel from far away and will have to get back to friendly soil to land. FC-1 doctrine constricts it mostly to protecting its own soil (PAF will use F16s and FC20s as agressors and probably never opt for lone FC-1s for aggressor role).
> I am not rejecting your premise, i acknowledge it, just that the real world scenarios during which FC-1 will get low on fuel will be limited to probably 2~3/100.



dont worry su-30 blips on pakistans border radars will become a common thing now as they will be placed near the western border ...Bet tHose guys at PAF will be thinking of clearing IOC right now ,not facing flankers LOL


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

> when compared to french Puma



this is why i say comparing apple with oranges...you did it again........................now you see your post....and what i interpret from it is that there are lot of issues.....or when i say...in technical terms ....feedback data's.......which is very important.........but you wont get modifications in the same platform let us say SU27....but probably u will find modifications done and the bird's name is changed...this is actually development of platforms...SU's ..platform........now u come to chinese platform...and i dont have any feedback.......atleast when i say feedback...it should be a million hour baby........thats why i say......


----------



## Sapper

Haanzo said:


> dont worry su-30 blips on pakistans border radars will become a common thing now as they will be placed near the western border ...Bet tHose guys at PAF will be thinking of clearing IOC right now ,not facing flankers LOL



you are right once again ... IOC + FOC will still take long ... perhaps 3~5 years will pass before we have a seasoned squadron of FC-1 ready for ACTIVE service, while having developed pilot skills as well as war-time strategies.

All we are talking here is the effect of FC-1 on Su30's pilot's strategies, an IAF's decision to Go-No-Go for a mission if it involves Su30 vs FC-1 scenario. Currently Su30 pilots might ont even bother to train these possibilities, as in its current form, FC-1 posses little or no threat to Su30, but if FC-1 recieves the upgrades I talked about, Su30 pilots will train HARD to avoid getting themselves attacked upon by FC-1. Again I talk of HYPOTHETICAL scenario, only if FC-1 gets upgrades ... currently Su30 pilots need not worry at all. I know I wouldnt (if i was flying Su30).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sapper

ouiouiouiouiouioui said:


> this is why i say comparing apple with oranges...you did it again........................now you see your post....and what i interpret from it is that there are lot of issues.....or when i say...in technical terms ....feedback data's.......which is very important.........but you wont get modifications in the same platform let us say SU27....but probably u will find modifications done and the bird's name is changed...this is actually development of platforms...SU's ..platform........now u come to chinese platform...and i dont have any feedback.......atleast when i say feedback...it should be a million hour baby........thats why i say......



Dear i am comparing Mi17 (russian) to A&#233;rospatiale Puma, boith are utility helis with two engines each ... Mi17 has 2500 flight hour enigne life ... Puma has 8000 ... more over ... Mi17 is pain in the *** to maintain.

Pakistan currently operates russian(Mi17), french(Puma), american(Bell412) equipment ... and its a fact that russian equipment is a pain in the @ss when it comes to RAM. I am talking about Heli's because currently Pakistan doesnt fly any russian fixed wing fighters, only amerian, french and chinese, so i cannot compare RAM capabilities of russian equipment while giving example from PAF fixed wing arsenel.

If you believe russian equipment has better RAM ... prove it ... or else, read what is written in your newspapers about your SAMs, AAMs and Fighters reliability.


----------



## desiman

Sapper said:


> dear ... stick to tech debate ... this is not political forum ... i probably shouldn't have dignified your post with a reply



I agree with you sapper, please everyone stick to the topic and please dont raise other issues here, lets keep it nice and friendly and no hard feelings please, act like adults not kids


----------



## ISRO2

Sapper said:


> you are right once again ... IOC + FOC will still take long ... perhaps 3~5 years will pass before we have a seasoned squadron of FC-1 ready for ACTIVE service, while having developed pilot skills as well as war-time strategies.
> 
> All we are talking here is the effect of FC-1 on Su30's pilot's strategies, an IAF's decision to Go-No-Go for a mission if it involves Su30 vs FC-1 scenario. Currently Su30 pilots might ont even bother to train these possibilities, as in its current form, FC-1 posses little or no threat to Su30, but if FC-1 recieves the upgrades I talked about, Su30 pilots will train HARD to avoid getting themselves attacked upon by FC-1. Again I talk of HYPOTHETICAL scenario, only if FC-1 gets upgrades ... currently Su30 pilots need not worry at all. I know I wouldnt (if i was flying Su30).



Sir please tell us after upgradation how much threat FC-1 can be to matured sukhoi-30MKI? thank you.


----------



## Sapper

ISRO2 said:


> Sir please tell us after upgradation how much threat FC-1 can be to matured sukhoi-30MKI? thank you.



Well Su27 series programmes have started to mature into Su30s, Su33s and Su35s decades after its inception ... same is the case with F16 and F15, and judjing by the history, FC-1 will be no different.

But one thing is for sure, Su30 IS and will remain one step ahead of FC-1 unless we produce some WARP speed miracle program to upgrade our FC-1 faster than the speed of light. FC-1 is and will remain inferior tech as compare to MKI, reason being that it was created to replace Our Mirages/F7s/A5s/F6s and counter IAFs Mig21s/Mirages/Mig29s but not Su30s.

If we somehow manage to produce an upgrade that will neutralize IAFs MKI advantage altogether (and i doubt that it will EVER happen), India will imidiately buy another upgrade for MKI or worse ... a superior weapons platform and dump MKI altogether, just like its mig21s (which were pride of IAF Dacades ago).

In short term, none of these fact hold true, as both planes will continue to develop with time for atleast 2~3 dacades, and who knows what the tech sccenario will look like then.


----------



## hack

Sapper said:


> Well Su27 series programmes have started to mature into Su30s, Su33s and Su35s decades after its inception ... same is the case with F16 and F15, and judjing by the history, FC-1 will be no different.
> 
> But one thing is for sure, Su30 IS and will remain one step ahead of FC-1 unless we produce some WARP speed miracle program to upgrade our FC-1 faster than the speed of light. FC-1 is and will remain inferior tech as compare to MKI, reason being that it was created to replace Our Mirages/F7s/A5s/F6s and counter IAFs Mig21s/Mirages/Mig29s but not Su30s.
> 
> If we somehow manage to produce an upgrade that will neutralize IAFs MKI advantage altogether (and i doubt that it will EVER happen), India will imidiately buy another upgrade for MKI or worse ... a superior weapons platform and dump MKI altogether, just like its mig21s (which were pride of IAF Dacades ago).
> 
> In short term, none of these fact hold true, as both planes will continue to develop with time for atleast 2~3 dacades, and who knows what the tech sccenario will look like then.



The J-17 will continue to mature but the Su-30 has gone almost as much as it can.The ultimate evolution is the SU-35..in abilities seems pretty close to the MKI but for a better engine(which I heard is on the way into the MKI in the future) there will be no more flanker upgrades after that.The PAK-FA is the next platform.


----------



## Jako

What about the smart skin,radar upgrade apart from the tvc engine?.....also brahmos carrying capability?.....what more do you want?


----------



## hack

Jako said:


> What about the smart skin,radar upgrade apart from the tvc engine?.....also brahmos carrying capability?.....what more do you want?



smart skin = rumor

radar upgrade = Yes

New TVC engine = Yes (from the Su 35)

brahmos = doubtful if the modifications can be done

Anyway the point remains, not much can be done with the Su 30 MKI from this point on.


----------



## sudhir007

Sapper said:


> Well Su27 series programmes have started to mature into Su30s, Su33s and Su35s decades after its inception ... same is the case with F16 and F15, and judjing by the history, FC-1 will be no different.
> 
> But one thing is for sure, Su30 IS and will remain one step ahead of FC-1 unless we produce some WARP speed miracle program to upgrade our FC-1 faster than the speed of light. FC-1 is and will remain inferior tech as compare to MKI, reason being that it was created to replace Our Mirages/F7s/A5s/F6s and counter IAFs Mig21s/Mirages/Mig29s but not Su30s.
> 
> If we somehow manage to produce an upgrade that will neutralize IAFs MKI advantage altogether (and i doubt that it will EVER happen), India will imidiately buy another upgrade for MKI or worse ... a superior weapons platform and dump MKI altogether, just like its mig21s (which were pride of IAF Dacades ago).
> 
> In short term, none of these fact hold true, as both planes will continue to develop with time for atleast 2~3 dacades, and who knows what the tech sccenario will look like then.


Remember India already plan to upgrade the old fleet by 2014 with new tvc, ost, asea, internal weapon way to reduce rcs at time you only have not more then 50 fc-1. and one more think MKI is iaf front line a/c before fgfa come when u include block-2 as your front line our mki is second line of plane.


----------



## wangrong




----------



## SBD-3

Haanzo said:


> dont worry su-30 blips on pakistans border radars will become a common thing now as they will be placed near the western border ...Bet tHose guys at PAF will be thinking of clearing IOC right now ,not facing flankers LOL



lets they dont bilp on SAMs


----------



## Haanzo

> The RCS of the flankers cannot be reduced



LOL if your sam systems have decent radars MKIs certainly will be painted ( you understand whats painted right ;-)


----------



## Sapper

Haanzo said:


> LOL if your sam systems have decent radars MKIs certainly will be painted ( you understand whats painted right ;-)



I am confused ... do you intend to say that Su30 is difficult to detect using radar ???


----------



## Haanzo

^^ no dude im just trying to have a laugh here, i dont wana talk in a way that my words have two meanings LOL----you should remember one thing radar systems always grow faster than aircraft tech ---look at russian l-band stealth killing radars so understand that ---i was just trying to have a laugh (i dont wanna say i was making fun of those radars )


----------



## gambit

Haanzo said:


> ^^ no dude im just trying to have a laugh here, i dont wana talk in a way that my words have two meanings LOL----you should remember one thing radar systems always grow faster than aircraft tech ---*look at russian l-band stealth killing radars* so understand that ---i was just trying to have a laugh (i dont wanna say i was making fun of those radars )


Give me a break...The Russians are at least one generation behind US, in *BOTH* aviation and radar technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haanzo

i never said russian aircrafts or radars are superior than americans  please point out that in my previous post ...have you herd anything called sarcasm


----------



## Storm Force

Nice picture of thunder

[


----------



## PakShaheen79

I think Flankers have reached their limit in upgradation in MKI program. I don't think any serious upgrades other than radars and Engines, like Stealth, internal weapon bay etc.


----------



## AVIAN

PakShaheen79 said:


> I think Flankers have reached their limit in upgradation in MKI program. I don't think any serious upgrades other than radars and Engines, like Stealth, internal weapon bay etc.



Stealth and Internal weapon bay, how can you even think of incoroporating such features in non-stealth aircraft, such features are reserved for PAK-FA. Regarding limits of flanker upgradation, this is incorrect idea, still it can house AESA in place of its Current PESA, next generation avionics, Air-to-Air Missiles, Air to ground weaponery.


----------



## PakShaheen79

AVIAN said:


> Stealth and Internal weapon bay, how can you even think of incoroporating such features in non-stealth aircraft, such features are reserved for PAK-FA. Regarding limits of flanker upgradation, this is incorrect idea, still it can house AESA in place of its Current PESA, next generation avionics, Air-to-Air Missiles, Air to ground weaponery.



 I said except radar and engine. Next generation avionics?? What is these?


----------



## MZUBAIR

JF-17 destroying IAF


----------



## gambit

AVIAN said:


> *Stealth and Internal weapon bay, how can you even think of incoroporating such features in non-stealth aircraft*, such features are reserved for PAK-FA. Regarding limits of flanker upgradation, this is incorrect idea, still it can house AESA in place of its Current PESA, next generation avionics, Air-to-Air Missiles, Air to ground weaponery.


Very possible and Boeing did it with the F-15 Silent Eagle. In order to understand *HOW* is it possible, all we have to do is go back to the basics -- of a radar signal's behavior on surface...












Do not mind the antennas, they are of a separate issue. But focus on the behaviors of a signal on the right side of the images. Both behaviors (above) increases a body's overall averaged RCS value. Where the vertical stab meet the fuselage is a 'corner reflector'. So Boeing slightly angled the F-15SE's twin vertical stabs. But nothing can be done for any single stab aircraft. In fact, when General Dynamics was in competition for the current 'stealth' fighter contract, their design was so aerodynamically poor that they had to resort to a single vertical stab body and GD effectively eliminated itself from the competition. That left Lockheed's YF-22 and Northrop's YF-23 with the YF-23 had no vertical stab at all.

Pylons attached to the wings are electronically *GINORMOUS* corner reflectors. When pylons are attached with ordnance, fuel tanks or assorted peripherals, each assembly become even greater electronic beacons. Where the cockpit canopy meet the fuselage, the gap created by these two items can become corner reflectors. That is why we see sawtooth patterns on the F-117 and others. Same for weapons bay doors. Same for landing gear bay doors.

So by covering up missiles and bombs, and Boeing did it by converting conformal fuel tanks into weapons bay. Boeing eliminated a lot of corner reflectors from the aircraft. Any corner reflectors remaining belongs to the aircraft itself and may be sometime in the future some more may be eliminated by some creative modifications that does not adversely affect flight characteristics. Remember how an Israeli F-15 that in a mid-air collision that sheared off its right wing and the pilot managed a landing? That is robust extraordinaire. So it is very possible that Boeing can eliminate some more corner reflectors to make the F-15 even more low observable. We simply do not know at this time.

Internalizing weapons does not necessarily mean putting them inside the body. As far as us EW specialists goes, covering them up with some curvy features is just as good. Now whether those coverings are aerodynamically stable or not is up to the 'windy' gents over at the 'big fan' facility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gogbot

gambit said:


> Very possible and Boeing did it with the F-15 Silent Eagle. In order to understand *HOW* is it possible, all we have to do is go back to the basics -- of a radar signal's behavior on surface...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not mind the antennas, they are of a separate issue. But focus on the behaviors of a signal on the right side of the images. Both behaviors (above) increases a body's overall averaged RCS value. Where the vertical stab meet the fuselage is a 'corner reflector'. So Boeing slightly angled the F-15SE's twin vertical stabs. But nothing can be done for any single stab aircraft. In fact, when General Dynamics was in competition for the current 'stealth' fighter contract, their design was so aerodynamically poor that they had to resort to a single vertical stab body and GD effectively eliminated itself from the competition. That left Lockheed's YF-22 and Northrop's YF-23 with the YF-23 had no vertical stab at all.
> 
> Pylons attached to the wings are electronically *GINORMOUS* corner reflectors. When pylons are attached with ordnance, fuel tanks or assorted peripherals, each assembly become even greater electronic beacons. Where the cockpit canopy meet the fuselage, the gap created by these two items can become corner reflectors. That is why we see sawtooth patterns on the F-117 and others. Same for weapons bay doors. Same for landing gear bay doors.
> 
> So by covering up missiles and bombs, and Boeing did it by converting conformal fuel tanks into weapons bay. Boeing eliminated a lot of corner reflectors from the aircraft. Any corner reflectors remaining belongs to the aircraft itself and may be sometime in the future some more may be eliminated by some creative modifications that does not adversely affect flight characteristics. Remember how an Israeli F-15 that in a mid-air collision that sheared off its right wing and the pilot managed a landing? That is robust extraordinaire. So it is very possible that Boeing can eliminate some more corner reflectors to make the F-15 even more low observable. We simply do not know at this time.
> 
> Internalizing weapons does not necessarily mean putting them inside the body. As far as us EW specialists goes, covering them up with some curvy features is just as good. Now whether those coverings are aerodynamically stable or not is up to the 'windy' gents over at the 'big fan' facility.



Plausible but there are limits considering the design limitations.
So it would never be a true stealth fighter.
but an added bonus no doubt if facing similar aircraft.


----------



## gambit

gogbot said:


> Plausible but there are limits considering the design limitations.
> So it would never be a *true stealth fighter.*
> but an added bonus no doubt if facing similar aircraft.


There is no such thing as a 'true stealth fighter'. There are no accepted official criterias that said so-and-so RCS value would make a design a 'stealth' aircraft. The correct term is 'low observability'. However, the unofficial accepted standard, as far as RCS goes, would be the F-16 threshold. Below the F-16 and an aircraft begins to intrude into the low observability region where radar operators begins to get nervous.


----------



## Storm Force

Re Pak Shaheens comments re MKI upgrade potential. 

Mki is and will remain 4th generation. But already the Russians/ indians are using PAK FA technology to MLU the MKI to neat 4++ technology. 

Ibris Aesa radar which will fit IAF PAKFA will also be used on future mki from 2011. 

PAK FA standard BVR will be the ramjet R77 this will also be carried by mki.

Finally the new smartskin up grade is jammers/ electronics which will also house the PAK FA. 

The mki is benefitting hughly from the 5th generation fighter programme.. 

The question i have is how will PAF JF17 survive and be stil worthwhile in a arena that includes an upgraded smartskin/aesa equipped mki & 5th generation internal weapons bay pak fa which paf will face by 2020. 

Just a thought The Thunder is yet to acheive IOC let alone FOC. The requirement to have 150-200 Thunders is $billions of dollars and 5-7 years away from reality.

In contrast IAF already have inducted 6 sqds of mki since 2004 and are ready to witness the prototype flight of the indo russian FGFA 5gen fighter in Nov/dec 2009


----------



## Young-khan

Storm Force said:


> Re Pak Shaheens comments re MKI upgrade potential.
> 
> 
> The question i have is how will PAF JF17 survive and be stil worthwhile in a arena that includes an upgraded smartskin/aesa equipped mki & 5th generation internal weapons bay pak fa which paf will face by 2020.
> 
> Just a thought The Thunder is yet to acheive IOC let alone FOC. The requirement to have 150-200 Thunders is $billions of dollars and 5-7 years away from reality.
> 
> In contrast IAF already have inducted 6 sqds of mki since 2004 and are ready to witness the prototype flight of the indo russian FGFA 5gen fighter in Nov/dec 2009




Well there are many people out there including me at times feel that jf17 thunder has arrived may be 5 years or so too late.

However if we look at long term then i feel that the thunder is late but it does provide us with experience of fighter jets, assembly and hopefully full scale manufacture.

In this sense the thunder is a good thing for pakistan, i agree that already the mki have an edge and with upgrades that will further widen the gap in terms of quality. But we can not look at it this way as we can gradually raise the standards of the thunder and hopefully this will lead to aquring technology to manufacture the j10, as we will have good experience by then.

People are expecting too muh from thunder, we have no solid facts and first squadron wont be up in air till end of 2009, so lets wait and see what happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Young Khan. 

Re the Thunder being too late.. 

I think the Thunder is stil a great way to replace the F7 & MIRAGES very cost effectively. 

Theres no way Pakistan as a country can replace 300+ mirages/F7 with
$50m+ dollar planes like gripen or even F16/60 or Rafael.. 

So 200+ Thunder @ $15m each is a very smart programme. 

But it does seem the indians are beginning to pull away from PAF in technology via their huge military budgets today and in the next decade. 

Its not just mki/or FGFA russian link up but the other programmes like s300 sams spyder sams, green pine radars phalcon awacs and aerostat radars. 

The israelis are playing a big part on this build up of expensive western technology

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Young-khan

I fully agree that India has advanced well with help of israel, this is nothing new the participation of israel in indian upgrades and weapon procurements.

I srael feel threatened by pakistan, yet pakistan has never showed any hostile act towards it, thus they help india keep an edge on pakistan in defence matters.

India has surpassed us due to their large economy and defence budget, however we have always worked against all odds stacked against us and have not come out doing too badly.

The only way for pakistan forward is to have indigenous arms programmes which in return are cheaper and much experience can be gained for future needs.

I think pakistan should have atleast 100 j10 along with thunders and a very dedicated network of sam and this brings down the indian numerical and technological advantage.


----------



## PakShaheen79

I think best option for Pakistan in current situation can be 
1)-Complete replacement of old jets ASAP
2)-Keep on upgrading Thunders
3)-Try to seek additional F-16s from where ever they are available..with MLU
4)-Ask China to allow PAF to be part of JXX or any similar projects in future..

Relying on West or US ... is NOT an option for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rajeev

I think Pak should keep on saving money until India's MRCA is known. That way, they would know what plane they have to face more often in case of the war and the relevant plane and config. Rather than shooting in the dark, wont that be a good scenario?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AVIAN

PakShaheen79 said:


> I said except radar and engine. Next generation avionics?? What is these?



Oh you already said that MKI will get next generation radar and still asking what Next generation avionics?


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

i think that after the new F16s arrive in Pakistan, we should seriously consider only looking at Chinese aircrafts from then onwards.

Chinese are getting great experience in this field. And we always give them very specific instructions and requirements which they manage to fulfill (such as PNS Zulfiqar, Z-9s, J-7Ps etc.).

J-11 flanker is what we should highly highly highly consider.


----------



## MZUBAIR

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i think that after the new F16s arrive in Pakistan, we should seriously consider only looking at Chinese aircrafts from then onwards.
> 
> Chinese are getting great experience in this field. And we always give them very specific instructions and requirements which they manage to fulfill (such as PNS Zulfiqar, Z-9s, J-7Ps etc.).
> 
> J-11 flanker is what we should highly highly highly consider.



I doubt we will ever get F-16.
Gov made us dead


----------



## Young-khan

MZUBAIR said:


> I doubt we will ever get F-16.
> Gov made us dead





Why would we need f16, i understand we have great experience with them and they are fabilous but they come with conditions and chain around your ankle.

Pakistan needs to move away from total reliance and expand its own defence industry. Joint project are the way forward to gain knowledge and experience and use that as a platform to progress on from.

Jf17 night might not be on pars with mki etc but its the valuable experience gained through designing and assembling and a modern jet. Its a project that can be maintained by our low defence budget and result is a very modern and decent fighter.


----------



## IBRIS

Storm Force said:


> Re Pak Shaheens comments re MKI upgrade potential.
> 
> Mki is and will remain 4th generation. But already the Russians/ indians are using PAK FA technology to MLU the MKI to neat 4++ technology.
> 
> Ibris Aesa radar which will fit IAF PAKFA will also be used on future mki from 2011.




N011M Bars radar installed in the larger Su-30MKI fighter aircraft it already has in service, while the Su-30MKI is 4.5 generation aircraft, modified from the last fourth generation aircraft 













IAF with its phalcon AWACS and SU-30MKI already is superior in the skies above Tibet & Pakistan. Its also upgrading the MKI's to Ibris AESA radar in end of 2009 which is to be co-developed.


----------



## PakShaheen79

AVIAN said:


> Oh you already said that MKI will get next generation radar and still asking what Next generation avionics?



Avionics includes a lot more than a radar.


----------



## ice_man

look all the JF currently needs is a good avionics suit! once we have that we can atleast hope for a 50 50 chance of the JF going up against the MKI but in current state JF with its KLJ-7 radar is no match for the superior MKI......we need a radar of the rafale or the eurofighter atleast!!!


----------



## gogbot

ice_man said:


> look all the JF currently needs is a good avionics suit! once we have that we can atleast hope for a 50 50 chance of the JF going up against the MKI but in current state JF with its KLJ-7 radar is no match for the superior MKI......we need a radar of the rafale or the eurofighter atleast!!!



So what you are saying is that As long as the plane has the most advanced radar and avionics. its just as good as another plane.

So why do countries spend so much to make newer and different Jets.
Do they just get bored flying the same plane.
if all we have to do is stick in new avionics to make a plane good. why bother making different ones?

And Just to point out before the JF-17 can engae the MKI on even ground, it has to be a better jet that the J-10B. So unless you are telling me that the JF-17 can be better than a J-10B or F-16, in which case why aren't the Chinese mass producing the JF-17?
and why is the PAF still getting F-16?

Its about time you face reality and admit the only reason you are even buying this plane is because it the only one you can afford.
In that You can get a Functioning modern plane and maintain or even increase Fleet numbers in the long run.


----------



## Storm Force

JF17 versis SU30MKI 50/50 CHANCE. 

next you people will say F7 just needs a new radar to match mki


----------



## Storm Force

JF17 versis SU30MKI 50/50 CHANCE. 

next you people will say F7 just needs a new radar to match mki

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

Storm Force said:


> JF17 versis SU30MKI 50/50 CHANCE.
> 
> next you people will say F7 just needs a new radar to match mki



Next you will say F-22 needs a new radar to match mki.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

gogbot said:


> And Just to point out before the JF-17 can engae the MKI on even ground, it has to be a better jet that the J-10B.


You don't know a single thing about J-10B except what it looks like, so your claim proves you're typing trash. 



gogbot said:


> Its about time you face reality and admit the only reason you are even buying this plane is because it the only one you can afford.


If that helps you sleep better, keep believing that. The reality is that you can't accept the mki is still just an upgraded flanker and the JF-17 was developed to be capable of defeating it. 

The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.

How about you quit trolling and face reality yourself?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## raveolution

hj786 said:


> You don't know a single thing about J-10B except what it looks like, so your claim proves you're just typing trash.



Agree with you that not a single thing is known regarding the J10B. 

However everyone in this forum comments how the J10B will be better than the F16 or the MKI or the MRCA, etc. Why so? The existence of J10B today is also not confirmed, though there is news that China is in the final stages of developing an upgraded version of the J10. Why does everyone talk like the FC20 will be inducted tomorrow and will be a frontline aircraft? At best the aircraft will be seen around 2014-15. Also PAF wants to integrate western avionics and radar on the J10B for which no concrete steps or orders have been placed as yet, it may delay the programme further.

Hope the PAF will get these aircraft as soon as possible, since they really need a frontline fighter apart from the F16's. Hope you agree with me.

Cheers


----------



## beckham

*My standard post for JF-17 vs Su-30MKI comparison !*


 JF-17 Thunder 








*Crew: * 1

*Unit cost: * *US$ 15 million (estimated)*&#9733; 

*Max takeoff weight: * 12,700 kg 

*Powerplant: * 1&#215; Klimov RD-93 turbofan 

*Maximum Speed : * Mach 1.8 

*Radar: * Italian Grifo S-7 ?

*Range: * 3,000 km

*Thrust/weight: * 0.99

*Rate of climb: *175 m/s ?

*Service ceiling:* 16,700 m 

*G-limit:* +8.5 g

*hardpoints: * 7 hardpoints being increased to 9 !





UNIQUE FEATURES 

*+*Ra'ad ALCM is planned to be integrated with and launched from JF-17.

*+*The EW suite is also linked to a missile approach warning (MAW) system to help it defend against radar-guided missiles.

*+*NRIET KLJ-7 radar's multiple modes allow surveillance and simultaneous engagement of multiple air, ground and sea targets, of which a total of 40 can be managed. Using the track-while-scan (TWS) mode, the radar can track up to 10 targets at beyond visual range (BVR) and engage 2 of them simultaneously with radar homing air-to-air missiles. The operation range for targets with a radar cross-section (RCS) of 5 m2 is stated to be &#8805;105 km in look-up mode and &#8805;85 km in look-down mode.

Latest developments 

Remaining production aircraft may also be equipped with European avionics, radars and weaponry. Pakistan had begun negotiations with British and Italian defence firms over potential avionics and radars for JF-17 during initial development. Some of the radar options for JF-17 are the Italian Galileo Avionica Grifo S7 and the French Thomson-CSF RC400 (a variant of the RDY-2), along with the MBDA MICA IR/RF short/medium range air-to-air missiles. The Vixen 500E AESA radar has also been offered to the PAF for installation on the JF-17 by the British company SELEX, but the PAF may be looking for a more advanced AESA radar


Sukhoi Su-30MKI 






*Crew: * 2&#9733; 

*Unit cost: US $40 million *

*Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb) *&#9733; 

*Powerplant: * 2&#215; Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with *thrust vectoring, 131 kN (29,449 lbf) each *&#9733; 

*Maximum speed: * Mach 2.35&#9733; 

*Radar: * N011M Bars (Panther) (PESA)&#9733; 

*Range: 5,000 km and 8,000 km * at a cruise height of 11 to 13 km with air refueling system.&#9733; 

*Thrust/weight: 1.07 (at loaded weight & 1.15 with 50&#37; fuel) *&#9733; 

*Rate of climb: > 355 m/s *&#9733;

*Service ceiling:* 17,300 m&#9733;

*G-limit:* 9+g / 9.5 g&#9733; 

*hardpoints: * Su 30 MKI has *12* hardpoints.which can be increased to *14* by using multi-payload racks. &#9733; 



UNIQUE FEATURES 






*+ canard increases the aircraft lifting ability and allow high angle-of-attack (AoA) *

*+ avionics sourced from Russia, France, Israel and India *

*+ * N011M has a *350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range * The radar can track *15* air targets and *engage four simultaneously*. These targets can even include *cruise missiles and motionless helicopters*. The *Su-30MKI can function as a mini-AWACS *as a director or command post for other aircraft. The *target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to at least four other aircraft*. The *radar can detect ground targets such as tanks at 40&#8211;50 km. * 

*+ radar range of 60 km in the rear hemisphere *

*+ * A modified Su-30MKI is being used to carry *BrahMos cruise missiles with range 300 km.*

*+* Novator K-100 *(Range-possibly 300&#8211;400 km )*missile was designed to shoot down AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft whilst keeping the launch platform out of range of any fighters that might be protecting the target.

+N011M can function in *air-to-air and air-to-land/sea mode simultaneously* while being tied into a high-precision laser-inertial or GPS navigation system.

+Su-30MKI aerodynamic configuration is an unstable longitudinal triplane. The canard increases the aircraft lifting ability and deflects automatically to allow high angle-of-attack (AoA) flights allowing it to perform Pugachev's Cobra. The integral aerodynamic configuration combined with thrust vectoring results in extremely capable maneuverability, taking off and landing characteristics. This high agility allows rapid deployment of weapons in any direction as desired by the crew. The canard notably assists in controlling the aircraft at large angles-of-attack and bringing it to a level flight condition.

Latest developments 

UAC together with HAL has been developing fifth generation fighter features such as *internal weapons carriage* and *radar absorbent material for IAF Su-30MKIs by modifying their airframes to make them stealthy, converting the existing &#8216;Bars&#8217; into an Active Phased Array Radar*, enhancing the situational awareness by *incorporating active electronically scanned transmit/receive arrays on the aircraft&#8217;s wings and pumping up the defensive-aids suite by installing a combined radar/laser warning system and a missile approach warning system*.








*- please correct me if I am wrong with Specifications*

Have your say ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## hj786

raveolution said:


> Agree with you that not a single thing is known regarding the J10B.


Thank you.


raveolution said:


> However everyone in this forum comments how the J10B will be better than the F16 or the MKI or the MRCA, etc. Why so? The existence of J10B today is also not confirmed, though there is news that China is in the final stages of developing an upgraded version of the J10. Why does everyone talk like the FC20 will be inducted tomorrow and will be a frontline aircraft? At best the aircraft will be seen around 2014-15. Also PAF wants to integrate western avionics and radar on the J10B for which no concrete steps or orders have been placed as yet, it may delay the programme further.
> 
> Hope the PAF will get these aircraft as soon as possible, since they really need a frontline fighter apart from the F16's. Hope you agree with me.



Actually you're wrong on several points. The senior members don't say anything of the sort. The existence of J-10B is confirmed (just one of many sources: New J-10 variant sighted). Nobody is talking like that at all. The PAF did want to integrate Western avionics and radar, but the Chinese have insisted they can meet the PAF's requirements (as they did with the JF-17's radar and avionics) and the PAF have decided to give them a chance to do so. Why are you talking like you know that no steps have been taken? How can you possibly know that? 

I agree that the F-16 cannot be relied upon by the PAF. It is more than capable enough but the source is not trustworthy enough.

Beckham, you missed the following from the JF-17 part:
- 7 hardpoints being increased to 9 
- In-flight refuelling probe 
- Uprated engines expected (a report posted here recently said the contract for an upgraded RD-93 with 9100 kgf thrust was signed recently by China.)
- Airframe weight reduction through greater use of composite materials 
- Radar signature reduction through minor airframe modifications expected
If you were going to copy the Wikipedia article, why didn't you copy the "Avionics" section which talks about the HMS/D, IRST, data-link, etc.?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beckham

hj786 said:


> You don't know a single thing about J-10B except what it looks like, so your claim proves you're typing trash.
> 
> 
> If that helps you sleep better, keep believing that. *The reality is that you can't accept the mki is still just an upgraded flanker and the JF-17 was developed to be capable of defeating it. *
> 
> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.
> 
> How about you quit trolling and face reality yourself?



Seriously dude...u need to update yourself on MKI ! Ignorance is bliss !


----------



## emotionless_teenage

can someone provide a data about JF-17 cost per flight(and if possible a source too)

thanks in advance


----------



## beckham

hj786 said:


> Beckham, you missed the following from the JF-17 part:
> 
> - 7 hardpoints being increased to 9



Su 30 MKI has 12 hardpoints.which can be increased to 14 by using multi-payload racks.



> - In-flight refuelling probe



check ! 



> - Uprated engines *expected* (a report posted here recently said the contract for an upgraded RD-93 with 9100 kgf thrust was signed recently by China.)



Tell me when its ready ! btw I would like to see that report ! 



> - Airframe weight reduction through greater use of composite materials



Every aircraft use composite materials for weight reduction, not much of an advantage ! 



> - Radar signature reduction through minor airframe modifications *expected*



MKI is also expecting one !



> If you were going to copy the Wikipedia article, *why didn't you copy the "Avionics" section which talks about the HMS/D, IRST, data-link, etc.?*




*Because it was not worth mentioning ! Even IAF mig-21 bison have those !*  btw, everything I posted was not from wiki, expect minor specifications !




> Upgrades specifications of IAF MiG-21 Bison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **Super Kopyo X-band pulse Doppler radar.
> 
> *R-27AE AA-10 Alamo-E Active radar homing version. Range 1 km to 130 km. Weight 349 kg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AA-11 "Archer",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *integrated BVR attack capability with R-77 BVRAAMs and PGMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * composites,nosecone, canopy, single-piece windshield and new canopy made of stressed acrylic .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *conformal countermeasure dispensers.
> 
> *New sophisticated EW suite comprises of a DRDO Tarang RWR/RHAWS, "Tempest" internal Self-protection jammer (SPJ) and the conformal CMDS.
> 
> *Sextant's TOTEM RLG-INS with NSS-100P GPS embedded GPS receivers
> 
> *El-Op HUD.
> 
> *infrared search and track system (IRST) from Russia's URALs optical-mechanical plant.
> 
> *Sextant MFD-55 LCD displays.
> 
> *autopilot, radar warning receivers (RWR), digital flight data recorder,
> 
> *HOTAS controls,
> 
> *new HF/VHF/UHF radios,
> 
> *new electric power supply system,
> 
> *A modified version of this RWR will be used aboard the Su-30MKI.
> 
> *SURA helmet mounted sight, used by Flanker pilots,  *




*:Mod Edit:*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beckham

^^ Please don't get the impression that I am comparing JF-17 to MIG-21 !


----------



## Guest

in an air combat, tactics and quantity are more important then quantity, if both of them could be categorise in the same generation. because a BVR missiles' hit rate is much more below what it is advertised. take R77 for example, the odds of JF-17 to dodge a R77 is about 66&#37;, the odds of MKI would be higher of course, in air combat configuration( 50% fuel, 2*BVR,4*WVR). but the missile could acquire the target if JF-17 is being illuminated by the enemy again. so if it is an one on one scenario, MKI would easily got the upper hand because it can complete the dodging faster and then guide the missile to its target again. however, if this is a 1v2 scenario, things change dreamatically. a basic tactic would be to fly the second JF out of the MKI's reach to keep illuminating the MKI. 

and if the number is 16 vs 32, there would be more options. such as 16 JF to engage the enemy, 4 to illuminate , and 8 to charge from hi-altitude into the MKI formation to fight a close combat.

so, nothing is certain. JF won't be sitting ducks because its inferior in quality.


----------



## raveolution

hj786 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Actually you're wrong on several points. The senior members don't say anything of the sort. The existence of J-10B is confirmed (just one of many sources: New J-10 variant sighted). Nobody is talking like that at all. The PAF did want to integrate Western avionics and radar, but the Chinese have insisted they can meet the PAF's requirements (as they did with the JF-17's radar and avionics) and the PAF have decided to give them a chance to do so. Why are you talking like you know that no steps have been taken? How can you possibly know that?



So lets discuss this when the J10B is ready for delivery with all final specifications decided whether Chinese, Western or whatever. And lets talk about JF17 when the first squadron is inducted and the aircraft gets FOC. Also JF17 radar and avionics is far below what is desired by the PAF, hence Block 2,3 which have been planned. Until 2012, PAF will only have stripped down versions (Blk1). 

Please feel free to disagree. I think we cannot compare aircraft which have been around for years, seen combat experience and which are already in operation in the IAF with aircraft which are still in development/ recently developed. However that does not mean that it cannot be a capable platform in years to come, which the PAF have indicated and which should be done asap since both qualitative and quantitative advantage lies with the IAF currently, which was not so historically.


----------



## IceCold

beckham said:


> Seriously dude...u need to update yourself on MKI ! Ignorance is bliss !



And you need to update yourself on JF-17 because the radar on JF-17 is not KLJ-7.


----------



## beckham

IceCold said:


> And you need to update yourself on JF-17 because the radar on JF-17 is not KLJ-7.



Thanks IceCold !  Thats why I left a question mark there !

Btw, which one is the actual radar ?


----------



## IceCold

beckham said:


> Thanks IceCold !  Thats why I left a question mark there !
> 
> Btw, which one is the actual radar ?



Radar on JF-17 is not known but members who have the first hand knowledge about the development of JF-17, members like Sir Murad have stated that the radar on JF-17 is not Chinese and certainly not KLJ-7


----------



## MZUBAIR

gogbot said:


> So what you are saying is that As long as the plane has the most advanced radar and avionics. its just as good as another plane.
> 
> So why do countries spend so much to make newer and different Jets.
> Do they just get bored flying the same plane.
> if all we have to do is stick in new avionics to make a plane good. why bother making different ones?
> 
> And Just to point out before the JF-17 can engae the MKI on even ground, it has to be a better jet that the J-10B. So unless you are telling me that the JF-17 can be better than a J-10B or F-16, in which case why aren't the Chinese mass producing the JF-17?
> and why is the PAF still getting F-16?
> 
> *Its about time you face reality and admit the only reason you are even buying this plane is because it the only one you can afford.*In that You can get a Functioning modern plane and maintain or even increase Fleet numbers in the long run.



Funny typical Indian note !!!!!!!

1st PAF's , JF-17 (Saber II) project was to bring new fighter, to replace old fleet like A5, F7, Mirage.

PAF have more western avonics and jets then India have _(wt makes u proudy)_.
PAF Chinees jets are developed on Russian Technology (Used by India). RD-93 used in JF-17 ......go n study abt RD-93....its another version of Klimov RD-33 turbofan used in Mig29.

PAF getting 26 F-16 Block 52 in 2010 n 2011 total will make 70.

*JF-17 is an evaluation jet, its purpose is to get skills of Jet fighter development. Nodoubt its much batter then any of IAF air craft except MKI.*

Its agile, its leathel...then any air craft of IAF......it can be loaded with western avoinics. Radar is little weak but still gives long edge with track, target, lock n fire enemy craft within range of 100KM.

There are only two things of JF-17 that needs to be upgrade to match MKI....one AESA radar and other heavy thrust engine.......*all other qualities of JF qualify for 4.5th generation fighter.*

So batter 4 u to stop typical Indian approach to defame PAK or PAK efforts. 
JF-17 is a descent succefull effort. So plz respect it......atleast its in the air but we are still waiting for completion of LCA, which is already begging for foreign support.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wangrong

Meaningless 

JF17/FC1 light plane 
su30MKI heavy plane

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

hj786 said:


> You don't know a single thing about J-10B except what it looks like, so your claim proves you're typing trash.
> 
> 
> If that helps you sleep better, keep believing that. The reality is that you can't accept the mki is still just an upgraded flanker and the JF-17 was developed to be capable of defeating it.
> 
> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.
> 
> How about you quit trolling and face reality yourself?



Yes JF-17 is the best aircraft ever made in the world and it can even beat the F-22 in many scenarios. The MKI is useless and its stupid why almost every other credible source rates it among the 5 best aircrafts in the world. Even with way superior avionics, TVC and officially confirmed 4.5 generation aircraft, The MKI wont be able to do much in front of a JF-17 which is cheap alternative for countries who cannot afford an actual modern generation aircraft. So that settles it that the JF-17 is way better than the MKI so now every JF-17 fanboy can rest in peace because they dont want to listen to logical arguments anyways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beckham

wangrong said:


> Meaningless
> 
> JF17/FC1 light plane
> su30MKI heavy plane



Yaa, I think we should stop comparing peanut with coconut !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

gogbot said:


> So what you are saying is that As long as the plane has the most advanced radar and avionics. its just as good as another plane.
> 
> So why do countries spend so much to make newer and different Jets.
> Do they just get bored flying the same plane.
> if all we have to do is stick in new avionics to make a plane good. why bother making different ones?
> 
> And Just to point out before the JF-17 can engae the MKI on even ground, it has to be a better jet that the J-10B. So unless you are telling me that the JF-17 can be better than a J-10B or F-16, in which case why aren't the Chinese mass producing the JF-17?
> and why is the PAF still getting F-16?
> 
> *Its about time you face reality and admit the only reason you are even buying this plane is because it the only one you can afford.*In that You can get a Functioning modern plane and maintain or even increase Fleet numbers in the long run.



Funny typical Indian note !!!!!!!

1st PAF's , JF-17 (Saber II) project was to bring new fighter, to replace old fleet like A5, F7, Mirage.

PAF have more western avonics and jets then India have _(wt makes u proudy)_.
PAF Chinees jets are developed on Russian Technology (Used by India). RD-93 used in JF-17 ......go n study abt RD-93....its another version of Klimov RD-33 turbofan used in Mig29.

PAF getting 26 F-16 Block 52 in 2010 n 2011 total will make 70.

*JF-17 is an evaluation jet, its purpose is to get skills of Jet fighter development. Nodoubt its much batter then any of IAF air craft except MKI.*

Its agile, its leathel...then any air craft of IAF......it can be load with western avoinics. Radar is little weak but still gives long edge with track, target, lock n fire enemy craft within range of 100KM.

There are only two things of JF-17 that needs to be upgrade to match MKI....one AESA radar and other heavy thrust engine.......*all other qualities of JF qualify for 4.5th generation fighter.*

So batter 4 u to stop typical Indian approach to defame PAK or PAK efforts. 
JF-17 is a descent succefull effort. So plz respect it......atleast its in the air but we are still waiting for completion of LCA, which is already begging for foreign support.


----------



## desiman

MZUBAIR said:


> Funny typical Indian note !!!!!!!
> 
> 1st PAF's , JF-17 (Saber II) project was to bring new fighter, to replace old fleet like A5, F7, Mirage.
> 
> PAF have more western avonics and jets then India have _(wt makes u proudy)_.
> PAF Chinees jets are developed on Russian Technology (Used by India). RD-93 used in JF-17 ......go n study abt RD-93....its another version of Klimov RD-33 turbofan used in Mig29.
> 
> PAF getting 26 F-16 Block 52 in 2010 n 2011 total will make 70.
> 
> *JF-17 is an evaluation jet, its purpose is to get skills of Jet fighter development. Nodoubt its much batter then any of IAF air craft except MKI.*
> 
> Its agile, its leathel...then any air craft of IAF......it can be loaded with western avoinics. Radar is little weak but still gives long edge with track, target, lock n fire enemy craft within range of 100KM.
> 
> There are only two things of JF-17 that needs to be upgrade to match MKI....one AESA radar and other heavy thrust engine.......*all other qualities of JF qualify for 4.5th generation fighter.*
> 
> So batter 4 u to stop typical Indian approach to defame PAK or PAK efforts.
> JF-17 is a descent succefull effort. So plz respect it......atleast its in the air but we are still waiting for completion of LCA, which is already begging for foreign support.



MZUBAIR please prove with credible sources every argument you have made. How is the JF-17 superior to every other aircraft in the IAF ? is it even better than the MIG-29, Mirage 2000, let alone the bvr equipped bison. Please dont talk about the LCA when you have no idea whats its specifications are. If you actually go and read the technical details on the LCA, i am sure you will understand why it is officially an 4.5 generation aircraft and is truly magnificent aircraft. I hate it when JF-17 fanboys totally disregard the LCA because it is delayed. You have to understand that an aircraft of the standard of the LCA takes time and unlike the JF-17 cannot be developed in 2 years and put into service the next year. Please read about the LCA from neutral sources and then comment on it. India uses more and more of Israeli Tech rather than Western tech and i hope you know the credibility of Israeli tech. If you want more technical details on anything please let me know. I am not defaming the JF-17, which is an amazing achievement of the PAF, but please dont go around comparing it to every other aircraft in the world lol The basic fact is that the JF-17 is taking the place of the f-7 and mirage 3, and will play an interceptor role for the PAF. it is not made to go and hunt for other aircraft, the paf has the f-16 and in the future the j-10's to do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beckham

MZUBAIR said:


> *Funny typical Indian note * !!!!!!!
> 
> 1st PAF's , JF-17 (Saber II) project was to bring new fighter, to replace old fleet like A5, F7, Mirage.
> 
> PAF Chinees jets are developed on Russian Technology (Used by India). RD-93 used in JF-17 ......go n study abt RD-93....its another version of Klimov RD-33 turbofan used in Mig29.



A typical post to avoid embarrassment !  



> JF-17 is an evaluation jet, its purpose is to get skills of Jet fighter development. Nodoubt its much batter then any of IAF air craft *except MKI.*



Check out the title of the thread !



> Its agile, its leathel...*then any air craft of IAF*......it *can be *loaded with western avoinics. Radar is little weak but still gives long edge with track, target, lock n fire enemy craft within range of 100KM.



Nice one !  



> There are only two things of JF-17 that needs to be upgrade to match MKI....one AESA radar and other heavy thrust engine.......*all other qualities of JF qualify for 4.5th generation fighter.*



Those 2 are among the things you need ! Just have a look,

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-71.html#post511747


*-No one here is trying to defame PAF ,  such problems arise only when someone tries to compare an inferior fighter to MKI !*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

desidog said:


> MZUBAIR please prove with credible sources every argument you have made.



All resources are available wt specific u want to know .


> How is the JF-17 superior to every other aircraft in the IAF ? is it even better than the MIG-29, Mirage 2000, let alone the bvr equipped bison.



Yes, it is.......compare basic specs of Mirage 2K, Mig-29 and JF


> Please dont talk about the LCA when you have no idea what&#8217;s its specifications are.


 No one , even u dont have any idea abt LCA coz the project is already incomplete. U still dont have engine or radar.



> If you actually go and read the technical details on the LCA, i am sure you will understand why it is officially an 4.5 generation aircraft and is truly magnificent aircraft.


 I know very well abt 4.5th generation 



> I hate it when JF-17 fanboys totally disregard the LCA because it is delayed.



I m not a fanboy...aviod flaming comments.

The LCA delay was due to India's lack of experience in designing sophisticated fighter aircraft. Taking a leap from 2nd Generation _(HAL HF-24 Marut)_ to 4.5 Generation did proved India a serious obstacle.

now india desperately needed partner devloper to complete the proj ....especially when lookhead moved down ur request.

Still there is engine and radar problem in LCA

So, no one can say abt the specs of LCA coz its undecided.



> You have to understand that an aircraft of the standard of the LCA takes time and unlike the JF-17 cannot be developed in 2 years and put into service the next year. Please read about the LCA from neutral sources and then comment on it.



lolz 

Plz dont get personal, I m quoting facts.
I know much abt LCA project.

LCA is not 6th or 7th generation fighter that its taking too long.
It took long coz India lacks in expertise. I am not saying that Pak is expert but yes we have learnt alot in Joint Production with China and developed some thing which is in air.



> India uses more and more of Israeli Tech rather than Western tech and i hope you know the credibility of Israeli tech.



India has more Russian techs then any other.



> If you want more technical details on anything please let me know. I am not defaming the JF-17, which is an amazing achievement of the PAF, but please don&#8217;t go around comparing it to every other aircraft in the world lol The basic fact is that the JF-17 is taking the place of the f-7 and mirage 3, *and will play an interceptor role for the PAF.* it is not made to go and hunt for other aircraft, the paf has the f-16 and in the future the j-10's to do that.



JF-17 is multirole fighter. 

*I wish if u could post some technical details as per ur sayings. I will appriciade ur knowledge 
Visitors on this forum will love to know ur developed Technical details.*


----------



## arihant

wangrong said:


> Meaningless
> 
> JF17/FC1 light plane
> su30MKI heavy plane



If true, then only useful post of this thread.


----------



## MZUBAIR

beckham said:


> A typical post to avoid embarrassment !



Wts embarrassnent.
We have done , we have achieved. We r proud on our work

JF is in air.




> Check out the title of the thread !



I know the thread title....n the comments were in reply ....wasnt for u .....





> Nice one !
> 
> 
> 
> Those 2 are among the things you need ! Just have a look,
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-71.html#post511747
> 
> 
> *-No one here is trying to defame PAF ,  such problems arise only when someone tries to compare an inferior fighter to MKI !*



I am not comparing with MKI....did I compared specs?

I admited ur reference post, ck out the thanxs col of ur post.

I only discussed JF-17 abilities.....wt u also posted.


----------



## beckham

IceCold said:


> Radar on JF-17 is not known but members who have the first hand knowledge about the development of JF-17, members like Sir Murad have stated that the radar on JF-17 is not Chinese and certainly not KLJ-7



Found it ! 



> The JF-17s in service with the PAF are fitted with *an Italian Grifo S-7 multi-track*, multi-mode, pulse Doppler radar radar. The radar has 25 working modes and a non-break-down time of 200 hours, and is capable of &#8220;look-down, shoot-down&#8221;, as well as for ground strike abilities. Alternatively, the aircraft can be fitted with the Thales RC400, GEC Marconi Blue Hawk, Russian Phazotron Zemchug/Kopyo, and Chinese indigenous KLJ-7 developed by Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET).


----------



## beckham

MZUBAIR said:


> Wts embarrassnent.
> We have done , we have achieved. We r proud on our work
> 
> JF is in air.
> 
> I know the thread title....n the comments were in reply ....wasnt for u .....
> 
> 
> I am not comparing with MKI....did I compared specs?
> 
> I admited ur reference post, ck out the thanxs col of ur post.
> 
> I only discussed JF-17 abilities.....wt u also posted.




Sorry MZUBAIR , I was just replying to your posts ! 

we are cool !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

If an Su30 mki CAN TRACK a JF17 at 200km away. 

Engage 4 targets at the same time 

Carry up to 12 BVR/WVR missles 

Attack at extreme angles due to canards/TVC 

Climb twice as fast as a JF17 (CHECK ABOVE POST BEKHAM) 

How does a JF17 thunder fight with a radar that tracks at Half the distance and only carries half as many weapons over half the distance and half the the top speed. ??????????/

(In the 2 pictures posted MKI looks like a mid 4th gen fighter in camprison Thunder looks dated design) 

NB it only looks though they maybe deceiving

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Storm Force

One other very valid point. 

Whislt IAF has 6 oprational sqds of over 100+ mki already in service PAF is stil battling with 8 prototypes to pass Intial operational clearance. 

MKI as already flown in top western battle training grounds in USA UK and in India against the best fighters in the world. 

The MKI which itself is the most evovled/modern flanker ever built in service is already being readied for 5th generation MLU with a new AESA radar and new electronic smart skin concept which beckham eluded too. 

The 2 projects are 8 years apart in time scale OF INDUCTION and MKI is alreadying adding 5TH GENERATION PAK FA technology soon.

The tech level is a generation apart 

India involvement in the Russian FGFA PAK FA is already benefitting the IAF

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShaheen79

27 Pages and still going.... Oh lord plz send someone to tell both Indians and Pakistanis here that they are comparing apples to oranges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## raveolution

MZUBAIR said:


> Yes, it is.......compare basic specs of Mirage 2K, Mig-29 and JF



Global Aircraft -- Dassault Mirage 2000
Global Aircraft -- MiG-29 Fulcrum

Please read the basic or advanced specifications of both these aircraft and then make your statements. The links i've given are of older generation Mirage 2000 and Mig 29's. With their upgrades,which are underway, they will become even more capable aircraft.

How can you compare two aircraft which are proven platforms and which have seen combat with an aircraft that has not even gotten any FOC.

No hard feelings. Just my opinion.


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> 27 Pages and still going.... Oh lord plz send someone to tell both Indians and Pakistanis here that they are comparing apples to oranges.



Your point is very much valid PakShaheen. But the deal is that these two aircraft will be inducted in huge numbers in both airforces. 150 JF's (May eventually go upto 250) and 280 MKI's. When these aircraft go up against each other, they won't disengage and fly back to their respective countries because one is an apple and the other an orange. 

The fact remains that although not comparable, it will see action in any eventuality of war, which I hope is never.


----------



## desiman

MZUBAIR said:


> All resources are available wt specific u want to know .
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.......compare basic specs of Mirage 2K, Mig-29 and JF
> 
> No one , even u dont have any idea abt LCA coz the project is already incomplete. U still dont have engine or radar.
> 
> 
> I know very well abt 4.5th generation
> 
> 
> 
> I m not a fanboy...aviod flaming comments.
> 
> The LCA delay was due to India's lack of experience in designing sophisticated fighter aircraft. Taking a leap from 2nd Generation _(HAL HF-24 Marut)_ to 4.5 Generation did proved India a serious obstacle.
> 
> now india desperately needed partner devloper to complete the proj ....especially when lookhead moved down ur request.
> 
> Still there is engine and radar problem in LCA
> 
> So, no one can say abt the specs of LCA coz its undecided.
> 
> 
> 
> lolz
> 
> Plz dont get personal, I m quoting facts.
> I know much abt LCA project.
> 
> LCA is not 6th or 7th generation fighter that its taking too long.
> It took long coz India lacks in expertise. I am not saying that Pak is expert but yes we have learnt alot in Joint Production with China and developed some thing which is in air.
> 
> 
> 
> India has more Russian techs then any other.
> 
> 
> 
> JF-17 is multirole fighter.
> 
> *I wish if u could post some technical details as per ur sayings. I will appriciade ur knowledge
> Visitors on this forum will love to know ur developed Technical details.*



MZUBAIR Brother sry if i seemed personal anytime never meant anything like that. Brother the LCA's delay is yes due to India's lack of expertise making a true 4.5 generation aircraft but that does not mean that we are not capable of it. I have worked with companies that provide equipment to the DRDO and i have enough knowledge of the LCA to tell you how good the fighter will be when its inducted into the IAF. The DRDO is looking for western additions onto the LCA just to make it more lethal and to correct any problems that they think could cause a problem. Once the DRDO have mastered the Kaveri engine and some other specs on the LCA, the need for western Tech will no longer be needed. The LCA will be a 4.5 generation aircraft from day 1 of its induction unlike the JF-17 which still lacks a lot before it can claim to me a 4.5 generation aircraft. Dont get me wrong, the JF-17 is a very capable aircraft but just by adding "Thunder" to the name does not mean it can compete against proven platforms like the Mig29, Mirage 2K and the MKI. The JF-17 is 90% chinese made and Chinese tech is still yet to be tested against any other proven platform. The Chinese "Claim" that their aircraft are *** good or even better than western jets but i highly doubt that and even in the aviation community, there is heavy doubt on the actual capability of Chinese aircraft. This is just some inside info i am giving you from the industry i work in so proving this would be tough for me. Other than that the JF-17 is yet to be proven and will heavily rely on western upgradation later on in its development cycle to acutal become "lethal" to other aircrafts. Only 8 JF-17 are in the air where on the other hand DRDO has already tested over 10 LCA models including the highly impressive naval version of the jet. In fact the LCA has more in-flight testing hours that the JF-17 which is already inducted into the PAF LOL. Give some time to the JF-17 but for now, this comparison does not exist, The MKI is far superior in every way to the JF-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

every one agree that MKI is a beast,far batter then aircrafts which is pakistan and india having now days.but jf-17 isnt built for MKI,its a medium bird to counter medium birds.FC-20 will be able to take down MKI.
but if t38 can lock f22 then why Thunder cannot lock MKI.
its a practical game,we cant play it by words at a thread,by posting views.lets see when they will meet.


----------



## raveolution

danger-zone said:


> every one agree that MKI is a beast,far batter then aircrafts which is pakistan and india having now days.but jf-17 isnt built for MKI,its a medium bird to counter medium birds.FC-20 will be able to take down MKI.
> but if t38 can lock f22 then why Thunder cannot lock MKI.
> its a practical game,we cant play it by words at a thread,by posting views.lets see when they will meet.




Please read my post above:

"Your point is very much valid PakShaheen. But the deal is that these two aircraft will be inducted in huge numbers in both airforces. 150 JF's (May eventually go upto 250) and 280 MKI's. When these aircraft go up against each other, they won't disengage and fly back to their respective countries because one is an apple and the other an orange. 

The fact remains that although not comparable, it will see action in any eventuality of war, which I hope is never."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gogbot

hj786 said:


> You don't know a single thing about J-10B except what it looks like, so your claim proves you're typing trash.



The Most important Question is always. WHY?
anyone can give online statements that give zero information



hj786 said:


> If that helps you sleep better, keep believing that. The reality is that you can't accept the mki is still just an upgraded flanker and the JF-17 was developed to be capable of defeating it.
> 
> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.
> 
> How about you quit trolling and face reality yourself?



You know all this is well and good.

But i actually asked a few legitimate questions in my Post. But you just gone of the wagon and given me all this Information.

Tell you what if you really want to prove me wrong, why dont you go about by actually answering my questions



gogbot said:


> And Just to point out before the JF-17 can engae the MKI on even ground, it has to be a better jet that the J-10B. So unless you are telling me that the JF-17 can be better than a J-10B or F-16, in *which case why aren't the Chinese mass producing the JF-17?
> and why is the PAF still getting F-16?*



Come on then If the JF-17 is capable of all that. 
Why isn't China capitalizing on this.? its their bloody plane.

And why is Pakistan Still getting F-16's , for the same price you could have 4 JF-17's


----------



## hj786

gogbot said:


> The Most important Question is always. WHY? anyone can give online statements that give zero information


You're the one giving zero information here. 



gogbot said:


> But i actually asked a few legitimate questions in my Post.


No you didn't, those are stupid questions. 



gogbot said:


> Come on then If the JF-17 is capable of all that.


It is capable of all that, whether you like it or not. If you want the sources, they are listed on the Wikipedia article. I can list them here if you like.


gogbot said:


> Why isn't China capitalizing on this.? its their bloody plane.
> And why is Pakistan Still getting F-16's , for the same price you could have 4 JF-17's


Simple. China is a BIGGER COUNTRY that Pakistan, therefore China needs BIGGER AEROPLANES that carry MORE FUEL, giving them GREATER RANGE and allowing them to defend a BIGGER COUNTRY. Do you understand yet? I can't dumb it down any more than that. It is very simple, anybody with half a brain can get the concept of a bigger aeroplane being required to defend a bigger country. Why do you and your ilk keep repeating this crap?
Pakistan is still getting F-16s for several reasons. It has greater range, more endurance, it can carry more weapons. The PAF is familiar with it, it comes with lots of advanced weaponry - AMRAAMs, JDAMs, bunker-busters, etc. Again, stupid question with a simple answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

desidog said:


> MZUBAIR Brother sry if i seemed personal anytime never meant anything like that. Brother the LCA's delay is yes due to India's lack of expertise making a true 4.5 generation aircraft but that does not mean that we are not capable of it. I have worked with companies that provide equipment to the DRDO and i have enough knowledge of the LCA to tell you how good the fighter will be when its inducted into the IAF. The DRDO is looking for western additions onto the LCA just to make it more lethal and to correct any problems that they think could cause a problem. Once the DRDO have mastered the Kaveri engine and some other specs on the LCA, the need for western Tech will no longer be needed. The LCA will be a 4.5 generation aircraft from day 1 of its induction unlike the JF-17 which still lacks a lot before it can claim to me a 4.5 generation aircraft. Dont get me wrong, the JF-17 is a very capable aircraft but just by adding "Thunder" to the name does not mean it can compete against proven platforms like the Mig29, Mirage 2K and the MKI. The JF-17 is 90% chinese made and Chinese tech is still yet to be tested against any other proven platform. The Chinese "Claim" that their aircraft are *** good or even better than western jets but i highly doubt that and even in the aviation community, there is heavy doubt on the actual capability of Chinese aircraft. This is just some inside info i am giving you from the industry i work in so proving this would be tough for me. Other than that the JF-17 is yet to be proven and will heavily rely on western upgradation later on in its development cycle to acutal become "lethal" to other aircrafts. Only 8 JF-17 are in the air where on the other hand DRDO has already tested over 10 LCA models including the highly impressive naval version of the jet. In fact the LCA has more in-flight testing hours that the JF-17 which is already inducted into the PAF LOL. Give some time to the JF-17 but for now, this comparison does not exist, The MKI is far superior in every way to the JF-17.



don't worry if Western tech can make LCA a lethal fighter so can be JF-17 as well with same western tech. Point is... If LCA is that cool (Which i wish it may) why IAF is still going for another 4.5 gen fighter and is spending more than 10 billion US$ on it?

Now answer will be LCA need some time to be matured. I want to tell you that JF-17 also need time to be matured. PAF is fully committed to putting AESA in Thunder. Engine is already 19,100 lbs as opposed to older specs of 18,300 lbs. So... Thunder will get its teeth. But still I don't think there is a need to compare it with MKIs as latter is miles ahead in every aspect and is a heavy weight whereas Thunder is light weight like LCA.


----------



## PakShaheen79

> Originally Posted by *gogbot *
> Why isn't China capitalizing on this.? its their bloody plane.
> And why is Pakistan Still getting F-16's , for the same price you could have 4 JF-17's



China is going to induct FC-1. But as it is much bigger country than PAK and PLAAF has its own doctrine so it is not necessary that Thunder can fit in that doctrine as good as it is in PAF's doctrine.

PAF is getting F-16 as it is proven, mature, reliable system all these are yet to met by Thunder.


----------



## AVIAN

danger-zone said:


> every one agree that MKI is a beast,far batter then aircrafts which is pakistan and india having now days.




So you mean that MKI isn't part of the IAF that makes it unmatch to what India having now a days?



danger-zone said:


> but jf-17 isnt built for MKI,its a medium bird to counter medium birds.FC-20 will be able to take down MKI.
> but if t38 can lock f22 then why Thunder cannot lock MKI.
> its a practical game,we cant play it by words at a thread,by posting views.lets see when they will meet.



When in your first statement, you yourself confessed that JF-17 isn't built for MKI then why are taking extra hard to by bringing in pointless generics of Thunder locking on MKI?


----------



## ice_man

see the THUNDER comes into feather weight boxer category like the new boy Amir Khan of the UK!!! however the MKI is the mike tyson of fighter jets!!! there is no comparison! 


the JF might and i repeat MIGHT lock onto the MKI in close combat or maybe even in BVR mode if there is a lone MKI somewhere up against 5 or 6 thunders! but if the fight is one on one i guess the JF would be fighting a losing battle...something of the david vs goliath fight....

so yes MKI being killed by our JF is unlikely but then again not impossible as you might remember your gnats did shoot down a couple of F86s bak in the day right....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Pak Saheen 79 AT LEAST your openly aclnowledge that MKI is a at different level to Thunder. 

There are some people (only some) who wish to disagree.. 

Where as You (Pak Shaheen) realise that Thunder is very early in its induction and will evolve there are others who fear it can,t bridge the gap between Present Thunder and Current/future IAF fleet of 400+ MKI/MMRCA..

If i was an IAF pilot nothing wud give me more heart than to see PAF spend $ billions and a decade on 250 Thunders. 

BUT.. 

If PAF spent $billions on F16/52 & J10 then it wud be a worried MKI pilot..


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> don't worry if Western tech can make LCA a lethal fighter so can be JF-17 as well with same western tech. Point is... If LCA is that cool (Which i wish it may) why IAF is still going for another 4.5 gen fighter and is spending more than 10 billion US$ on it?
> 
> Now answer will be LCA need some time to be matured. I want to tell you that JF-17 also need time to be matured. PAF is fully committed to putting AESA in Thunder. Engine is already 19,100 lbs as opposed to older specs of 18,300 lbs. So... Thunder will get its teeth. But still I don't think there is a need to compare it with MKIs as latter is miles ahead in every aspect and is a heavy weight whereas Thunder is light weight like LCA.



Hi PakShaheen... The LCA as a platform will take time to get mature, the same as with JF17. You have to understand that a lot of time was spent on the LCA as India was attempting to make a 4+ gen fighter after its initial experience with the 2nd Gen Marut. Both platforms, when fitted with western avionics/ radar / etc will be a completely different platform then they are today.

The LCA was never intended to compete with the MRCA contract. The LCA was intended to replace IAF's aging fleet of Mig 21's and the MRCA is intended to replace the other older aircraft such as the Mig 27, Jags, etc.


----------



## paritosh

ice_man said:


> the JF might and i repeat MIGHT lock onto the MKI in close combat or maybe even in BVR mode if there is a lone MKI somewhere up against 5 or 6 thunders! but if the fight is one on one i guess the JF would be fighting a losing battle...something of the david vs goliath fight....
> 
> so yes MKI being killed by our JF is unlikely but then again not impossible as you might remember your gnats did shoot down a couple of F86s bak in the day right....



air combat as you know as evolved a lot from the days of the dog fights...we in this day and age assume that air combat kills will be mostly BVR...I am not arguing about the validity and accuracy of the threat of BVR combat...all I am saying is that airforces assume that if the enemy has BVR capable aircrafts then their own aircrafts can be shot at BVR....and they make their planes better by providing better radars and BVR armament.So the gnat vs F-86 argument is somewhat not applicable....
as far as killing through numerical superiority is concerned I am pretty sure that at no point the numbers of JF-17 will exceed those of the MKI...
waise it's stupid comparing Jf-17 to Su-30...JF-17 is a very good plane...and it's not that the IAF just has the SU-30....JF-17 would be very good against the Migs and mirages...can certainly shoot down the jaguars...which dont have BVR capabilities...
I have heard that the JF-17s maneuverability is similar to the f-16s...if that is the case then you should be fairly happy with being able to produce it on your own...


----------



## raveolution

paritosh said:


> air combat as you know as evolved a lot from the days of the dog fights...we in this day and age assume that air combat kills will be mostly BVR...I am not arguing about the validity and accuracy of the threat of BVR combat...all I am saying is that airforces assume that if the enemy has BVR capable aircrafts then their own aircrafts can be shot at BVR....and they make their planes better by providing better radars and BVR armament.So the gnat vs F-86 argument is somewhat not applicable....
> as far as killing through numerical superiority is concerned I am pretty sure that at no point the numbers of JF-17 will exceed those of the MKI...
> waise it's stupid comparing Jf-17 to Su-30...JF-17 is a very good plane...and it's not that the IAF just has the SU-30....JF-17 would be very good against the Migs and mirages...can certainly shoot down the jaguars...which dont have BVR capabilities...
> I have heard that the JF-17s maneuverability is similar to the f-16s...if that is the case then you should be fairly happy with being able to produce it on your own...



Paritosh, what Iceman meant to say was not that the Thunders are more in number than the MKI's in our respective Air Forces. He was talking about a tactical situation where a lone MKI would run into a few thunders. Definitely possible but unlikely as one would simply not be loitering around. Whether it is for ground attack, air defence or CAP, aircraft generally move in teams of two or more. Also due to AWACS and the MKI's radar, it's difficult to ambush it.

However Iceman, as you rightly said, it is possible for a few MKI's to go down in battle with the thunders, albeit at a much lower ratio. So if 10 thunders come up against 10 MKI's it is possible that the IAF may lose a couple. There is nothing such as 100% Air Superiority without any losses, unless you're the US fighting Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

@ raveolution finally i got through to someone and we have a consensus....complete air superiority is impossible for any side...at least in a short war....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ababeel

Superiority of the MKI's PESA radar, with a detection range of 160 Km


AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17
SOC admits later in his comments section that in fact, detection range of the Bars is (according to Janes, for a 2m squared target), 80-100 km head on. About half what was first estimated, and that assuming a 2m squared target. More probable would be a calculation for 1 meter squared target, and that is being generous, given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has RAM coating.
Meanwhile, SOC sticks with 75km as the detection range of the JF-17, for a "fighter sized target". Clearly, for the MKI, specially loaded out for offensive operations, this will be way bigger. Again, assuming that what was originally MY estimate of the detection range is in fact accurate (I actually never said 75 kms but > 75 kms, implying a minimum of, rather than a typical range. Further, given revelation of info on the KLJ-7's surpising modernity and the increased radome size on the JF-17, the point becomes even less arguable).

Later blocks of the JF-17 are likely to have an AESA radar

The Bars radar has Jet Engine Modulation (JEM) technology, allowing for a target to be identified at range by simply analyzing the radar returns from the target's engine compressor face.


Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials.
There is also the passive engagement option for the MKI, something else speculated for future FC-1 blocks. 
One must understand the nature of passive engagements, very useful in less sensor rich environments. Its like putting your torch light off in a dark room. However, of limited importance in a well lit room (sensor-rich environment), one that is likely to be the case given the sheer number of radars, AEW assets and fighters on air in the Indo-Pak scenario. Lets not forget its a lot harder to hide, being the size of an elephant.
Some other issues:


The PAF is actively acquiring an aerial refueling capability. Loitering is significantly lengthened for the FC-1 / JF-17 with aerial refueling.
Later blocks are likely to be significantly more advanced.
The Pakfa and the J-13 are not as far away as some people imagine.
Pakistani J-10s will be a step up from the present J-10s and would easily act as force multipliers.
Indian MRCA is also to be very seriously considered and countered, so are the present fleet of M-2000s and MiG-29s.
Many IAF airbases are within easy range of Pakistani cruise missiles. Remember that the best place to destroy an enemy air force is on the ground..



Ultimately, success in the air will be determined by not only system effectiveness and capability, but by pilot skill, and the parameters of the engagement.

Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF - Grande Strategy

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sapper

Ababeel said:


> given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has RAM coating.



Dear, Although your post was very informative and well thought out, i would like to correct you here (before someone LASHES out on you).

JF-17 does not have RAM coating. Also, i have yet to witness any credible evidence that JF-17 will have RAM coating in the future. (If i am wrong, please post a link).


----------



## desiman

Ababeel said:


> Superiority of the MKI's PESA radar, with a detection range of 160 Km
> 
> 
> AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17
> SOC admits later in his comments section that in fact, detection range of the Bars is (according to Janes, for a 2m squared target), 80-100 km head on. About half what was first estimated, and that assuming a 2m squared target. More probable would be a calculation for 1 meter squared target, and that is being generous, given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has RAM coating.
> Meanwhile, SOC sticks with 75km as the detection range of the JF-17, for a "fighter sized target". Clearly, for the MKI, specially loaded out for offensive operations, this will be way bigger. Again, assuming that what was originally MY estimate of the detection range is in fact accurate (I actually never said 75 kms but > 75 kms, implying a minimum of, rather than a typical range. Further, given revelation of info on the KLJ-7's surpising modernity and the increased radome size on the JF-17, the point becomes even less arguable).
> 
> Later blocks of the JF-17 are likely to have an AESA radar
> 
> The Bars radar has Jet Engine Modulation (JEM) technology, allowing for a target to be identified at range by simply analyzing the radar returns from the target's engine compressor face.
> 
> 
> Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials.
> There is also the passive engagement option for the MKI, something else speculated for future FC-1 blocks.
> One must understand the nature of passive engagements, very useful in less sensor rich environments. Its like putting your torch light off in a dark room. However, of limited importance in a well lit room (sensor-rich environment), one that is likely to be the case given the sheer number of radars, AEW assets and fighters on air in the Indo-Pak scenario. Lets not forget its a lot harder to hide, being the size of an elephant.
> Some other issues:
> 
> 
> The PAF is actively acquiring an aerial refueling capability. Loitering is significantly lengthened for the FC-1 / JF-17 with aerial refueling.
> Later blocks are likely to be significantly more advanced.
> The Pakfa and the J-13 are not as far away as some people imagine.
> Pakistani J-10s will be a step up from the present J-10s and would easily act as force multipliers.
> Indian MRCA is also to be very seriously considered and countered, so are the present fleet of M-2000s and MiG-29s.
> Many IAF airbases are within easy range of Pakistani cruise missiles. Remember that the best place to destroy an enemy air force is on the ground..
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, success in the air will be determined by not only system effectiveness and capability, but by pilot skill, and the parameters of the engagement.
> 
> Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF - Grande Strategy



And ya the whole of pakistan is in the range of Indian cruise missiles. The website that you are quoting from is hardly authentic and again it looks like a JF-17 fanboy wrote the article lol. 
1) No comparison between JF-17 and MKI, the MKI will emerge the winner 9 out of 10 times. If you include awacs support then then use multiple JF-17's against 1 MKI, then maybe the JF-17 might win but other than that 1 on 1, the JF-17 stand no chance at all. 
2) Stop glorifying the JF-17 like this, its really hurting the real potency of the jet, its a great jet but when you start comparing it to a MKI, it makes no sense. Just because its made by China with some pakistani inputs does not mean it can match upto the matured MKI, which is constantly among the 5 best in the world. 
3) Please the MRCA program by India is worth well over $10 billions dollars. PAF has no counter to that just because of the sheer size of the program. All the PAF can do is get some J-10's and hope they are good and also wait to see when the super hyped J-XX program actually comes into being. Other than that buying the typhoon or the rafale is out of question for the PAF, because of the cost of buying them, and also maintaining them. Maintaining 2-3 aircrafts of 4 or 4.5 generation is not feasible for pakistan. It will infact lower the PAF's capability with so many things to take care of. 
4)Brother the j-13 is a cancelled project, i hope you know. 
5) It does not matter if PAF get air refueling capability as the JF-17 will not be sent to attack the IAF or India because it is not meant to do so. The PAF will have F-16's and in the future J-10's for that role. 
Here ill post the actual tech specs of both aircraft you can see and decide which one is better and finally close this thread lol 

Su-30 MKI
General characteristics

Crew: 2 
Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft) 
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft) 
Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft) 
Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft²) 
Empty weight: 18,400 kg [1] (40,565 lb) 
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust vectoring, 131 kN (29,449 lbf) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft) 
Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi) at altitude; (1,270 km, 690 nmi near ground level)(With Internal Fuel Tank) 
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft) 
Rate of climb: >355 m/s (70,000 ft/min) 
Wing loading: 401 kg/m² (98 lb/ft²) 
Thrust/weight: 1.07 (at loaded weight & 1.15 with 50% fuel) 
Armament:

built-in single-barrel GSh-301 gun (30 mm calibre, 150 rounds)

Air to Air Missiles:

6 × R-27R/AA-10A/Astra[45] semi-active radar homing medium range AAM of range 80 km. 
6 × R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range AAM, 70 km 
2 × R-27P (AA-10C) passive radar seeker, long range AAM 
10 × R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km 
6 × R-73 (AA-11) short range AAM, 30 km 
3 × Novator KS-172 AAM-L Indian/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer" 
Air to Surface Missiles:

2 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km 
2 × Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile, 130 km 
4 × Kh-35 Anti-Ship Missile, 130 km 
3 × PJ-10 Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile,300 km 
6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km 
6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missile, 30 km 
4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets) 
4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets) 
Bombs:

6 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs 
3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs 
8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs 
28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs 
32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs 
8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs 
There is much more but dont want to make the post toooo long lol 

JF-17 Thunder
Crew: 1 
Length: 14.0 m [76] (45.9 ft) 
Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) [76] (31 ft) 
Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in) 
Wing area: 24.4 m² [76] (263 ft²) 
Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb) 
Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles [6][77] (20,062 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg [77] (28,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan 
Dry thrust: 49.4 kN [2][8] (11,106 lbf) 
Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN [2][78] (18,973 lbf) 
G-limit: +8.5 g [2] 
Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb) [6] 
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 [6][37] (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph) 
Combat radius: 1,352 km [2] (840 mi) 
Ferry range: 3,000 km [8] (2,175 mi) 
Service ceiling: 16,700 m [8] (54,790 ft) 
Thrust/weight: 0.99 [2][6] 
Armament


Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2) 
Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance, 
Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods [80] 
Missiles:

Air-to-air missiles: 
Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C 
Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10 
Air-to-surface missiles: 
Anti-radiation missiles 
Anti-ship missiles: AM-39 Exocet 
Cruise missiles: Ra'ad ALCM 
Bombs:

Unguided bombs: 
Mk-82, Mk-84 general purpose bombs 
Matra Durandal anti-runway bomb 
CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye anti-armour cluster bomb 
Precision guided munitions (PGM): 
GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2 laser-guided bombs 
H-2, H-4 electro-optically guided,[7] LS-6 satellite-guided glide bombs [79] 
Satellite-guided bombs [7] 
Others: 
Up to 3 external fuel drop-tanks (1× under-fuselage 800 litres, 2× under-wing 800/1100 litres each) for extended range/loitering time 
Avionics


NRIET KLJ-7 multi-mode fire-control radar [51] 
NVG compatible glass cockpit [6] 
Helmet Mounted Sights/Display (HMS/D) 
Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) 
Externally mounted avionics pods: 
Self-protection radar jammer pod 
Day/night laser designator targeting pod 
Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) pod


----------



## raveolution

Ababeel said:


> Superiority of the MKI's PESA radar, with a detection range of 160 Km
> 
> 
> AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17
> SOC admits later in his comments section that in fact, detection range of the Bars is (according to Janes, for a 2m squared target), 80-100 km head on. About half what was first estimated, and that assuming a 2m squared target. More probable would be a calculation for 1 meter squared target, and that is being generous, given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has RAM coating.
> Meanwhile, SOC sticks with 75km as the detection range of the JF-17, for a "fighter sized target". Clearly, for the MKI, specially loaded out for offensive operations, this will be way bigger. Again, assuming that what was originally MY estimate of the detection range is in fact accurate (I actually never said 75 kms but > 75 kms, implying a minimum of, rather than a typical range. Further, given revelation of info on the KLJ-7's surpising modernity and the increased radome size on the JF-17, the point becomes even less arguable).
> 
> Later blocks of the JF-17 are likely to have an AESA radar
> 
> The Bars radar has Jet Engine Modulation (JEM) technology, allowing for a target to be identified at range by simply analyzing the radar returns from the target's engine compressor face.
> 
> 
> Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials.
> There is also the passive engagement option for the MKI, something else speculated for future FC-1 blocks.
> One must understand the nature of passive engagements, very useful in less sensor rich environments. Its like putting your torch light off in a dark room. However, of limited importance in a well lit room (sensor-rich environment), one that is likely to be the case given the sheer number of radars, AEW assets and fighters on air in the Indo-Pak scenario. Lets not forget its a lot harder to hide, being the size of an elephant.
> Some other issues:
> 
> 
> The PAF is actively acquiring an aerial refueling capability. Loitering is significantly lengthened for the FC-1 / JF-17 with aerial refueling.
> Later blocks are likely to be significantly more advanced.
> The Pakfa and the J-13 are not as far away as some people imagine.
> Pakistani J-10s will be a step up from the present J-10s and would easily act as force multipliers.
> Indian MRCA is also to be very seriously considered and countered, so are the present fleet of M-2000s and MiG-29s.
> Many IAF airbases are within easy range of Pakistani cruise missiles. Remember that the best place to destroy an enemy air force is on the ground..
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, success in the air will be determined by not only system effectiveness and capability, but by pilot skill, and the parameters of the engagement.
> 
> Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF - Grande Strategy



Appreciate the information available form this article. However the point is that AWACS or not, an aircraft needs its own radar to lock on to the enemy aircraft, for mid-course guidance, etc which cannot be done using the AWACS radar with superior range.

The actual specs of the JF17 or its future blocks is yet unknown so we should wait until a deal to that effect is signed. If it is getting an AESA radar, it would not be before 2015, by when PAF expects to start Blk3. The MKI will start its MLU program by 2011 under which it will get the powerful IRBIS AESA radar, derived from the SU35 and PAF-FA program.


----------



## AVIAN

ice_man said:


> the JF might and i repeat MIGHT lock onto the MKI in close combat or maybe even in BVR mode if there is a lone MKI somewhere up against 5 or 6 thunders! but if the fight is one on one i guess the JF would be fighting a losing battle...something of the david vs goliath fight....



MKI radar can track 15 air targets and engage 4 simultaneously. 



ice_man said:


> so yes MKI being killed by our JF is unlikely but then again not impossible as you might remember your gnats did shoot down a couple of F86s bak in the day right....



If you truly are an aviation enthusiastic, then I must suggest you to don't make such a childish comments


----------



## FGFA

Stop make JF-17 is More superior to Su-30 MKI

The Details from Manufacturing Companies are given below. Go-through first, then Speak brothers,
*
PAKISTAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX*

-->JF-17 DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS<--

*SUKHOI COMPANY*

-->Su-30 MK* DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS<--


----------



## gogbot

When will this thread end?

how long will we continue this meaningless debate,
Forget the fact that you are comparing a Tiger to a Jackal.
The JF-17 isnt even out yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

gogbot said:


> how long will we continue this meaningless debate,


As long as you Indian trolls refuse to accept the simple facts I have posted previously, the ones which seemingly none of you can counter:


hj786 said:


> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.





beckham said:


> Seriously dude...u need to update yourself on MKI ! Ignorance is bliss !


It is obvious to any normal person that by denying the above facts, YOU are the ones living in blissful ignorance. You can repeat your BS a million times, it isn't enough to make it the truth.



beckham said:


> I am feeling sorry for you, post something genuine that could match up with MKI, or else keep quite !


I feel sorry for you because you can't handle the facts in my posts, so you want me to stay quiet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nightrider_saulat

*how about starting a new thread on
F-16 C/D block50/52 vs SU-30MKI*


----------



## raveolution

nightrider_saulat said:


> *how about starting a new thread on
> F-16 C/D block50/52 vs SU-30MKI*



A good idea

Or else we can wait for 2 years and start a thread F16 Blk 52 vs MRCA... I guess they would be pretty evenly matched,except for Supercruise and AESA radar.

Either way I think all "Versus" thread should be disregarded. Too many external factors at play.


----------



## nightrider_saulat

raveolution said:


> A good idea
> 
> Or else we can wait for 2 years and start a thread F16 Blk 52 vs MRCA... I guess they would be pretty evenly matched,except for Supercruise and AESA radar.
> 
> Either way I think all "Versus" thread should be disregarded. Too many external factors at play.



*i think you should rate f-16 block 50/52 & 60 in 4.5th generation category*


----------



## Storm Force

The F16/52 is easily the best fighter that PAF has and IMO is stil bEST OPTION TO TACKLE THE MASSIVE su30mki fleet of 230 or maybe even 280 PLANES. 

Stil cant believe PAF ordered only 18 block52s 

They were offered 36 by USA


----------



## Iggy

hj786 said:


> As long as you Indian trolls refuse to accept the simple facts I have posted previously, the ones which seemingly none of you can counter:
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious to any normal person that by denying the above facts, YOU are the ones living in blissful ignorance. You can repeat your BS a million times, it isn't enough to make it the truth.
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for you because you can't handle the facts in my posts, so you want me to stay quiet.




please read the below links you will get a pretty much good idea about SU-30 MKI

Su-30MKI compared with the F-16C and F-18E/F
Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PakShaheen79

Storm Force said:


> The F16/52 is easily the best fighter that PAF has and IMO is stil bEST OPTION TO TACKLE THE MASSIVE su30mki fleet of 230 or maybe even 280 PLANES.
> 
> *Stil cant believe PAF ordered only 18 block52s *
> 
> They were offered 36 by USA



This also speaks about JF-17's performance and PAF's confidence on it. According to Ex-ACM Current deal of F-16 is probably is last deal with US and PAF over fighter jets. Some analysts believe that sole reason for this deal was to get AMRAAM, JDAM, JSOW and Sniper pods.


----------



## sathruvinasakh

Su-30MKI is currently under MK3 upgrade.

Under this upgrade it will get smart skins along with wing leading edge mounted L-band radar arrays.And few more modifications and add-ons to the existing firecontrol systems with possible new Zuk radar wile incorporating the structural frame for brahmos capability (to carry 3 missiles against 1 which was perceived with no modifications to structure)
After this upgrade MKI will be able to detect a target aircraft with RCS of .005 sqm at a distance of 90+km in the front 180 degree hemisphere against the usual 60-90 degree.

Along with the electronic upgrades it will come with a lot more of advanced weaponry which includes the ultra long range AAM,multi-guided weapons(includes dual guide laser and TV,....)


----------



## IceCold

Storm Force said:


> The F16/52 is easily the best fighter that PAF has and IMO is stil bEST OPTION TO TACKLE THE MASSIVE su30mki fleet of 230 or maybe even 280 PLANES.
> 
> Stil cant believe PAF ordered only 18 block52s
> 
> They were offered 36 by USA



Dont worry we have other cards up our sleeves.


----------



## hj786

seiko said:


> please read the below links you will get a pretty much good idea about SU-30 MKI
> 
> Su-30MKI compared with the F-16C and F-18E/F
> Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Please don't give me links to trash, that first article says the Flanker-H has "better air-to-air missiles". Has the writer ever heard of the AIM-120 AMRAAM? It is widely regarded to be the best medium range AAM in the world, the Israelis swear by it. The second article has just been edited by me to say "Su-30MKI is considered far superior to the F-22 Raptor due to its anti-gravity technology." I guess you're going to take that as true also.


----------



## Storm Force

HJ786. 

if this particular debate is about mki versis Thunder surely wat the F22 can do and the range/performance of the aim amraam 120 is irrelevant.. 

The topic after hundreds of pages is suerly can PAFs new jf17 live and fight with an IAF fleet of upto 280 flankers. 

There are many people from both sides and neutrals who believe that jf17 cannot get even close to mki. 

The reasons have been highlighted numerous times but include

mki superior speed with twin engines ,, TVC cannards for AOA ,,massive radar and huge fuel and weapons load. 

The only argument you have given us is Awacs support( which does not exist as yet in paf as yet) or lower RCS. 

hj786 i hope you realise that there are already well over 100 mki in iaf service in 6 sqds. versis just 8 prototypes of thunders which have not passed ioc/foc as we speak.


----------



## sathruvinasakh

hj786 said:


> Please don't give me links to trash, that first article says the Flanker-H has "better air-to-air missiles". Has the writer ever heard of the AIM-120 AMRAAM? It is widely regarded to be the best medium range AAM in the world, the Israelis swear by it. The second article has just been edited by me to say "Su-30MKI is considered far superior to the F-22 Raptor due to its anti-gravity technology." I guess you're going to take that as true also.



But here is a snippet for MKI fans.With the lastest in advancements of Russian technology and their ability to track a stealthy F-22,B-2 using L band wing root leading edge radars arrays is well documented.
And the new upgrade will feature the same on Su-30MKI.

Given the capabilities of MKI ,i.e the dual seat with all the modern avionics and its adaptability to act as a mini-AWACS by just switching on a button and its capability to detect stealth and its high speed and range and ability to carry >8000kg of disposable weapons and the networking feature with fellow buddies or mother AWACS leaves no stone unreturned during its flight be it in indian airspace or enemy airspace.
Both Su-35 and new MKI upgrades will feature stealth detection technologies.
While the current 110 aircraft may have to be upgraded to this config and the 120 to be built will directly include the upgrades.
The next 50 to be procured will be off the shelf with the 2012 upgrades.


----------



## hj786

Storm Force said:


> if this particular debate is about mki versis Thunder surely wat the F22 can do and the range/performance of the aim amraam 120 is irrelevant.. The topic after hundreds of pages is suerly can PAFs new jf17 live and fight with an IAF fleet of upto 280 flankers. There are many people from both sides and neutrals who believe that jf17 cannot get even close to mki. The reasons have been highlighted numerous times but include mki superior speed with twin engines ,, TVC cannards for AOA ,,massive radar and huge fuel and weapons load. The only argument you have given us is Awacs support( which does not exist as yet in paf as yet) or lower RCS. hj786 i hope you realise that there are already well over 100 mki in iaf service in 6 sqds. versis just 8 prototypes of thunders which have not passed ioc/foc as we speak.


Same old crap has been countered many times by myself and others in previous pages. Are you still incapable of countering the following?


hj786 said:


> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.


Doesn't really matter if they don't have AWACS support right now, they will have it in the near future.

About all that upgrades stuff: if the flanker's radar is so great, why does it need upgrades?


----------



## MALIKATIF

i think su-30 has a tendendency ,but it is made in many years back,but jf 17 made with todays latest technology thats is the point for which india is also in great think that paf improving its aircraft with latest technology


----------



## beckham

hj786 said:


> It is obvious to any normal person that by denying the above facts,*YOU are the ones living in blissful ignorance. You can repeat your BS a million times, it isn't enough to make it the truth.*



Thats what I was trying to tell you ! Just have a look at you post # 1053, 

LINK- *http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-71.html#post511727*

_''If that helps you sleep better, keep believing that. The reality is that *you can't accept the mki is still just an upgraded flanker and the JF-17 was developed to be capable of defeating it.*'' _

And how exactly is JF-17 designed defeat MKI ?  



hj786 said:


> I feel sorry for you because *you can't handle the facts in my posts,* so you want me to stay quiet.



Sorry I don't see any facts on your post ! On the other hand I have posted enough points to support my claim !

LINK- *http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-71.html#post51174*

-Next time post something to back up your claim !


----------



## hj786

beckham said:


> And how exactly is JF-17 designed defeat MKI ?


I said it was "developed to be capable of defeating it." An example of some of the modifications made to the design in light of such threats are the radar jammer in the tail fin. 


beckham said:


> Sorry I don't see any facts on your post !


I think this can be easily explained: you know very little to nothing about the JF-17. You are blinded to the facts by national pride, whereas I'm insisting they should be taken into account.


beckham said:


> -Next time post something to back up your claim !


Here you go:
The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
*The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price *
Usman Ansari gives a project update on the Sino-Pakistani JF-17, which will be entering full production next year.
_An edited version of the above article appeared in Vol:8 No.4 of Combat Aircraft_

A link to the publisher's website:
Combat Aircraft Magazine | Back Issues | Volume 8
_Thunder Storm - Usman Ansari details the JF-17 'Thunder' fighter developed jointly by China and Pakistan, as it enters service with the Pakistan AF_



beckham said:


> I have posted enough points to support my claim !


No you haven't because none of your points counter the following:


hj786 said:


> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

hj786, bro you are just wasting time. Our Indian friends on these forums have simply been blinded by their patriotism, they will use the same arguments over and over (MKI has PESA, TVC, Twin Engines blah blah blah). Although you have countered them perfectly, they are still using those same old b** **** excuses. My suggestion is let the fanboys argue, give your opinion only when the other member actually gives a reasonable and a good reply.


----------



## beckham

hj786 said:


> The development project was lengthened to counter "new threats".



So not for finding a radar ? Thanks for the info ! 



> I think this can be easily explained: you know very little to nothing about the JF-17. This could be because you're blinded by national pride.



Look who is talking ! 



> Here you go:
> The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
> *The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price *
> Usman Ansari gives a project update on the Sino-Pakistani JF-17, which will be entering full production next year.
> _An edited version of the above article appeared in Vol:8 No.4 of Combat Aircraft_
> 
> A link to the publisher's website:
> Combat Aircraft Magazine | Back Issues | Volume 8
> _Thunder Storm - Usman Ansari details the JF-17 'Thunder' fighter developed jointly by China and Pakistan, as it enters service with the Pakistan AF_



I appreciate that, but still u didn't prove the point ! 
The only thing I found interesting is about the High Off Bore Sight which is said to have engagement ability to engage threats in the rear hemisphere, and targets with incredible maneuverability ( like MKI).But the advantage it offers against MKI in close range engagement is still negligible as MKI also has ability engage threats of up to 60 km in rear hemisphere !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

The one thing i have learnt in life *in this world you get what you pay for*. 

A $15m dollar warplane is exactly wat PAF wanted ie low cost meduim tech war plane. 

To claim its a mki killer is outraegous. The flanker is as suggested multiple times the most advanced flanker in the world bar su35 (which has only just been ordered by Russia) 

An mki costs $45m each. 3 x the cost of a Thunder but half the cost of a Typhoon Rafael F16/60 or F18SH. 

All of the above include hi tech 21st century tech which does not exist on a Thunder like 

A TVC engine mki & F22 only fighters in the world to have TVC engines giving extreme AOA. (angles of attack)
Cannards ON mki/su35 rafael & Typhoon & J10 (improved agility)
Pesa/ Aesa radar double the tracking range of a Thunders KLJ Radar
IRST system (non existant on thunders) standard on mki 

HJ786 you made a remark about why are IAF giving MLU upgrades if its so good. 

The reason is its good TODAY but IAF know its has room for improvement 

Changing the bars pesa radar to new 5th generation Aesa doubles tracking range from 200km to 400km 

Adding the KH172 ramjet missle gives IAF a killer missle at 200km from current R77/R27 at just 90km 

The difference between Thunder and mki is simple these are real improvements that started 5 years ago and are here now today ready for mlu in next 120-180 or so fighters that IAF inducts. 

HJ786 your talking about data links RWR and bvr missles on the JF17 yet IAF has had such systems for a decade " its yesterdays technology"


----------



## PakShaheen79

Storm Force said:


> The one thing i have learnt in life *in this world you get what you pay for*.
> 
> A $15m dollar warplane is exactly wat PAF wanted ie low cost meduim tech war plane.
> 
> To claim its a mki killer is outraegous. The flanker is as suggested multiple times the most advanced flanker in the world bar su35 (which has only just been ordered by Russia)
> 
> An mki costs $45m each. 3 x the cost of a Thunder but half the cost of a Typhoon Rafael F16/60 or F18SH.
> 
> All of the above include hi tech 21st century tech which does not exist on a Thunder like
> 
> A TVC engine mki & F22 only fighters in the world to have TVC engines giving extreme AOA. (angles of attack)
> Cannards ON mki/su35 rafael & Typhoon & J10 (improved agility)
> Pesa/ Aesa radar double the tracking range of a Thunders KLJ Radar
> IRST system (non existant on thunders) standard on mki
> 
> HJ786 you made a remark about why are IAF giving MLU upgrades if its so good.
> 
> * The reason is its good TODAY but IAF know its has room for improvement
> 
> Changing the bars pesa radar to new 5th generation Aesa doubles tracking range from 200km to 400km
> 
> Adding the KH172 ramjet missle gives IAF a killer missle at 200km from current R77/R27 at just 90km *
> 
> The difference between Thunder and mki is simple these are real improvements that started 5 years ago and are here now today ready for mlu in next 120-180 or so fighters that IAF inducts.
> 
> HJ786 your talking about data links RWR and bvr missles on the JF17 yet IAF has had such systems for a decade " its yesterdays technology"



This is problem... Everytime it is a VS threat Indian friends always compare Tomorrow's IAF with current PAF. Well how come you think that IAF will go for MLU and PAF will not react. Wait for 2nd batch of Thunders you will see a lot more improvement there as well.

I am not saying after these Thunder will become a MKI killer or something like that but point is improvement is a constant process in every AF and PAF is no exception in this regard.


----------



## beckham

hj786 said:


> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't.



As of now PAF don't have an AWAC, The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has ordered five Erieye radar system !

PAF

*JF-17:* ~100 km

*Erieye :* ~ 350 km







IAF

*su-30mki :*350 km search range.

*phalcon:* 600km+ / 500km+ (?)






*Tell me who has got the better advantage of AWAC ? *



> For close range combat it will have *5th generation short range missiles* with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.




Which 5th generation short range missile are you talking about ? .honest 

anywazz...gud nyte !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

beckham said:


> So not for finding a radar ? Thanks for the info !


Radars and avionics were available since 1996. There was the Thomson-CSF Blue Hawk from Britain, the Thales RC-400 from France and the FIAR Grifo S-7 from Italy all on offer, although Blue Hawk was withdrawn after 1998. Delays were because the PAF kept changing the specifications to improve the fighter according to the Chinese.


beckham said:


> Look who is talking !


If I were blinded by patriotism to the same extent as yourself, I would refuse to acknowledge the Su-30MKI's features just as you refuse to acknowledge the JF-17's features.


beckham said:


> I appreciate that, but still u didn't prove the point !
> The only thing I found interesting is about the High Off Bore Sight which is said to have engagement ability to engage threats in the rear hemisphere, and targets with incredible maneuverability ( like MKI).But the advantage it offers against MKI in close range engagement is still negligible as MKI also has ability engage threats of up to 60 km in rear hemisphere !


The high off-boresight missiles don't necessarily provide an advantage to the JF-17, but they do level the playing field by negating the Su-30's advantages (to a certain extent). If you want to deny simple logic such as this, what can I do? 
As for engaging threats in the rear hemisphere, what about threats that are shooting back, such as the JF-17? 



Storm Force said:


> The one thing i have learnt in life *in this world you get what you pay for*.


Why didn't you learn that certain sources give you more value for money?


Storm Force said:


> To claim its a mki killer is outraegous.


I never said the JF-17 is an mki killer, my arguments show that the odds are simply not as one-sided as you guys try to portray. Why do you guys seem to struggle so much to counter the simple arguments I post? You can repeat all that crap about PESA radar range and canards and high AoA as much as you like, I've explained a hundred times how the JF-17 can counter them to a certain extent.


Storm Force said:


> HJ786 you made a remark about why are IAF giving MLU upgrades if its so good. The reason is its good TODAY but IAF know its has room for improvement Changing the bars pesa radar to new 5th generation Aesa doubles tracking range from 200km to 400km Adding the KH172 ramjet missle gives IAF a killer missle at 200km from current R77/R27 at just 90km The difference between Thunder and mki is simple these are real improvements that started 5 years ago and are here now today ready for mlu in next 120-180 or so fighters that IAF inducts. HJ786 your talking about data links RWR and bvr missles on the JF17 yet IAF has had such systems for a decade " its yesterdays technology"


 But according to you guys the flanker doesn't need those upgrades to be considered invincible when compared with the JF-17, so why bother to bring them up? The rest of the world does not consider jam-proof data-links, RWR capable of intercepting AESA radars with LPI capability, BVR AAMs with ramjet motors "yesterday's technology".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

Pak Shaeen 

Regarding about 2nd batch of Thunders getting an upgrade. 

We need to see the first batch ie the first 50 enter service (This alone will take til 2012) as per ACM tanvirs post in Air force monthly 2008. And since we stil have no date for IOC/FOC for the current 8 prototypes today that date could slip to 2013. 

As for MLU the reason IAF is getting MLU after the first 105 mki is primarliy the benefits of India being involved financially in the FGFA PAK FA programme. The new radar smart skins and weapons upgrade for mki is coming off the 5 generation fighter project. 

My question who is going to give away 5 gen tech to Thunder and when ??? for what price $$$$

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hj786

beckham said:


> As of now PAF don't have an AWAC, The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has ordered five Erieye radar system !
> *JF-17:* ~100 km
> *Erieye :* ~ 350 km
> 
> *su-30mki :*350 km search range.
> *phalcon:* 600km+ / 500km+ (?)
> 
> Tell me who has got the better advantage of AWAC ?


Nobody, the 4 Erieye and 4 KJ-200 is perfectly adequate for the PAF's needs. BTW, try posting facts. The picture you posted is Saab 340 Erieye, not Saab 2000 Erieye which the PAF is receiving. It is stated to have a maximum range of 450 km, not 350 km. phalcon's maximum range is also stated to be 450 km as far as I know, unless you can provide evidence of "500-600+ km". I read a recent post by Gambit where he states that the Erieye radar should have greater range than the phalcon because of the difference in antenna configurations. 



beckham said:


> Which 5th generation short range missile are you talking about ? .honest


We don't know yet. IRIS-T was touted as the candidate in 2006. MICA was stated to be a strong possibility in 2007/2008. Other options are the Chinese PL-ASR, South African A-darter.


----------



## Storm Force

Hj786 whilst i acknowledge chinease air air missle tech and radars/ jamming tech is getting excellent dare i say russian/ western level you stil have not mentioned one single major advantage that Thunder has over mki 

*Name one peice of tech/ that gives thunder the edge *

In contrast i can give 5 at least 

Greater speed and accleration. 
Greater angles of attack tanks to TVC/cannards
Far greater range and fuel. 2 pilots to share workload
Radars twice the range(pesa radar)
Carries twice as many BVR/WVR missles.. far bigger range of weapons


----------



## raveolution

Bro Hj786... I don't think that the JF17 was ever intended to be a useless aircraft. In its final configuration, it will certainly be a capable aircraft. However it is not fair to say that while the JF17 will be evolving, the MKI will be static. It has its own upgrade program in the pipeline and will benefit from SU35 and Pak-Fa derived technology.



hj786 said:


> I said it was "developed to be capable of defeating it." An example of some of the modifications made to the design in light of such threats are the radar jammer in the tail fin.



Bro the frontline aircraft of the PAF is the F16 and going forward, the J10B. The JF17 was intended to replace the PAF's aging fleet of F-7's, Mirages and A-5's. Similarly the frontline aircraft for the IAF is the MKI. Capability will only be judged on the battlefield, where anything is possible, both ways.

Additionally can we discuss this once the JF17 has evolved? Around 2014-15 when Blk 3 will be ready assuming there is no delay.



hj786 said:


> I think this can be easily explained: you know very little to nothing about the JF-17. You are blinded to the facts by national pride, whereas I'm insisting they should be taken into account.



Well, not much is known about the JF17's final configuration by anyone. There have been claims and counter claims about engines, radar, avionics, weapons, etc. Lets take a call once an order has been placed. The aircraft available with the PAF now is 8 in number in its basic form with a Chinese radar and avionics.



hj786 said:


> Here you go:
> The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
> *The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price *
> Usman Ansari gives a project update on the Sino-Pakistani JF-17, which will be entering full production next year.
> _An edited version of the above article appeared in Vol:8 No.4 of Combat Aircraft_
> 
> A link to the publisher's website:
> Combat Aircraft Magazine | Back Issues | Volume 8
> _Thunder Storm - Usman Ansari details the JF-17 'Thunder' fighter developed jointly by China and Pakistan, as it enters service with the Pakistan AF_



Interesting article. The title is self explanatory. It says "A hefty punch at an affordable price." The hefty punch is in relativity to the price and not to the MKI. Don't get me wrong, the article itself is informative.



hj786 said:


> No you haven't because none of your points counter the following:
> 
> The JF-17 has tactical data-links to interface with other platforms such as AWACS aircraft, so it would always be aware of an opposing aircraft's position. The radar warning receiver systems would also help here. It has BVR AAMs and a radar with around 100 km range against even fairly small targets - which the mki isn't. For close range combat it will have 5th generation short range missiles with TVC and infra-red imaging seekers, capable of manoeuvring at around 50g, which the mki can't. These missiles will be slaved to a helmet-mounted sights/display system, and the mki is not invisible so JF-17 pilots can see it and designate it for their missiles. It has a missile approach warning system which is integrated with not only UV/IR sensors giving 360 degree coverage, but also the radar warning receiver and electronic warfare systems (radar jammer housed in the rectangular fairing at the tip of the vertical tail fin). The mki's missiles are also not invisible to UV/IR sensors, unless they don't have rocket motors. According to a Chinese article, the onboard radar jammer is capable of focusing all its jamming power in any direction. There are sources for all of this.



1)The MKI also has a datalink to AWACS and can additionally be used as a Mini-AWACS as well due to its powerful NIIP N011M Bars (Panther) radar. It also has a RWR and additionally the OLS-30, a combined FLIR/IRST/LR system.

2) The JF17 is currently fitted with the Chinese KLJ-7 radar. The radar can reportedly manage up to 40 targets, *monitor up to 10* of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and *simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. *The detection range for targets with a radar cross-section of *5 square meters* is stated to be *&#8805;105 km* (&#8805;85 km in look-down mode).

In comparison the SU30 MKI has the NIIP N011M Bars (Panther) radar. N011M has a 350 km search range and a *maximum 200 km tracking range*, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. In the air to air mode the N011M Bars offers a true look down, shoot down capability with a detection range of *140 km* against a target with a Radar cross section (RCS) of *2 m2.* Up to *15 air targets can be tracked at once in track-while-scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once*.

3) As for all the other stated facts, the answers are given in the links provided. Regards avionics, speed, weapons load, T/W ratio, etc, the SU30 MKI either matches or exceeds those of the JF17.

See bro. In no way am I saying that PAF is stupid and the JF17 is crap. The PAF is working under immense Geo-Political and Budgetary constraints and are doing the best they can in their circumstances. The PAF's doctrine is not offensive but is to deny the IAF air superiority in the event of a conflict. Also a country with a defense budget 25% of the other will not be able to match it conventionally, hence the nuclear button.

Anyways I think these Vs threads are useless cause in a conflict there are always too many external factors in play. Hope you take my post in good spirit. 

KLJ-7 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bars radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JF-17 Thunder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

Some useful information re the upgrade of India,s first 100 mki already 

Developing the Smart Skin concept for Su-30MKI - Military Photos

As you can see india is already testing 2 that have been upgraded as we speak. 

The whole programme (Thunder versis MKI) SEEMS TO ME TO BE 10 YEARS AHEAD of the PAF thunder programme


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> This is problem... Everytime it is a VS threat Indian friends always compare Tomorrow's IAF with current PAF. Well how come you think that IAF will go for MLU and PAF will not react. Wait for 2nd batch of Thunders you will see a lot more improvement there as well.
> 
> I am not saying after these Thunder will become a MKI killer or something like that but point is improvement is a constant process in every AF and PAF is no exception in this regard.



Bro sorry but its always the other way around. Lets compare the current JF17 with KLJ 7 radar and not the prospective Blk 3 with the SU30MKI, not MLU'ed as well. BTW Storm Force is not an Indian Friend. Lol


----------



## raveolution

hj786 said:


> Nobody, the 4 Erieye and 4 KJ-200 is perfectly adequate for the PAF's needs. BTW, try posting facts. The picture you posted is Saab 340 Erieye, not Saab 2000 Erieye which the PAF is receiving. It is stated to have a maximum range of 450 km, not 350 km. phalcon's maximum range is also stated to be 450 km as far as I know, unless you can provide evidence of "500-600+ km". I read a recent post by Gambit where he states that the Erieye radar should have greater range than the phalcon because of the difference in antenna configurations.



The Erieye:

Erieye detects and tracks air and sea targets out to the horizon (and beyond due to anomalous propagation)instrumented range has been measured at 450 km. Typical detection range against fighter-sized targets is approximately 350 km, in a 150° broadside sector, both sides of the aircraft. Outside these sectors, performance is reduced in forward and aft directions. It is understood that Erieye has some ability to detect aircraft in the 30° sectors fore and aft of the aircraft heading, but has no track capability in this sector. Therefore the Erieye is not complete 360 degrees platform.

BTW the article mentioned by Gambit clearly states the blind spots on the Erieye Radar.

The Phalcon:

Instead of using a rotodome, a moving radar found on some AEW&C aircraft, the Phalcon uses the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), an active phased array radar. AESA radars have very short to instantaneous scanning rates, which makes them difficult to detect. The radar can be mounted on the an aircraft's fuselage or on the top inside a small dome. Either position gives the radar 360 degree coverage. The phased array radar allows positions of aircraft on operator screens to be updated every 2-4 seconds, rather than every 20-40 seconds as is the case on the rotodome AWACS. The Range of the Phalcon is 500 km for fighter size targets and 200 km for smaller platforms such as cruise missiles, etc.) 

Adittionally the IL76 aircraft on which the system is mounted is faster and can stay up for a longer period when compared to the turboprop Erieye.

Articles #1347 , The Value of the Phalcon AWACS for India
EL/M-2075 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Erieye radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PakShaheen79

> The Phalcon:
> 
> *Instead of using a rotodome, a moving radar found on some AEW&C aircraft, the Phalcon uses the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), an active phased array radar. AESA radars have very short to instantaneous scanning rates, which makes them difficult to detect.* The radar can be mounted on the an aircraft's fuselage or on the top inside a small dome. Either position gives the radar 360 degree coverage. The phased array radar allows positions of aircraft on operator screens to be updated every 2-4 seconds, rather than every 20-40 seconds as is the case on the rotodome AWACS. The Range of the Phalcon is 500 km for fighter size targets and 200 km for smaller platforms such as cruise missiles, etc.)



BTW, Erieye is also an AESA and same advantage goes to there as well.
What is range of Phalcon against a ship?


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> BTW, Erieye is also an AESA and same advantage goes to there as well.
> What is range of Phalcon against a ship?



Yes, both platforms have an AESA radars. The advantage of the Phalcon against the Erieye is with respect to its range and time at station/ speed. In terms of the radar itself, I don't know if there is a difference between the two in terms of targets tracked etc. 

I have no info regarding its range against surface ships. I would expect it to be more or less the same or higher as ships are larger targets than aircraft, having a higher RCS and free of Ground clutter. May be wrong though.


----------



## Moscow

Storm Force said:


> Pak Shaeen
> 
> 
> 
> As for MLU the reason IAF is getting MLU after the first 105 mki is primarliy the benefits of India being involved financially in the FGFA PAK FA programme. The new radar smart skins and weapons upgrade for mki is coming off the 5 generation fighter project.
> 
> My question who is going to give away 5 gen tech to Thunder and when ??? for what price $$$$




i would like to point to some things here the MKI upgrade is an IRKUT product and not a KNAPPO one like the su35bm and pakfa
although its the same parent company sukhoi corporation under UAC
you need to understand in detail about how russia/sukhoi functions its not the same as you think the MKI upgrades are different from the PAKFA or the SU35bm


----------



## Moscow

the confirmed su30mki upgrades can the jf-17 match up to them in technical specs


the confirmed upgrade for the new radars are here

'Bars's chief designer Tamerlan Bekirbayev says the capability for simultaneously detecting, tracking and engaging several aerial targets with one ground target already exists on the serial 'Bars' radars. During next step of upgrading :

- The air detection range will be more, than doubled!
- The number of tracked and egaged targets will be increased 1.5-2 times (from current 20 & 8 figures).
- The mapping performance in terms of target detection range and resolution will be doubled!
- The number of tracked ground targets will be doubled too.
- Some new operation modes will be added, particularly Meteo and Active Countermeasures modes.
- Interaction with other avionic systems (ECM, EO targeting) will be expanded.
- The range of weapon use will be extended.
- Formation mission capabilities will be enhanced.

After the completing this stage of upgrade, the next step will be equipping 'Bars' radar with AESA antenna. If so, it could be the first world AESA radar with additional gimbals mechanism. Even after AESA variant go for serial production, NIIP chiefs believe PESA radars will remain a low cost solution for many customers worldwide.


----------



## a1b2c145

beckham said:


> As of now PAF don't have an AWAC, The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has ordered five Erieye radar system !
> 
> PAF
> 
> *JF-17:* ~100 km
> 
> *Erieye :* ~ 350 km
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IAF
> 
> *su-30mki :*350 km search range.
> 
> *phalcon:* 600km+ / 500km+ (?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell me who has got the better advantage of AWAC ? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which 5th generation short range missile are you talking about ? .honest
> 
> anywazz...gud nyte !



Erieye radar system is not as good as KJ-200, i am sure~ no doubt, pakstain has already ordered KJ-200.


----------



## sathruvinasakh

After all this is people still believe that JF-17 can still take on MKI,its just innocence.

Ignoring the tranche 3 upgrades and considering MKI as of today similar to JF-17,

MKI is a heavy and multirole air dominance fighter.It persuaded that critics.and is known as a the best air dominance fighter in the world only after Raptor.

And comparing that with a light weight point defence fighter like JF-17 is really really absurd.One MKI with 10+ BVR AAM`s can take on atleast 7+ JF-17 at a time without letting JF-17 know that MKI is coming after them.period

Fight with MKI is a fight with weaponised AWACS.Period

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

sathruvinasakh said:


> After all this is people still believe that JF-17 can still take on MKI,its just innocence.
> 
> Ignoring the tranche 3 upgrades and considering MKI as of today similar to JF-17,
> 
> MKI is a heavy and multirole air dominance fighter.It persuaded that critics.and is known as a the best air dominance fighter in the world only after Raptor.
> 
> And comparing that with a light weight point defence fighter like JF-17 is really really absurd.One MKI with 10+ BVR AAM`s can take on atleast *7+ JF-17* at a time without letting JF-17 know that MKI is coming after them.period
> 
> Fight with MKI is a fight with weaponised AWACS.Period



I think you meant 17 JF-17s.


----------



## desiman

Su-30MKI performs maneuver "Culbit" on MAKS-2005

Watch this video people and then try to compare the jf-17 with the MKI, please there is no comparison, The MKI is truly a masterful jet. The jf-17 is good but comparing it with an MKI is a joke , next someone will start comparing the JF-17 with the F-22, and I am 100&#37; sure that some JF-17 fanboy can even pull that off lol


----------



## IceCold

desidog said:


> Su-30MKI performs maneuver "Culbit" on MAKS-2005
> 
> Watch this video people and then try to compare the jf-17 with the MKI, please there is no comparison, The MKI is truly a masterful jet. The jf-17 is good but comparing it with an MKI is a joke , *next someone will start comparing the JF-17 with the F-22, and I am 100&#37; sure that some JF-17 fanboy can even pull that off lol*



Our fan boys have yet not reached the same level as that of their Indian counter parts. By the way JF-17 versus an MKI is not like JF-17 versus an F-22 unless you are implying MKI to be an equivalent to the F-22 as stated my various Indian fan boys on numerous forums.


----------



## sathruvinasakh

IceCold said:


> Our fan boys have yet not reached the same level as that of their Indian counter parts. By the way JF-17 versus an MKI is not like JF-17 versus an F-22 unless you are implying MKI to be an equivalent to the MKI as stated my various Indian fan boys on numerous forums.


I have no idea why people consistently fail to realise the facts on the ground.
This has to be my last reply on this vulgar thread with a bottom line:

Both MKI and JF-17 and of different league.
You are comparing apples with oranges.
Apples need to be compared with apple themself and same goes with oranges.period

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

If the upgrades mentioned in this thread are as good as suggested SU30MKI will be A match for any fighter in the world bar the 5th generation F22/JSF. IMO.. 

Remember we are talking about a new Aesa Radar that tracks at 400km with a new ramjet missles which can strike at well over 200km. Couple this to new smart skins reducing RCS to a fraction of todays mki you have a genuine late
4th gen multi role fighter in the class of rafael and typhoon.


----------



## raveolution

IceCold said:


> Our fan boys have yet not reached the same level as that of their Indian counter parts. By the way JF-17 versus an MKI is not like JF-17 versus an F-22 unless you are implying MKI to be an equivalent to the MKI as stated my various Indian fan boys on numerous forums.



Icecold... Bro the MKI in its current form has been consistently regarded as the 2nd or 3rd best (depends on who you speak to) operational fighters in the world today by pilots and other military professionals (F35 is still not in production). With its upgrades it will prove even more lethal. F22 is of a different generation and is miles ahead of any other aircraft on this planet. Similarly let the JF17 first develop to its Blk 3 version and gain some combat experience and become a mature platform. Only then can we compare it to other aircraft, as we are not yet aware of its actual capabilities.

Time for fanboys on both sides to take a chill-pill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

sathruvinasakh said:


> I have no idea why people consistently fail to realise the facts on the ground.
> This has to be my last reply on this vulgar thread with a bottom line:
> 
> Both MKI and JF-17 and of different league.
> You are comparing apples with oranges.
> Apples need to be compared with apple themself and same goes with oranges.period



I am not comparing anything with anything, was merely replying to some BS which i could not take it anymore. As for the comparison you are more then welcome to go through the thread and read my various post where i have stated numerously that the comparison does not make sense between the two jets and i still stand by that.


----------



## IceCold

raveolution said:


> Icecold... Bro the MKI in its current form has been consistently regarded as the 2nd or 3rd best (depends on who you speak to) operational fighters in the world today by pilots and other military professionals (F35 is still not in production). *With its upgrades it will prove even more lethal*. F22 is of a different generation and is miles ahead of any other aircraft on this planet. Similarly let the JF17 first develop to its Blk 3 version and gain some combat experience and become a mature platform. Only then can we compare it to other aircraft, as we are not yet aware of its actual capabilities.
> 
> Time for fanboys on both sides to take a chill-pill.



Ironically you are mentioning MKI upgrades and yet are not willing to accept the same for the JF-17. 
By the way what combat record does the MKI possess. Pardon my ignorance on the matter.


----------



## Hellfire

Ice Cold

both are combat 'virgins' as of yet ..... speculations can be amusing at times ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SBD-3

but yes i agree MKI is a more mature product and thunder has a lots and lots of potential. Recently I saw a snap of thunder with Delta Canard Configuration. It would be for adopting the configurations of Grippen IMHO


----------



## raveolution

hellfire said:


> Ice Cold
> 
> both are combat 'virgins' as of yet ..... speculations can be amusing at times ...



Hellfire, the SU30 MKI is derived from the SU27 Flanker family of aircraft which has seen combat action albeit though not on a big scale. The MKI has never directly been involved in any action. The JF-17 is a completely new platform.


----------



## raveolution

IceCold said:


> Ironically you are mentioning MKI upgrades and yet are not willing to accept the same for the JF-17.
> By the way what combat record does the MKI possess. Pardon my ignorance on the matter.



*"Bro the MKI in its current form"*.

I have stated that in its current configuration, it is regarded as one of the best in the world and is a mature platform. I have accepted that the JF17 will be upgraded to Blk 3 and that we should wait to see the final product on both sides. 

The MKI upgrade does not any vendors to choose from as it will be upgraded by the Russians using technology derived from the Pak-Fa project. Similarly, the JF17 has various options as they are going to integrate western technology in the aircraft and final vendors have not been chosen yet regarding radar, avionics, etc

Just clarifyng


----------



## s90

desidog said:


> Su-30MKI performs maneuver "Culbit" on MAKS-2005
> 
> Watch this video people and then try to compare the jf-17 with the MKI, please there is no comparison, The MKI is truly a masterful jet. The jf-17 is good but comparing it with an MKI is a joke , next someone will start comparing the JF-17 with the F-22, and I am 100% sure that some JF-17 fanboy can even pull that off lol



None of the maneuvers performed in the video will help in the actual combat,even a moron will know that.


----------



## ice_man

MY GOD....you boys still go on and on with your measuring contest don't you!!!! 

see its simple the F-16 started of as a cheap light weight combat aircraft.... and look at how far it has come in so many years!!!! 

now the MKI in ITS CURRENT STATE is atleast 3 stages ahead of the JF....JF-17 in ITS CURRENT state is a light weight fighter....that will improve with time but currently like i said before MKI is the MIKE TYSON and our JF is AMIR KHAN and unless we send up a pack of JFs to confront the MKI the JF will be out classed easily...

now sometimes you gotta take things right in the face....and guys please can we LEAVE FUTURE to where it belongs in the FUTURE..... hopefully both aircrafts will develop further but for the time being currently on paper the competition is marginally in favour of the MKI.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Marginally in favour of mki. 

Who you kidding buddy.. 

The flankers are rated as awesome fighter planes one look at the flanker design you immediately know you are looking at a true 4th generation fighter. 

The Austrillians and Americans are worried sick about the flanker threat from south East Asia thats why theres dozens of studies re Flanker threat.

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

Now the SU30MKI is the super flanker ie the most advanced flanker in the world almost comprable to the soon to be inducted su35B. 

____________________________________________________

Can you people honestly say that a Thunder even looks like a fighter from the same generation (4th) let alone the tech gap/power/ which is huge in some areas. 

Thunder doesnt even exist as a weapons system as yet whereas Flankers is Russia best export fighter ever with over 1500 in service worldwide.

Its a silly futile comparison. 

MKI v F16/52/60 or indeed J10 wud have been a better topic

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Young-khan

Storm Force said:


> Marginally in favour of mki.
> 
> Who you kidding buddy..
> 
> The flankers are rated as awesome fighter planes one look at the flanker design you immediately know you are looking at a true 4th generation fighter.
> 
> The Austrillians and Americans are worried sick about the flanker threat from south East Asia thats why theres dozens of studies re Flanker threat.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Now the SU30MKI is the super flanker ie the most advanced flanker in the world almost comprable to the soon to be inducted su35B.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> Can you people honestly say that a Thunder even looks like a fighter from the same generation (4th) let alone the tech gap/power/ which is huge in some areas.
> 
> Thunder doesnt even exist as a weapons system as yet whereas Flankers is Russia best export fighter ever with over 1500 in service worldwide.
> 
> Its a silly futile comparison.
> 
> MKI v F16/52/60 or indeed J10 wud have been a better topic




Well i appreciate that mki is superior in performance and has better radar etc. However it serves the iaf airforce needs well and thunder is designed to cater for paf needs.

Thunder is an ongoing project and realistictly its not trying to outdo mki, but its more a indigenous attempt to replace our ageing fleet with a decent fighter that serves our needs and having BVR ability this will be a major boost.

Jf17 does more then serving our needs, it gives us a system that we can improve along the way and is sanction proof. To counter mki of iaf pakistan is looking at other options such as j10 which will be more then sufficent to restore some edge.

By the way we just dont a plane to look pretty cuz that will be plane stupid, we want a reliable system that works for us even if jf17 aint that pretty.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

Young Khan Good post regards Thunder project and its aims 

esp Comments like 

_Thunder is an ongoing project and realistictly its not trying to outdo mki, but its more a indigenous attempt to replace our ageing fleet with a decent fighter that serves our needs and having BVR ability this will be a major _boost.

Re Your comment about looking pretty. 

Sorry the point i meant was the design ie the TVC and cannards and the large double tail fins and sleek fuselage. This is common among true 4 gen fighters ie Gripen Rafael & Typhoon. 

Thunder in its design concept is more like F5 tigershark which lost out to F16 design as USA new 4 gen fighter in late 70s...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

Storm Force said:


> Marginally in favour of mki.
> 
> Who you kidding buddy..
> *
> The flankers are rated as awesome fighter planes one look at the flanker design you immediately know you are looking at a true 4th generation fighter. *
> 
> The Austrillians and Americans are worried sick about the flanker threat from south East Asia thats why theres dozens of studies re Flanker threat.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> * Now the SU30MKI is the super flanker ie the most advanced flanker in the world almost comprable to the soon to be inducted su35B*.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> Can you people honestly say that a Thunder even looks like a fighter from the same generation (4th) let alone the tech gap/power/ which is huge in some areas.
> 
> Thunder doesnt even exist as a weapons system as yet whereas Flankers is Russia best export fighter ever with over 1500 in service worldwide.
> 
> Its a silly futile comparison.
> 
> MKI v F16/52/60 or indeed J10 wud have been a better topic



Actually this is where question about rationale of MMRCA arises. Why this thing is needed so badly by IAF if it has its hand on one of world's best fighter (as claimed by some Indian members here). Now except Gripen all MMRCA are heavy duty fighters of same class as MKI but inferior (going by the claim that MKI is best fighter or 2nd best).

It is strange IAF having best or 2nd best in the world under its grasp is going for something inferior. Lol.. tech transferred for MKI can make India bigger exporter for versions of Flankers with similar capabilities which MMRCA will have. So why going for MMRCA?


----------



## Haanzo

yo pakshaheen man ...did you ever account the numbers , aesa radar,diversity(dont put all your eggs in one basket)....if US fighters are selected ..unprecedented political leverage......hope you get the point

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

Haanzo said:


> yo pakshaheen man ...did you ever account the numbers , aesa radar,diversity(dont put all your eggs in one basket)....if US fighters are selected ..unprecedented political leverage......hope you get the point



Yes man but u see info about MLU on MKI clearly says that it will have an AESA with a tracking range of 400 Km while new BVR will have a range of 200 km. Now i wounder if MKI will have all these features in say 2011-12 time really i wounder where MMRCA will fit in technically?

Diversity? I never liked this idea. Ever wounder why JSF came into being. US has F-14,F-15,F-16 and F-18. These all will be replaced by F-22 and JSF in future. JSF is a single platform for all three services to give some sort of uni-formation opposed to diversity. World is moving into that direction as well that's why so many countries joined JSF program.


----------



## hj786

Young-khan said:


> To counter mki of iaf pakistan is looking at other options


According to what an Indian semi-professional analyst says, the JF-17 should be able to counter it.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5154280302945875495&postID=672660631593478223 Near the bottom, a reply to an anonymous commenter:


> Prasun K Sengupta said...
> To Anon@7:53PM:
> ...
> Any fourth-geneation M-MRCA equipped with integrated EW defensive aids suite, helmet-mounted display and cueing system and BVRAAMs like the Meteor (which receive mid-course course-corrections via data-link from AEW & C platforms will ensure air dominance and tactical air superiority.
> will win the air-war. Regarding the AIM-120D AMRAAMs, the answer is yes.
> China is developing a new generation of ramjet-powered BVRAAMs like the PL-21, which bears a strong resemblance to the Meteor.
> Friday, September 18, 2009 10:48:00 AM


JF-17 already has an integrated EW defensive aids suite and tactical data-link which can exchange data with other aircraft. Reference: The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
Its not much of a stretch to say a Chinese ramjet-powered missile would become available to Pakistan, and in any case, the MBDA Meteor is also "on the cards". Reference: http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf)


TRISHUL: F-16 Block 50/52 Explained 
Scroll about half way down, in a reply to a commenter called "Nava":


> Prasun K Sengupta said...
> To Nava: In my humble view the need for manoeuvrable/super-manoeuvrable combat aircraft and its ability to carry 'appreciable warloads (of say 5 to 7 tonnes) has been diminished dramatically due to the greatly increased reliability and agility of within visual range AAMs (backed up by helmet-mounted displays), and the availability of PGMs reqd for carrying out effects-based air campaigns.


Again, the JF-17 will have (if not already) all the above capabilities and features. Helmet Mounted Display/Sights is mentioned at the manufacturer's website (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....) and the Usman Ansari article provided above (The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.), as are the modern highly agile short range air-to-air missiles such as the German IRIS-T and precision-guided munitions such as the H-4, a rocket-boosted glide bomb with range of 120 km and thermal imaging seeker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MZUBAIR

hj786 said:


> According to Indian semi-professional analysts, they don't need other options to counter it.
> 
> https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5154280302945875495&postID=672660631593478223 Near the bottom, a reply to an anonymous commenter:
> 
> JF-17 already has an integrated EW defensive aids suite and tactical data-link which can exchange data with other aircraft. Reference: The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
> Its not much of a stretch to say a Chinese ramjet-powered missile would become available to Pakistan, and in any case, the MBDA Meteor is also "on the cards". Reference: http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf)
> 
> 
> TRISHUL: F-16 Block 50/52 Explained
> Scroll about half way down, in a reply to a commenter called "Nava":
> 
> Again, the JF-17 will have (if not already) all the above capabilities and features. Helmet Mounted Display/Sights is mentioned at the manufacturer's website (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....) and the Usman Ansari article provided above (The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.), as are the modern highly agile short range air-to-air missiles such as the German IRIS-T and precision-guided munitions such as the H-4, a rocket-boosted glide bomb with range of 120 km and thermal imaging seeker.



We are only looking for a new radar.
If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.


----------



## hj786

MZUBAIR said:


> We are only looking for a new radar.
> If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.


It will always be a big deal because it can carry so many weapons while flying very far without in-flight refuelling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Pak Shaheen 

Su30mki is a great war plane and inducted nos will be some where between 230-280 by 2015-2017. 

But its a heavy twin engined fighter. It is also geared to air superiority more so than long range strike. All Flanker where designed for air combat with agility and very lethal wvr combat capability. 

The IAF needs mmrca for more strike options and stand off weapons capability. It is also very keen for new technology to help india.s aero industry obtain thru TOT new tech that can be fused into indian projects like LCAmk2/3/MCA/UCAV projects post 2020. 

As good as mki is india is stil reliant on Russia too much they need diversification its far too dangerous to rely just on mki/migs/pakfa


----------



## Storm Force

Regarding HJ786 

Comments re Thunder. 

I agree whole heartdly with HJ on the rapid improvement of chinease Air to air weapons i have itimated as much in an earlier post i believe in 5 years time china,s bvr/wvr missles will be just has lethel as russia,s latest ramjet.wvr R37 and the euro/usa versions like amraam/meteore and python systems. 

But a combat plane is more than just a good radar good missles and jammers. 

Thunders weakness from wat i see is a dated structural design with a dated look. It has nil composites and no canards like the euro fighters and mki. It appears to be rugged looking machine rather than a sleek appearance like the
F16. But rugged can have its own strengths. 

The big issue is the engine. No TVC no supercruise and limited range and speed being a single engine combat plane.

I know the response to this is going to be 

We will add western engine with super cruise and we add composites but all of this will push the price to $30-$40 each plane and will take years to implement ..


----------



## paritosh

PakShaheen79 said:


> Yes man but u see info about MLU on MKI clearly says that it will have an AESA with a tracking range of 400 Km while new BVR will have a range of 200 km. Now i wounder if MKI will have all these features in say 2011-12 time really i wounder where MMRCA will fit in technically?
> 
> Diversity? I never liked this idea. Ever wounder why JSF came into being. US has F-14,F-15,F-16 and F-18. These all will be replaced by F-22 and JSF in future. JSF is a single platform for all three services to give some sort of uni-formation opposed to diversity. World is moving into that direction as well that's why *so many countries joined JSF program*.



there are so many reasons behind the need for the MRCA and the MRCA contract...
tell me which plane is better the f-16 or the f-18sh?why dint the USAF chose one of them to fly...?why does the navy operate the F-18SH chiefly?
is the J-10 better or the J-11?
Why don't the Chinese use the JF-17..their own creation?
why do countries operate different planes with different configurations?why do they operate single-engined and double engined planes?it is just because they have different configurations.
the MRCA contract is to replace the fleet of the migs we have...which have out lived their life span...
and besides the real implication of the contract is much deeper than just the acquisition of the 126 a/cs...


----------



## desiman

MZUBAIR said:


> We are only looking for a new radar.
> If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.



Buddy you talk about AESA as its like some candy that you buy from a shop lol here watch these videos and then think before you compare the JF-17 with an MKI, man this thread is huge lol. 
















It is done by timesnow which is very respected in the media so its not from zaid hamid who im sure will be able to compare a the JF-17 to the f-22 also lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

desidog said:


> Buddy you talk about AESA as its like some candy that you buy from a shop lol here watch these videos and then think before you compare the JF-17 with an MKI, man this thread is huge lol.
> 
> uyJzdFCnWbA[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 1
> 
> c1DmPm1gEIg[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 2
> 
> YMSFNHOQFy0[/media] - SU-30 MKI In The Line Of Duty part 3
> 
> It is done by timesnow which is very respected in the media so its not from zaid hamid who im sure will be able to compare a the JF-17 to the f-22 also lol



Do have something new about MKI like this. Actually i have seen this show and it is some 2 years old, IIRC.

Respected in Media? what is gauge of that?... I think NY times and Washington Post are also very respected but not Accurate most of the time..Which is more important than to be respected. BTW, there is a lot of subjective commentary about MKI as it is something out of this world. Agreed that JF-17 thunder must NOT be compared with MKI as former was not designed to take on latter one but still it is a plane and has its limitations like any other fighter on Earth.


----------



## PakShaheen79

paritosh said:


> there are so many reasons behind the need for the MRCA and the MRCA contract...
> tell me which plane is better the f-16 or the f-18sh?why dint the USAF chose one of them to fly...?why does the navy operate the F-18SH chiefly?
> is the J-10 better or the J-11?
> Why don't the Chinese use the JF-17..their own creation?
> why do countries operate different planes with different configurations?why do they operate single-engined and double engined planes?it is just because they have different configurations.
> the MRCA contract is to replace the fleet of the migs we have...which have out lived their life span...
> and besides the real implication of the contract is much deeper than just the acquisition of the 126 a/cs...



Thanks for replying.

Well, that was exactly my point that USAF who always set trends in military aviation has learned that it is unified fighter design which can make job done with minimum of effort in design, manufacture, maintain, support, upgrade rather than having 2 or 3 different platform.

I am talking about FUTURE not PRESENT or PAST. So future lies with unified platform with multiple configuration (real fruit of true Mulitirole).. I believe MKI is complete multirole fighter which can easily configured with Air,Land and Sea op configurations. Now what MMRCA will server that MKI can't. 

That's what i am asking because MKI is not a dedicated bomber nor it is a dedicated air dominance thing but it is a huge beast able to take on anyrole carrying all kind of weapons. 

"real implication of the contract...." What are those?


----------



## PakShaheen79

Storm Force said:


> Regarding HJ786
> 
> Comments re Thunder.
> 
> I agree whole heartdly with HJ on the rapid improvement of chinease Air to air weapons i have itimated as much in an earlier post i believe in 5 years time china,s bvr/wvr missles will be just has lethel as russia,s latest ramjet.wvr R37 and the euro/usa versions like amraam/meteore and python systems.
> 
> But a combat plane is more than just a good radar good missles and jammers.
> 
> * Thunders weakness from wat i see is a dated structural design with a dated look.* It has nil composites and no canards like the euro fighters and mki. It appears to be rugged looking machine rather than a sleek appearance like the
> F16. But rugged can have its own strengths.
> 
> The big issue is the engine. No TVC no supercruise and limited range and speed being a single engine combat plane.
> 
> I know the response to this is going to be
> 
> We will add western engine with super cruise and we add composites but all of this will push the price to $30-$40 each plane and will take years to implement ..



Do you know how old Flanker design is? Comeon man it is war machine not something we will send to beauty peanut. Rest agreed what you said about engine and composites... these are areas which must be taken care of in next block.


----------



## PakShaheen79

Storm Force said:


> Pak Shaheen
> 
> Su30mki is a great war plane and inducted nos will be some where between 230-280 by 2015-2017.
> 
> But its a heavy twin engined fighter. It is also geared to air superiority more so than long range strike. All Flanker where designed for air combat with agility and very lethal wvr combat capability.
> 
> The IAF needs mmrca for more strike options and stand off weapons capability. It is also very keen for new technology to help india.s aero industry obtain thru TOT new tech that can be fused into indian projects like LCAmk2/3/MCA/UCAV projects post 2020.
> 
> As good as mki is india is stil reliant on Russia too much they need diversification its far too dangerous to rely just on mki/migs/pakfa



OK! I agree on ToT thing (for sake of argument only)... now tell me how come it is dangerous to depended on Russian plateforms. This is exactly what Russian themselves are doing , USAF,USN and Marine are all dependent on USA etc.

Lastly, diversification in technology does make sense but in weapons it is difficult.


----------



## Haanzo

PAKSHAHEEN ..you got wrong info MKI WILL NOT HAVE AN AESA RADAR IN ITS FIRST MLU.....its operating frequencies will be beefed up with a new antenna or something .....AESA WILL NOT COME UNTIL 2017-2020.....the radar upgrade programme of the mki is in two stages 
1 phase new antenna ,more operating frequencies ,original frequencies will be beefed up 
2 phase ...aesa radar

and this upgrade path WAS PROPOSED BY THE RUSSIANS ...and IAF has not yet decided ...so we might get a new AESA RADAR --which defenitely is the more costly option or follow the 2 phase upgrade path which is the MORE SENSIBLE OPTION 

and for your question why is the USAF not conmprised completely of f-15s ...using f-15s for all the operations will be an overkill its the same with the mki...paritosh has stolen words from my mouth ;-)



> OK! I agree on ToT thing (for sake of argument only)... now tell me how come it is dangerous to depended on Russian plateforms. This is exactly what Russian themselves are doing , USAF,USN and Marine are all dependent on USA etc.come on man i didnt expect his from u ..its silly
> 
> Lastly, diversification in technology does make sense but in weapons it is difficult. i agree to this point but for security you have to go farther than you had ever gone in the present situation


----------



## Adios Amigo

desidog said:


> Buddy you talk about AESA as its like some candy that you buy from a shop lol here watch these videos and then think before you compare the JF-17 with an MKI, man this thread is huge lol.
> 
> uyJzdFCnWbA[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 1
> 
> c1DmPm1gEIg[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 2
> 
> YMSFNHOQFy0[/media] - SU-30 MKI In The Line Of Duty part 3
> 
> It is done by timesnow which is very respected in the media so its not from zaid hamid who im sure will be able to compare a the JF-17 to the f-22 also lol



yeah ever reliable *Times Now.* watch this and deciede


----------



## unicorn148

jf 17 is a 4 generation aircraft where as su30mki is a 4++ generation which is far more advance than jf17 su 30 mki is the most advance plane in 4++generation aircraft even the present j10 of the chinese cant match the capabilities of su 30mki
in jf17 there is no thrust vectoring 

jf17

Crew: 1
Length: 14.0 m [87] (45.9 ft)
Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) [87] (31 ft)
Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 24.4 m² [87] (263 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles [7][88] (20,062 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg [88] (28,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan
Dry thrust: 49.4 kN [3][9] (11,106 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN [3][89] (18,973 lbf)
G-limit: +8.5 g [3]
Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb) [7]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 [7][47] (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph)
Combat radius: 1,352 km [3] (840 mi)
Ferry range: 3,000 km [9] (2,175 mi)
Service ceiling: 16,700 m [9] (54,790 ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.99 [3][7]
Armament
Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2)
Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance,
Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods [91]

Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C
Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10
Air-to-surface missiles:
Anti-radiation missiles
Anti-ship missiles: AM-39 Exocet
Cruise missiles: Ra'ad ALCM
Bombs:
Unguided bombs:
Mk-82, Mk-84 general purpose bombs
Matra Durandal anti-runway bomb
CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye anti-armour cluster bomb
Precision guided munitions (PGM):
GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2 laser-guided bombs
H-2, H-4 electro-optically guided,[8] LS-6 satellite-guided glide bombs [90]
Satellite-guided bombs [8]

su 30 mki


Crew: 2
Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft)
Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft)
Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft²)
Empty weight: 18,400 kg [1] (40,565 lb)
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust vectoring, 131 kN (29,449 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi) at altitude; (1,270 km, 690 nmi near ground level)(With Internal Fuel Tank)
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft)
Rate of climb: >355 m/s (70,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 401 kg/m² (98 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 (at loaded weight & 1.15 with 50% fuel)
Armament:
built-in single-barrel GSh-301 gun (30 mm calibre, 150 rounds)
Air to Air Missiles:
10 × R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km
10 × Astra active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km
6 × R-27P (AA-10C) semi-active radar guided, long range AAM 130 km
6 × R-27P (AA-10D) Infrared homing extended range version, long range AAM 120 km
2 × R-27R/AA-10A semi-active radar guided, medium range AAM,80 km
2 × R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range AAM, 70 km
6 × R-73 (AA-11) short range AAM, 30 km
3 × Novator KS-172 AAM-L 300 km/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer"
Air to Surface Missiles:
2 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km
2 × Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile, 285 km
4 × Kh-35 Anti-Ship Missile, 130 km
3 × PJ-10 Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile,300 km
6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km
6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missile, 30 km
4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets)
4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets)
Bombs:
6 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs
3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs 
28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

adeos amigo said:


> yeah ever reliable *Times Now.* watch this and deciede nBf-5MnoBh0[/media] - JF-17 Simulator



come on this is an INDIAN propaganda besides no one will put up the JF-17 simulator in an area like that! & if you might recall the JF-17 uses an RD-93 engine the same engine that powers the indian MiG29s.....so don't watch what the indians are saying & relax mate!


----------



## PakShaheen79

Haanzo said:


> PAKSHAHEEN ..you got wrong info MKI WILL NOT HAVE AN AESA RADAR IN ITS FIRST MLU.....its operating frequencies will be beefed up with a new antenna or something .....AESA WILL NOT COME UNTIL 2017-2020.....the radar upgrade programme of the mki is in two stages
> 1 phase new antenna ,more operating frequencies ,original frequencies will be beefed up
> 2 phase ...aesa radar
> 
> and this upgrade path WAS PROPOSED BY THE RUSSIANS ...and IAF has not yet decided ...so we might get a new AESA RADAR --which defenitely is the more costly option or follow the 2 phase upgrade path which is the MORE SENSIBLE OPTION
> 
> and for your question why is the USAF not conmprised completely of f-15s ...using f-15s for all the operations will be an overkill its the same with the mki...paritosh has stolen words from my mouth ;-)
> 
> i agree to this point but for security you have to go farther than you had ever gone in the present situation



My point was simple .... How depending on tech from one country is dangerous? Even big powers are doing same...though they have an argument that they are most advanced. Now if you comes with agrument that MMRCA is required due to US/Western tech as it is superior than Russians than what you will do with claim "...MKI is 2nd best fighter on planet..." (after F-22) Now all MMRCA contenders are below MKI but still India needs it at such high price.

Security in present situation.... against who. A small AF like PAF or PLAAF I think it is latter one which you meant...if so again PLAAF has nothing like MKI in its arsenal.


----------



## unicorn148

the russian have developed the aesa radar and ready to share it with india because the are jointly developing the 5th generation fighter the su 30 mki upgrade will start soon and mki will have the aesa radar and many other features which will make it more lethal

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SEAL

SU-30mki is stupid.

SU-30MKI is armed with 90km BVR missile.

SU-30MKI can fly only *12-15 hours* in one month and one hour flying requires at least *32 maintenance hours* of work by its ground crew.

(Written by Prasun K. Sengupta indian)

Indian Air Force [Interviews & News]


----------



## raveolution

ice_man said:


> come on this is an INDIAN propaganda besides no one will put up the JF-17 simulator in an area like that! & if you might recall the JF-17 uses an RD-93 engine the same engine that powers the indian MiG29s.....so don't watch what the indians are saying & relax mate!



Iceman. The JF-17 uses RD-93, the Mig-29's use the RD-33. The RD-93 engine is a variant, designed primarily for single engined aircraft, of the original RD-33. 

In 2005, Russia signed a $250 million deal with India to modernize engines for the MiG-29 fighters of the Indian Air Force. According to the terms of the deal, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will make 120 RD-33 series 3 jet engines at its Koraput plant for the upgrade of MiG-29 fighters.

The difference between these RD-33 series 3 and the RD-93 is substantial. The RD-93 on the JF-17, however is a reliable, efficient and cost effective solution as well.


----------



## paritosh

PakShaheen79 said:


> Thanks for replying.
> 
> Well, that was exactly my point that USAF who always set trends in military aviation has learned that it is unified fighter design which can make job done with minimum of effort in design, manufacture, maintain, support, upgrade rather than having 2 or 3 different platform.


the Americans have a problem with their numbers...their economy is not getting them the numbers they've always had...your point of their looking for universally applicable equipment to substitute for more than one type of armament is very valid...but it is actually a tough but a clever choice...
it's not just the navy planes that they are implementing this concept...the US IMO is using the cost-cutting and employee shelving techniques used in a company struggling to make profits...they are trying to slowly get planes that act as force multipliers even in small numbers...their tech advancement allows them to do so...
it is said that the raptor can take out battle groups on it's own with at most the need of a good AWACS link...so inducting a F-22 would save maintenance costs which would have incurred had the USAF inducted say F-16s...doesn't mean that the F-16 is a bad plane now does it?
I would not entirely agree that the future is with the usage of single very capable aircrafts that can be used in different battle configurations...

their tech advancement allows them the freedom to include the best in one fighter...
while the other countries trail...for example...generally it is considered that a navy plane should be double-engined for increased range operating over high-seas....now the JSF is single engined and has a greater range and combat radius than the F-18SH which is a twin-engined plane...
the Su-30 mki has it's own problems...it needs a relatively larger landing strip...when compared to the mig-29 and the LCA...and all our current and under construction /ac carriers haven't got a sizable landing strip.
Su-30 mki also has a large RCS...we'd definitely want different a/cs with different RCSs if we can't afford one VLO or stealth a/c...
but the trend is changing fast...with manufacturers making different versions of the same aircrafts...take rafale...saab...LM...they have different versions of the same a/c...
see the IAF/IN is still third world...and we have dedicated a/cs for different areas...an ELINT a/c would be stuffed with electronic equipment and have lesser armament...
while an interceptor would be a single engined high speed chaser with large AAMs...
an air-superiority would have a capable BVR capability....now we are following the trend...LCA has a naval version as well...which has a more powerful airframe...it's a start and shows our recognition of the changing trend...but countries like india,Russia and China and all other would still have some time before they stick to planes that have very little chance of being shot down...to do all their work.
your orginal qn was the need of the MRCA contract...well the mig-21s make up the bulk of our airforce...they are obsolete by most standards..we need a better plane...a 4.5 gen would be the best...the mig-29 are very good but are still 4 th gen...and so are the mirages...and thye are quite few in numbers...
the MRCA winner and the SU-30 mki would represent the IAf in the future...
you must have also noticed tenders for heavy bombers and airlift platforms..and the development of the LCH...and the acquisition of the AWACS...we are bent on using dedicated single role a/cs...and the MR in MRCA might well be a misnomer...



> I am talking about FUTURE not PRESENT or PAST. So future lies with unified platform with multiple configuration (real fruit of true Mulitirole).. I believe MKI is complete multirole fighter which can easily configured with Air,Land and Sea op configurations. Now what MMRCA will server that MKI can't.


we need to fill in the gap fast...the migs are not getting younger and keeping all eggs in one basket wouldn't help India as it did not help you in the past...even if we go for the mig-35 we'd show that we are capable of buying stuff from the west also....and it's the quality that matters and not loyalty.
also as long as the MKI can be shot down...we'd not want our whole a/f to have MKIs only....for 
a)a single fault in them would jeopardize our entire fleet
b)it'd give them ruskies and the execs at rosborneexport unprecedented power on us



> That's what i am asking because MKI is not a dedicated bomber nor it is a dedicated air dominance thing but it is a huge beast able to take on anyrole carrying all kind of weapons.


so it is an air-dominance fighter...if it can carry a large amount of weapons and of various kinds...it has a PESA radar albeit the most powerful PESA(well the Bars is only superseded by the Irbis and I think we are getting the Irbis now) and a very large RCS...it can't be the first a/c to go into battle deep into enemy lines...it might be very difficult to kill by other a/cs but an easy target for most SAM systems...


> "real implication of the contract...." What are those?


well the political ones...I am lazying away from the prospect of having to elaborate on them...but we can discuss them if it is needed..but I guess you mgiht already understand the political implications of the massive 10 billion dollar contract...


----------



## raveolution

fox said:


> SU-30mki is stupid.
> 
> SU-30MKI is armed with 90km BVR missile.
> 
> SU-30MKI can fly only *12-15 hours* in one month and one hour flying requires at least *32 maintenance hours* of work by its ground crew.
> 
> (Written by Prasun K. Sengupta indian)
> 
> Indian Air Force [Interviews & News]





True. What a absolute 3rd grade aircraft this stupid Sukhoi-30 MKI is. 

The fact that it has consistently performed alongside the best air-forces in the world means absolutely bull****. It's based on the SU-27 series which has sold more than 700 aircraft and the SU-30 itself has sold around 400 aircraft. Which mentally challenged person runs these Air-forces. The Chinese PLAAF are also morons to use this aircraft. The J-11b, which is on the wishlist of the PAF is also a copy of this aircraft. So they also have no brains. 

When an MKI meets the enemy in battle, it should immediately disengage and the pilot should eject because the plane requires 32 hours of maintenance, which clearly the IAF can't manage therefore he should save his life before his powerful radar, suberb engines, western avionics and 20,000 kgs of weapons all explode in one big fireball. 

Seriously, someone is living is his own decadent world. Mods please don't delete this post. A stupid statement deserves a stupid reply like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> My point was simple .... How depending on tech from one country is dangerous? Even big powers are doing same...though they have an argument that they are most advanced. Now if you comes with agrument that MMRCA is required due to US/Western tech as it is superior than Russians than what you will do with claim "...MKI is 2nd best fighter on planet..." (after F-22) Now all MMRCA contenders are below MKI but still India needs it at such high price.
> 
> Security in present situation.... against who. A small AF like PAF or PLAAF I think it is latter one which you meant...if so again PLAAF has nothing like MKI in its arsenal.



Good post PakShaheen. When India purchased the MKI, technologies such as AESA radars, Supercruise engines, etc were not available. Also the price of a SU-30 MKI in 1999 figures will differ greatly from the MRCA price in 2010 figures. Plus the fact that Russian aircraft prices are generally 50-70% of western options. The deal is that both the MKI and the MRCA will be a frontline aircraft in the IAF till 2030 atleast. The MKI in its current form will be equal to or marginally less capable than the MRCA, which will come with latest tech. After its MLU, the SU-30 MKI will again takeover as the most potent fighter, barring the FGFA, as and when that gets inducted.


----------



## unicorn148

every aircraft of fourt and fifth generation requires such heavy maintenance even the j11 of chinese have same probs and not only these each and every advance fighter plane needs such heavy maintenance so no need to feel bad about su 30 mki

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI. The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces. The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go and compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now. The fact is that right now in its current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.


----------



## IceCold

desidog said:


> Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI. The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces. The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now. The fact is that right now in itand compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell s current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.



You know whats even more stupid is that avatar of yours.Add your nick to that and there we have the ultimate stupidity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

IceCold said:


> You know whats even more stupid is that avatar of yours.Add your nick to that and there we have the ultimate stupidity.



LOL ya get personal now that makes so much sense, buddy try to keep it professional and please keep away from personal comments. Jis shool ke tum bache ho beta us school ke hum principal hai lol  stay cool mate


----------



## hj786

desidog said:


> ....the JF-17 is... originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others.



Keep proving how little you know.

Mikoyan joins Chengdu on fighter-21/06/1995-Flight International


> DATE:21/06/95
> SOURCE:Flight International
> Mikoyan joins Chengdu on fighter
> 
> CHENGDU AIRCRAFT (CAC) has teamed with Mikoyan MAPO to design and produce a new single-engine fighter to replace China's now defunct Super-7 project
> 
> The FC-1 is being developed as a private venture funded by CAC, China National Aero-Technology Import and Export (CATIC) and Pakistan. The aircraft is aimed principally at the export market, with the Pakistan air force expected to be the initial user.
> 
> CATIC is pushing for support from Aviation Industries of China (AVIC) and is confident of selling the lightweight fighter to China's PLA air force.
> 
> The aircraft has been under development since 1991, and is now in the detailed design phase. Two partial forward- and rear- fuselage mock-ups have been completed. A single-seat prototype is scheduled for a first flight in 1997. A two-seat aircraft is also planned.
> 
> Production is due to start in 1999 at CAC. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex will initially, produce parts for the FC-1 and is discussing the establishment, of a second production line.
> *
> Mikoyan is providing design support and has seconded a team of engineers to CAC. The aircraft resembles an earlier Mikoyan design given the internal designation MiG-33. The design, developed in the early 1980s, was intended as a light dogfight aircraft.*
> 
> The FC-1 has been designed around the 80kN (18,300lb)-thrust Klimov RD-93 turbofan. The engine is an improved modular development of the RD-33 engine, which was also intended to power the MiG-33.
> 
> The FC-1 design, however, differs with adoption of twin side-mounted air intakes. Liyang Machinery of Guizhou, plans to produce the RD-93 under licence in China.
> 
> It will feature seven hard-points, including wingtip pylons for PL-7/10 short-range air-to-air missiles. A pulse Doppler multi-role radar has yet to be selected. Pakistan is expected to make a decision on its own avionics suite and weapon system within three to five months.





desidog said:


> And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now.


So lets see:
- The designer/manufacturer's website contains nothing but speculation, even though it is the designer/manufacturer's website.
- The articles published by Air Forces Monthly are nothing but speculation, even the ones that quote PAF officials.
- The articles written by Usman Ansari are nothing but speculation, despite the following:


> he began to contribute to UK publications as a freelance journalist mainly to the UK based naval news monthly Warships &#8211; International Fleet Review for which he was made the Chief Analyst in 2006. In his capacity as a correspondent and Chief Analyst for Warships &#8211; IFR Usman has covered amongst other things the 2005 International Fleet Review off Portsmouth from HMS Cardiff, and the following the International Festival of the Sea; the preparations of HMS Chatham to deploy to the Falkland Islands; and Op Aquila, the deployment of the British strike carrier HMS Illustrious, destroyer HMS Gloucester, and the fleet auxiliary RFA Fort Victoria in the Indian Ocean; the bi-annual Pakistani defence show IDEAS2006; and the international naval exercise AMAN-07 held off the coast of Pakistan.
> 
> Usman has also contributed to Classic Military Vehicle, Military Machines International, Combat Aircraft, Land Rover World, Air Forces Monthly, and 4x4.
> 
> Usman has been based in Pakistan since 2006, and continues to contribute to various publications as well as explore avenues for creative writing and photography. He became the 'Pakistan Correspondent' for Defense News in October 2008, and rather unexpectedly, 'Pakistan Correspondent' for 4x4 around the same time covering the 2008 off road rally season.





desidog said:


> read some facts about it before you start comparing.


I've posted plenty of facts here, its just that you and your ignorant pals are blind to them. It's funny how you guys call me a fanboy for posting evidence with my claims, quite pathetic really.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## desiman

hj786 said:


> Keep proving how little you know about that aeroplane.
> 
> Mikoyan joins Chengdu on fighter-21/06/1995-Flight International



Mikoyan is providing design support and has seconded a team of engineers to CAC. The aircraft resembles an earlier Mikoyan design given the internal designation MiG-33. The design, developed in the early 1980s, was intended as a light dogfight aircraft. 

Your answering your own question, mikoyan will only provide design support not a new design. And it only resembles an ealier design not 100% like one, i will get you the link where it talks about the resemblance of the jf-17 to the tigershark and some other similar designs so that i can prove my point also


----------



## SEAL

raveolution said:


> True. What a absolute 3rd grade aircraft this stupid Sukhoi-30 MKI is.
> 
> The fact that it has consistently performed alongside the best air-forces in the world means absolutely bull****. It's based on the SU-27 series which has sold more than 700 aircraft and the SU-30 itself has sold around 400 aircraft. Which mentally challenged person runs these Air-forces. The Chinese PLAAF are also morons to use this aircraft. The J-11b, which is on the wishlist of the PAF is also a copy of this aircraft. So they also have no brains.
> 
> When an MKI meets the enemy in battle, it should immediately disengage and the pilot should eject because the plane requires 32 hours of maintenance, which clearly the IAF can't manage therefore he should save his life before his powerful radar, suberb engines, western avionics and 20,000 kgs of weapons all explode in one big fireball.
> 
> Seriously, someone is living is his own decadent world. Mods please don't delete this post. A stupid statement deserves a stupid reply like this.



Don't tell us what Chinese have lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki, its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot, it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2  etc etc.


----------



## hj786

fox said:


> Don't tell us what Chinese have lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki, its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot, it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2  etc etc.



I remember reading that its FBW didn't fail, the pilot accidentally switched it off because of a badly re-designed cockpit.


----------



## hj786

desidog said:


> And it only resembles an ealier design not 100&#37; like one, i will get you the link where it talks about the resemblance of the jf-17 to the tigershark and some other similar designs so that i can prove my point also



So you prove your points with "similar designs" while calling me a fanboy for proving my points with articles written by professionals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

desidog said:


> LOL ya get personal now that makes so much sense, buddy try to keep it professional and please keep away from personal comments. *Jis shool ke tum bache ho beta us school ke hum principal hai lol*  stay cool mate



aisa principal hona laga to phir schoolon ka to khud he hafiz. Lakin then again aisa school be to India main he hota hain na.

On a more serious note stop trolling it gets irritating after the first time.


----------



## paritosh

desidog said:


> *Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI.* *The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces.*


fair enough you have everybody's attention now...
and everybody wants a cheap alternative bro...don't you?
_"JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces."_
tell me which country would refuse to equip it's forces with a cheap yet competitive a/c that can take on modern airforces with 4.5 gen fighters?If I'd been a marketing exec at Chengdu....I'd be mighty pleased reading that coming from you...



> The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the *way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd*, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go and compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now.


I couldn't have agreed more....but now what you are doing is just what they did that got you all piped up....don't ridicule the Jf-17 that much...it is a good platform...
and it has it's avionics based on open architecture which is going to be a rave in the future...it's microprocessors won't suffer from the prospect of getting outdated as there is a provision for their being updated...and hence all the future talk...(plaens get updated all the time...but it is very costly as you must have read...the mirage 2000 update costing around 40 million dollars a piece! that is because they are branded to be flown without much modifications....that is the "closed-architecture" for you)
it is BVR capable...has a good sized nose-cone that _can _house BVR radars...without much _todd-fodd_ required.... 
and it is said that it is as maneuverable as the F-16....having a FBW(duplex redundant I guess?)


> The fact is that right now in its current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.



which mig-29 the indian one or the BD one?
as you see the even in the same plane i.e the mig here...there is so much difference...
The Jf-17 is not as good as the Mki...most Pakistanis agree...but it is actually a good plane to form the backbone of your airforce...right now it is a very basic plane but that is not what the Pakistanis who signed up for it had in mind...it's easy to fit the Griffo and convert it to full BVR...it is _custom made_ for that...


----------



## raveolution

fox said:


> Don't tell us what Chinese have



Unfortunately what the Chinese have, they have. And it is even older than the MKI. No-one says their SU-30's are crap.



fox said:


> lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki,



These problems were found in 2004 and rectified immediately. Do you know what the 'failure' was? Search and figure it out. They were 'nicks' in the engine blades. The production sequence was never delayed because of these problems and neither was the fleet grounded.



fox said:


> its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot,



The answer is given by your own Countryman. He seems to have something called "grey matter" in his head.



fox said:


> it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2  etc etc.



Apart from that article, do you have any other links from official sources confirming this? And even if it is true, it means that the average is 32 hours for an hour of flying time. In times of war, it does not mean that after every hour of flying, it has to return to base for 32 hours.

And first learn how the RCS is measured. Please go to the Pune AFB with a measuring tape and then come up with the figure. Official figures reg RCS are never released as it is of a sensitive nature.

Moreover, please go through the entire thread and get educated, listen to senior members from Pakistan reg the MKI and then post some meaningful comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

how can people here post the aircraft's RCS????
what people know is that the Su-mki has a big RCS..waht they don't know is that given the Bars's Tx power....the Mki would still see any Jf-17 or F-16 first than being seen itself...!
and that is what matters.


----------



## PakShaheen79

paritosh said:


> how can people here post the aircraft's RCS????
> what people know is that the Su-mki has a big RCS..waht they don't know is that given the Bars's Tx power....the Mki would still see any Jf-17 or F-16 first than being seen itself...!
> and that is what matters.



But don't you think range of APG-68(V9) will also increase with increase in RCS of MKI when it comes vs F-16C\D? If APG-68 has 300 KM range against (say 5M^2 target) IMO, it will increase if target has RCS of 10M^2.


----------



## PakShaheen79

raveolution said:


> And first learn how the RCS is measured. Please go to the Pune AFB with a measuring tape and then come up with the figure. Official figures reg RCS are never released as it is of a sensitive nature.


This might help.....No need to go Pune AFB 
*RCS*

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.


B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1
 F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5
 B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19
 Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12
 Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1
 MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88
 F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7
 F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62
 Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62
 Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38
 JSF (golf ball sized) 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18
 F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07
 F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, marble sized or fighter x 0.12-0.21
 
F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).

As can be seen stealthy aircraft aim to reduce opposition situation awareness by decreasing detection range.

Situation Awareness


----------



## paritosh

PakShaheen79 said:


> But don't you think range of APG-68(V9) will also increase with increase in RCS of MKI when it comes vs F-16C\D? If APG-68 has 300 KM range against (say 5M^2 target) IMO, it will increase if target has RCS of 10M^2.



see if a radar is not powerful enough it discards all the echoes that come to it after the prt..or the pulse repetition time...as clutter(assuming that a large reflector like the mki is present at a distance>the unambiguous radar range)...based on the value of the clutter threshold set(mostly predefined now based on the mode of radar operation)
but yes the RCS is a factor in the radar range eqn...and the range is indeed directly proportional to the RCS...as it is to the Gtx or the transmission gain...and the beam width or the beam type..
but RCS is the most uncertain and ambiguous of all the other parameters...I know you'd agree...for example a plane flying towards the f-16 would have it's RCS(smaller) based on the circumference of it's fuselage...or the area of X-section of it's body....while if it is banking towards a side...it's underbelly might give a larger RCS value...or might even reflect the incident microwaves in different directions...giving a much smaller RCS...
if the aircraft is flying below or above the f-16...the RCS would depend on the look-down/look-up ability of the radar...

so to have a sure-shot longer ranged radar...we use the promising parameters of Gtx and the beam width and wavelength...though RCS is absolutely important...but is dealt with probability more than with raw statistics.
and besides the aid of AWACS would kill the argument...
but the other more important thing is BVR engagement...in the end it will all come to which plane carries what and how many BVR missiles.


----------



## raveolution

PakShaheen79 said:


> This might help.....No need to go Pune AFB
> *RCS*
> 
> The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69&#37; of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.
> 
> 
> B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1
> F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5
> B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19
> Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12
> Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1
> MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88
> F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7
> F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62
> Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62
> Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38
> JSF (&#8216;golf ball sized&#8217 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18
> F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07
> F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, &#8216;marble sized&#8217; or fighter x 0.12-0.21
> 
> F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).
> 
> As can be seen &#8216;stealthy&#8217; aircraft aim to reduce opposition situation awareness by decreasing detection range.
> 
> Situation Awareness



Thanks for the info PakShaheen. Great post. Just wanted to know like if we take the standard fighter RCS as 5m2, how have we arrived at 1.2m2 for the F-16? Is there a formula to calculate this and if yes, does it involve specialised access to the aircraft for measuring purposes or basic specs like length, width, etc are enough?

Edit: Also, so does it mean that a JF-17 with a KLJ-7 radar with a detection range of 105 kms would be able to detect a Typhoon at only around 50 kms?


----------



## PAFAce

desidog said:


> Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI. The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces. The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go and compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now. The fact is that right now in its current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.


Sir, I've posted here before that the JF-17 "resembles" the Tigershark, both in planform and in ideology, but that is about it. There are many structural differences, and technologically, the JF-17 is far advanced even today. If anything, the JF-17 compares much more with Russian designs (as *hj786* has proven), as the original Super 7 was an upgrade of the trusted MiG-19. All said, the way you have spoken about the JF-17 is simply disrespectful. As an employee in the Aerospace industry, I expect better of you. Also, if there is one guy on this forum I would trust for proper research, it is *hj786*, so it's futile to get into a research war with him.

As for the MKI, agreed, it most likely is near the top of all jets in the region. However, the way you are speaking of the MKI very much points to "blind love" for it. It is not invincible, in fact, there are many problems that are well known and documented with this design. Sensitivity to FOD, maintenance issues, high cost of maintenance, an engine that can't take much punishment, size, and on and on. BVR, 1 vs 1, no AWACs, no RADAR, level flight, I'd surely give the nod to Su-30MKI any day, but when will that scenario ever occur? Under an AWACs/RADAR blanket, with full battle tactics, things change drastically. WVR, well, PAF pilots claim the JF-17 to be as capable as the F-16, which is a huge compliment. So WVR, I'd say the JF-17 is more than just a match for the TVC Su-30MKI.

There is no need to take every single post on this thread to heart, in fact, most should simply be ignored. Nobody is saying the JF-17 is superior to the Su-30MKI in every way. However, if you think there is no way the JF-17 can counter the MKI, well, history might serve a good lesson.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShaheen79

raveolution said:


> Thanks for the info PakShaheen. Great post. Just wanted to know like if we take the standard fighter RCS as 5m2, how have we arrived at 1.2m2 for the F-16? *Is there a formula to calculate this and if yes, does it involve specialised access to the aircraft for measuring purposes or basic specs like length, width, etc are enough?*



Well dear please don't get confuse with the formula given in my abpve post it is to get an idea at what distance one radar can detect a fighter compared to another one.

Now coming towards you question, Yes there is a formula and it is
The conceptual definition of RCS includes the fact that not all of
the radiated energy falls on the target. A targets RCS (F) is
most easily visualized as the product of three factors:
*RCS = Projected cross section x Reflectivity x Directivity .*

*Reflectivity:* The percent of intercepted power reradiated
(scattered) by the target.
*Directivity:* The ratio of the power scattered back in the radar's direction to the power that would have been backscattered
had the scattering been uniform in all directions (i.e. isotropically).
Sphere shape is one which is used in this equation to get a reference value of ideal RCS value which finish around 1 M^2. Values of all other objects are compared against this figure to get an idea if RCS is large one or small one.

Reflectivity and Directivity also depends on geometry of target that is reason why stealth fighter have very unique geometry.

Now I am giving you a very informative link to study. It is small PDF file but mark my words it is very informative in understanding RCS and its calculations. 
http://www.tscm.com/rcs.pdf



> Edit: Also, so does it mean that a JF-17 with a KLJ-7 radar with a detection range of 105 kms would be able to detect a Typhoon at only around 50 kms?



Yes that is quite possible; Range of KLJ-7 against 3 M^2 (Mig-21) is 75 KM. Now it is evident that against EF-2000 it will decrease further.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

paritosh said:


> see if a radar is not powerful enough it discards all the echoes that come to it after the prt..or the pulse repetition time...as clutter(assuming that a large reflector like the mki is present at a distance>the unambiguous radar range)...based on the value of the clutter threshold set(mostly predefined now based on the mode of radar operation)
> but yes the RCS is a factor in the radar range eqn...and the range is indeed directly proportional to the RCS...as it is to the Gtx or the transmission gain...and the beam width or the beam type..
> but RCS is the most uncertain and ambiguous of all the other parameters...I know you'd agree...for example a plane flying towards the f-16 would have it's RCS(smaller) based on the circumference of it's fuselage...or the area of X-section of it's body....while if it is banking towards a side...it's underbelly might give a larger RCS value...or might even reflect the incident microwaves in different directions...giving a much smaller RCS...
> if the aircraft is flying below or above the f-16...the RCS would depend on the look-down/look-up ability of the radar...
> 
> so to have a sure-shot longer ranged radar...we use the promising parameters of Gtx and the beam width and wavelength...though RCS is absolutely important...but is dealt with probability more than with raw statistics.
> and besides the aid of AWACS would kill the argument...
> but the other more important thing is BVR engagement...in the end it will all come to which plane carries what and how many BVR missiles.



I agree with you on almost all points in your post regarding sensitivity of TX modules and its relation to RCS. Just wanted to add that Reflectivity is something where MKI will always proved to be a big target compared to JF-17. If fully loaded its reflectivity will further increase towards Thunder's radar when facing each other in head on engagement. So, superior Gain by Tx module of MKI radar has to do more work than JF-17 or F-16 radar's Tx module will have to. Keeping RCS equation in mind (RCS= reflectivity x Directivity x Projected Cross section)... IMO, still Thunder will have a chance to detect MKI before it enter in a range where it can lock on Thunder while latter totally unaware of fact what is about to come to its way... I am sure PAF will always keep this in mind that's why it is not satisfied with KLJ and is looking some Western radar. More range + more sensitivity (Gain by Tx modules).


----------



## notorious_eagle

paritosh said:


> how can people here post the aircraft's RCS????
> what people know is that the Su-mki has a big RCS..waht they don't know is that given the Bars's Tx power....the Mki would still see any Jf-17 or F-16 first than being seen itself...!
> and that is what matters.



Sir Jee you would be right if there were no AWACS in South Asia, but with the introduction of AWACS both MKI and F16/JF17 will see each other at approximately the same time. With MKI's huge radar cross section, there is simply no chance the Erieyes would miss it. India stands to loose more than Pakistan with the introduction of AWACS, i guess this was a miscalculation on part of IAF's top command.


----------



## ice_man

raveolution said:


> Iceman. The JF-17 uses RD-93, the Mig-29's use the RD-33. The RD-93 engine is a variant, designed primarily for single engined aircraft, of the original RD-33.
> 
> In 2005, Russia signed a $250 million deal with India to modernize engines for the MiG-29 fighters of the Indian Air Force. According to the terms of the deal, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will make 120 RD-33 series 3 jet engines at its Koraput plant for the upgrade of MiG-29 fighters.
> 
> The difference between these RD-33 series 3 and the RD-93 is substantial. The RD-93 on the JF-17, however is a reliable, efficient and cost effective solution as well.



buddy the most significant diffrence between the RD-93 & the RD-33 engine is the position of the gearbox! not much difference except that RD-93 is designed for a single engined fighter


----------



## unicorn148

the awacs capabilities on india are better than pakisthan the range of phalcons are higher than the erieye so the su30mki with the help of phalcon will detect the jf17 of f16 earlier

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn148

the rd 93 has the same capabilities of a normal rd 33 engine but what mig29 of IAF will be using the rd33 3 series engines which are superior to the normal rd33 engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

@ unicorn....buddy please read the thread from the beginning before coming up with PHALCON is SUPERIOR & RD33 is superior india is superior.....it will help


----------



## paritosh

PakShaheen79 said:


> I agree with you on almost all points in your post regarding sensitivity of TX modules and its relation to RCS. Just wanted to add that Reflectivity is something where MKI will always proved to be a big target compared to JF-17. If fully loaded its reflectivity will further increase towards Thunder's radar when facing each other in head on engagement. So, superior Gain by Tx module of MKI radar has to do more work than JF-17 or F-16 radar's Tx module will have to. Keeping RCS equation in mind (RCS= reflectivity x Directivity x Projected Cross section)... IMO, still Thunder will have a chance to detect MKI before it enter in a range where it can lock on Thunder while latter totally unaware of fact what is about to come to its way... I am sure PAF will always keep this in mind that's why it is not satisfied with KLJ and is looking some Western radar. More range + more sensitivity (Gain by Tx modules).



I agree that the Mki is indeed like a floating truck in the sky.....and the reduction of RCS is a concern and would be addressed in the scheduled upgrade...it is planned to use much more RAMs in the areas which tend to be the most reflective...and yes one of the biggest source of echo is the under-wing pylons and fuel tanks...and the rotors...
see when a plane say the f-16 would with it's radar range of say R1 kms is flying and a Su-30 with a big RCS is flying at a range R2(R2>R1)
at some distance R3 (R2>R3>R1)...the radar would start receiving echoes from the MKI due to it's sheer size now it is upto the signal processing equipment aboard the plane to either reject the echoes obtained as clutter or put it as a blip on the Heads up display...
so most radars traditionally suppress echoes obtained from targets outside of their unambiguous range as they can be misguiding...most modern radars use multiple prfs to clear the unambiguities and obtain a target even beyond their range...so it's about the quality of radar as well...
and in the MKi's case it having a powerful radar of it's own doesn't help it's case...microwaves from the Bars would also attract attention.
but I'd ask you to fetch the values of the Radar output powers of the Bars and the APG-68...I think that there is a significant difference in their output powers...but frankly I don't know the exact output power of the APG...do you have any data on that?


----------



## paritosh

notorious_eagle said:


> Sir Jee you would be right if there were no AWACS in South Asia, but with the introduction of AWACS both MKI and F16/JF17 will see each other at approximately the same time. With MKI's huge radar cross section, there is simply no chance the Erieyes would miss it. India stands to loose more than Pakistan with the introduction of AWACS, i guess this was a miscalculation on part of IAF's top command.



yaar...read my next post..it'd be stupid not to involve the AWACS...that is what they are for...
but the other important aspect is to shoot the detected enemy plane...and for that you have to depend on your missiles...the awacs can guide the missile more efficiently but can't increase it's range...and plus the number of BVR missiles carried by JF-17 is lesser than that carried by the MKI...so we have to consider all these factors as well...


----------



## unicorn148

mr ice men it u who wanted to know abt rd 93 engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## raveolution

notorious_eagle said:


> Sir Jee you would be right if there were no AWACS in South Asia, but with the introduction of AWACS both MKI and F16/JF17 will see each other at approximately the same time. With MKI's huge radar cross section, there is simply no chance the Erieyes would miss it. India stands to loose more than Pakistan with the introduction of AWACS, i guess this was a miscalculation on part of IAF's top command.



Notorious Eagle, lots of people do not understand how an Awacs works. The part in which you are right is that the MKI and JF-17 would "see" each other at the same time with the help of the Awacs. However, the radar on the Awacs can only "track" targets and not "engage" them. 

It essentially means that to engage, lock on to the enemy aircraft, fire the missile and provide mid term guidance, the MKI would need to use its own radar. The technology doesn't exist at the moment (although the US is experimenting), to use Awacs for engagement.

So essentially, even though they can see each other at probably the same time, the aircraft's individual radar would have to do the rest and that is where the MKI's Bars radar would be superior.

Hope you understood my point.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sapper

raveolution said:


> It essentially means that to engage, lock on to the enemy aircraft, fire the missile and provide mid term guidance, the MKI would need to use its own radar. The technology doesn't exist at the moment (although the US is experimenting), to use Awacs for engagement.
> 
> So essentially, even though they can see each other at probably the same time, the aircraft's individual radar would have to do the rest and that is where the MKI's Bars radar would be superior.



The comparison to make here is 

At what range Su30's radar detects a 1m2~1.5m2 RCS target.
compared with
At what range JF17's KLJ 7/10 radar detects a 5m2~10m2 target.

MULTIPLY IT WITH

Max range and speed of Su30's BVR missile.
compared with
Max range and speed of JF17's BVR missile.


As per my caculations, MKI has an edge due to its BVR missile, but the EDGE is not as great as it would be if the RCS of MKI was lover than 5m2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn148

sapper 
i think that a better radar should have a very low rcs that means it should be able to detect even small cross sections

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

raveolution said:


> Notorious Eagle, lots of people do not understand how an Awacs works. The part in which you are right is that the MKI and JF-17 would "see" each other at the same time with the help of the Awacs. However, the radar on the Awacs can only "track" targets and not "engage" them.
> 
> *It essentially means that to engage, lock on to the enemy aircraft, fire the missile and provide mid term guidance, the MKI would need to use its own radar. The technology doesn't exist at the moment (although the US is experimenting), to use Awacs for engagement*.
> 
> So essentially, even though they can see each other at probably the same time, the aircraft's individual radar would have to do the rest and that is where the MKI's Bars radar would be superior.
> 
> Hope you understood my point.



you sure about that?I though that the AWACS _can_ be used to guide a radar guided semi-active missile to it's target...thee is nothing technically that should stop the AWACS from doing that...a semi-active seeker needs a radar lock on to it's target...an AWACS can provide that...can't it?


----------



## paritosh

unicorn148 said:


> sapper
> i think that a better radar should have a very low rcs that means it should be able to detect even small cross sections



radars don't contribute to the RCS's directly...I guess you meant resolution...


----------



## paritosh

Sapper said:


> The comparison to make here is
> 
> At what range Su30's radar detects a 1m2~1.5m2 RCS target.
> compared with
> At what range JF17's KLJ 7/10 radar detects a 5m2~10m2 target.
> 
> MULTIPLY IT WITH
> 
> Max range and speed of Su30's BVR missile.
> compared with
> Max range and speed of JF17's BVR missile.
> 
> 
> As per my caculations, MKI has an edge due to its BVR missile, but the EDGE is not as great as it would be if the RCS of MKI was lover than 5m2.




there are so many edges that you did not see...
a)the Su-30's PESA is far more advanced than the mechanically scanned radar that the f-16 is going to have...under the upgrade that is yet to happen..
b)the Su-30's Bars allows it engage 12 targets simultaneously and the SU-30's advanced data comm systems allow it to function as a mini AWACS data-linking itself to other wingmen and ground support people..
c)the SU-30s killer advantage is it's ability to carry the most number of BVR missiles 4 more than the f-16 or the JF-17...
d)the Su-30s EW suite is stated to be one of the best....


----------



## SBD-3

paritosh said:


> yaar...read my next post..it'd be stupid not to involve the AWACS...that is what they are for...
> but the other important aspect is to shoot the detected enemy plane...and for that you have to depend on your missiles...the awacs can guide the missile more efficiently but can't increase it's range...and plus the number of BVR missiles carried by JF-17 is lesser than that carried by the MKI...so we have to consider all these factors as well...


Bhai sahib.......plz keep in mind that once data linked with AWACS, the plane can switch its radar off and even awacs can guide the fired missile just like F-22 does. it is lethal....cus you don't know that a missile is homing on you until it suddenly lites up and you have to save your *** in no time....and secondly that its not necessary that a plane,if carries greater amount of missiles, should emerge victorious.....remember race is won by agile not laden.....if JF gets meteor or AIM-120 then even 4 missiles mean a good combat capability....now please do some research befor posting anything


----------



## unicorn148

mr hasnain the present r77 has a greater range than the aim120 and the range of phalcon awacs is greater than the erieye and india may be using phython5 and derby which is superior to even aim and meantor


----------



## unicorn148

the aim 120d is in testing phase and may take more than 10 years for pakisthan to get it aim 120 c range 105 km sd 10 range 100km R77m range is 175km


----------



## desiman

PAFAce said:


> Sir, I've posted here before that the JF-17 "resembles" the Tigershark, both in planform and in ideology, but that is about it. There are many structural differences, and technologically, the JF-17 is far advanced even today. If anything, the JF-17 compares much more with Russian designs (as *hj786* has proven), as the original Super 7 was an upgrade of the trusted MiG-19. All said, the way you have spoken about the JF-17 is simply disrespectful. As an employee in the Aerospace industry, I expect better of you. Also, if there is one guy on this forum I would trust for proper research, it is *hj786*, so it's futile to get into a research war with him.
> 
> As for the MKI, agreed, it most likely is near the top of all jets in the region. However, the way you are speaking of the MKI very much points to "blind love" for it. It is not invincible, in fact, there are many problems that are well known and documented with this design. Sensitivity to FOD, maintenance issues, high cost of maintenance, an engine that can't take much punishment, size, and on and on. BVR, 1 vs 1, no AWACs, no RADAR, level flight, I'd surely give the nod to Su-30MKI any day, but when will that scenario ever occur? Under an AWACs/RADAR blanket, with full battle tactics, things change drastically. WVR, well, PAF pilots claim the JF-17 to be as capable as the F-16, which is a huge compliment. So WVR, I'd say the JF-17 is more than just a match for the TVC Su-30MKI.
> 
> There is no need to take every single post on this thread to heart, in fact, most should simply be ignored. Nobody is saying the JF-17 is superior to the Su-30MKI in every way. However, if you think there is no way the JF-17 can counter the MKI, well, history might serve a good lesson.



Brother if i offended you in any way, i apologize for that but what i only meant that i am also seeing the people here are demeaning the MKI. If you read my previous post i have applauded the JF-17 name times for its cost and tech but one must keep in mind that it is not made to compete with the MKI, the PAF has the f-16's for that. I am getting arguments that why is India buying other jets if the MKI is soo good, well if you say that then why is the PAF buying more f-16 or the j-10 when the JF-17 is so good. Arguments are that is what i am against, as you said me being from the aerospace industry, i know what i am talking about. Giving technical details is not tough, i have given enough of that in my previous post but even after that the argument rages on. I am not saying that the MKI is invincible or it cannot be shot down but the chances of that happening on a "one on one" battle are very less. Yes if you say that a lone MKI will be against 3-4 JF-17's with awacs support then yes the MKI does not stand a very good chance. My only point is that the JF-17 is a great achievement and will really help out the PAF, but the JF-17 will never be a deterrent like the way the MKI is and it will take many upgrades and many future blocks for the JF-17 to come on par with the MKI. Feel free to disagree bro

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAFAce

desidog said:


> Brother if i offended you in any way, i apologize for that but what i only meant that i am also seeing the people here are demeaning the MKI. If you read my previous post i have applauded the JF-17 name times for its cost and tech but one must keep in mind that it is not made to compete with the MKI, the PAF has the f-16's for that. I am getting arguments that why is India buying other jets if the MKI is soo good, well if you say that then why is the PAF buying more f-16 or the j-10 when the JF-17 is so good. Arguments are that is what i am against, as you said me being from the aerospace industry, i know what i am talking about. Giving technical details is not tough, i have given enough of that in my previous post but even after that the argument rages on. I am not saying that the MKI is invincible or it cannot be shot down but the chances of that happening on a "one on one" battle are very less. Yes if you say that a lone MKI will be against 3-4 JF-17's with awacs support then yes the MKI does not stand a very good chance. My only point is that the JF-17 is a great achievement and will really help out the PAF, but the JF-17 will never be a deterrent like the way the MKI is and it will take many upgrades and many future blocks for the JF-17 to come on par with the MKI. Feel free to disagree bro


Hey, I don't have much to disagree with here. Glad to read your views.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

PAFAce said:


> Hey, I don't have much to disagree with here. Glad to read your views.



Thanks bro, glad you agree, mods close this thread now lol


----------



## hj786

PAFAce said:


> If anything, the JF-17 compares much more with Russian designs (as *hj786* has proven), as the original Super 7 was an upgrade of the trusted MiG-19. All said, the way you have spoken about the JF-17 is simply disrespectful. As an employee in the Aerospace industry, I expect better of you. Also, if there is one guy on this forum I would trust for proper research, it is *hj786*, so it's futile to get into a research war with him.


I wouldn't say that sir, I just read what I find and save it if it's useful, I'm only as trustworthy as the articles I happen to come across. 



PAFAce said:


> So WVR, I'd say the JF-17 is more than just a match for the TVC Su-30MKI.


I wouldn't go that far, the Sukhoi has a lot of thrust and TVC does give an advantage. But anybody with half a brain can see how a helmet-mounted targeting system and modern missiles can *even the playing field to a certain extent*. Same with data-links, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc. 
Some time ago I asked Gambit if it's true that AMRAAM can be launched by an F-16, with its radar switched off, being updated with radar data from an AWACS via Link-16. I received the response that indeed it can. I am confident that the PAF will find a way to make the JF-17 / SD-10 / KJ-200 combination work similarly _if they haven't already_, hence my belief that a secure data-link, AWACS support and good AAMs are more important than radar upgrades for the JF-17.



raveolution said:


> However, the radar on the Awacs can only "track" targets and not "engage" them.
> 
> The technology doesn't exist at the moment (although the US is experimenting), to use Awacs for engagement.


According to an ex-USAF avionics technician called Gambit who has worked on the F-111 and F-16C/D for years, you are wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
 2


----------



## sathruvinasakh

hj786 said:


> I wouldn't say that sir, I just read what I find and save it if it's useful, I'm only as trustworthy as the articles I happen to come across.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far, the Sukhoi has a lot of thrust and TVC does give an advantage. But anybody with half a brain can see how a helmet-mounted targeting system and modern missiles can *even the playing field to a certain extent*. Same with data-links, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc.
> Some time ago I asked Gambit if it's true that AMRAAM can be launched by an F-16, with its radar switched off, being updated with radar data from an AWACS via Link-16. I received the response that indeed it can. I am confident that the PAF will find a way to make the JF-17 / SD-10 / KJ-200 combination work similarly _if they haven't already_, hence my belief that a secure data-link, AWACS support and good AAMs are more important than radar upgrades for the JF-17.
> 
> 
> According to an ex-USAF avionics technician called Gambit who has worked on the F-111 and F-16C/D for years, you are wrong.



If the comparison is between the fighters why do you bring the AWACS and IFR?

If PAF can get their Hands on an AWACS in future,IAF already had one and does had past experience with A-50.And soon will receive the others which were known as the best AWACS in the world(Phalcons).

And even if we Ignore the use of additional AWACS ,MKI still functions as a mini AWACS with single console in the rear seat.
That is one of the main reason why IAF was interested in the development of Su-30 into a MKI.
*:Mod Edit:*


----------



## paritosh

hasnain0099 said:


> Bhai sahib.......plz keep in mind that once data linked with AWACS, the plane can switch its radar off and even awacs can guide the fired missile just like F-22 does. it is lethal....


and you have a habit of dropping in the middle of threads without any idea what has already been discussed...i have already discussed what you have posted...read aage-peeche ki posts before you jump in the fray.



> cus you don't know that a missile is homing on you until it suddenly lites up and you have to save your *** in no time....


not true...
most planes have Radar warning receivers that can detect the source of a missile lock-on(or a radar lock-on) and they give off warning and the plane's electronic counter measures or ECMs try to deal with the threat...so the missile doesn't suddenly light up your HUD....mostly a radar-lock is detected as it is established.
as far as the WVR combat is involved...even that is not a problem...
planes have Infrared threat detectors..which detect the IR signatures from the missiles exhaust plumes...ans give warnings...and every misile does have a radar signature...



> and secondly that its not necessary that a plane,if carries greater amount of missiles, should emerge victorious.....remember race is won by agile not laden.....if JF gets meteor or AIM-120 then even 4 missiles mean a good combat capability....


the plane that fires more missiles wins...period.
every BVR missile has a first kill probability...and no missile has a 100&#37; FKP.
this probability exponentially increases with the number of missiles fired...and hence the advantage lies with the number of BVR missiles carried.



> now please do some research befor posting anything


yeah right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## desiman

paritosh said:


> and you have a habit of dropping in the middle of threads without any idea what has already been discussed...i have already discussed what you have posted...read aage-peeche ki posts before you jump in the fray.
> 
> 
> not true...
> most planes have Radar warning receivers that can detect the source of a missile lock-on(or a radar lock-on) and they give off warning and the plane's electronic counter measures or ECMs try to deal with the threat...so the missile doesn't suddenly light up your HUD....mostly a radar-lock is detected as it is established.
> as far as the WVR combat is involved...even that is not a problem...
> planes have Infrared threat detectors..which detect the IR signatures from the missiles exhaust plumes...ans give warnings...and every misile does have a radar signature...
> 
> 
> the plane that fires more missiles wins...period.
> every BVR missile has a first kill probability...and no missile has a 100% FKP.
> this probability exponentially increases with the number of missiles fired...and hence the advantage lies with the number of BVR missiles carried.
> 
> 
> yeah right.



NICE ANSWER BRO  GUD JOB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

hj786 said:


> I wouldn't say that sir, I just read what I find and save it if it's useful, I'm only as trustworthy as the articles I happen to come across.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far, the Sukhoi has a lot of thrust and TVC does give an advantage. But anybody with half a brain can see how a helmet-mounted targeting system and modern missiles can *even the playing field to a certain extent*. Same with data-links, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc.
> Some time ago I asked Gambit if it's true that AMRAAM can be launched by an F-16, with its radar switched off, being updated with radar data from an AWACS via Link-16. I received the response that indeed it can. I am confident that the PAF will find a way to make the JF-17 / SD-10 / KJ-200 combination work similarly _if they haven't already_, hence my belief that a secure data-link, AWACS support and good AAMs are more important than radar upgrades for the JF-17.
> 
> 
> According to an ex-USAF avionics technician called Gambit who has worked on the F-111 and F-16C/D for years, you are wrong.



yeah and not just Gambit...I have read that on my own too...


----------



## raveolution

hj786 said:


> According to an ex-USAF avionics technician called Gambit who has worked on the F-111 and F-16C/D for years, you are wrong.



If that is indeed the case, then I stand corrected. My apologies.

So does that also mean that an MKI armed with a Novator K-100 (KS-172) fires its missile from 400 km, switches off its radar, and gets away before any harm comes to it, and the missile is guided to its target by the AWACS? This scenario may not even be required as the KS172 has its own terminal homing radar. Just a point that I wanted to clarify.


----------



## PakShaheen79

raveolution said:


> If that is indeed the case, then I stand corrected. My apologies.
> 
> So does that also mean that an MKI armed with a Novator K-100 (KS-172) fires its missile from 400 km, switches off its radar, and gets away before any harm comes to it, and the missile is guided to its target by the AWACS? This scenario may not even be required as the KS172 has its own terminal homing radar. Just a point that I wanted to clarify.



My friend everything is possible... It is science and anybody can adopt it according to requirements following some certain rules of science.

As far as KS-172 AAM is concerned you question can be answered more accurately after we have an idea about exact range of KS-172 own seekers\radar. Hope you get my point. Rest assured nothing is impossible if some principle is correct for US systems there is no reason why any other country can't adopt it.


----------



## Novice09

sancho said:


> Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a *new* engine? That M88 source is 12 years old!
> Also the source for RD-93 with TVC is from 2006, but the deal with China was signed in 2007 and *without TVC*!
> So the same people who provides us AL 31TVC engine, PESA radar, R77 BVR missile for our Mki, offered you a slightly improved version of the engine we use in our old Mig 29 and offer us now the latest version of that engine with 3D TVC. I think it's clear who Russia loves more!
> 
> The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?



No.... f16 and J10 will be far better than MKIs (Just a joke).

But yes the aforementioned two FJs would be comparable with MKI. JF 17 is overestimated.

some people on this forum are comparing a future JF17 with current MKI and think that JF 17 would be upgraded whereas MKI would be with same configuration in future.


----------



## ice_man

this thread is going around in circles guys please give it a break!!!! 

CONCLUSION:

1) MKI is a good heavy weight fighter 

2) JF-17 is a good fighter for its size 

3) MKI will have a fight on hand against multiple JFs! 

4) in a one on one fight JF vs the MKI odds are against the JF

5) AWACS will act as force multipliers in a JF vs MKI scenario!

now please guys let' it rest for a while before we start all over again.....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## unicorn148

thats a good conclusion i think pakistan must develop the jf 17 platform to make it a good multi role fighter


----------



## garibnawaz

As suggested in another thread I suggest some more new threads or comparisions in the same thread which haven't been discussed yet.

Lets begin with

JF-17 v/s HPT-32
JF-17 v/s HJT-16
JF-17 v/s HJT-36

or

Su-30MKI v/s Super Mushak
Su-30MKI v/s K-8
Su-30MKI v/s Rose Upgraded Mirage III/V
Su-30MKI v/s A-5 Phantan
Su-30MKI v/s PAF presidential/PM A-310

Regards,

GB

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

ice_man said:


> this thread is going around in circles guys please give it a break!!!!
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> 
> 1) MKI is a good heavy weight fighter
> 
> 2) JF-17 is a good fighter for its size
> 
> 3) MKI will have a fight on hand against multiple JFs!
> 
> 4) in a one on one fight JF vs the MKI odds are against the JF
> 
> 5) AWACS will act as force multipliers in a JF vs MKI scenario!
> 
> now please guys let' it rest for a while before we start all over again.....



That is a fair conclusion in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn148

i think its better to end this thread because the conclusion have arrived


----------



## Storm Force

This line about Multiple JF17 versis 1 Su30mki is misleading. 

There only 8 prototypes in existence and IOC is not known probaly early 2010. 
Versis at least 6 sqds of 105+ SU30MKI as we speak. 

by 2015 IAF will field a minimum of 230 and possibly as many as 280 mki...

In contrast PAF thus far have only ordered 42 Thunders + the 8 prototypes and even these are being acquired via soft loans from china. 

Despite over enthusiastic JF17 fan boys claiming 200-250 Thunders MLU upgrades and western radar weapons etc the induction programme of the Thunder is TODAY where MKI was in 2001. 

In other words MKI order induction programme/ development is nearly a decade ahead in timescale. 

PAF has neither the financial resources or the engineering base to start building 15-20 planes per year. I just cant see Thunder reaching any where near the MKI nos by 2015.. 

The conclusion is simple I just do,nt see a scenario where Thunders will out number MKI in a battle. esp because today the nos are 13 mki for very Thunder in service in the 2 air forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

Storm Force said:


> This line about Multiple JF17 versis 1 Su30mki is misleading.
> 
> There only 8 prototypes in existence and IOC is not known probaly early 2010.
> Versis at least 6 sqds of 105+ SU30MKI as we speak.
> 
> by 2015 IAF will field a minimum of 230 and possibly as many as 280 mki...
> 
> In contrast PAF thus far have only ordered 42 Thunders + the 8 prototypes and even these are being acquired via soft loans from china.
> 
> Despite over enthusiastic JF17 fan boys claiming 200-250 Thunders MLU upgrades and western radar weapons etc the induction programme of the Thunder is TODAY where MKI was in 2001.
> 
> In other words MKI order induction programme/ development is nearly a decade ahead in timescale.
> 
> PAF has neither the financial resources or the engineering base to start building 15-20 planes per year. I just cant see Thunder reaching any where near the MKI nos by 2015..
> 
> The conclusion is simple I just do,nt see a scenario where Thunders will out number MKI in a battle. esp because today the nos are 13 mki for very Thunder in service in the 2 air forces.



even though this thread should be stopped now...but i will like to clear out a glitch you pointed out...we are not talking about all the JFs going up head to ahead against every MKI india has we are talking about specific scenarios where an MKI is found to be alone in a specific sector at a certain time....yes i know no on goes into theater of operation alone there will always most probably be a flight of two...BUT specific operation requirements may demand an MKI to find itself all alone up against a formation of 4 JFs....i hope you kind of get what i mean.....so its not all the squadrons of MKIs vs the 42 or so JFs slogging it out.......


----------



## SBD-3

unicorn148 said:


> mr hasnain the present r77 has a greater range than the aim120 and the range of phalcon awacs is greater than the erieye and india may be using phython5 and derby which is superior to even aim and meantor



greater range doesn't necessarily means good ability to hit. You must remember that Phalcons, if used in offensive mode will have to be brought near border where the threat will increase whereas erieyes will be providing defence support as against incoming MKIs. And one more thing I don't know why Indian posters take range and speed as measure of agility. I still remember posters preferring Baison over thunder just because it can reach Mach 2 speed completely ignoring the fact that even though its faster but its not as agile as thunder....now you r repeating the same thing


----------



## unicorn148

hasnain0099 said:


> greater range doesn't necessarily means good ability to hit. You must remember that Phalcons, if used in offensive mode will have to be brought near border where the threat will increase whereas erieyes will be providing defence support as against incoming MKIs. And one more thing I don't know why Indian posters take range and speed as measure of agility. I still remember posters preferring Baison over thunder just because it can reach Mach 2 speed completely ignoring the fact that even though its faster but its not as agile as thunder....now you r repeating the same thing



i dont know why u are trying to compare the biston with thunders mig21 are the best fighters of their time none of the western fighter can match that plane in those days thunder is a fourth generation fighter 

no need to bring phalcons near the border because its range is more than 400kms


----------



## Novice09

ice_man said:


> even though this thread should be stopped now...but i will like to clear out a glitch you pointed out...we are not talking about all the JFs going up head to ahead against every MKI india has we are talking about specific scenarios where an MKI is found to be alone in a specific sector at a certain time....yes i know no on goes into theater of operation alone there will always most probably be a flight of two...BUT specific operation requirements may demand an MKI to find itself all alone up against a formation of 4 JFs....i hope you kind of get what i mean.....so its not all the squadrons of MKIs vs the 42 or so JFs slogging it out.......



Really good one... let make it much better

4JFs... 1MKI .... all of them chasing his tail with a lock on


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well Pakistan has 8 JF 17 Thunders in January 2008, we are in October 2009

So our capacity is 20 crafts/year (When we expect war), but other then that our normal increase capacity is 10 crafts / year.

Now I would assume we will get 10 more crafts end of 2009, and 15 more crafts in 2010

now By 2010 we will have 33 JF17 Thunders 
By 2010 we will also get 18 F16 block D/E



Thats 40 F16 already we have + 18 + 33 Thunders

*91 New crafts*, lets not forget Turkey is upgrading all our F16 as well.


By 2015 we will also have 36 J-10

91 + 36 + ( Plus 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 100 JF 17 Thunder )

Pakistan should be on equal footing with India by 2014


----------



## Chanakyaa

> Pakistan should be on equal footing with India by 2014



well, even if PAF manages to meet the MKI numbers, how will it match up..
50+ LCA
4O+MRCA
NOTE THAT PAF numbers will stop at 150-250 thunders in 2017-2020 while India will be in CONTINUED process to induct..
126-200 MRCA
150+ LCA
100+ FGFA

By 2020 India will b miles ahead.
Comparble to china actually with FGFA IN ARSENAL.


----------



## FGFA

Irkut-Su-30MKI-IBRIS-BARS-1 PESA N011M


----------



## FGFA

NIIP-AFAR-X-Band-MiroslavGyurosi-1


----------



## FGFA

Irkut-Su-30MKI-IBRIS-BARS-1 PESA NIIP-N011-01


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

XiNiX said:


> well, even if PAF manages to meet the MKI numbers, how will it match up..
> 50+ LCA
> 4O+MRCA
> NOTE THAT PAF numbers will stop at 150-250 thunders in 2017-2020 while India will be in CONTINUED process to induct..
> 126-200 MRCA
> 150+ LCA
> 100+ FGFA
> 
> By 2020 India will b miles ahead.
> Comparble to china actually with FGFA IN ARSENAL.




Well I think every nation can only make , 1000-1200 air ships at time, else the maintenence would increase, but hopefully the situation would become better so we don't need that many planes for either nations - since its counter productive , when w all know by 2020
Gas prices will soar, and inflation will be higher and we have problem such as global warming and other problems to deal with in our societies

If by 2015
300 JF17 Thunders
80 F16
36 J10 
*20 Euro Fighters*
20 Mirage 2000 from UAE 
*40 F15 (If we can get from our war on terror buddies)*
2 Stealth planes form China since we are all friends

Its enough to last our airforce for 20 years.
We can then focus on perhaps - Strategic Radars/Air defences


----------



## PakShaheen79

@FGFA

Please can you also provide some info about all these radars?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## desiman

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Well I think every nation can only make , 1000-1200 air ships at time, else the maintenence would increase, but hopefully the situation would become better so we don't need that many planes for either nations - since its counter productive , when w all know by 2020
> Gas prices will soar, and inflation will be higher and we have problem such as global warming and other problems to deal with in our societies
> 
> If by 2015
> 300 JF17 Thunders
> 80 F16
> 36 J10
> *20 Euro Fighters*
> 20 Mirage 2000 from UAE
> *40 F15 (If we can get from our war on terror buddies)*
> 2 Stealth planes form China since we are all friends
> 
> Its enough to last our airforce for 20 years.
> We can then focus on perhaps - Strategic Radars/Air defences




1) Man you have really no idea what your talking about lol Euro fighter lol how did you come up with that ? do you even know the cost involved lol 
2)F-15- lol where did you get that from lol 
3)Stealth plane lol buddy let china perfect the j-10 first, im sure you referring to the J-XX which is still a good 10 years away from even a flight test.
4)300 jf-17's by 2015, i hope you making some at home also lol the max number of JF-17 pakistan will have is 150 - 200 JF-17 max, even that is a tough tak to procure for pakistan by 2015 lol
5)80 f-16 - this is the only point i think that could happen but again chances are less. 
6)36 J-10 - lol did pakistan find hidden diamonds somewhere to procuse all this before 2015 ? Buddy stop having weird dream and stick to reality. 

I work in procurement and i can tell you this very easily Pakistan will procure a max of 150 -200 JF-17's in total and will push for more J-10's and F-16. Buying jets is not like buying groceries, you have to maintain them, buy parts for them, train pilots and staff on them. The list goes on and on. Pakistan has historically financed most of its purchases on loan terms, and keeping that trend pakistan will notbe able to increase its fighter fleet more than what it currently. India can achieve this just because of the amount of resources available to them and dont try to compare India with pakistan, they are two separate countries with totally different outlooks. All pakistan can do it procure around 150 jf-17's and try to get their hands on as much as western tech as possible. Other than that the J-XX and your strategic missile defenses are nothing but a dream right now.


----------



## Novice09

> If by 2015
> 300 JF17 Thunders
> 80 F16
> 36 J10
> 20 Euro Fighters
> 20 Mirage 2000 from UAE
> 40 F15 (If we can get from our war on terror buddies)
> 2 Stealth planes form China since we are all friends



2 Stealth planes from China "by 2015"

R U sure that by 2015 China will have stealth FJs? I know that they r developing it with secrecy. but don't believe that they will develop it by 2015. even if they could, PAF will not get them in 2015 or before.

feel free to dream such...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sapper

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> If by 2015
> 300 JF17 Thunders
> 80 F16
> 36 J10
> *20 Euro Fighters*
> 20 Mirage 2000 from UAE
> *40 F15 (If we can get from our war on terror buddies)*
> 2 Stealth planes form China since we are all friends



Grow up dear ... post things which are remotely possible.


----------



## unicorn148

please dont deviate the topic


----------



## PakShaheen79

FGFA said:


> Tnx Friend
> 
> I provide the Rader Ranges here is it OK for you???



Thanks but please if you can post any other source as this site is not very credible when comparing US fighters with Russian one.


----------



## PakShaheen79

FGFA said:


> here i never post a US fighter raders comparison i think!!



Just look below image which you posted first along with other pics...






Why to compare Russian radar with APG-71 of F-14D? Why not with APG-77, APG-80,APG-79,APG-81 etc.


----------



## PakShaheen79

FGFA said:


> It Compared with only PESA and lower model only not AESA, expect the russian one..



Lol check that chart again Ibris, BARs and Zhuk are there in the list. And it is not mentioned anywhere in the pictures that it is a comparison between US PESA and other Russian radar.


----------



## Storm Force

Jordan is correct comparing su30mki with Thunder is a very uneven. 

Thunder versis F16/52 or in deed mig29m or mirage 2000H is about even. 

SU30MKI versis Rafael/ F15K/ F18E/F/ or J10 IS a fair shout


----------



## notorious_eagle

Storm Force said:


> Jordan is correct comparing su30mki with Thunder is a very uneven.
> 
> Thunder versis F16/52 or in deed mig29m or mirage 2000H is about even.
> 
> SU30MKI versis Rafael/ F15K/ F18E/F/ or J10 IS a fair shout



I think you need to get off the Indian propaganda machine, SU30 MKI is not God's gift to aviation. F16 Block 52 will match the MKI blow by blow, and it sure did during the Red Flag Excercises when it hammered it over and over again. Sure SU30MKI is a great plane with an amazing radar and avionics but it has a huge RCS too. It wouldnt be a problem for other fighter jets to locate the MKI at their radar's maximum range and fire off their IR guided missile.


----------



## Novice09

notorious_eagle said:


> I think you need to get off the Indian propaganda machine, SU30 MKI is not God's gift to aviation. F16 Block 52 will match the MKI blow by blow, and it sure did during the Red Flag Excercises when it hammered it over and over again. Sure SU30MKI is a great plane with an amazing radar and avionics but it has a huge RCS too. It wouldnt be a problem for other fighter jets to locate the MKI at their radar's maximum range and fire off their IR guided missile.



I completely agree with you that F16 Block 52 could be compared by Su 30MKI because both have some advantage and dis advantages  but look at the thread *Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight*


----------



## SBD-3

desidog said:


> 1) Man you have really no idea what your talking about lol Euro fighter lol how did you come up with that ? do you even know the cost involved lol
> 2)F-15- lol where did you get that from lol
> 3)Stealth plane lol buddy let china perfect the j-10 first, im sure you referring to the J-XX which is still a good 10 years away from even a flight test.
> 4)300 jf-17's by 2015, i hope you making some at home also lol the max number of JF-17 pakistan will have is 150 - 200 JF-17 max, even that is a tough tak to procure for pakistan by 2015 lol
> 5)80 f-16 - this is the only point i think that could happen but again chances are less.
> 6)36 J-10 - lol did pakistan find hidden diamonds somewhere to procuse all this before 2015 ? Buddy stop having weird dream and stick to reality.
> 
> I work in procurement and i can tell you this very easily Pakistan will procure a max of 150 -200 JF-17's in total and will push for more J-10's and F-16. Buying jets is not like buying groceries, you have to maintain them, buy parts for them, train pilots and staff on them. The list goes on and on. Pakistan has historically financed most of its purchases on loan terms, and keeping that trend pakistan will notbe able to increase its fighter fleet more than what it currently. India can achieve this just because of the amount of resources available to them and dont try to compare India with pakistan, they are two separate countries with totally different outlooks. All pakistan can do it procure around 150 jf-17's and try to get their hands on as much as western tech as possible. Other than that the J-XX and your strategic missile defenses are nothing but a dream right now.



man you always makestuff only 
ok coming back to your points ( Which i expect will attract nothing but morefrom you)
1) Even if no Eurofighter...... We, if had to maintain balance, may go for J-11 ASF or a dedicated AS model of J-10....on the cost effective side...or may be a squad of rafales 
2) yes they wont come and no one expects them too except some "fan boys"
3) How sure are you that Chinese aren't working on this...............even when J-10 came...no one even PAF was not aware of it............they have the money and they are investing in technology.......expect any thing
4) 150-200 block1 and block 2 JFs................ Block 3 would be a different story.
5)What factor make you claim this about F-16s?
6) they are coming under loan agreement.....Chinese are not yankoos or ruskies which deal in cash only....

and finally.....I am expecting a reasonable reply with appropriate and relevant logic....not a trademark reply like


----------



## Storm Force

SU30 MKI is not God's gift to aviation

Dead right notoruis Eagle its not. 

Thats why the indians about to blow $10 billion++ on F18SH or Typhoon.. 

And another $15billion on FGFA from 2018 ONWARDS


----------



## mano20688

so... i think you shud update ur knowledge friend...
before posting a comment, you must know t fact or real thing... now most of fighters in IAF except MiG-21s are coated with PLASMA which a radiation absorbent that reduces RCS signature of the aircrafts by 80%.>> so dont make me laugh again...
also the radar aperture of Su-30MKI s 1200kms okay.. another aircrafts with such radar aperture is F-22 and Su-35... so tatz y Su-30MKI is alwayz hot in new n compared with F22 by analysts..
so we in Flankers can easily keep an eye on you even if you are in Rawalpindi air base... n if you are within 350kms we wud 've KS-100 novator Long range BVRAAM or if now we have R-77 and Astra as 100kms BVRAAM which gives us a sure kill rate... tat means all those missiles are equipped wit thrust vectoring nozzles... and if you guyz meet a Su-30 witin 10 kms or 7kms just dont blame tat your electronics are malfunctioning(including radar of your aircrafts or radar of your short range missiles what you guyz possess)... bcoz Su-30MKI equipped with very high frequency jammer, so other aircrafts that are not coded wit IAF designation wont work... so you guyz forced to use your canon and engage in dogfights... whole world 'military flight' analysts know, there is no fighters in world to beat Su-30MKI in dogfights (excluding Mig-35)....:tongue


----------



## arya

Sir, plz change the Topic :
*2 JSF & 1 JF 17 Air Fight*

and result is
............


----------



## 592257001

LOL, for ppl for does not believe china will have stealth planes before 2015, I will just tell you one thing: the J-XX 001 has already been produced


----------



## Novice09

592257001 said:


> LOL, for ppl for does not believe china will have stealth planes before 2015, I will just tell you one thing: the J-XX 001 has already been produced



Thank you for confirmation 

But this thread is *Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight* there are other threads dedicated for J-XX you can inform them too. and please post some images or credible link so that we may get a bit more knowledge on J-XX 001.


----------



## ptldM3

592257001 said:


> LOL, for ppl for does not believe china will have stealth planes before 2015,



According to the PLA's Deputy Commander He Weirong (&#20309;&#20026;&#33635, the Chinese fifth generation fighter is expected to be in service with the PLAAF by *2020*

Keep in mind this is just an estimate, it could take much longer.

J-XX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




592257001 said:


> I will just tell you one thing: the J-XX 001 has already been produced



Producing a prototype isn't difficult ( There are three Pak Fa prototype and i'm not convinced they will be ready by 2015, keep in mind Russia already has a working AESA and the AL-41 is more mature than the WS-10). With that being said, has China even build an AESA? Is there any credible information beyond, he said she said?


----------



## hboGYT

mano20688 said:


> so... i think you shud update ur knowledge friend...
> before posting a comment, you must know t fact or real thing... now most of fighters in IAF except MiG-21s are coated with PLASMA which a radiation absorbent that reduces RCS signature of the aircrafts by 80%.>> so dont make me laugh again...
> also the radar aperture of Su-30MKI s 1200kms okay.. another aircrafts with such radar aperture is F-22 and Su-35... so tatz y Su-30MKI is alwayz hot in new n compared with F22 by analysts..
> so we in Flankers can easily keep an eye on you even if you are in Rawalpindi air base... n if you are within 350kms we wud 've KS-100 novator Long range BVRAAM or if now we have R-77 and Astra as 100kms BVRAAM which gives us a sure kill rate... tat means all those missiles are equipped wit thrust vectoring nozzles... and if you guyz meet a Su-30 witin 10 kms or 7kms just dont blame tat your electronics are malfunctioning(including radar of your aircrafts or radar of your short range missiles what you guyz possess)... bcoz Su-30MKI equipped with very high frequency jammer, so other aircrafts that are not coded wit IAF designation wont work... so you guyz forced to use your canon and engage in dogfights... whole world 'military flight' analysts know, there is no fighters in world to beat Su-30MKI in dogfights (excluding Mig-35)....:tongue



You don't coat plasma onto things. It's essentially gaseous.

The result of a dog fight largely depends on the skills of the pilots. Team work further negates any performance advantage of any fighter.



ptldM3 said:


> According to the PLA's Deputy Commander He Weirong (&#20309;&#20026;&#33635, the Chinese fifth generation fighter is expected to be in service with the PLAAF by *2020*
> 
> Keep in mind this is just an estimate, it could take much longer.
> 
> J-XX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Producing a prototype isn't difficult ( There are three Pak Fa prototype and i'm not convinced they will be ready by 2015, keep in mind Russia already has a working AESA and the AL-41 is more mature than the WS-10). With that being said, has China even build an AESA? Is there any credible information beyond, he said she said?




He said J-20(not J-xx) would "enter service" in 8-10 years. That means if everything goes as planned, it will achieve FOC in 2019 at the latest. Even if the project encounters a hicup, it is still reasonable to assume that it achieves IOC before 2019. Note that the Chinese don't have terms like IOC and FOC, "enter service" is taken to mean FOC. E.g. J-10 was said to enter service in 2006 when FOC was obtained. J-20 will just use some Russian engine till the WS-10 high thrust variant is complete, which will in turn be replaced by WS-15 at a later date.

Yes, China has produced X-band ASEA. I saw a photo of it before. I'll try retrieve it when I can be bothered.


----------



## gambit

hboGYT said:


> Yes, China has produced X-band ASEA. I saw a photo of it before. I'll try retrieve it when I can be bothered.


I believe the readership would like to know how to tell the freq capability of a radar system just from looking at a photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## warlock

hasnain0099 said:


> man you always makestuff only
> ok coming back to your points ( Which i expect will attract nothing but morefrom you)
> 1) Even if no Eurofighter...... We, if had to maintain balance, may go for J-11 ASF or a dedicated AS model of J-10....on the cost effective side...or may be a squad of rafales
> 2) yes they wont come and no one expects them too except some "fan boys"
> 3) How sure are you that Chinese aren't working on this...............even when J-10 came...no one even PAF was not aware of it............they have the money and they are investing in technology.......expect any thing
> 4) 150-200 block1 and block 2 JFs................ Block 3 would be a different story.
> 5)What factor make you claim this about F-16s?
> 6) they are coming under loan agreement.....Chinese are not yankoos or ruskies which deal in cash only....
> 
> and finally.....I am expecting a reasonable reply with appropriate and relevant logic....not a trademark reply like




 a lil reality check , i think really disappointed you...
You yourself agree to a lot of what was said... and yet you refute everything as """"??? only indicates your frustration...


----------



## hboGYT

gambit said:


> I believe the readership would like to know how to tell the freq capability of a radar system just from looking at a photo.



I assumed it. It was built to the shape od a fighter nose-cone.


----------



## BlackenTheSky

592257001 said:


> LOL, for ppl for does not believe china will have stealth planes before 2015, I will just tell you one thing: the J-XX 001 has already been produced



really,so when you are going to deliver it to us..?


----------



## BlackenTheSky

Adux said:


> Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power
> 
> Read Up that, and please do your comparison in both WVR as well BVR.
> 
> *Sukhoi Su-30 Derivatives *
> 
> The early history of the Su-27 family of fighters has been widely documented, and some excellent references exist (Andrei Fomin's Su-27 Flanker Story published by RA Intervestnik is arguably the single best printed reference, while Easy Tartar's reference at the Fighter Tactics Academy is the best website).
> 
> The original design aim of the Perspektivnyy Frontovoy Istrebitel (PFI - Future Tactical Fighter) was to kill the US Air Force's then new F-15A, and both the Sukhoi and Mikoyan bureaus submitted designs. The Sukhoi T-10 concept emerged in the early 1970s, and was conceptually closest to a fusion of the fixed wing Grumman VFX-404 configuration with the blended strake/wing/body configuration of the GD LWF demonstrator, later to become the F-16A. From the outset the design was to use various combinations of mechanical-hydraulic and Fly By Wire (FBW) controls with some reduced static stability to achieve exceptional manoeuvrability. The early T-10-1 demonstrator evolved into the current T-10-15/Su-27 configuration through an almost complete but necessary redesign during the early eighties. The result has been the most aerodynamically refined of all of the third generation fighters. Like the MDC F-15A, the basic design was devised from the outset to accommodate both single and dual seat configurations. The Su-27UBK tandem dual trainer airframe became the basis of the Su-30 series.
> 
> The Soviets made good use of sample Iranian Grumman F-14A Tomcats and their AN/AWG-9/AIM-54A weapon system.
> 
> Introduction into PVO-S (Protivo-Vozdushnaya Oborona Strany - air defence force) and FA (Frontovaya Aviatsia - tactical air force) service was protracted, especially due to problems with manufacturing an airframe with a substantial amount of titanium alloy and honeycomb laminates, but also due to difficulties with the complex F-15-like avionics package.
> 
> To demonstrate the aircraft's potency as an F-15 killer, the Sovs in 1986 stripped and modified the T10-15 prototype, redesignated it the P-42 and promptly took out no less than 22 FAI records, mostly in the time to height categories previously held by the F-15A. Such impressive basic performance results from the exceptionally clean aerodynamic design and the pair of large Lyulka AL-31F series afterburning turbofans - the P42 would have used early variants of the engine.
> 
> *Chinese PLA-AF Su-27SK Flanker B*
> 
> The baseline Su-27 airframe resulted in two nearly identical variants for the PVO and FA, the Su-27 and Su-27S Flanker B, with a common dual trainer in the Su-27UB Flanker C. The single seat Su-27/Su-27S was manufactured by the KNAAPO plant at Komsomolsk-on-Amur and the dual Su-27UB was manufactured by the IAPO plant at Irkutsk, with design authority remaining at the Sukhoi bureau. The principal distinction in the Frontal Aviation Su-27S was a capability to deliver **** bombs and rockets - not unlike the F-15A/B/C/D models. Both types were to carry the large pulse Doppler Myech air intercept radar, which was to use a mechanically steered planar array antenna with electronic vertical beam steering, but production aircraft with the NIIP N001 used a simple mechanically steered cassegrain antenna.
> 
> Several early derivatives of the Su-27 are of much interest since they paved the way for the production Su-30 subtypes new seen in the Asian export market.
> 
> The navalised Su-27K Flanker D, K for 'Korabl'ny', was developed for the Project 1143.5 55,000 tonne class aircraft carrier, of which four were to have been built. The Su-27K had beefed up undercarriage with twin nosewheels, upgraded hydraulics, a tailhook, enlarged flaperons, a modified ejection seat angle, folding outer wings and stabs, upgraded FBW, modified LERX (Leading Edge Root Extensions) with canards, enlarged leading edge slats and a deployable aerial refuelling probe. The refuelling probe modification included a pair of deployable floodlights in the nose, used to illuminate the tanker aircraft, here intended to be either an Il-78 Midas or another Su-27 buddy tanker carrying a centreline UPAZ hose-drogue pod. The probe permits a fuel transfer rate into the fighter of up to 4,000 lb/min. Another notable Su-27K feature to migrate to later variants was the right offset IR Search and Track housing, this improving the pilot's downward view over the aircraft's nose. Production Su-27Ks operated by the Russian Navy are often designated the 'Su-33'. Perhaps the most important feature of the Su-27K/Su-33 are the enlarged LERX/canards which increase the available body lift of the aircraft, and the centre of pressure forward thus enhancing achievable pitch rates. The Su-27 series shares with the F-14 series a large body lift capacity resulting from the wide fuselage tunnel - as a result the aircraft's effective wing loading is much lower than that of aircraft with different configurations. This is reflected in superb high alpha handling and sustained turn rates.
> 
> An Su-27K prototype performs a dry hookup during buddy refuelling trials using the UPAZ-1A Sakhalin series centreline refuelling store. Most late build Flankers are equipped with a retractable aerial refuelling probe and floodlights (RuAF photo).
> 
> The side-by-side dual navalised trainer was so successful it evolved into the F-111 like Su-32/34 Fullback series bombers, intended to replace the Su-24 Fencer. [Click for more]
> 
> The Su-33 Flanker D has now been ordered by the PLA-N for trials on the refurbished former Soviet Project 1143.5 carrier Varyag. It is expected that around 50 aircraft will eventually be acquired to equip an air wing.
> 
> The Su-27K/Su-33 Flanker D was recently ordered by the PLA-N Air Arm to equip the Varyag air wing (RuN). Further images.
> 
> The dual seat Su-27KUB/Su-33UB is a mulirole naval variant suitable for carrier conversion training, but also a wide range of strike and air defence roles. It retains the existing avionics of the Su-27K/Su-33 Flanker D (Sukhoi). [Click for more]
> 
> While the navalised Sukhois spawned key aerodynamic design innovations in the series, the land based variants accounted for most of the avionic and propulsion improvements. The most important early derivative was the dual role single seat Su-27M strike fighter, frequently labelled as the Su-35. Initiated in 1982, the baseline Su-35 best compares to the F-15C in basic capabilities. It was to be the initial platform for the then new Vympel R-77 AMRAAM-ski active radar guided AAM. The Su-35 was to carry a complete EWSP package, a cockpit wide angle Head Up Display (HUD), triple MFDs, an improved RSLU-27/N011 fire control radar package using a new slotted planar array antenna rather than the N001 design, an N012 tail warning radar, an improved OLS-27K Infra-Red Search/Track (IRST), the Schchel-3UM Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS), ShO-13A Doppler nav, an inertial nav package, air/air and air/ground GCI (Ground Control Intercept) datalinks, two additional inboard wing hardpoints to permit up to 12 external stores, and the aerial refuelling probe.
> 
> Su-27M/Su-35 Flanker E and Il-78 Midas tanker. Note the UPAZ-1A pods (RuAF). Further images.
> 
> Rollout of the first Su-35BM Mid Life Upgrade configuration Flanker E, January 2007 (MilitaryPhotos.net)
> 
> Structural changes were required to the forward fuselage to accommodate the larger radar aperture, relocated IRST, aerial refuelling probe and revised avionics. The additional 3,000 lb of empty weight required strengthened undercarriage, dual nosewheels, detail structural changes, and the Su-33's canards were later incorporated. To offset the loss of combat radius due to additional weight the wet portion of the wing was extended to the 13th rib, from the 9th, and a 360 litre tank was added to each vertical tail thus providing a total internal capacity of 22,630 lb (10,250 kg). The dual combat trainer variant designed by KNAAPO is designated the Su-35UB. Twelve pre-production Su-35s were built, and tail number 711 became the Su-37 demonstrator.
> 
> The Su-37 was to incorporate two important advancements over the Su-27M/35. These were thrust vectoring nozzles and the new NIIP N011M passive shifter technology ESA (Electronically Steered Array - phased array). In addition, an electrical sidestick controller was mounted in the right side of the cockpit. The Lyulka bureau designed the first axisymmetric two dimensional thrust vectoring (2D TVC) nozzle ever deployed during this demonstration program - the nozzle Time Between Overhauls (TBO) is reported at 250 hours vs the 1,000 hr TBO for the AL-31FP core.
> 
> Su-37 Demonstrator '#711' The KNAAPO sponsored Su-37 demonstrator was an advanced derivative of the Su-27M/Su-35, incorporating digital fly-by-wire, thrust vectoring nozzles, canards and the NIIP N-011M phased array radar. Much of the technology developed in this program has since migrated into the Indian Su-30MKI and will most likely be seen in its Irkut sibling, the Malaysian Su-30MKM.(Sukhoi)
> 
> The all important Flight Control System (FCS) in the Su-27 family evolved incrementally, with the first generation hybrid analog system running in parallel with the conventional hydro-mechanical design. The Su-37 introduced a genuine redundant digital system, similar in concept to its contemporary Western designs.
> 
> The Su-30 series is not directly evolved from the Su-27M line, but has incorporated many design features demonstrated in the Su-27M/35/37 line. The origins of the Su-30 lie in the last years of the Soviet era, when the PVO sought a combat capable derivative of the existing Su-27UB conversion trainer. The dual variant was to be equipped for aerial refuelling and used as a long range / long endurance interceptor and combat command and control fighter to lead long range CAPs. The aircraft was initially designated the Su-27PU (Perekhvatchik - Uchebnoy) and later relabelled the Su-30. The Su-30 was developed in part by the Irkutsk plant, responsible for manufacturing the Su-27UB. The export variant of the Su-30 was designated Su-30MK and unveiled in 1993 - as a multirole strike fighter rather than interceptor.
> 
> *Irkut/Sukhoi Su-30MKI Flanker H. Further images.
> 
> The hard sell by the Irkut (formerly IAPO) and Sukhoi paid off in late 1996 when the Indian Air Force signed for an advanced derivative of the baseline Su-30, the Su-30MKI (M-Improved, K-Export, I-India) Flanker H. In a complex deal which saw initial deliveries of basic Su-30K and progressive development and later delivery of full configured and licence build Su-30MKI, India negotiated a deal which will see around 180 of these aircraft deployed with IAF squadrons.
> 
> The Su-30MKI is a fusion of technology from the Su-37 demonstrator and Su-30 program, with additional Indian designed and built processor hardware in the Mission Computers, Radar Data Processor provide under the Vetrivale (Lance) industry program, and some items of Israeli and EU hardware. The aircraft has a Sextant Avionique HUD and RLG (Ring Laser Gyro) INS/GPS, glass cockpits, NIIP N011M phased array, AL-31FP TVC engines, enlarged rudders, Su-33/35/37 canards and aerial refuelling probe, and an improved OLS-30 IRST package. The Indian developed Tarang RWR is used in the EWSP suite. The TVC system in the Su-30MKI has evolved beyond the Su-37 system, which deflected only in the vertical plane. The Su-30MKI variant has a 32 degree canted TVC plane to introduce a lateral and vertical vectored force component, and is driven by the engine's fuel system rather than main aircraft hydraulic loop.
> 
> Since 2003, more details have also been revealed about the N-011M BARS ('Panther') hybrid phased array radar designed for the Su-35/37 and supplied on the Su-30MKI and likely the Su-30MKM. The BARS phased array assembly is mechanically steerable to +/-55 degrees off-boresight, providing a total field of regard in azimuth of +/-100 degrees off-boresight - in effect the combination of mechanical array steering and electronic beam steering provides full forward hemispherical coverage. NIIP claim a 3 dB noise figure three channel receiver, and an average transmit power of 1.2 kW, with 1 kW in illuminator mode for semi-active missiles. Air-air modes include Track While Scan for 15 targets and concurrent engagement of four, raid assessment and Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). Air-surface modes include real beam mapping, Doppler beam sharpening, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging, Ground/Maritime Moving Target Indicator (GMTI/MMTI), target position measurement and GMTI tracking of two concurrent targets. Aerial fighter sized targets have been acquired at 76 NMI, and moving tanks at 25 NMI. While reports of an Active ESA (AESA) have surfaced, details are as yet not available to the public.
> 
> The Indian Su-30MKI is to date the most advanced Su-27 derivative to enter production and with the exception of mission avionics and software is a credible equivalent to the F-15E/I/K/S family. It also underscores the 'no holds barred' international arms market, in which an export customer is supplied with a product which is half a generation ahead of the Russian air force - the IAF designates it as its Air Dominance Fighter.*
> *Irkut/Sukhoi Su-30MKI Crew Stations.
> 
> However, the greatest Sukhoi export success to date has been KNAAPO's deal to supply and licence build Su-27SK Flanker Bs and Su-27UBK Flanker Cs for the Chinese PLA-AF - also the very first export deal for the aircraft. The initial order was for 20 x Su-27SK and 4 x Su-27UBK, essentially the same configuration as Soviet Frontal Aviation units flew but claimed to be fitted with Phazotron Zhuk rather than the NIIP radars. A second batch of aircraft was, numbering 16 x Su-27SK and 6 x Su-27UBK. was supplied in 1996, bringing the fielded total to 46. That same year KNAAPO were awarded a contract to set up licence production of the Su-27SK at the Shenyang plant in the PRC - these are designated as the J-11 and up to 250 may be built. An additional buy of twenty or more imported Su-27UBK dual trainers was reported in 2002.
> 
> India's buy of the Su-30MKI triggered a response in Beijing - the PLA-AF ordered around 50 Su-30MKK Flanker G fighters from KNAAPO. The KNAAPO Su-30MKK is not the same as the Irkut Su-30MKI in configuration, despite the shared Su-30MK designation. The baseline Su-30MKK the Su-35/37 vertical tail design, no canards, no TVC capability, Russian avionics and a variant of the Phazotron Zhuk planar array radar. An improved OEPS-31E-MK IRST package is fitted. There are reports the aircraft has an increased maximum takeoff weight against the Su-30/Su-30MKI, requiring structural changes. Like the PLA-AF Su-27SK the Su-30MKK uses the original analogue FCS. The Su-30MKK is a KNAAPO development which is closest in concept to a dual seat Su-35 without the canards added to the production Su-35. It is like the Su-35 a dual role fighter, occupying the same niche as the F-15E but less accurate and less capable in the air-air role as the Su-30MKI. *
> KnAAPO/Sukhoi Su-27SKM Multirole Flanker Prototype. Further images.
> The PLA-N Air Arm was evidently not satisfied with the domestically built JH-7 Flying Leopard strike fighter, and opted to expand its fleet by acquiring the Su-30MK2, a derivative of the Su-30MKK, with a rated maximum takeoff weight of 85,000 lb. The Su-30MK2 has an enhanced weapon system optimized for maritime strike, built around the N-001VEP radar. The radar will target the Kh-31A ramjet supersonic anti-shipping missile, and a radar seeker equipped variant of the Kh-59, designated the Kh-59MK2. A radar guided derivative of the Kh-59M, the Kh-59Mk, was also developed for the PLA-N Flanker G. Chinese sources claim that 36 Su-30MK2 aircraft were ordered, with deployment as yet undisclosed. Venezuela is acquiring this variant.
> 
> The Russians were reported to have been developing a third PLA variant of the Su-30, the Su-30MK3. The Su-20MK3 was to incorporate the 'Panda' upgrade package for the N-001 radar, including a signal processor upgrade based on COTS software and a Ts-100 processor, and the new Pero phased array. The Pero, developed by NIIP and Ryazan GRPZ, is a reflective passive phased array antenna, replacing the legacy cassegrain design. It is lighter than the legacy design, but offers similar beamsteering agility to the latest Western AESAs. Recent reports suggest this program is no longer funded.
> 
> The PLA-AF was dissatified with the limitations of the Su-27SK/J-11 and renegotiated the licence arrangement to have the latter 100 aircraft delivered as the Su-27SKM (also reported as SMK) variant. The principal improvement is that the Su-27SKM incorporates all of the refinements of the multirole Su-30MK variants, and can thus support guided munitions, making it equivalent to proposed but never built single seat multirole derivatives of the F-15E. As such the Su-27SKM can carry the full suite of air to ground munitions now carried by the Su-30MKK series. The radar configuration has not been disclosed but may include the Pero passive phased array. Another possible alternative is a derivative of the developmental Phazotron AESA, reported to have been tested with a 0.7 metre array size on the MiG-29.
> 
> The Chinese also recently unveiled the 'indigenised' J-11B, incorporating Chinese technology, specifically the Woshan-10A (WS-10A) engine replacing the AL-31F, the Shedian-10 radar replacing the N-001, and the PL-12 (SD-10) BVR missile replacing the R-77 and R-27, and a range of indigenous guided munitions replacing the Russian types. It is likely that the J-11B will be introduced to production on completion of the J-11 build.
> 
> *KnAAPO/Sukhoi Su-30MKK Crew Stations.*
> 
> Russian sources put the current total supplied to the PLA-AF as 76 x Su-27SK/UBK, 50 x Su-30MKK with outstanding orders for 19 more, and a commitment for licence production of around 200-250 aircraft. Russian estimates of the ultimate size of the PLA-AF Su-27/30 fleet fall between 350 and 500 aircraft. For comparison, the US Air Force fielded around 400 F-15Cs and 200 F-15Es, putting the PRC's orders into a similar force structure size bracket - and almost twice the size of the Indian Su-30MKI fleet.
> 
> Malaysia committed in 2003 to purchase 18 Su-30MKMs beating the Boeing F/A-18F bid - evidently Malaysia's bilateral MiG-29 support relationship with India exposed the RMAF/TUDM to Indian Su-30MKI program and they liked what they saw. The Su-30MKM is being supplied by Irkut and will therefore be close in configuration to the Su-30MKI, although as yet no details are available on the specific fit of the MKM variant - it is known that some French avionics will be used. The aircraft were to be delivered from 2006, but reports in 2006 indicated the aircraft remained parked in Russia pending payment. It is likely that a large portion of the deal will be financed by barter of Malaysian industrial and consumer goods.
> 
> Indonesia's TNI-AU has had a long standing interest in the Sukhoi fighters and prior to the Asian economic crisis committed to purchase the Su-30KI. This aircraft was to be supplied by KNAAPO and was derived from the single seat Su-27SMK, a Mid Life Upgrade design package for the baseline Su-27S. The Su-30KI is thus an improved single seat Su-27S, with the improved N001E radar and cassegrain antenna, aerial refuelling probe, centreline OLS-27 IRST, ILS-31 HUD, and provisions for the R-77 Adder missile. This variant is more the air superiority fighter than dual role strike fighter and is essentially a low cost upgrade of the basic production KNAAPO Su-27 line - the use of the early configuration centreline IRST installation suggests the Su-30KI may be built from refurbished low time PVO Su-27 airframes.
> 
> In late April 2003, Indonesian President Megawati signed an MoU with Russia for the supply of four Sukhoi fighters, two Su-27SK and two Su-30MK (some sources claim Su-35, others Su-30KI) to the Indonesian TNI-AU later this year. Media reports from Jakarta indicated that the TNI-AU intends to acquire between 48 and 54 of these aircraft over this decade, and often report the inclusion of an aerial refuelling capability - part of the Su-30KI configuration. Whether the TNI-AU aircraft are Su-27SKs, Su-35s, Su-30KIs or Su-30MKs is immaterial in the longer term, since the basic KNAAPO/Irkut T-10 family of designs permits incremental retrofits, and cash permitting any of these variants can over time morph into a more advanced model.
> 
> 
> Since then the TNI-AU had its four aircraft delivered. In 2006, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visited Moscow and ordered an additional six aircraft, as part of a larger arms package.
> 
> *Su-30 Growth Paths*
> 
> The Su-27/30 series is by far the aerodynamically most refined of the third generation fighters in the market and is a direct equivalent to the late build F-15E/I/K/S variants. While it does not offer quite as good top end supersonic performance and handling to the F-15, it makes up for this with exceptionally good low speed high alpha handling and performance.
> 
> From an 'information age' warfighting perspective, the basic Su-30 series airframe has some very attractive features absent in competing Western third generation fighters.
> 
> The NIIP N011M BARS phased array is the most capable fighter radar produced by Russian industry and is designed to support the R-77M family of ramjet missiles. The depicted detection range curves are based on publicly disclosed Russian performance figures for co-altitude BVR engagements. It is evident that inside the 10-20 nautical miles envelope the radar will be able to challenge aircraft with quite good stealth characteristics. The curves for the Agat 9B-1103M and 9B-1348E seekers are based on the most recent Agat data release, and include the TMS320 equipped digital variant. The 9B-1101K has not been included (Author - NIIP, Phazotron, Agat data).
> 
> *Radar*
> 
> The first of these is its massive radar bay, capable of fitting a 1 metre class X-band phased array antenna. In the long range BVR combat game, radar range is a key factor and for any given radar technology, the larger the aperture the better. While the current N011M/ME BARS (Panther) and Pero (Plume) upgrades use passive array technology which delivers less peak power than competing active arrays (AESA) it is only a matter of time before NIIP and Phazotron adapt commercial GaAs MMIC technology (98% of the total GaAs chip market) to build an AESA variant competitive against the AESAs in the latest Western evolved 3rd Gen fighters.
> 
> With similar TR (Transmit-Receive) module performance, the fighter with the largest aperture size wins in this game - for instance the N011M has around twice the aperture size of the JSF AESA and F/A-18E/F's APG-79 and even with inferior TR module technology will be highly competitive. It is worth noting that India is only the fourth nation worldwide to field a phased array equipped aigile air combat fighter, after France, the US and Russia.
> 
> Electrical power and liquid cooling have been issues for the integration of AESAs in Western fighters, especially so with smaller types like the F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F and Joint Strike Fighter. This is not an issue given the sheer size of the Flanker.
> 
> While the existing N011M has limitations in its older technology back end processing, the future is the path India has followed, retrofitting third party hardware with better performance than the Russian processor hardware. With widely available commodity processor chips in the 1 to 2 GHz class, we can expect to see many other Sukhoi users emulate the Indians in coming years, be it in MLUs or new build aircraft.
> 
> The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.
> 
> *NIIP Irbis E Prototypes* (above, below)
> 
> *NIIP Irbis E Components *(above)
> 
> The follow on to the BARS is the new Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) hybrid phased array, in development since 2004 and planned for the Su-35 block upgrade, and as a block upgrade or new build radar for other Flanker variants. The Irbis-E is an evolution of the BARS design, but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, the noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kiloWatts. The radar is cited at an average power rating of 5 kiloWatts, with 2 kiloWatts CW rating for illumination. NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and better ECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS. A prototype has been in flight test since late 2005.
> 
> The performance increase in the Irbis-E is commensurate with the increased transmitter rating, and NIIP claim a detection range for a closing 3 square metre coaltitude target of 190 - 215 NMI (350-400 km), and the ability to detect a closing 0.01 square metre target at ~50 NMI (90 km). In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targets simultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M. The Irbis-E was clearly designed to support the ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M missile in BVR combat against reduced signature Western fighters like the Block II Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Curiously, NIIP do not claim superiority over the F-22A's APG-77 AESA, yet their cited performance figures exceed the public (and no doubt heavily sanitised) range figures for the APG-77.
> 
> The existing N011M series lacks a Low Probability of Intercept capability, in part due to antenna bandwidth limits and in part due to processor limitations. This is likely to change over the coming decade, with the Irbis-E, as customers demand an ability to defeat or degrade Western ESM equipment and the technology to do this becomes more accessible.
> 
> The N012 tail warning radar has been reported to be part of the Su-30MKI suite and is offered as a retrofit to other models.
> 
> In terms of block upgrades, of the two competing radar houses in Russia, NIIP (ÎÀÎ "ÍÈÈÏ èì. Â.Â. Òèõîìèðîâà" - Îïðîñû) and Phazotron, the former has been the most active of recent. A block upgrade package, designated 'Panda' was recently developed for the baseline N-001-01 radar carried by Su-27S/SK. The first stage is the N-001V back end upgrade using C/C++ COTS software and a Ts-100 processor.
> 
> Of more interest however is a low cost phased array block upgrade package designated Pero ('Plume'), designed jointly with Ryazan GRPZ. This lightweight design avoids the cost and complexity of the backplane fed BARS (N-011M) phased array, instead using a space (optical) feed scheme, and reflective rather than transmissive phase elements, a technique used with the 64N6E Big Bird SAM system radar. The design incorporates the phase element array, and a strut supported boom which mounts the X-band waveguide and radiating horn. Cost is comparable to the existing Su-27S/SK Cassegrain antenna, weight is lower. The launch customer is the RuAF, but reports indicate one of the two prototypes was sent to China for evaluation. The Pero will provide the beam steering agility of modern Western AESAs, but with lower cost and transmit power ratings, and is likely to appear in regional MLUs later this decade. An open question is whether a future Pero based block upgrade would include the 20 kiloWatt Irbis-E transmitter, as engineering the space feed for a 20 kiloWatt rated transmitter is neither difficult nor expensive. While a 20 kiloWatt Pero system would have inferior receiver sensitivity due to the space feed loss, compared to the BARS hybrid array, it would be significantly cheaper to build and deploy en masse.
> 
> In summary, near term we can expect to see the Irbis-E and Pero appear in new build and upgrade packages, in the longer term an AESA is an inevitability.
> 
> *Electro-Optical Systems *
> 
> Another attractive design feature of the Flankers is the large IRST housing, which can fit an aperture larger than competing Western IRST systems - the more photons the IRST can capture, the greater its detection range potential. The baseline OLS-27 IRST can scan a 120x75 degree field of regard, and cover as field of view as narrow as 3x3 degrees but has poor sensitivity with a head on detection ranges cca 8 nautical miles. The integrated laser rangefinder is effective to about 1.5 nautical miles. Specifications for the OLS-30 have not been disclosed - it is known that further development is under way on an IRST/FLIR design similar in concept to the Eurofighter's Pirate system. As with radars, IRST and FLIR aperture size matters, and the Sukhoi is in a commanding position with the existing OLS-27/30 package. With commercial technologies such as Quantum Well longwave/multiband imagers of 800x600 pixel resolution in the EU market, it is only a matter of time before this technology finds its way into an OLS-30/31 derivative. Current US IRSTs using older MCT imaging arrays have detected fighters at distances of many tens of miles.
> 
> The advent of HDTV compatible CCD and CMOS daylight imaging devices in COTS applications opens up the possibility of a dual band derivative of the OLS-27/30 package, longer term.
> 
> *Cockpits, Computers and Networking *
> 
> The cockpit of the existing Su-30 series provides plenty of opportunities for further growth, both in display technology and back end processing. With militarised commodity AMLCD display panels becoming increasingly available, the trend we have observed with the Sextant displays in the MKI is likely to grow over time, driven by the need to compete against US and EU cockpit designs. We should not be surprised to see India and Israel become prominent in the Sukhoi MLU market. The same will be true of mission computer equipment.
> 
> Upgrades available for Su-27/30 include the encrypted TKS-2/R-098 (Tipovyi Kompleks Svyazi) Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) which permits the networking of up to 16 Sukhoi fighters. It is not known whether the 5U15K-11 datalink designed for networking the A-50 AWACS and MiG-31 has been adapted to the Su-27/30, or whether a unique equivalent design is used. The TKS-2 was used effectively during the 2004 Cope India exercise against US F-15Cs.
> 
> Maturity in flight control software has seen aggressive improvements in types such as the F/A-18E/F, and it is reasonable to surmise that the adoption of digital FBW controls in recent Su-30 variants will see similar evolution in the Sukhoi types - especially given the Russian obsession with close in manoeuvre performance.
> 
> *Propulsion - Supercruising Al-41F *
> 
> In terms of propulsion, we have seen incremental improvements in the AL-31F series, with the F-3 model cited at 28,250 lbf cf the baseline F-1 at 27,600 lbf. KNAAPO/Irkut are offering TVC kits as retrofit items to existing models, as they are offering seamless engine upgrades.
> 
> Engine makers NPO Lyulka-Saturn and MMPP Salyut are now actively competing with block upgrades to the basic AL-31F turbofan. Salyut have described a three phase block upgrade to the AL-31F, with components for the first phase already flight tested. The -M1 upgrade sees the addition of the KND-924-4 0.924 m dia front end and SAU-235 FADEC, pushing the engine to 18,320 lb (75.21 kN) dry and 29,180 lb (129.8 kN) wet thrust. The -M2 upgrade phase implements a new cooling system for the turbine stages, pushing the engine to 31,082 lb (138.26 kN) wet thrust. The third -M3 upgrade stage sees the addition of a three stage blisk technology KND-924-3 front end boosting the compression ratio from 3.55 to 4.2, and wet thrust to 32,186 lb, competitive against the latest US F100 and F110 variants. NPO Lyulka-Saturn's competing upgrade, including hot end changes, is to increase wet thrust to 31,473 lb (143.17 kN). Salyut and Klimov are also working on a second generation TVC nozzle design.
> 
> It is unclear when the 33,000 to 44,000 lbf class NPO Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F family will find its way into the Su-30 series. The AL-41F is the Russian equivalent to the F-22's F119-PW-100 engine, designed for supersonic cruise and improved performance across the full fighter envelope. Originally developed for the MiG MFI, the engine was built around the 'big bore' geometry already used in the AL-31F series, making it compatible with existing airframes.
> 
> The AL-41F is reported to have recently entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) the intent being to equip the Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback which recently entered LRIP. In 2004 an Su-27M/Su-35 Flanker E was flown with the prototype AL-41F1, a derated variant of the baseline AL-41F, intended to increase the performance of the Flanker across all flgiht regimes, and enhance dry supersonic thrust (Flight - Airline Industry news, aviation jobs & airline recruitment. The derated AL-41F1 is claimed to deliver 33,000 lb (145kN) of SL static thrust.
> 
> *Al-41FU supercruise powerplant.*
> 
> In terms of avionic systems and propulsion we can expect to see ongoing incremental growth in the Su-30 series, as market pressures drive KNAAPO and Irkut to integrate newer technologies in the aircraft. As the Su-30 is the primary export revenue earner in Russia's defence industry, and a primary means of exporting Russian guided munitions, it is apt to continue to be the platform for the deployment of the latest domestic and imported technologies. The unknown factor is how much modern EU and Israeli technology will find its way into the Sukhois over the next decade. With Germany, France and Israel active in the MiG MLU market the existence of Asian aggregrate fleet numbers around 600 or more aircraft will present an irresistable attraction for the sale of avionic and systems upgrades, be they incremental or major block upgrades.
> 
> *Air to Air Weapons *
> 
> Air to air weapons are one area where the Russians have been very aggressively developing and marketing new products. The baseline Su-27S was armed with the R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) semiactive radar homing BVR missile and the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) WVR missile. The thrust vectoring R-73 (refer AA 4/97) was a trend setter and we have since seen an improved R-73M marketed, as well as a digitised seeker equipped R-74E variant credited with 75 degree off boresight capability and kinematics to kill 12 G targets. Indian press reports suggest the Rafael Python 4 has been offered to India and it is not inconceivable that this missile will find its way on to Indian and other regional Sukhois - India is currently negotiating for the Phalcon AEW&C system fitted to the Ilyushin A-50E airframe and has acquired ballistic missile defence radars from Israel.
> 
> The Vympel R-27 is the Russian equivalent to the late model US AIM-7 Sparrow series BVR missiles, but the similarity ends there since the R-27 is available in a plethora of variants. The basic airframe is supplied in long and short burn variants with differing range performance, and with heatseeking or datalink aided inertially midcourse guided semi-active radar seekers. The R-27R1 and R-27ER1 are the radar guided long and short burn versions, respectively, credited with F-pole ranges of 70 nautical miles and 43 nautical miles. The R-27T1 and R-27ET1 are the respective heat seeking equivalents, credited with slightly lower engagement ranges. The X-band anti-radiation seeker equipped R-27P/EP has been reported, designed to kill emitting fighters in the forward quarter by homing on their radar emissions. More recently Agat have offered new build or retrofit active radar seekers as the R-27A/EA, the AGAT 9B-1103M/9B-1348E, derived from the R-77 seeker.
> 
> The most recently exported missile in the region is the Vympel R-77 RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder), the AMRAAMski. This missile, with unique lattice controls, is a modern BVR weapon designed to kill 12G targets, and credited with an A-pole range of 54 nautical miles, although some reports suggest early production rounds are not delivering the kinematic performance advertised, not unlike early AIM-120A AMRAAMs. As the R-77 has AMRAAM-like capabilities, it permits an Su-30 to launch multiple rounds and guide these concurrently, engagement geometry permitting. As the R-77 matures, we can expect to see refinements in propellants, autopilot kinematics and seeker jam resistance.
> 
> We have yet to see reports of regional deliveries of the Vympel R-77M RVV-AE-PD (Povyshlenayya Dal'nost') ramjet adder, credited with an A-pole range around 80 nautical miles. This missile is a direct derivative of the R-77.
> 
> Alternate seekers for the R-77 have been advertised - the heatseeking R-77T using an MK-80M seeker from the R-73M and R-27T, and the antiradiation R-77P. The deployment of the new F/A-22A later in the decade will see significant pressure on Vympel to supply heatseeking, anti-radiation and electro-optical imaging seekers on the R-77/R-77M in an attempt to counter the combined kinematics and all-aspect stealth of the F/A-22A. While such seekers may do little to offset the overwhelming advantages of the supercruising F/A-22A, they are likely to prove quite effective against inferior types such as the JSF, F/A-18E/F, late model F-15E and F-16C/B50. If the Su-30 can close to a range where an advanced longwave IRST can track the target, an optical seeker equipped R-77 variant can be used to effect an engagement, defeating the RCS reduction measures on these aircraft. The anti-radiation R-77P could be used to engage at maximum missile range.
> 
> In the long range missile domain, the Vympel R-37 (AA-X-13) series of AIM-54 Phoenix look-alikes have been proposed - a developmental R-37 successfully engaged a target at 162 nautical miles of A-pole range in 1996. A more interesting proposal has been the use of the Novator R(KS)-172 RVV-L (AAM-L) missile, a 215 nautical mile range 1,650 lb launch weight long range AAM. The R-172 uses datalink/inertial midcourse guidance and an active radar terminal seeker, and Russian sources claim a snap-up capability to 100,000 ft and snap-down capability to 10 ft AGL. KS-172 mockups have been photographed on Su-30 displays but its production status is unclear at this time, although India is negotiating licence production.
> 
> Of no less interest is the Kh-31P (AS-17 Krypton) family of ramjet anti-radiation missiles, offered as a standard store on the Su-30/35 subtypes. This missile, in basic anti-radiation and dual mode seeker variants is often dubbed the AWACS killer and would be used to destroy opposing AEW&C aircraft, or surface based radars. Sukhoi advertise a load of up to six rounds, two on the inlet stations.
> 
> *Russian missiles either carried by or proposed for Flanker variants *(Author).
> 
> Notes: O/B - seeker off-boresight acquisition angle; IRH - heatseeking, single or dual colour scanning seeker; SARH - semi-active radar homing seeker; DL - datalink for midcourse guidance corrections - either analogue or digital; IMU - inertial package for midcourse guidance; Passive RF - passive radio frequency anti-radiation seeker; ARH - active radar homing seeker; Acquisition Range is that at which the seeker can acquire its target; Kinematic Range is A-pole or F-pole; Target G - max load factor of target vehicle; Launch G - max load factor of launch aircraft; APU - Aviatsionnaya Puskovaya Ustanovka (rail launcher); AKU - Aviatsionnaya Katapultnaya Ustanovka (ejector); This is a current open source compilation based on manufacturers' and third party data therefore figures should be treated with appropriate caution (Author).
> 
> The dominance of US ISR capabilities is producing an increasing demand for hard kill 'counter-ISR' weapons and the Sukhoi fighter equipped with missiles like the Vympel R-77M, R-37, Novator KS-172 and Zvezda-Strela Kh-31 variants qualifies exactly as that.
> 
> It is clear that the Su-30 has at least two decades more of yet to be exploited technological growth capacity, especially in systems and weapons. The excellent kinematics, large airframe and large apertures give it a decisive long term advantage in growth potential against all teen series types, and with an increasingly borderless international upgrade market, regional users with the cash required will be able to fit some very capable upgrades over time.
> 
> We can summarise growth options thus (IASC, 2006):
> 
> *1.* Supersonic cruise 40,000 lbf class AL-41F engines replacing the AL-31F.
> 
> *2.* Thrust vectoring (TVC) engine nozzles with 2D or 3D capability.
> 
> *3. *Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) becoming standard for late build Flankers. The Su-37 included redundant sidestick controls for the pilot.
> 
> *4.* Canard foreplanes for enhanced high alpha agility. Production hardware on Su-33 and Su-30MKI.
> 
> *5.* An active phased array (AESA) fire control radar replacing the N-001 and N-011/011M series.
> 
> *6.* A two color band FLIR/IRST sensor replacing the OLS-30, using QWIP imaging array technology.
> 
> *7.* COTS based computer hardware running COTS based software.
> 
> *8.* A Helmet Mounted Display with FLIR projection capability. Such an upgrade was being discussed some years ago, and would be easily accommodated with a FLIR/IRST sensor.
> 
> *9.* Full glass cockpit based on digital technology. Given the current delivery of first generation glass cockpits in Su-30MK and Su-27SKM, this is a natural progression.
> 
> *10.* Heatseeking and anti radiation variants of the R-77 Amraamski, and extended range ramjet powered variants of the R-77. All are in advanced development and actively being marketed.
> 
> *11.* Advanced digital variants of the R-73/74 Archer close-in air to air missile. These have been actively marketed.
> 
> *12.* AWACS killer long range missiles in the 160 to 200 nautical mile range category. The R-37/AA-X-13 Arrow remains in development for the Su-35, the R-172 was recently reported as the subject of licence negotiations with India. Su-35 upgrade marketing literature depicts the use of such missiles.
> 
> *13.* Cruise missiles for standoff attacks. China acquired Kh-55SM/AS-15 Kent cruise missiles from the Ukraine, and is manufacturing indigenous designs. India intends to use the supersonic Brahmos on its Su-30MKIs.
> 
> *14.* Advanced jam resistant fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalinks and networks. Further evolution of protocol software will see this technology grow to match current US capabilities.
> 
> *15.* Radar absorbent materials for radar observables reduction. Numerous Russian unclassified papers detail a range of technologies for surface wave suppression and edge signature reduction, with a specific aim of reducing legacy aircraft observables.
> 
> *16.* Aerial refuelling probes, pylon plumbing for drop tanks, and buddy refuelling stores. Production hardware available off the shelf.



*LETS ALL THE MEMBER OF THE FORUM JOIN HANDS TOGETHER,SHOW UNITY TO READ THIS,LITTLE LITTLE ON EVERYBODIES SIDE*


----------



## Indiarox

notorious_eagle said:


> I think you need to get off the Indian propaganda machine, SU30 MKI is not God's gift to aviation. F16 Block 52 will match the MKI blow by blow, and it sure did during the Red Flag Excercises when it hammered it over and over again. Sure SU30MKI is a great plane with an amazing radar and avionics but it has a huge RCS too. It wouldnt be a problem for other fighter jets to locate the MKI at their radar's maximum range and fire off their IR guided missile.


Thing about he SU30MKI is that India took a good look at all available planes and picked only the best form each plane and put it together with Indian components thats why it is so good at what it does .The first batch of reduced Rcs planes have been inducted


----------



## Indiarox

Dude thats massive split it up or no one will have the patience to real the whole thind


----------



## Indiarox

its thing actually.My bad


----------



## Indiarox

hasnain0099 said:


> man you always makestuff only
> ok coming back to your points ( Which i expect will attract nothing but morefrom you)
> 1) Even if no Eurofighter...... We, if had to maintain balance, may go for J-11 ASF or a dedicated AS model of J-10....on the cost effective side...or may be a squad of rafales
> 2) yes they wont come and no one expects them too except some "fan boys"
> 3) How sure are you that Chinese aren't working on this...............even when J-10 came...no one even PAF was not aware of it............they have the money and they are investing in technology.......expect any thing
> 4) 150-200 block1 and block 2 JFs................ Block 3 would be a different story.
> 5)What factor make you claim this about F-16s?
> 6) they are coming under loan agreement.....Chinese are not yankoos or ruskies which deal in cash only....
> 
> and finally.....I am expecting a reasonable reply with appropriate and relevant logic....not a trademark reply like


The thing is that Pakistan does not have the money to buy any of that stuff and besides the j-17 is equivalent to mirage nothing more.
The 
j-10 is better than the f-teen(14,15,16,18modifications included) series but cant keep up with the mig-35 and euro fighter.
Like the canards .
The intakes need major improvement.
In most pictures of the J-10 there is a presence of flames which is not good for stealth .
The Dogfighting skills will be good but stealth i doubt it. 
All this won't matter if the ****'s don't have the finance to buy enough planes to make it into a decent fighting force.


----------



## Indiarox

The AWACS can only see enemy planes and tell the friendly plane where the enemies are.
They are in realty just flying radars to be blunt.
Then its up to the planes radar to look on and guide the missile.
The AWACS just give an aprox location
The KS -172 missile which is mounted on the MKI can hit AWACS from long ranges and that nullifies the Pakistani AWACS 
Pakistan and china don't have such a weapon so in such a scenario the f-16,j-17or even j-10 will be dependent on the planes in built radar.


----------



## Indiarox

A little more info about the KS -172


SpeciFications :

- It is an ultra Long Range AAM with a Development Range of 400KMs To Target AEW/AWAC Type High Value Aircrafts.

- Sole Carrier in the Indian AF will be the Su-30MKI

Features ( Dimensions) :

- 1.4 Meter long Rocket Booster

- Weight 748Kgs

- Core Diameter 0.40 Meter , Total Lenght 6.01 Meters , Span .61 Meters

- Launched by a Solid-propellant Tandem Rocket Booster

- The KS 172 will attack its Targets with an adaptive high explosive ( HE) fragmentation warhead.

Guidance

- Secure Data-Linked Based inertial Navigation System for MidCourse Guidance ( This would probably be done by AWACS or the 2-3 MKIs Working in Tandem with their Mini AWACS Capability)

- Active Radar Homing for its Terminal Phase.

-The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from 3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g.


----------



## Naradmuni

> Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight



4.5-Gen SU 30 MKI is an eagle and 3-Gen JF 17 is a pigeon. You can imagine the fight.


----------



## Indiarox

Plus the fact that AWACS not exactly Stealthy or maneuverable to avoid such a long range missile. 
Don't see the PAF's plane equipped with any thing like that in near future or even in the far future


----------



## Indiarox

Narad said:


> 4.5-Gen SU 30 MKI is an eagle and 3-Gen JF 17 is a pigeon. You can imagine the fight.


I think The MKI is the winner ,but don't underestimate it we to have a so called pigeon (Mig-21)Which works well when in large numbers


----------



## Indiarox

592257001 said:


> LOL, for ppl for does not believe china will have stealth planes before 2015, I will just tell you one thing: the J-XX 001 has already been produced


No one doubts the fact that china will eventually get a stealth fighter the J-10 is not stealthy if you want to know why read my previous post
The j-xx(not sure of the name )will need at least 8-10 years before first flight (if all goes well)and another 5-7 years of testing and only then induction.Which would be aprox 2025-2027
Russians have been working on the PAK-Fa(Also known as Firefox NATO name and also as raptorski for its resemblance to the raptor)
for quite a long time and a lot of info has been taken from the mig1.43/3 programs so it will be in production in 2015.
Claiming that the Chinese stealth fighter will fly by 2015 is just absured


----------



## Jigs

Su-30MKI has been proven at red flag against F-16s and F-15s. JF-17 is a great plane but more on the level of F-16s. In an dogfight it beats out the JF-17 in everything thrust/load/radar/maneuverability(V thrust vectoring). Comparing the two doesn't make sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Jigs,

How did you make that assumption that MKI beats the thunder in dogfights? Were you informed by some PAF official in this regard? Please share with us if this is the case. Let me clarify something here that many under estimate. You cannot compare A with B without sufficient evidence and info of various parameters. You being a Turkish must know that even F-5 tiger gave a hell of a time to MANY fighters all over the world. Why? simple, it is small, very nifty and can stand on its own in WVR engagements. Your statement is vague as I personally came to know that thunder is awesome at turning at close corners and was behind the Falcon within seconds during trials. This is a FACT and a glimpse of it can be seen in the video of first Squadron induction ceremony where it made faster turns than the Falcon. 

The bottom line is, please do not compare As with Bs on hypothetical basis, especially when you have no clue whatsoever.

Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jigs

nabil_05 said:


> Jigs,
> 
> How did you make that assumption that MKI beats the thunder in dogfights? Were you informed by some PAF official in this regard? Please share with us if this is the case. Let me clarify something here that many under estimate. You cannot compare A with B without sufficient evidence and info of various parameters. You being a Turkish must know that even F-5 tiger gave a hell of a time to MANY fighters all over the world. Why? simple, it is small, very nifty and can stand on its own in WVR engagements. Your statement is vague as I personally came to know that thunder is awesome at turning at close corners and was behind the Falcon within seconds during trials. This is a FACT and a glimpse of it can be seen in the video of first Squadron induction ceremony where it made faster turns than the Falcon.
> 
> The bottom line is, please do not compare As with Bs on hypothetical basis, especially when you have no clue whatsoever.
> 
> Thanks



JF-17 is a lightweight fighter with ok avionics what makes it so great ? The size ? It has a thrust to weight ratio less then one and no thrust vectoring. It isn't a assumption it is common sense. Do you want me to break down with technical specifications of the aircraft ? 
Or talk about the Red Flag i will do both ?

"When you compare it with US airplanes; where does it stand up against the F-16 and F-15, it's a tad bit better than both are. And that's pretty impressive, it has better radar, more thrust, vectored thrust, longer ranged weapons, so it's pretty impressive. The Sukhoi is a tad bit better (holds arm at chest level, and the other arm signifying the Sukhoi a wee bit higher)."

-Colonel Terrence Fornof (Person who said this) is an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

So unless the JF-17 is better then a F-15....think about it because this American F-15 pilot just said so at Red Flag SU-30MKI is a better aircraft then their F-15s.

Now for specs.

* Crew: 2
* Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft)
* Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft)
* Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft)
* Wing area: 62.0 m&#178; (667 ft&#178
* Empty weight: 18,400 kg [4] (40,565 lb)
* Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)
* Powerplant: 2&#215; Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust vectoring, 131 kN (27,557 lbf) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (2490 km/h) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
* Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi) at altitude; (1,270 km, 690 nmi near ground level)(With Internal Fuel Tank)
* Endurance: 4.5 hrs (upto 10 hrs with in-flight refueling)
* Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft)
* Rate of climb: >300 m/s (70,000 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 401 kg/m&#178; (98 lb/ft&#178
* Thrust/weight: 1.07 at loaded weight & 1.15 with 50&#37; fuel

Armament:

built-in single-barrel GSh-301 gun (30 mm calibre, 150 rounds)

Air to Air Missiles:The Su 30 MKI has 12 hardpoints for carrying various weapons

* 10 &#215; R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km
* 10 &#215; Astra missile active radar homing medium range AAM, 80 km
* 6 &#215; R-27P (AA-10C) semi-active radar guided, long range AAM 130 km
* 6 &#215; R-27P (AA-10D) Infrared homing extended range version, long range AAM 120 km
* 2 &#215; R-27R/AA-10A semi-active radar guided, medium range AAM,80 km
* 2 &#215; R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range AAM, 70 km
* 6 &#215; R-73 (AA-11) short range AAM, 30 km
* 3 &#215; Novator KS-172 AAM-L 400 km/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer"




JF-17

* Crew: 1
* Length: 14.0 m (45.9 ft)
* Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) (31 ft)
* Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
* Wing area: 24.4 m&#178; (263 ft&#178
* Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2&#215; wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles (20,062 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 1&#215; Klimov RD-93 turbofan
o Dry thrust: 49.4 kN (11,106 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN (18,973 lbf)
* G-limit: +8.5 g [3]
* Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb) 

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph)
* Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
* Ferry range: 3,000 km (2,175 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,700 m (54,790 ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.99

Armament

* Guns: 1&#215; 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2)
* Hardpoints: 7 in total (4&#215; under-wing, 2&#215; wing-tip, 1&#215; under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance
* Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm unguided rocket pods 
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air missiles:
+ Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C
+ Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10
o Air-to-surface missiles:
+ Anti-radiation missiles : MAR-1
+ Anti-ship missiles: AM-39 Exocet
+ Cruise missiles: Ra'ad ALCM


Now you saw it was behind a falcon in seconds ? I would like to see the video of that or a source. Also Current F-16s have MUCH more powerful engines the F110-GE-129 delivering 29,400 lbf (131 kN) thrust.(That also isn't the most powerful block 60s have one that provides even more)

But back to the Su-30MKI it uses an hybrid ESA radar. In the air to air mode the N011M Bars(The aircraft were operating their radars on training mode at Red Flag since the actual signals with which the Bars radar operates are kept secret.) offers a true look down, shoot down capability with a detection range of 140 km against a target with a Radar cross section (RCS) of 2 m2. 

So plz by all means provide some info about the JF-17s attributes....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev's_Cobra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulbit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

It still carries enough punch to deter any aggression, sufficient to defend the skies. For more figures, please see the JF-17 thread.

Thanks


----------



## qsaark

> How did you make that assumption that MKI beats the thunder in dogfights?


Its highly unlikely that the Su-30MKI will ever face a JF-17 in a dogfight since it doesn't have to. The objective of a Su-30MKI pilot would not be to prove something in a dogfight but to finish up his job and return home; and whether we like it or not, he has enough options at his disposal to finish up his job without getting into a dogfight.

Secondly, if a Su-30MKI pilot ever decided to engage into a dogfight with a JF-17, it will have an edge due to the thrust vectoring.


----------



## gowthamraj

qsaark said:


> Its highly unlikely that the Su-30MKI will ever face a JF-17 in a dogfight since it doesn't have to. The objective of a Su-30MKI pilot would not be to prove something in a dogfight but to finish up his job and return home; and whether we like it or not, he has enough options it his disposal to finish up his job without getting into a dogfight.
> 
> Secondly, if a Su-30MKI pilot ever decided to engage into a dogfight with a JF-17, it will have an edge due to the thrust vectoring.



no you can beat high maneuverability plane with decent configuration like jf-17, but you must have tactis that suitable for that plane and you must put ur opponent in your line. . . and make him to come front of you otherwise ,he will you


----------



## jagjitnatt

There is no way a JF-17 can beat a Su30-MKI 

I don't see a comparison there. JF-17 is good but doesn't mean you can pit it against anything. It would be suitable if it was compared with bisons or mig 29 at max.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

jagjitnatt said:


> There is no way a JF-17 can beat a Su30-MKI


Maybe in a dog fight but not in air superiority at least for now...till its upgraded further


> I don't see a comparison there. JF-17 is good but doesn't mean you can pit it against anything. *It would be suitable if it was compared with bisons or mig 29 at max*.



Yup we should pit it against mig21 bisons..didnt one just crash 2 days back?Hell who care.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jagjitnatt

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Maybe in a dog fight but not in air superiority at least for now...till its upgraded further



Its not even been a week that the plane was inducted and they're talking about upgrades. Sure block II would be better but it ain't gonna turn it into an F22 either. Upgrades are just proposed, not decided yet. So talking about upgrades is not promising for now.



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Yup we should pit it against mig21 bisons..didnt one just crash 2 days back?Hell who care.



Tell me one plane in the world that doesn't crash. Let JF-17 be inducted in good numbers and then we'll see how good it is.

How are you so certain that the plane that crashed was a bison and not a regular Mig21?


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Indiarox said:


> Plus the fact that AWACS not exactly Stealthy or maneuverable to avoid such a long range missile.
> Don't see the PAF's plane equipped with any thing like that in near future or even in the far future



Wait, am i forgetting you are Indian? 
ever heard of towed anti-missile decoy? Well Sweden is working on it.
Such long range Missiles are easy to detect and avoid because it gives you more time to react. Dont be under any delusion that with one fancy soviet era LRAAM shot it can bring ERIEYE down or it can perform all impossible feat and shot down F-16s 3-400 KM away.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

jagjitnatt said:


> Its not even been a week that the plane was inducted and they're talking about upgrades. Sure block II would be better but it ain't gonna turn it into an F22 either. Upgrades are just proposed, not decided yet. So talking about upgrades is not promising for now.


Let me tell you... JF-17 upgrade will be done before any IAF... 
PAF has about 24 JF-17s out of 50 ordered for first batch. 26 more to go which will be inducted within 2 years and then we have a westernized JF-17s. MICA are no toys or darts that can be simply avoided with super sakhti MKI maneuver. and neither JF-17s need to be brought to F-22 level in order to bring down MKI.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

jagjitnatt said:


> There is no way a JF-17 can beat a Su30-MKI
> 
> I don't see a comparison there. JF-17 is good but doesn't mean you can pit it against anything. It would be suitable if it was compared with bisons or mig 29 at max.



Why is that? certianly JF-17 is not better then MKI but to say MKI can not be brought down by JF-17 is just childish fanboy remark.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

qsaark said:


> Secondly, if a Su-30MKI pilot ever decided to engage into a dogfight with a JF-17, it will have an edge due to the thrust vectoring.



Thats only possible if the thunder pilot forgot to bring his JHMCS and ground crews forgot to arm it with 5th generation SRAAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

jagjitnatt said:


> *Its not even been a week that the plane was inducted and they're talking about upgrades.[/B*


*
Ever heard about plans of PAF?western avionics and radars?




Sure block II would be better but it ain't gonna turn it into an F22 either. Upgrades are just proposed, not decided yet. So talking about upgrades is not promising for now.

Click to expand...

First u dont have a raptor,
2)su 30 is not a raptor or it doesnt desend from heaven.
3)Proposed by PAF and hell even Head of PAF has said that many times.Now tell me where ur so called opinion comes from?




Tell me one plane in the world that doesn't crash. Let JF-17 be inducted in good numbers and then we'll see how good it is.

Click to expand...

Dude look at Mig 21s crash records..they are called Flying coffins
And what has induction of JF17 got to do with upcomming crashes?



How are you so certain that the plane that crashed was a bison and not a regular Mig21?

Click to expand...

Bison is not a jet its an upgrade just like our Pgs with french avionics,martin baker seat and griffons radars.
2)Upgrades were done on its avionics not its engines and not to forget ur bisons are 50 years old.
And when a jet crashes they dont publish its whole bio data....If a mirage2000 crashes theyll probably call it mirage not 2000 or the whole upgrade package.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samika

JF 17 is a good AC but the thread is quite addled as JF 17 and MKI would face each other in future has diminutive chances.


----------



## Storm Force

SU30MKI 

With 2 ENGINES & TVC engines will run circles around any single engined Fighter including Thunder. 

The shear thrust acceleration and brute force will give MKI huge advantages. 

TVC means the angle of attack is twice that +/- OF THE Thunder

Twice as many missles

2 pilots to share workload

Jammers/electronics frm Israel makes SU30MKI the flanker in the world

Thunder in a 1 v 1 situation or indeed 10 v 10 WILL BE in real trouble unless they have a TOP NOTCH back up fighter in the battle... ie Rafael/TyphooN ETC.


----------



## notorious_eagle

Storm Force said:


> SU30MKI
> 
> With 2 ENGINES & TVC engines will run circles around any single engined Fighter including Thunder.



Goodness me; those 2 Huge Engines mean the SU30MKI is going to be soo fast that it will run in circles around the JF17, and all the JF17 can do is sit and pray to God because the sheer speed of SU30MKI makes it invisible to naked eye . Maybe you are forgetting that those 2 Huge Engines will make it the perfect target for a Heat Seeking Missile, and i would love to see that TVC dodge a 5th Generation Missile capable of manuvering at 50G's. 



Storm Force said:


> The shear thrust acceleration and brute force will give MKI huge advantages.



Really, than that means MIG25's should have just outsped all the incoming missiles instead of getting its a** kicked. The Americans and Israelis discovered it long time ago that instead of building fast planes, all they had to do was make fast missiles. No plane can outrun a heat seeking missile buddy, thats just fanboy talk. 



Storm Force said:


> TVC means the angle of attack is twice that +/- OF THE Thunder



When you add in JHMCS and Thunders small size, things pretty much evens out. Thunder has excellent turn rate just like the F16, the addition of JHMCS means it can challenge the SU30MKI head on. 



Storm Force said:


> Twice as many missles



Those extra missiles are the first thing the pilot will jettison when he realizes that a Missile is on its way. 



Storm Force said:


> Jammers/electronics frm Israel makes SU30MKI the flanker in the world



Goodness me, Jammers from Israel makes the MKI untouchable. I think its best the pilot for JF17 just lowers his landing gear and surrender quietly because those Super Duper Jammers from Israel will jam all the communications, electronics and radars of PAF. Those electronics/jammers certinely didnt help when MKI was locked by F16 Post Mumbai. Maybe you are forgetting that JF17 itself carries excellent EW/ECM suites, not to mention we will have other assets EW assets employed too. 



Storm Force said:


> Thunder in a 1 v 1 situation or indeed 10 v 10 WILL BE in real trouble unless they have a TOP NOTCH back up fighter in the battle... ie Rafael/TyphooN ETC.



JF17 datalinked with our Erieyes armed with 5th Generation Missiles is perfectly capable of defending itself against the MKI. On a side note, i still fail to understand why the Indians decided to introduce AWACS into the subcontinent. They basically took a huge advantage away from them, their PESA radars were simply unmatched but now thanks to the introduction of Erieyes we have neutralized that. 

Its just pure Indian fanboy talk that MKI is God's Gift to Aviation, i laugh my a** when i hear Indian fanboys say that there is no way MKI can be shot down. Is there like some super switch inside MKI that makes it invincible against other aircrafts, what a lot of fanboys fail to take into account is that the pilots will have the biggest impact in combat not the Aircrafts. All i hear from Indian fanboys is MKI has Israeli Jammers, French Avionics etc etc etc. So what, does that make it untouchable. Its the Indians who have to tell us that we fear the MKI, but in reality PAF isnt that worried about MKI.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ice_man

yes yes MKI has an alien shield! protecting it! seriously indians really go overboard! thank god not all are equally dumb! there are some sane ones in the lot! but the worse kind are the ones coming directly from Bharat Rakshak!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Storm Force said:


> 2 pilots to share workload



well that is because 2 IAF pilots = 1 superior trained PAF pilot.


----------



## SBD-3

jagjitnatt said:


> There is no way a JF-17 can beat a Su30-MKI
> 
> I don't see a comparison there. JF-17 is good but doesn't mean you can pit it against anything. It would be suitable if it was compared with bisons or mig 29 at max.



Honestly I mean its not like racing....where the most powerful car will eventually have an edge.....If thunder detects it.......all it will have to do is fire a BVR or Two to get the MKI on backfoot....I mean I wont let you play the game with your rules.......If thunder pilot know that MKI will have an edge in close in dogfight...will he be stupid to go for such an adventure.....


----------



## yashraj

Growler said:


> well that is because 2 IAF pilots = 1 superior trained PAF pilot.





Please go through 1971 war and 1991 war

any ya next time come up with battter EXCUSE


----------



## kashith

hasnain0099 said:


> Honestly I mean its not like racing....where the most powerful car will eventually have an edge.....If thunder detects it.......all it will have to do is fire a BVR or Two to get the MKI on backfoot....I mean I wont let you play the game with your rules.......If thunder pilot know that MKI will have an edge in close in dogfight...will he be stupid to go for such an adventure.....



True very true,thing is Range of MKi's radar is more than JF-17's.So it will detect the thunder much before,launch a BVR missile and scoot off.....


----------



## Myth_buster_1

yashraj said:


> Please go through 1971 war and 1991 war
> 
> any ya next time come up with battter EXCUSE



what about 71 war and 91?
PAF destroyed over 100 IAF planes with a lose of 30 in action? if you included self destroyed sabers by PAF in east wing then ya the list is about 42.


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

YEP....... IN 1971 WAR INDIA IAF WAS FAR MORE SUPERIOR THAN PAF IN BOTH NUMBER AND TECHNOLOGY BUT STILL PAF HAD EDGE IN AIR FIGHTS... PAF KICKED ........... OF IAF SU-7 ATTACKER .........


----------



## LCA Tejas

REHAN NIAZI FALCON said:


> YEP....... IN 1971 WAR INDIA IAF WAS FAR MORE SUPERIOR THAN PAF IN BOTH NUMBER AND TECHNOLOGY BUT STILL PAF HAD EDGE IN AIR FIGHTS... PAF KICKED ........... OF IAF SU-7 ATTACKER .........



Did You really check your source???? You know something? IAF was conducting Air raids in pakistan in the 1971 war, and PAF was so defensive that it couldnt do much.....

​
PAF conducted air raides on India but Not a single aircraft was destroyed in these raids and runways damaged were repaired within a matter of hours.....

*Combat Aircraft Losses
*

Description	*Pakistan	**India*
Air to Air.............19...........19
Ground Fire........15...........35
On Ground.........29...........2
Total..................63...........56​


----------



## LCA Tejas

PAF squadrons tended to have more aircraft per squadron than the IAF. This was further bolstered by the acquisition of an unspecified number of F-86 Sabres, Mirage IIIs, Starfighters (from Jordan) and about 15 Chinese F-6s in the months prior to the war. These aircraft were not accounted for the IISS in its 1971 Military balance or in any other report. Also, the serviceability of PAF Sabres was much higher - meaning more aircraft could be fielded. The Indians had 16 aircraft per combat squadron but the effective availability during the war was 12 per squadron. Bomber and transporter squadron had 10 aircraft each of which about 6 to 8 were serviceable at any given time. Many PAF squadrons, in contrast, had as many as 25 aircraft. Thus, while the PAf was outnumbered in the West, at no point was it ever fighting against overwhelming odds........

So PAF used more aircrafts than the IAF but IAF still stood tall...


----------



## shekhar

Growler said:


> well that is because 2 IAF pilots = 1 superior trained PAF pilot.



back your logic please with neutral source


----------



## Dazzler

We have discussed all these things to death but same topics are raised with different wordings and the result is known. Thread is history.


----------



## Storm Force

For 5 years now The Pakistanis are trying to prove that a Third generation fighter built by China to be at Best meduim tech at very low cost is equal to the most developed flanker in the world. 

They talk about a FIFTH generation missle coming frm the Thunder.. 

Plz explain i understand the PAF is looking at 4th generation MICA which itself is below par to the R27/R77. 

The is no 5th generation m,issle

WAT JHMC sysyem does Thunder have ??? plz prove this 

Don,t give more fantasy FUTURE upgrade potential plz. 

You have just started with this plane there only a handful in service and The PLAAF will not buy them because THEY KNOW their flankers and J10 are far superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Storm Force said:


> For 5 years now The Pakistanis are trying to prove that a Third generation fighter built by China to be at Best meduim tech at very low cost is equal to the most developed flanker in the world.


Look whose talking a guy who is ashamed to display his countrys flag 
3rd generation jet built by china?Are u on drugs?
Its 4th generaton jet jointly by CAC and PAC,
But what the hell will u know u guys cant make a damn tank since 4 decades?and a jet in development since 5 decades,
Low cost,effective,modern but soon to be expensive,lethal and @SS kicker.
Yeah su 30 is a angel from hell?dont worry we got many MM. Alams and sarfaraz rafiquws ready to shot the safron bandits.



> They talk about a FIFTH generation missle coming frm the Thunder..


Yup we do and inshallah u will see ur dead shot bogeys in a war if u try to puk with us....


> Plz explain i understand the PAF is looking at 4th generation MICA which itself is below par to the R27/R77.


We already got MICA now we are looking towards a 5th gen missile .


> The is no 5th generation m,issle


You never know.



> WAT JHMC sysyem does Thunder have ??? plz prove this
> 
> Don,t give more fantasy FUTURE upgrade potential plz.


We and our top PAF officials are realistic we dont shout wer the best and then get shot in the sack..


> You have just started with this plane there only a handful in service and The PLAAF will not buy them because THEY KNOW their flankers and J10 are far superior.


150 will be procured by PLAF google it up son.
Russkies dont use Su 30 why?is it a shyty plane?
Maybe according to ur philosophy


----------



## Storm Force

You can plan as many upgrades as you want. 

But without a dime in your pocket There WILL NOT BE much happening. 

It will remain as it is. 

I,d be amazed if Thunder goes beyond 50 planes even those are coming because CHINA has given Pakistan soft loans to buy them .

SO MUCH FOR DELEVOPED BY PAC statements 

$650m soft loan granted to pakistan as per AIR FORCES MONTHLY


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Storm Force said:


> For 5 years now The Pakistanis are trying to prove that a Third generation fighter built by China to be at Best meduim tech at very low cost is equal to the most developed flanker in the world.
> 
> They talk about a FIFTH generation missle coming frm the Thunder..
> 
> Plz explain i understand the PAF is looking at 4th generation MICA which itself is below par to the R27/R77.
> 
> The is no 5th generation m,issle
> 
> WAT JHMC sysyem does Thunder have ??? plz prove this
> 
> Don,t give more fantasy FUTURE upgrade potential plz.
> 
> You have just started with this plane there only a handful in service and The PLAAF will not buy them because THEY KNOW their flankers and J10 are far superior.


You are a big brain fart of BR that is being irritating with the most immature useless nonsense posts and threads of all! 
this worm needs to be tossed back to 13 year old lonely planet called Bharat-rasksaw where he can satisfy indian loser ego with his low grade posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Storm Force said:


> You can plan as many upgrades as you want.
> 
> But without a dime in your pocket There WILL NOT BE much happening.


LOL even with bad economic health pakistan bought,refueller tankers,saab.spada,mica,frigs,F16s
Wat makes u thin in such a stupid way?i hope ur not really on drugs.




> It will remain as it is.
> 
> I,d be amazed if Thunder goes beyond 50 planes even those are coming because CHINA has given Pakistan soft loans to buy them .
> 
> SO MUCH FOR DELEVOPED BY PAC statements
> 
> $650m soft loan granted to pakistan as per AIR FORCES MONTHLY


Looks like somebodys pissed 
Im starting to enjoy moronic posts ......And this post only displays emotions of a frustrated ,childish fellow wgho doesnt want to see reality and is damn happy living in his *bubble of QUAN*


----------



## Storm Force

Calm down guys. 

Ground reality does not hurt

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trichy

notorious_eagle said:


> Goodness me; those 2 Huge Engines mean the SU30MKI is going to be soo fast that it will run in circles around the JF17, and all the JF17 can do is sit and pray to God because the sheer speed of SU30MKI makes it invisible to naked eye . Maybe you are forgetting that those 2 Huge Engines will make it the perfect target for a Heat Seeking Missile, and i would love to see that TVC dodge a 5th Generation Missile capable of manuvering at 50G's.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, than that means MIG25's should have just outsped all the incoming missiles instead of getting its a** kicked. The Americans and Israelis discovered it long time ago that instead of building fast planes, all they had to do was make fast missiles. No plane can outrun a heat seeking missile buddy, thats just fanboy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> When you add in JHMCS and Thunders small size, things pretty much evens out. Thunder has excellent turn rate just like the F16, the addition of JHMCS means it can challenge the SU30MKI head on.
> 
> 
> 
> Those extra missiles are the first thing the pilot will jettison when he realizes that a Missile is on its way.
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness me, Jammers from Israel makes the MKI untouchable. I think its best the pilot for JF17 just lowers his landing gear and surrender quietly because those Super Duper Jammers from Israel will jam all the communications, electronics and radars of PAF. Those electronics/jammers certinely didnt help when MKI was locked by F16 Post Mumbai. Maybe you are forgetting that JF17 itself carries excellent EW/ECM suites, not to mention we will have other assets EW assets employed too.
> 
> 
> 
> JF17 datalinked with our Erieyes armed with 5th Generation Missiles is perfectly capable of defending itself against the MKI. On a side note, i still fail to understand why the Indians decided to introduce AWACS into the subcontinent. They basically took a huge advantage away from them, their PESA radars were simply unmatched but now thanks to the introduction of Erieyes we have neutralized that.
> 
> Its just pure Indian fanboy talk that MKI is God's Gift to Aviation, i laugh my a** when i hear Indian fanboys say that there is no way MKI can be shot down. Is there like some super switch inside MKI that makes it invincible against other aircrafts, what a lot of fanboys fail to take into account is that the pilots will have the biggest impact in combat not the Aircrafts. All i hear from Indian fanboys is MKI has Israeli Jammers, French Avionics etc etc etc. So what, does that make it untouchable. Its the Indians who have to tell us that we fear the MKI, but in reality PAF isnt that worried about MKI.



Sorry to ask which one in current *5th Generation Missile* in any Air Force, whats its name & range???? how many paf have it with them????

i thing *50G* is too much of

I realy don't know about this, can you explain it plz


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Trichy said:


> Sorry to ask which one in current *5th Generation Missile* in any Air Force, whats its name & range???? how many paf have it with them????
> 
> i thing *50G* is too much of
> 
> I realy don't know about this, can you explain it plz



obviously you are a indian with very low IQ thus its not in your ego to accept anything. 

PAF is negosiating with RSA, Britian, and Germany for the fallowing ASRAAMs. go google and educate yourself a bit before you open your mouth and stink this place.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Storm Force said:


> Calm down guys.
> 
> Ground reality does not hurt



ground reality? you mean that you are a useless poster and mentally handicap? I feel sorry for you man... btw are you PA by any chance?


----------



## Storm Force

Growler 

Why is your entire Argument based on nonense Rumours. 

JHMC for JF17 does not exist.

5th gen missles do not exist. for any PAF fighter. 

SU30 MKI is not a Rumour ITS REALITY 120 SU30MKI in 6 sqds as we speak TODAY and growing very quickly. 

IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT WAT PAF will buy up grade in the near future 

THEN IS NO CONTEST 

PAF spends $1 billion India will spend $10 billion. 

PAF spends $10 billion india spends $100 billion. 

There is simply no argumemt. 

I don,t see/or hear about PAK EFFORTS TO build a fifth gen fighter like india/russia.

I don,t see Lockheed Martin/ Boeing/ EADS all over Pakistan pushing weapons like F18S/H C17 transport planes & Typhoon fighters offering TOT too.

I don,t see multi billion dollar deals with Israel and pakistan for futeristic radars UAVs missles and drones.

I certainly don,t see the growth projections in both industrial/military power that you see with india FROM USA & WESTERN media. 

This is not me fantasising THIS IS REALITY its happening AND YOU ALL KNOW its happening

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

Growler wats a PA ????? 

don,t understand ???


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Storm Force said:


> Growler wats a PA ?????
> 
> don,t understand ???



http://bzupages.com/attachments/11151d1258668535-amitabh-bachchan-movie-pa-2-.jpg

PAA! from the movie paa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Storm Force said:


> JHMC for JF17 does not exist.



Chinese, South African or most probably french HMDs are most likely to be fitted in jf-17 however the exact type is not specified. HMD is a prime requirement for jf-17s and they will get one to engage targets off bore sight. 


> 5th gen missles do not exist. for any PAF fighter.


mr.paa did you even bother to research a bit?
South Africa and Brazil will start to manufacture the Denel Dynamics A-Darter fifth-generation infra-red guided short-range air-to-air missile (IRSRAAM)in early 2011. 
(The Pakistan Air Force may choose to equip its JF-17 combat aircraft with the A-Darter missile as part of the program's 5th generation short range air-to-air missile requirement.) and just to let you know RSA helped PAK alot with developing ALCM and improved version of Raptor I and II AGMs. 


and rest of your post is just useless and unworthy of comment. 
paaaa

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

PAF may choose to equip the darter which will enter service in 2011 with South Africa. 

Yeah ok more fantasy I see 

IAF may just buy 200 Typhoons with metore BVR missles

or 200 F18 SUPER HORNETS with Amraam C7s

IAF may even field 250 FGFA PAK FA. 

" PLEASE DON,T GIVE MAYBE, WILL HAPPEN,, IS NEGOTIATING ,, IS EVALUATING,,, 

Give some hard facts. 

like 

42 basic Thunders with chinease radar KLJ7 & SD10 missle on soft loans of 650m dollars by 2013. 

18 F16/52 frm USA with grant aid money.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

growler some @ssho.. morons cant see sstraight....leave em to bark.
I forgot to ask will our JF17 carry our indegenous H-4 BVR missile?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

I agree, Growler dont bother replying. He's just a fanboy and that is exactly why i didnt bother replying, he's already been left red faced when he claimed that our Mirages were subsonic or an aircraft can outaccelerate a missile. Its best we dont indulge in arguments with fanboys, no matter what facts you present infront of them they are not willing to accept them because SU30MKI is an Aircraft created by God himself. Just my two cents .


----------



## notorious_eagle

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> growler some @ssho.. morons cant see sstraight....leave em to bark.
> *I forgot to ask will our JF17 carry our indegenous H-4 BVR missile*?



H-4 is a glide bomb my friend, not a BVRAAM. For BVRAAM's our JF17's will carry either SD10 or Darters that we recieved from South Africa with TOT, Shamim Sahab has already disclosed its capabilities and range.


----------



## All-Green

Storm Force said:


> PAF may choose to equip the darter which will enter service in 2011 with South Africa.
> 
> Yeah ok more fantasy I see
> 
> IAF may just buy 200 Typhoons with metore BVR missles
> 
> or 200 F18 SUPER HORNETS with Amraam C7s
> 
> IAF may even field 250 FGFA PAK FA.
> 
> " PLEASE DON,T GIVE MAYBE, WILL HAPPEN,, IS NEGOTIATING ,, IS EVALUATING,,,
> 
> Give some hard facts.
> 
> like
> 
> *42 basic Thunders* with chinease radar KLJ7 & SD10 missle *on soft loans of 650m* dollars by 2013.
> 
> *18 F16/52 frm USA with grant aid money*.



So does a JF-17 on soft loan or an F-16 on military funding from US under perform as opposed to ones bought on hard cash?
Once the birds are in the sky it does not matter how they were paid for...

With more than a 100 Su-30 MKIs in service, clearly it is a very mature platform and so a lot of data is available on it.
On the other hand JF-17 has just been inducted and roadmap is not finalized for next 5-10 years regarding the upgrades so we have to wait and see.

Certainly without AEW&C cover the MKI has an advantage of Radar Range over the current thunders in BVR engagement but the smaller RCS of JF-17 will offset this advantage a little (only a little though).
With induction of AEW&C platforms, this advantage will be mitigated.
I will not talk about close in dog fight since Su-30 is a highly agile and maneuverable aircraft but JF-17's actual Thrust and agility parameters are not yet fully declared.
However as per feedback Thunder has so far impressed many in an air force with highest standards and which operate the most agile version of F-16; i think JF-17 may be a real surprise package in a dog fight.

The advantages of JF-17 in being an easy to maintain and operate *modern multirole platform* will be a tremendous boost for PAF no matter what is on the other side of the border.
This profile cannot be compared to SU-30 which is not an easy to maintain small multirole fighter and is not capable of operating from highways and small low profile airfields.
Keeping in mind that Thunder will be the backbone of PAF, it is a tremendous leap forward in terms of capability. With an array of modern weapons and other upgrades planned, it will only be more and more dangerous.

In a battlefield scenario i frankly do not see one on one duels without radar cover and many other factors which take the simplicity away from the analysis, so i think the overall profile of JF-17 suits PAF really well when faced with an opponent like IAF.
It will be a major headache for IAF, just as Su-30 will be one for PAF.
However those who think that during a war, Su-30 will walk all over JF-17 are assuming too much too early and without seeing JF-17 in action.

Also with this past decade of extreme disparity in mind, this project will only reduce the disparity so its net impact will be extremely positive as far as PAF is concerned.
The underdog always has a surprise up its sleeve, i guess it is good to be the underdog.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

notorious_eagle said:


> H-4 is a glide bomb my friend, not a BVRAAM. For BVRAAM's our JF17's will carry either SD10 or Darters that we recieved from South Africa with TOT, Shamim Sahab has already disclosed its capabilities and range.



H-4 is also called BVR missile on many web sites by indian officials and even pakisani officials.Though i know tht its a GB but it can also be fired as a BVR?


----------



## Laughing Buddha

Hi Sirji

Murari Lal ki Rangeen sapne dekhna band karo

If Indian Airforce has to attack there would be in force multiplier and combination of many aircraft back by SAM S-300, Advance Pine radar (Ground Base) and AESA Ballon Radar,UAV ,Satellite Guidance, and much more

Imagine small Comparison One mission

3 SU-30MKI
3 Mirage
5 MIG-21 Bison
3 MIG 29B
2 MIG 27
2 Tu-22M3 bomber
1 Battery of S-300 SAM (Range more than 180KM) and Support Radar or Spider SAM
1 AESA Ballon based Radar (Range more than 180 KM)
3 UAV's
Backed by ground based Advance Pine Radar (Range more than 300KM) and Satellite communication (forget about AWACS)

How would you Counter it...
As per cold start and latest strategy India need to Bomb Max 300KM inside PAK

How many F16, J10, JF17,F7 and Mirage andSAM and Other Radars will be brought in to counter India's attacks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tempest II

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> H-4 is also called BVR missile on many web sites by indian officials and even pakisani officials.Though i know tht its a GB but it can also be fired as a BVR?



Is it not that BVR = beyond visual range > 35km. I would there say BVR does not necessarily mean an A2A missile, but any munnition meeting a given (say 35km) launch range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

All-Green said:


> It will be a major headache for IAF, just as Su-30 will be one for PAF.
> However those who think that during a war, Su-30 will walk all over JF-17 are assuming too much too early and without seeing JF-17 in action.


I disagree here, because although JF 17 will be a major boost of PAFs capabilities (1 squad JF and a few F16s with BVR capabilities now vs. over 250 IAF fighters with the same capability), it will still be PAFs least capable fighter in this decade! 
All new and upgraded F16 and J10B if it arrives will be more capable, so this fact alone makes this comparison, against the most capable IAF fighter questionable.
The major headache of IAF will not be JF, but these more capable fighters and more over the arrival of AWACS in PAF.
Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR, but even an old Mig 21 Bison could down the F16 B52 in the same way, but I guess we agree that this doesn't make the Bison in anyway comparable to the F16 B52 right? Exactly like the JF is not comparable to MKI!

If you just compare the specs of MKI and JF in a 1 on 1, without any other support, or future capability, you can't do other than admit that he MKI is superior. As mentioned so often before in this thread, it has clearly more radar range and has long range missiles, so see first, shoot first in BVR. Also has more speed, better t/w ratio and additional improvements to increase maneuverability (canards and TVC) that even impresses EF pilots, although it won't be equal to EF maneuverability of course. 
Even pakistani members should agree that these key facts simply can't be denied in a comparison, by saying MKI using alien tech...!
It has his disadvantages too and will have problems against more capable fighters, but JF is simply no in its league.

JF 17 instead will mainly compete upg Mig 29 SMT, upg Mirage 2000-5 and LCAs of IAF lower end in this decade and the fact that IAF placed all Mig 29 now to the western border, but inducting new MKIs mainly on the eastern borders increases the chances of combats against them. But the odds of JF against these fighters will be better, than against MKI.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tempest II

Trichy said:


> Sorry to ask which one in current *5th Generation Missile* in any Air Force, whats its name & range???? how many paf have it with them????
> 
> i thing *50G* is too much of
> 
> I realy don't know about this, can you explain it plz



Here are the formulae for rotational motion:







If your fighter is going at a velocity of v (assuming about Mach 0.5)and can turn at say 5Gs, with missile doing Mach 4 and 40Gs. 

The turning radius for the fighter is = (v^2)/(5G).

Note that the missile speed = 8v, therefore V^2 = 64v^2.
Turning radius for missile = (64v^2)/(40G) = (6.4v^2)/(5G)

*Note that the missile will have a turn radius that is 6.4 times greater than the fighter.* Even if you used 50Gs for the missile, the turn radius is still 5 times that of the fighter. With well executed moves, the fighter can out-turn the missile. The missile will bleed energy since the motor is likely to have burned out. 

By going for lower speeds the fighter could do even tighter turns. It however become vulnerable to follow-up shots especially if the missiles are fired in salvos.

*This is my thinking and welcome different views/logic!*


----------



## qsaark

> Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR&#8230;


Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?


----------



## S.U.R.B.

qsaark said:


> explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?


Lets keep the patriotism aside : i really think the current version of JF-17 doesn't stand a chance against MKI,The only chances of survival will be a PAF pilot in the cockpit:Once a missile is shot by MKI it's the brilliance & timely decisions required to tackle it.R77 is a highly maneuverable missile but you know maneuverability bleeds energy.The target of the defender is to make the missile bleed as much energy as possible.Maneuver to keep the missile directly on your 3/9 line, pull just enough g load to keep it there. The missile has a limited field of view, much like the beam of light emitted from a flashlight. The aim is to fly toward the edge of the beam, known as the gimbal limit moving as fast as possible across the missiles field of view.In the best case, you might move out of its field of view; in the worst case, you make the missile bleed as much energy as possible. Keeping the missile directly on the 3/9 line also points your hot engine exhaust away from an IR missiles seeker.And of course countermeasures (chaffs and flares) do help.


----------



## qsaark

S.U.R.B. said:


> Keeping the missile directly on the 3/9 line also points your hot engine exhaust away from an IR missile&#8217;s seeker.And of course countermeasures (chaffs and flares) do help.


There is a slight problem, the R-77 is an active radar-guided missile not IR homing.


----------



## S.U.R.B.

Well my last statement was general statement if IR missile is on approach.


----------



## qsaark

S.U.R.B. said:


> Well my last statement was general statement if IR missile is on approach.


 You said "_The missile has a limited field of view, much like the beam of light emitted from a flashlight_.", this is *not* how the active radar seekers work.


----------



## sancho

qsaark said:


> Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?


Correct, but at least it will increase JF chances in BVR to some extend. Too less is known about the Chinese EWS, but I also would prefer a French one on JF if possible.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

qsaark said:


> Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?



MKI that can pull lets say 12 max Gs can evade 50+ G AAM? thats like saying our IL-78 can evade MKI on tail for a moment. 
The only way MKI or any other fighter can evade AAM is by its self protection systems on board the air craft.


----------



## Tempest II

qsaark said:


> Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?



Read my earlier post slowly and try to go through the numbers. 

You keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o'clock. At some distance, say I kilometer, you turn into the missile. Even when the plane is pulling 5Gs, I explained below that a missile, because of its much great speed, will need a considerably larger radius, even when pulling 50Gs. 

Rated at 8.5G, the JF-17 should pull 5Gs. By reducing it speed, it can make a even tighter turn.

Yes, pilot skills and the MAWS needs to be good for the timing window is small.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

What is this 50g missle everyone keeps talking about?


----------



## S.U.R.B.

Tempest II said:


> Read my earlier post slowly and try to go through the numbers.
> 
> You keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o'clock. At some distance, say I kilometer, you turn into the missile. Even when the plane is pulling 5Gs, I explained below that a missile, because of its much great speed, will need a considerably larger radius, even when pulling 50Gs.
> 
> Rated at 8.5G, the JF-17 should pull 5Gs. By reducing it speed, it can make a even tighter turn.
> 
> Yes, pilot skills and the MAWS needs to be good for the timing window is small.



Thats what i meant in my previous posts that beaming the missile will help...thanks for the description.


----------



## Tempest II

ptldM3 said:


> What is this 50g missle everyone keeps talking about?



Concerning the 50G, I am taking the number as possed by earlier posters and demostrating that at Mach 4, this 50Gs (if it exists) cannot out-turn a 5G fighter going at 600km/hr.

I used 40Gs because the SD-10 is said to be a 48G missile. I rounded up for simplicity in the calculations.

I do, however think the latest SRAAMs can turn at over 50Gs. I think the Python V.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

Wouldn't you consider the black out and red out factor for the pilot when he is taking those G turns as compared to the missiles---which can spin on a dime. 

Does the missile really need to hit the plane---what if the proximity fuse goes up 40---50 meters away---the plane can still be severly damaged.

The timing window---I would say that it is time to pull on the ejection handle---no! what do you say.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

How does the SD-10 pull 40g's when the AIM-120 is a 9g missle and the R-77 a 12g missle? What makes the SD-10 pull so many more G's? 

And how does a missle withstand 40-50g's without breaking apart?


----------



## Myth_buster_1

ptldM3 said:


> How does the SD-10 pull 40g's when the AIM-120 is a 9g missle and the R-77 a 12g missle? What makes the SD-10 pull so many more G's?
> 
> And how does a missle withstand 40-50g's without breaking apart?



whats your fking sources that amraam can pull only 9 Gs and thats less then a flanker! are you stupid? 

AIM-9X Block II? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

go through this forum and AIM-9X block II is said to have pulled 100Gs and same is also said about A-Darter.


----------



## ptldM3

Growler said:


> whats your fking sources that amraam can pull only 9 Gs and thats less then a flanker! are you stupid?
> 
> AIM-9X Block II? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
> 
> go through this forum and AIM-9X block II is said to have pulled 100Gs and same is also said about A-Darter.



Firstly, I was asking a question, secondly, can you go one post without acting like a clown?

As for the AIM-120 pulling 9g's it's just what i have read, i spend the past half hour searching for the source but i couldn't find it. As for 40-50G missles i have never heard of missles pulling those kind of G's, and that's why i was suspicious of the claim, thus i asked how it would be possible.

And why did you give me a link to a forum? Are forums credible now?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chanakyaa

40g ? did i hear it correct ?


----------



## TechLahore

Growler said:


> MKI that can pull lets say 12 max Gs can evade 50+ G AAM? thats like saying our IL-78 can evade MKI on tail for a moment.
> The only way MKI or any other fighter can evade AAM is by its self protection systems on board the air craft.



If the MKI were to pull 12Gs (it is rated for 9-9.5 according to different sources) a pilot with an exploded bladder would occupy its cockpit and there would be no reason to evade the AAM anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> Firstly, I was asking a question, secondly, can you go one post without acting like a clown?
> 
> As for the AIM-120 pulling 9g's it's just what i have read, i spend the past half hour searching for the source but i couldn't find it. As for 40-50G missles i have never heard of missles pulling those kind of G's, and that's why i was suspicious of the claim, thus *i asked how it would be possible.*
> 
> And why did you give me a link to a forum? Are forums credible now?


Very possible...

Evading the Guided Missile


> A good rule of thumb quoted [1 ] is that a *missile must pull at least five times the G-load of its target* for a successful interception, therefore an aircraft maximises its chances of survival by maintaining a high energy state.


The execution of this desire will either make the missile as a success or break it as junk.

Two crucial factors that can make or break a design:

- Guidance laws
- Control (steerage) mechanisms

There are many types of guidance laws, from the simplistic pure pursuit or collision to the more sophisticated proportional navigation (PN) and many sub categories of PN.

Air-to-air missile guidance for strapdown seekers - Air-to-air, missile, guidance, for, strapdown, seekers, Abstract<br /> , This, paper, presents, results, of, a, study, on, advanced, guidance, for, short, range, air-to-air, BTT, missiles, us


> This paper presents results of a study on advanced guidance for short range air-to-air BTT missiles using an active strapdown seeker. The guidance laws, based on modern control theory, utilize an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and a *Pursuit plus Proportional Navigation* type law for autopilot command generation.


The above source is only one of the uncountable variations of these laws.

Second crucial factor is flight controls or avionics in general. Again...From the above source we see BTT, which is...

Nonlinear, Hybrid Bank-to-Turn/Skid-to-Turn Missile Autopilot Design


> Abstract : A full-envelope, hybrid *bank-to-turn (BTT)/skid-to-turn (STT)* autopilot design for an air-breathing air-to-air missile is carried out using the state-dependent Riccati equation (SDRE) technique of nonlinear control.


Bank-to-turn techniques are for noncircular airframes, like the American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Remember...A missile *IS* an aircraft, no matter its variant. An F-16 is a noncircular airframe. The AIM-9 Sidewinder and others are circular airframes so they usually have skid-to-turn FLCS.

With sufficient structural rigidity, a skid-to-turn (STT) missile can very well pull 20, 30 or even 50g, especially when it employ 'bang-bang' guidance...

Laser Guided Bombs - Smart Weapons


> The computer section transmits directional command signals to the appropriate pair(s) of canards. The guidance canards are attached to each quadrant of the control unit to change the flightpath of the weapon. The canard deflections are always full scale (referred to as *"bang, bang" guidance*).


What bang-bang guidance does is to simply deflect the FLCS surfaces at their maximum rates to their maximum limits. Try steering your car to the local cafe by turning the steering wheel only from stop (bang) to the opposite stop (bang), nowhere in between, hence the name bang-bang guidance. Against ground targets, a guided bomb can get by with bang-bang guidance to orient itself then let gravity do the rest. But against a maneuverable target like a fighter or even bomber aircraft, hybrid guidance laws are necessary and many of them carry heavy prison terms. Any ideas why?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> Bank-to-turn techniques are for noncircular airframes, like the American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Remember...A missile *IS* an aircraft, no matter its variant. An F-16 is a noncircular airframe. The AIM-9 Sidewinder and others are circular airframes so they usually have skid-to-turn FLCS.



All missles use skid-to-turn which is essentially the missle turning without the need to bank; for instance, an aircraft banking 180 degrees then pulling up to acheive a tight turn can be considered a skid-to-turn, minus the bank. AIM-120, R-77, and SD-10 all use this method.



gambit said:


> With sufficient structural rigidity, a skid-to-turn (STT) missile can very well pull 20, 30 or even 50g, especially when it employ 'bang-bang' guidance...




Once an aircraft banks 180 degress it can be said that it utilizes the STT technique, so how does this contribute to G-force? my understanding is that high G-forces are contributed to these factors (these are basic simple forms):

The objects velocity, an appropriate example would be when astronauts get spung around, the faster the ecceloration the higher the G-force. This means a missle is likely to pull higher G-forces at higher speeds.

g-force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of *acceleration*, not force





Now if and when a missle pulls 20, 40, or 50+ G's its structural integrity would be in jeopardy, for instance, a missle utilizing fins also utilizes servos or something similar; this means the fins are not a fixed flight surface, thus they are controled by a servo type mechanism, this means they would be more vulnerable to breaking off under extreem G-force. The question is can a servo type mechanism support fins at 50+ G's without disintegrating from the missle? And can fins servive the violent force without bending out of shape?

Certain aircraft have been know to warp out of shape when pulled beyond their limit.




General design, and or flight surfaces, such as canards, fins, or tvc; for instance, the R-77 utilizes lattice fins for better manuverability at high speed.

Vympel R-77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The missile's maneuverability relies on the lattice work fins at the rear. The R-77's overall aerodynamic configuration is *more efficient at high speed and high angles of attack than the conventional deltas *used on the AIM-120 and most other missiles



The above example is a perfect example of a missle pulling a high G load at high speeds due to the fact that it was designed to opperate under those conditions.

Most missle work off of the same principles, so how does one go from a 12 G missle to a 40 or 50 G missle? This is no small margin.

Also, theoretically many things are possible but does that mean it can be done? 

The Chinese are saying the SD-10 is a 40 G missle does the US or anyone else have such a missle? If the US built such a missle i would beleive it to be possible. In short, *do such missles actually exist*? And can it be varified by an authentic source? This is what i'm trying to find out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> Now if and when a missle pulls 20, 40, or 50+ G's its structural integrity would be in jeopardy, for instance, a missle utilizing fins also utilizes servos or something similar; this means the fins are not a fixed flight surface, thus they are controled by a servo type mechanism, this means they would be more vulnerable to breaking off under extreem G-force. *The question is can a servo type mechanism support fins at 50+ G's without disintegrating from the missle? And can fins servive the violent force without bending out of shape?*
> 
> The Chinese are saying the SD-10 is a 40 G missle does the US or anyone else have such a missle? If the US built such a missle i would beleive it to be possible. In short, *do such missles actually exist*? And can it be varified by an authentic source? This is what i'm trying to find out.


Absolutely...We will go one extreme...Artillery...

GD-OTS Missile Components


> Control Actuator Systems (CAS)
> 
> General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is the industry leader in high performance, high power rate density, and aerospace qualified *electro-mechanical actuator systems.* With its heritage starting in 1975 by two visionary General Dynamics engineers, it has emerged as the premier developer of innovative and elegant patented designs satisfying the tactical and strategic missile arena.
> 
> General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has established itself as the industry gun launched projectile "go-to" supplier for control actuator systems. Versatron has developed a qualified gun hardened (*all major components qualified up to 30,000 Gs*), building block approach to solving the stringent performance, size, and low cost demands of the next generation smart munitions.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## All-Green

sancho said:


> I disagree here, because although JF 17 will be a major boost of PAFs capabilities (1 squad JF and a few F16s with BVR capabilities now vs. over 250 IAF fighters with the same capability), it will still be PAFs least capable fighter in this decade!
> All new and upgraded F16 and J10B if it arrives will be more capable, so this fact alone makes this comparison, against the most capable IAF fighter questionable.
> The major headache of IAF will not be JF, but these more capable fighters and more over the arrival of AWACS in PAF.
> Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR, but even an old Mig 21 Bison could down the F16 B52 in the same way, but I guess we agree that this doesn't make the Bison in anyway comparable to the F16 B52 right? Exactly like the JF is not comparable to MKI!
> 
> If you just compare the specs of MKI and JF in a 1 on 1, without any other support, or future capability, you can't do other than admit that he MKI is superior. As mentioned so often before in this thread, it has clearly more radar range and has long range missiles, so see first, shoot first in BVR. Also has more speed, better t/w ratio and additional improvements to increase maneuverability (canards and TVC) that even impresses EF pilots, although it won't be equal to EF maneuverability of course.
> Even pakistani members should agree that these key facts simply can't be denied in a comparison, by saying MKI using alien tech...!
> It has his disadvantages too and will have problems against more capable fighters, but JF is simply no in its league.
> 
> JF 17 instead will mainly compete upg Mig 29 SMT, upg Mirage 2000-5 and LCAs of IAF lower end in this decade and the fact that IAF placed all Mig 29 now to the western border, but inducting new MKIs mainly on the eastern borders increases the chances of combats against them. But the odds of JF against these fighters will be better, than against MKI.



Where did i say that in current configuration JF-17 is superior to Su-30? It would be a huge mistake to say so.

The BVR missile kill range however is a tricky thing, it decreases a lot with lower altitude, size/vector of the target, ECM being employed etc.
I am just saying that PAF has a very good record of devising good tactics keeping in mind the strengths of its aircraft, perhaps an F-7 against an Su-30 would have been in the realm of the impossible for PAF, however with JF-17 they will have more flexibility in their tactics and will stand a better chance due to many leaps and bounds in the technology. 

It will still be an unfair contest in isolation at this stage but the JF-17 is known to be maneuverable as well with pretty decent avionics.
I reckon that its actual specs are is not disclosed yet so we perhaps need more information to establish just how much trouble it can be in BVR/WVR combat, it is BVR capable so big plus for PAF but it is a small and agile fighter so in WVR at least the visibility will be in favor of JF-17.
Current available specs dictate that Su-30 will regain from energy bleeds faster and has the advantage in going from a neutral to favorable posture but JF-17 will most likely make visual contact first...

In the upcoming exercises JF-17 will be pitched against the other aircraft like F-16s so i think we shall eventually find out how it actually fares.

I agree that it will be the F-16s and FC-20s which will duel with the Su-30 after 2015.
However what i am saying is that in current situation IAF already has had the upper hand, in current and midterm the ongoing induction of JF-17 would start offsetting this disparity since we will have a new fighter ( in numbers) with good technology (even in current configuration) instead of the ancient F-7 airframe which is a brother of Mig-21...whatever upgrade you make these little monsters go through, at the end of the day their design is severely limited and there is not much you can do about it.

In the light multirole category the JF-17 has a good modern design, it uses modern technology and concepts and was intentionally kept modular to begin with, keeping in mind up-gradation and integration of different makes of avionics and weapons...for the PAF it will be an extremely good uplift/morale booster and in few years its numbers with the AEW&C cover will enable much more aggression than what was technically possible just a couple of years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SBD-3

S.U.R.B. said:


> Lets keep the patriotism aside : i really think the current version of JF-17 doesn't stand a chance against MKI,The only chances of survival will be a PAF pilot in the cockpit:Once a missile is shot by MKI it's the brilliance & timely decisions required to tackle it.



do you think PAF would be dumb about it????? or thinking that its pilots would always do the Job.....You know why PAF is looking for M-88?.....its not always about the thurust here is some info on M-88


> The first production M88-2 engine was delivered in 1996. Today, it powers the various Rafale versions flown by the French air force andnavy. It is particularly suited to low-altitude penetration and high-altitude interception missions.
> Light and compact, the M88-2 integrates the latest technologies: single-piece bladed compressor disks (blisks), on-polluting combustion chamber, single crystal highpressure turbine blades, powder metallurgy disks, ceramic coatings, composite materials,
> etc. The use of 3D calculation codes has resulted in global optimization of the aerodynamic design of flowpaths and the thermal and mechanical behavior of parts. Thanks to its fully redundant
> digital control system, the engine displays exceptional controllability and handling characteristics, making it ideal for the multirole
> missions of air forces. Its modular design ensures optimum operational availability and great maintenance flexibility.
> Furthermore, the M88 incorporates the latest maintenance concepts as failure diagnosis aid or high level of aircraft/engine integration.
> Snecma continuously invests in Research & Technology to meet its customers' specific requirements, resulting in regular upgrades to
> the M88-2, for example based on the ECO demonstrator. In 2008 Snecma offered the "TCO Pack" to decrease the engine's total cost
> of ownership. Subsequent improvements could increase the M88's thrust to the 20,000 lb class.


furthermore, in a rafale info supplement i also read that It is optimized for lower IR sigs as well...So probably thunder would stay underpowered but engine efficiency will increase


----------



## ambidex

Can someone please elaborate how quickly PAF will be integrating JF 17 and others (F16) with SAAB and Chinese AWACS. 
Lets not forget that AWACS would be force multiplier and will make JF17 a potent AC against any adversity. Without such integration success of JF against any 4+ gen AC would be some what narrow and staggering.
To my understanding SAAB is going to link F16 and JF is going to be linked with would be Chinese AWACS. Please correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## SBD-3

ambidex said:


> Can someone please elaborate how quickly PAF will be integrating JF 17 and others (F16) with SAAB and Chinese AWACS.




"as soon as possible"



> Lets not forget that AWACS would be force multiplier and will make JF17 a potent AC against any adversity. Without such integration success of JF against any 4+ gen AC would be some what narrow and staggering.


do you mean JFx AWACS= 2 JFs or 4th genx AWACS=4++ gen 

ok fun apart......do some research or simple go throw AWACS thread in detail....you ll find all the answers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ambidex

hasnain0099 said:


>



So you think i haven't done my home work before my post. ha ha good on you, i am happy i have make some tense soul laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SBD-3

ambidex said:


> So you think i haven't done my home work before my post. ha ha good on you, i am happy i have make some tense soul laugh.



I dont think.......I believe.....


----------



## ambidex

Ok i will give it another go...i was acting smart and placing a trap...never mind.

Everyone here has agreed upon that JF17's comparison with MKI is not a balance comparison. MKI is more potent platform then JF17. However we have also discussed that JF17 can hit MKI if it is equipped with BVR missiles and operated with better doctrine and by highly skilled PAF. In one on one fight i must tell you that MKI with its truck load of missiles will not sit ideal after firing BVRM but will also make JF17 a victim by firing IR seekers as well. MKI radar has more range then JF17 we all know so JF17 need early warning and very (optimistic) real time updated by your SAAB birds and in future from Chinese AWACS procurements (in pipe or in limbo you know better then me). 

My view on all this comparing thread is that without real time updates and early warning JF17's success will be compromised. How Pakistan will integrate F16 with Chinese AWACS is a catch here. Furthermore your pilots may be skilled with F16 but exposure to this new baby will take time for them have a feel and test its limits.
Regards.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

new video must see

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

ambidex said:


> Ok i will give it another go...i was acting smart and placing a trap...never mind.
> 
> Everyone here has agreed upon that JF17's comparison with MKI is not a balance comparison. MKI is more potent platform then JF17. However we have also discussed that JF17 can hit MKI if it is equipped with BVR missiles and operated with better doctrine and by highly skilled PAF.



Well under the same reasoning .. a modernised F-4 phantom can take down almost anything that flies right now (bar F22) ..

even better, an AWACS armed with ultra long range AA missile (if such a thing existed) could take down an entire squadron of any type of planes from 400km + ....

Nothing is as simple as we make it sound on these fora......

That is why pilots must go through such rigorous training programs.. 
It is not how many Gs the missile can pull.. it has more to do with how well one knows how to use the missile..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Myth_buster_1

ambidex said:


> Ok i will give it another go...i was acting smart and placing a trap...never mind.
> 
> Everyone here has agreed upon that JF17's comparison with MKI is not a balance comparison. MKI is more potent platform then JF17. However we have also discussed that JF17 can hit MKI if it is equipped with BVR missiles and operated with better doctrine and by highly skilled PAF. In one on one fight i must tell you that MKI with its truck load of missiles will not sit ideal after firing BVRM but will also make JF17 a victim by firing IR seekers as well. MKI radar has more range then JF17 we all know so JF17 need early warning and very (optimistic) real time updated by your SAAB birds and in future from Chinese AWACS procurements (in pipe or in limbo you know better then me).
> 
> My view on all this comparing thread is that without real time updates and early warning JF17's success will be compromised. How Pakistan will integrate F16 with Chinese AWACS is a catch here. Furthermore your pilots may be skilled with F16 but exposure to this new baby will take time for them have a feel and test its limits.
> Regards.



I do not claim JF to be superior to MKI but today as we speak MKI has to face only WVR (AAM) air crafts such as Mirage-III F-7 and even the older block 15. but JF-17 equipped with SD-10 and later in the stage MICA will create a massive headache which we all have to agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

All-Green said:


> However what i am saying is that in current situation IAF already has had the upper hand, in current and midterm the ongoing induction of JF-17 would start offsetting this disparity since we will have a new fighter ( in numbers) with good technology (even in current configuration) instead of the ancient F-7 airframe which is a brother of Mig-21...whatever upgrade you make these little monsters go through, at the end of the day their design is severely limited and there is not much you can do about it.



Not exactly, because unlike PAFs F7, IAF Bisons are BVR capable which makes them a serious threat to any PAF fighter in BVR, if guided by AWACS, or MKI and we saw such tactics even against US F15 cope India. 
Regarding JF 17, it is meant only as a modern replacement for older fighters, just like LCA and both are ment as low end fighters. It will bring PAF on par with IAF lower end, however on the high end side the numerical and technical edge will remain, if not even increase till the end of the decade.


----------



## sancho

Growler said:


> I do not claim JF to be superior to MKI but today as we speak MKI has to face only WVR (AAM) air crafts such as Mirage-III F-7 and even the older block 15. but* JF-17 equipped with SD-10 and later in the stage MICA will create a massive headache which we all have to agree.*


What makes you so sure about it?
Wouldn't it be like this:

JF 17 low RCS, but less radar range vs. MKI big RCS, but long range radar

So who will see the other first and more important who will shoot first? Be it SD 10, or MICA EM, both have less range than R77 and although they won't fire at maximum range, the MKI should have an advantage here.
So the JF must not only see the MKI first, but also get undetected close enough to make a save shot right?


----------



## cw2005

sancho said:


> What makes you so sure about it?
> Wouldn't it be like this:
> 
> JF 17 low RCS, but less radar range vs. MKI big RCS, but long range radar
> 
> So who will see the other first and more important who will shoot first? Be it SD 10, or MICA EM, both have less range than R77 and although they won't fire at maximum range, the MKI should have an advantage here.
> So the JF must not only see the MKI first, but also get undetected close enough to make a save shot right?



I thought both side would be trying to reduce RCS and increase Radar range. At the end of day, the same situation remains as it is.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sancho said:


> Not exactly, because *unlike PAFs F7, IAF Bisons are BVR capable *which makes them a serious threat to any PAF fighter in BVR, if guided by AWACS, or MKI and we saw such tactics even against US F15 cope India.


Kindly try searching about J7Pgs BVR capability i hope u will be shocked.
J7PGs do have BVR capability.



> Regarding JF 17, it is meant only as a modern replacement for older fighters, just like LCA and both are ment as low end fighters


.
PAFs thinking isnt capped in a bottle.Havent u heard of the plans?
BlockI.BlockII,Block III all will be upgraded and try using ur mind.Right now the infant JF17 is considered to be as capabale as F16 Block 15 what will it be compaired to after it gets matures?



> it will bring PAF on par with IAF lower end, however on the high end side the numerical and technical edge will remain, if not even increase till the end of the decade


Thts what PAFs modernisation plan is for:
SAAB awacs
SINO-INDUS AWACS
150 FC-20 incoperating western systems
300 JF-17 with western avionics and better avionics and maybe even design modifications.
76 F16 Block 52s (*If PAF decides 18 more which is very much possibilty as PAF hasnt ruled out the options and even according toAir chief we aill use our full options statement*)
Pak-fa will arive after a decade and so will JXX so we dont have to worry about tht.
And hopefully our economy will be revived so who knows what future has stored in for us?


----------



## All-Green

sancho said:


> Not exactly, because unlike PAFs F7, IAF Bisons are BVR capable which makes them a serious threat to any PAF fighter in BVR, if guided by AWACS, or MKI and we saw such tactics even against US F15 cope India.
> Regarding JF 17, it is meant only as a modern replacement for older fighters, just like LCA and both are ment as low end fighters. It will bring PAF on par with IAF lower end, however on the high end side the numerical and technical edge will remain, if not even increase till the end of the decade.



It is not just about being able to fire a BVR missile...not that simple a matter at all.
Even if all F-7s were BVR equipped we still would have to phase them out and replace them with thunder...

Bison will not be a major threat on its own just 2-3 years down the line, the MIG-21 platform is agile but that is about it and that point remains valid no matter what engineering feats are pulled off, limited space and limited performance envelop of such an old design cannot be overriden.
Bison will need helping hands to stand a chance in future.
Bison is a low end fighter and so is F-7 and in future both will be phased out, currently they are filling the numbers.

JF-17 is low cost but a lot of margin for improvement since conceptually it is a modern fighter design, that is the reason i believe JF-17 may be the low to medium end fighter with some basic and some highly upgraded thunder squadrons.
This is what was eventually decided for JF-17 instead of the low end low cost profile which was discussed initially before design finalization.

Anyways JF-17 is not an Su-30 killer either...it will however be a very flexible platform and may prove to be a very formidable jet in the hands of PAF.

Air Superiority would be the primary domain of FC-20 and F-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

i don't know WHY every indian thinks that MKI is the only fighter in the indian airforce!!!! a comparison between MKI & JF-17 is a bit harsh on both!! 

the INDIAN WESTERN COMMAND currently operates 

*The WAC features air defence squadrons consisting of the MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29. The ground attack squadrons consists of the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27 and Jaguar IS.*



so yes in case of war PAF will be pitted against all these platforms not only the MKIs!


----------



## sancho

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Kindly try searching about J7Pgs BVR capability i hope u will be shocked.
> J7PGs do have BVR capability.





> F-7PG
> 
> The F-7MG fighter is serving with the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) as the F-7PG. The PG variant is generally same as the MG variant but its avionic configuration has been tailored to meet the PAF requirements. As the Marconi Super Skyranger radar did not meet the PAF requirements, the F-7PG is fitted with an I-band Italian FIAR Grifo-7 pulse-Doppler fire-control radar (37km range), which was optimised to fire the U.S.-made AIM-9L all-aspect *short-range AAM*, making a lethal combination in air-to-air combat.



Jian-7 (J-7, F-7, Fishbed) Interceptor Fighter - SinoDefence.com

Besides that this was confirmed by pakistani members here before too!



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> PAFs thinking isnt capped in a bottle.Havent u heard of the plans?
> BlockI.BlockII,Block III all will be upgraded and try using ur mind.Right now the infant JF17 is considered to be as capabale as F16 Block 15 what will it be compaired to after it gets matures?


As far as I read it in the JF thread, PAF has planed this:

50 x JF with current Chinese config
100 x possibly with French config
100 - 150 x improved versions with AESA radars and higher trust engines mainly

In the same timeframe IAF has planed:

upgrading 60 x Mig 29 to SMT 
upgrading 50 x Mirage 2000 to 2005
40 x LCA MK1 
100 - 150 x improved versions with AESA radars and higher thrust engines mainy

Except of the improved versions of JF and LCA, all thes fighters will be multi role fighters, with new avionics, muti mode radars, BVR and PG strike capable, so technically on par and as you can see even in the same numbers.
But as I said, these will only be the low end of PAF and IAF, just like F7 and Mig 21 in the past!


----------



## sancho

All-Green said:


> Bison will not be a major threat on its own just 2-3 years down the line, the MIG-21 platform is agile but that is about it and that point remains valid no matter what engineering feats are pulled off, limited space and limited performance envelop of such an old design cannot be overriden.
> Bison will need helping hands to stand a chance in future.



That's what I said right? IAF will never let them engage JF 17, or F16 alone, because they are clearly inferior to them. But combined with AWACS, or MKI, they are still very useful in BVR.



All-Green said:


> Anyways JF-17 is not an Su-30 killer either...it will however be a very flexible platform and may prove to be a very formidable jet in the hands of PAF.
> 
> Air Superiority would be the primary domain of FC-20 and F-16.



Totally agree with you! JF is a good and cost-effective fighter, for those roles it was meant for, but that was not fighting MKIs, or MMRCAs.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

sancho said:


> 40 x LCA MK1
> 100 - 150 x improved versions with AESA radars and higher thrust engines mainy



bullchit! provide me a credible source not a fanboy claim that IAF will have 150-200 LCAs by 2020? Infact only by 2024 will their be a LCA version ready with AESA radar etc for production while a 4.5 gen version of JF-17 will be operational.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sancho said:


> As far as I read it in the JF thread, PAF has planed this:
> 
> 50 x JF with current Chinese config
> 100 x possibly with French config
> 100 - 150 x improved versions with AESA radars and higher trust engines mainly


*What about AESA and engine PAF is looking for Block II?*


> In the same timeframe IAF has planed:
> upgrading 60 x Mig 29 to SMT
> upgrading 50 x Mirage 2000 to 2005
> 40 x LCA MK1
> 100 - 150 x improved versions with AESA radars and higher thrust engines mainy


Sorry to interupt the gravy train we didnt ask about indian plans?
We already have an active sqadron and ur nowhere in even induction.Its so far for u guys to talk about AESA and stuff.Even different India sites talk about the proper induction of lca till 2020(back bone to be precise)Under these circumstances im not even sure if u induct them completely by 2025
Till then we might be looking on something new.As the plan of induction of all Blocks of Thunder is by 2014-15


----------



## DMLA

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> *What about AESA and engine PAF is looking for Block II?*
> 
> Sorry to interupt the gravy train we didnt ask about indian plans?
> We already have an active sqadron and ur nowhere in even induction.Its so far for u guys to talk about AESA and stuff.Even different India sites talk about the proper induction of lca till 2020(back bone to be precise)Under these circumstances im not even sure if u induct them completely by 2025
> Till then we might be looking on something new.As the plan of induction of all Blocks of Thunder is by 2014-15



I beg to disagree. Unlike pakistan, India has AESA sources from which we can obtain the said systems if we want to. However, it has been decided that we would call for only the AESA modules and processing units and integrate the radar in India. RFI has already been sent out for the same. so unlike pakistan where all I hear is chinese developments, India has a clear road ahead wrt AESA depoyment.

wrt LCA, in a response at the parliament (Question Hour) it was stated that IOC is slated for next year. weapon intagration, live firing, high speed envelope, etc have been tested. Radar integration (MMR) is going on and AAM tests can be expected soon.
Work on the mk-II may take "x" number of years which I am not privy to. However I am certain of one thing. If it indeed takes 10+ years, IAF will go for 250+ MMRCA instead...all with AESA


----------



## Storm Force

Growler 

A word of caution RE LCA INDUCTION 

If the IAF don,t get LCA MK2 by 2015 LATEST complete as planned with both the euro jet engine and aesa radar THE INDIANS will simply double the MMRCA order. 

Which wud you prefer as a PAF fan boy

1. 126 mmrca & 150+ LCA 

OR 

250 MMRCA 

India does not have the cash constraints or LACK OF SELLERS for any MMRCA deal. 

Anything is possible be it F18SH Typhoon Rafael or PAK FA FGFA


----------



## 12345

By 2020-2025 IAF force structure will resemble more or less be like this

With 250 FGFA( as per deal 200 2 seaters and 50 singleseat) taking the primary air dominance role.
250 MCA multi role(more biased for deep strike role)
280 MKI multi role
200 MRCA multirole
200 LCA air defence(40 MKI,160 MKII)

This is after retiring all the current aircraft.Mare likely by 2025.
But if we take 2020,the numbers will include upgraded 29,Mirage,Jaguars

After this decade,IAF will be consolidating its numbers on both AMCA and FGFA and throwing numbers into UCAV`s

MKI,MRCA will be last foreign fighter to be inducted while LCA will be last 4th gen to be inducted into IAF.

Future of the force structure is around FGFA and AMCA.Since IN and RuN also proposed a 5th gen carrier aircraft.
And IN will make its final decision in 2014 (to choose either of FGFA/AMCA) only after MCA prototype flies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

DMLA said:


> I beg to disagree. *Unlike pakistan, India has AESA sources from which we can obtain the said systems if we want to. *However, it has been decided that we would call for only the AESA modules and processing units and integrate the radar in India. RFI has already been sent out for the same. so unlike pakistan where all *I hear is chinese developments*, India has a clear road ahead wrt AESA depoyment.



 ever heard of VIXEN offer from UK?French offers?
The chinese AESA is an option if its better and in time of the BlockII.




> wrt LCA, in a response at the parliament (Question Hour) it was stated that IOC is slated for next year. weapon intagration, live firing, high speed envelope, etc have been tested. *Radar integration (MMR) is going on and AAM tests can be expected soon*.


Please buddy any real confirmed news that its ready?*its still in testin*



> Work on the mk-II may take "x" number of years which I am not privy to. *However I am certain of one thing. If it indeed takes 10+ years, IAF will go for 250+ MMRCA instead...all with AESA *


Nice joke buddy.....acordin to ur govt LCA *will be *ur backbone till* 2020*.But ever wonder that even after decades ur LCA aint ready yet and will it be completely inducted till 2020??
About ur being certain of 250 Mrca buddy are u PM of india?
Try understandin this :
Your first MRCA jet may arrive till 2015?
2020 is deadline set by ur gov to completely induct LCA....If it fails? and it will 
It will take another 10 years to induct more mrcas and till then who knows what happens


----------



## DMLA

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> ever heard of VIXEN offer from UK?French offers?
> The chinese AESA is an option if its better and in time of the BlockII.
> 
> 
> 
> Please buddy any real confirmed news that its ready?*its still in testin*
> 
> 
> Nice joke buddy.....acordin to ur govt LCA *will be *ur backbone till* 2020*.But ever wonder that even after decades ur LCA aint ready yet and will it be completely inducted till 2020??
> About ur being certain of 250 Mrca buddy are u PM of india?
> Try understandin this :
> Your first MRCA jet may arrive till 2015?
> 2020 is deadline set by ur gov to completely induct LCA....If it fails? and it will
> It will take another 10 years to induct more mrcas and till then who knows what happens



Vixen???? Are you talking about captor? No I haven't heard of any offers from any of the sources you mentioned. The fact is those same countries are still not ready with an AESA on their own birds. And you are trying to tell me the road ahead for JF-17 is crystal clear? My contention was that options for LCA are well known unlike JF-17.

Dude do tell me what should we do if the LCA is not ready? sit on our ***** and wait till china bombs us? 

If LCA doesn't come through, we have MMRCA to FALL BACK ON. Even vendors in fray for MMRCA are betting on the order being expanded as was the case with some interviews during the recent Defexpo. So we do not need to PM to give you that answer 

Please understand that I am not saying the jf-17 will not get an AESA radar. I am saying I have absolutely no idea of any source at this stage!

Frankly I don't care to talk about LCA till the time it gets inducted. I have no idea about the mk-II but LCA in its present form includes 40 aircrafts. We should wait for 2-3 years to see the actual deployment of the said aircrafts and further developments!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Have fun live in fantasy land.I dont need to reply to some ego satisfing fanboy.


----------



## sab

LCA ka paida hone me der ho raha hai.

JF-17 paida jaldi hua but bahut sara operetion se guzaar na parega usko. EX- Heart (read engine as PAF is not happy with present Kemov engine); Eyes (read radar-they are searching for more capable radar); Brain (read -avionics to be sourced from UK or Italy changing the chinese avionics); skin (composite material to be used more ). Agar itana hi defect or inefficiency hai to jaldi paida honese faidaa kya????


----------



## xman

delete this thread!


----------



## sancho

Growler said:


> bullchit! provide me a credible source not a fanboy claim that IAF will have 150-200 LCAs by 2020? Infact only by 2024 will their be a LCA version ready with AESA radar etc for production while a 4.5 gen version of JF-17 will be operational.





Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Sorry to interupt the gravy train we didnt ask about indian plans?
> We already have an active sqadron and ur nowhere in even induction.Its so far for u guys to talk about AESA and stuff.Even different India sites talk about the proper induction of lca till 2020(back bone to be precise)Under these circumstances im not even sure if u induct them completely by 2025
> Till then we might be looking on something new.As the plan of induction of all Blocks of Thunder is by 2014-15



Sad, but I expected this! The only point you get from my post is LCA! 

However, I am not going to argue with you about LCA, or it's capabilites *in this thread*, there is a dedicated LCA news and discussion thread for this. I only pointed out that JF will offer the same techs, weapons and capabilities like the low end of IAF so is comparable to them and not to MKI.


----------



## Parashuram1

Haven't you discussed this topic to death? Warring of words between Indian, Pakistani and Chinese members and then the whole comparison of economy, military strength, infrastructure continues on the thread.

I think this thread should be closed. Apart from the obvious nonsensical content, this thread is so old that even a 4 year old could become a Su-30 MKI or JF-17 pilot after reading the entire thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

Guys plz this debate is so old.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gen x

both are toys when you compare with f22 

you can compare planes on sky


----------



## ptldM3

gen x said:


> both are toys when you compare with f22
> 
> you can compare planes on sky



Judging from your avitar you probably still play with toys  BTW thanks for your overwhelming technical knowledge


----------



## gen x

ptldM3 said:


> Judging from your avitar you probably still play with toys  BTW thanks for your overwhelming technical knowledge



well i know su30 is good plane and no doubt on it

but u know on this thread guys are fighting like kids that why i told

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

I think PAF FAN BOYS ARE HAPPY WITH their new Thunder.

I KNOW THE IAF FAN BOYS are very happy with SU30MKI

We are all happy now !!!!!!!!


----------



## gen x

thread should be closed 

any one wana to say anything


----------



## Tiger Awan

gen x said:


> thread should be closed
> 
> any one wana to say anything



So you have reached the conclusion. Better never open this thread again.

And this thread is about Su-30MKI and JF-17. Why you brought F-22 here?


----------



## ice_man

gen x said:


> thread should be closed
> 
> any one wana to say anything



YES who made you the MOD????


----------



## All-Green

I think the purpose of this thread is to explore how the PAF JF-17 would best counter the very genuine IAF Su-30 MKI threat...that is an interesting topic and worth discussing.

It is not about being better or worse individually, our discussion should be about tactics most likely to be used by both fighters and what can go wrong for them in an engagement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stealth

JF17 counter Su30 MKI

Requirement "Not possible"
Technically "Possible"


----------



## amalakas

well the JF-17 has about the capability of the first F-16s but is not as agile. 

However that makes little difference as the Su-30 is more manuevrable than both the JF17 and the first F16s . 

The su 30 has longer range radar and better weapons too..

I can imagine that the best way to deal with a better plane is tactics...
it is interesting to note the ussr manual on Mig 23 engaging F 16s and F15s 

although the Mig 23 was quite agile (not as much as the F16) and with good transonic and subsonic acceleration and spotted an IRST tracker the decision was made to use high speed dash tactics...
were the MiG23s would accelerate in high mach, then attempt to get a radar lock on or similar and fire missiles and then immediattely break off maintaining high speed to evade counter missile launches..
multiple attempts were thought to achieve some kills and disrupt the mission ..
I don't know more specifics...
I suppose the JF17 pilots could take advantage of numbers and terrain to ambush su 30s


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

PAF can Play Thunder vs Sukhoi game easily or can evaluate it,in Sino-Pak joint exercise or Pak-Iran joint exercise BUT there isnt any Chance within 10-20 years for India so they could check Thunder,until Pakistan export this aircraft to any other country and India jumps in there.that why it would take 10-15 years minimum.

i know some indian bro wont agree with my point and would reply that 
"WE REALLY DONT WANA CHECK THIS CRAP OUT"
so im posting this video very early in reply.CUZ INDIANS ARE REALLY WORRY..


----------



## Tiger Awan

amalakas said:


> The su 30 has longer range radar and better weapons too..



yup you are right. JF-17 must must cash RCS disadvantage of Su-30 MKI. Either through AWACS or through better radar. This can help it. Currently its radar has the range of 105 km for 5m^2 RCS. For 10.2 its detection range must be greater.


----------



## Yusuf

The best way to play a good fast bowler is from the non strikers end say even the best of batsmen. Trouble is how to get to the non strikers end? 
Awacs can help but I think india is getting that Awacs killer missile from russia. 

Hmmm pretty difficult for the thunder to get anywhere close to the MKI.


----------



## Tiger Awan

Yusuf said:


> *Awacs can help but I think india is getting that Awacs killer missile from russia. *
> 
> Hmmm pretty difficult for the thunder to get anywhere close to the MKI.



Thats what I want to say. Bigger RCS of MKI will allow AWACS to keep itself away from drama still paticipating in the drama. Cure of *AWACS killer *


----------



## amalakas

Would think that if the PAF has some (even limited) awacs capability , then the f17s can get the terrain advantage, hidding close to the mountains and dash upwards to launch ...

can't see other way against the su 30 at the moment...
its just too good all around...
perhaps if PAF had some used F 15s !!!!


----------



## Yusuf

I would see the primary role for the JF17 as a first strike platform on indian bases. Get it in numbers and drop the bombs pakistan has just got from the us and then scoot. How many would survive is anyone's guess. But I don't see another role apart from this and maybe defend vital areas like nuke sites.


----------



## faisalwali786

Current Block of JF 17 are most advanced in PAF Fleet i.e Blk 30/40 F- 16 included. Don't underestimate JF 17. I am sure the way project is going ; SU 30 MKI will face Block II of JF 17.

Love Pakistan more than myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Yusuf said:


> I would see the primary role for the JF17 as a first strike platform on indian bases. Get it in numbers and drop the bombs pakistan has just got from the us and then scoot. How many would survive is anyone's guess. But I don't see another role apart from this and maybe defend vital areas like nuke sites.



dude where on earth r u living man....
jf-17 can deliver stand-off weapons,jf17 will use RAAD(350km+ range,invisible in radar) for deep strikes and H-2/4 (60/120km range)
gliding bombs powered by rocket boaster initially.PLUS jf-17 can also deliver CHINESE made Stand-off weapon which consist on dump-bomb+gliding and navigation kits.

so wer u expecting that u will shoot the birds over ur airbases.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mjnaushad

danger-zone said:


> dude where r u living man....
> jf-17 can deliver stand-off weapons,jf17 will use RAAD(350km+ range,invisible in radar) for deep strikes and H-2/4 (60/120km range)
> gliding bombs powered by rocket boaster initially.PLUS jf-17 can also deliver CHINESE made Stand-off weapon which consist on dump-bomb+gliding and navigation kits.
> 
> so wer u expecting that u will shoot the birds over ur airbases.


Actually he is right. we'll be guarding nuke sites....but after capturing them from enemy....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yusuf

What else did I mean by use for first strike? I think you should read with a cool mind and then respond. I am aware of the SOWs that's why I told that. But you seem to be in a hurry to jump the gun.


----------



## yashraj

faisalwali786 said:


> Current Block of JF 17 are most advanced in PAF Fleet i.e Blk 30/40 F- 16 included. Don't underestimate JF 17. I am sure the way project is going ; SU 30 MKI will face Block II of JF 17.
> 
> Love Pakistan more than myself.



It's good that u love pakistan more then your self but...............

ya PAF fleet include blk 30/40 f-16 and move adavance f-196 in future but now IAF Fleet include Mig 29, Mirage -2000 and Jaguars and in future Upgraded Mi 29,Mirage 2000 and Jaguars with 126 F-18 or EURO FIGHTER........... With LCA Batch-2 , PAKFA and MCA...........


And ya about "Su-30mki will face Block II of JF 17" , India also upgrading Su 30Mki with "SMART SKIN" , HIGHER POWER ENGINES, AESA radar. 

So, BEST OF LUCK

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LCA Tejas

yashraj said:


> It's good that u love pakistan more then your self but...............
> 
> ya PAF fleet include blk 30/40 f-16 and move adavance f-196 in future but now IAF Fleet include Mig 29, Mirage -2000 and Jaguars and in future Upgraded Mi 29,Mirage 2000 and Jaguars with 126 F-18 or EURO FIGHTER........... With LCA Batch-2 , PAKFA and MCA...........
> 
> 
> And ya about "Su-30mki will face Block II of JF 17" , India also upgrading Su 30Mki with "SMART SKIN" , HIGHER POWER ENGINES, AESA radar.
> 
> So, BEST OF LUCK



No matter how much you explain, they are not gonna leave there stand....


----------



## SBD-3

Yusuf said:


> I would see the primary role for the JF17 as a first strike platform on indian bases. Get it in numbers and drop the bombs pakistan has just got from the us and then scoot. How many would survive is anyone's guess. But I don't see another role apart from this and maybe defend vital areas like nuke sites.



one sentence says it all....."Idiots are no distinctive species....they are human beings"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SBD-3

LCA Tejas said:


> No matter how much you explain, they are not gonna leave there stand....



hay you're not asking your trade mark question these days....is every think ok?....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LCA Tejas

hasnain0099 said:


> hay you're not asking your trade mark question these days....is every think ok?....



Yeah, too bad that mods warned me not to ask... I dont know why, but yeah, they warned me...


----------



## bc040400065

LCA Tejas said:


> No matter how much you explain, they are not gonna leave there stand....



because u indian are always trying to undermine pakistan , always waiting for the weak time and then u take advantage. in case of JF17 well why it cannot compete any indian plane just because they are in indian service... well for ur info mig29 and su27 have always failed in wars against f16 or f15.... but u start comparing u mid21 with f16 wow .... do remember iraq war,,, kosovo war . both the time the russian aircraft that india currently fly failed.... but u compare mig21 with f16 and jf17... wow.... ok i agree that SU30mki is a modren tech a/c but this does not mean the it is unbeatable.... as is the case with any fighter.... JF17 with SD10 or AAMRAM or MICA can beat even SU30mki..... the only thing required is open mind and accept reality.U may have a big airforce but this does not mean the others would sit and watch u destroy their homeland.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LCA Tejas

bc040400065 said:


> because u indian are always trying to undermine pakistan , always waiting for the weak time and then u take advantage. in case of JF17 well why it cannot compete any indian plane just because they are in indian service... well for ur info mig29 and su27 have always failed in wars against f16 or f15.... but u start comparing u mid21 with f16  wow .... do remember iraq war,,, kosovo war . both the time the russian aircraft that india currently fly failed.... but u compare mig21 with f16 and jf17... wow.... ok i agree that SU30mki is a modren tech a/c but this does not mean the it is unbeatable.... as is the case with any fighter.... JF17 with SD10 or AAMRAM or MICA can beat even SU30mki..... the only thing required is open mind and accept reality.U may have a big airforce but this does not mean the others would sit and watch u destroy their homeland.



Wow, There is a comparison of JF-17 and Sukhoi 30 mki going on, pakistanis say JF-17 is better.... but its a known fact that Sukhoi 30 MKI is obviously better than JF-17, so whats your problem in it??... is there something burning in you, or are you blind enough to accept your own facts???

Come on Mate, accept that JF-17 cannot even stand near Sukhoi 30 MKI... Sukh 30 MKI is an air dominance fighter, when compared to JF-17... You got any objections in that?


----------



## Yusuf

hasnain0099 said:


> one sentence says it all....."Idiots are no distinctive species....they are human beings"



Thanks for introducing yourself to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

yashraj said:


> It's good that u love pakistan more then your self but...............
> 
> ya PAF fleet include blk 30/40 f-16 and move adavance f-196 in future but now IAF Fleet include Mig 29, Mirage -2000 and Jaguars and in future Upgraded Mi 29,Mirage 2000 and Jaguars with 126 F-18 or EURO FIGHTER........... With LCA Batch-2 , PAKFA and MCA...........
> 
> 
> And ya about "Su-30mki will face Block II of JF 17" , India also upgrading Su 30Mki with "SMART SKIN" , HIGHER POWER ENGINES, AESA radar.
> 
> So, BEST OF LUCK



yes and after the smart skin the next thing SU-30 will get is laser beam technology! just like the star ship enterprise from star trek! 

while we pakistani will still be flying "MAN MADE" technological weapons!  (hope you see the sarcasim)


----------



## yashraj

Zob said:


> yes and after the smart skin the next thing SU-30 will get is laser beam technology! just like the star ship enterprise from star trek!
> 
> while we pakistani will still be flying "MAN MADE" technological weapons!  (hope you see the sarcasim)



Come on yaar !!!!!!!!!!! Don't cry

May be u don't understand the meaning of "Smart skin".
And ya about That "LASER" thingi....... India is working on it under "Anti balastic missile" Prog. u will see it in 10 years from now(But it's going to be ground base)............

And ya Pakistan will use "MAN MADE( Made in china)" Equipments even after we get """"laser beam technology! just like the star ship enterprise from star trek"""

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

bc040400065 said:


> because u indian are always trying to undermine pakistan , always waiting for the weak time and then u take advantage. in case of JF17 well why it cannot compete any indian plane just because they are in indian service... well for ur info mig29 and *su27 have always failed in wars against f16 or f15*.... but u start comparing u mid21 with f16 wow .... do remember iraq war,,, kosovo war . both the time the russian aircraft that india currently fly failed.... but u compare mig21 with f16 and jf17... wow.... ok i agree that SU30mki is a modren tech a/c but this does not mean the it is unbeatable.... as is the case with any fighter.... JF17 with SD10 or AAMRAM or MICA can beat even SU30mki..... the only thing required is open mind and accept reality.U may have a big airforce but this does not mean the others would sit and watch u destroy their homeland.



The SU-27 has never faced any US fighters...genious  

Do you think the combat record of the Mig-29 or any other Russian fighters had something to do with having dowgraded and outdated avionics, being in disrepair to the point of not having functioning radars, not having awacs support, and being flown by some of the worst pilots on earth???

BTW Pakistani pilots flying Mig-21's didn't seem to have any problems shooting down Israels.....anything you want to add 

Read this please: Russian Aces of the Korean War - MiG-15 Pilots versus USAF F-86s

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HarshKalra

yes true and by that time even the first upgrade on the MKI will be over which have the new AESA radars and the new classified bars.
By the the J-10 n the JF-17 dont hav TVC and the J-10 may hav it in future.

link -> militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?160592-Developing-the-Smart-Skin-concept-for-Su-30MKI]Developing the Smart Skin concept for Su-30MKI

And by the way i read in a previous post the MKI has 2D TVC...in fact it has a 3D TVC...the Raptor has a 2D TVC...

here is a link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring]Thrust vectoring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read it...


----------



## Haanzo

^^^ dude you are wrong on two counts 
1 the mki mlu wont have the AESA RADAR straight away .... its getting an upgraded antenna and maybe the additional 40 get the AESA

2 mki has 2D TVC no operational jet in the world currently has 3D TVC 

3 stop trusting wikipedia .... unless you re 13 ...no offense


----------



## hataf

what is the rcs of jf-17
what is the radar lock range of su30mki agains rcs like jf-17

paf making changes to make it stealthy
lets say if it gets about 50 to 60% stealthy what is it right now
will it effect the radar lock range


----------



## illuminatidinesh

> what is the rcs of jf-17
> what is the radar lock range of su30mki agains rcs like jf-17
> 
> paf making changes to make it stealthy
> lets say if it gets about 50 to 60&#37; stealthy what is it right now
> will it effect the radar lock range
> /QUOTE]
> What r those changes??????????
> Reducing RCS?,Composites?RAM coating?
> Link please.
> Dude please dont talk about the things which u dont have no idea........


----------



## thunder rules

well their is no denying that jf 17 needs to be far more mature in order to be at par with indian su30mki , but of course su30 is 3 times expensive then jf 17 so this difference is understandable , currently jf 17 is a very good platform to counter mig 29 and mirage 2000.


----------



## jagjitnatt

hataf said:


> what is the rcs of jf-17
> what is the radar lock range of su30mki agains rcs like jf-17
> 
> paf making changes to make it stealthy
> lets say if it gets about 50 to 60% stealthy what is it right now
> will it effect the radar lock range



JF-17's rcs is unknown. F16 C/D(newer F16 with reduced rcs) has an rcs of 1.2 m2.

So I expect JF-17's rcs to be around 1.5 m2 at least.



According to this image from an analysis of various radars, MKI should be able to get a lock on at a range of 80NMI ie *148 km*.

That is a LOT.

Even if PAF is able to reduce its rcs to 0.5 (highly highly unlikely), even then MKI would be able to detect it at a range of *104* km.

Its overkill. Even if JF-17 detects MKI, it won't be able to shoot it down first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

A quick question to the air combat enthusiasts.. Will it matter when does Su 30's radar will aquire JF 17. Isnt it possible for the 17 to be aquired by the AWACS (150 KM inside Indian territory) and be shot down by a missile from an SU 30 without SU even having to actively track and lock the 17???


----------



## duhastmish

JF -17 RCS IS AROUND 3.5 SQUARE METER. 

and i dont know how they can pull it half of it .its so low because - its size is tiny


----------



## pandamonkey

the jf-17 was never meant to face the mki. that fight would be like a feather weight fighter (120-125 pound) against a heavy weight (250-300 pound).
I think the J-10b is suppose to face a mki.


----------



## duhastmish

not even j-10 b 

pakistan will send its best against india's best - their best is f-16 block 52.

j-10 is nowhere close to f-16 block 52 nomatter what jingoistic claim are made by memebers here.

f-16 vs su mk1 will be one good fight.


----------



## TaimiKhan

duhastmish said:


> JF -17 RCS IS AROUND 3.5 SQUARE METER.
> 
> and i dont know how they can pull it half of it .its so low because - its size is tiny



Plz provide the link to your source of saying JF-17s RCS is 3.5m2 ??


----------



## TaimiKhan

duhastmish said:


> not even j-10 b
> 
> pakistan will send its best against india's best - their best is f-16 block 52.
> 
> j-10 is nowhere close to f-16 block 52 nomatter what jingoistic claim are made by memebers here.
> 
> f-16 vs su mk1 will be one good fight.



Another jingoistic claim being made  what's the difference left.


----------



## duhastmish

TaimiKhan said:


> Another jingoistic claim being made  what's the difference left.



hiya tiami bro. 

i am saying f-16 is top of the line fighter for paksitan. 
and will remain so - reason being its superior avionics ,

and reliability. its been with paf for long time and PAF has biggest hand behind the sucess of f-16 .

and when it come to india - india has su-30 mki as top fighter , i bet against india's best paksitan would like send its best. 

and f-16 will give a good run to su-30.

-as for rcs about some time ago - in PDF only it was discussed - in these vs thread - and i will search and find it. it was told to be around 3. something . and then it was told by some senior memeber who know what he utters. i wil lfind it too. 

cheers.


----------



## pandamonkey

now that I thin about it, I think duastmish is right. More likely than not if a fight ever happens it will probaly be f-16 block 52 vs mki. I don't even know what techonologies the j-10b has, the only information we know about it are just interent rumors. The chinese haven't relased any information about it.

And will Pakistan be getting the j-10b??????? how do we know its not the 
j-10a


----------



## faisalwali786

Well the day SU 30 MKI will be planing attack , it will be detected much before by Pakistani AWACS ; rest will be a fight no matter whatever technology will be there. Todays war is a complex game. Only the best of mind will win.


----------



## peace prophet

> Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight



IMHO, Its like King-Cobra fighting an earth-worm. 

(SU30 being the cobra ofcourse )


----------



## notorious_eagle

karan.1970 said:


> A quick question to the air combat enthusiasts.. Will it matter when does Su 30's radar will aquire JF 17.


 
Yes it will, whoever detects first can get into position and start laying traps for the opposing aircraft. In my opinion both aircrafts will detect each other at roughly the same time, MKI's huge RCS with those giant engines will be hard to miss especially since AWACS have been introduced to the subcontinent. 



karan.1970 said:


> Isnt it possible for the 17 to be aquired by the AWACS (150 KM inside Indian territory) and be shot down by a missile from an SU 30 without SU even having to actively track and lock the 17???



Which missile does India has in its inventory that can fire 150 km? The MKI can definitely fire its BVRAAM and let the AWAC guide it into the opposing aircraft. In modern day warfare, i am willing to bet that the pilot of MKI will never fire his missiles at maximum range. If he fires his missile at maximum range the pilot for JF17 will have plenty of time to perform maneuvers to subdue missiles fired at him, besides by the time the missile reaches the opposing target it will likely be out of fuel. The pilot for JF17 will be aware of the MKI's presence and is unlikely to be caught off guard. More realistically the pilot for MKI will fire his missiles at a range of 60-70km, the exact range where the JF17 pilot will unleash his load. So, introducing the AWACS in subcontinent doesent look a good idea now does it

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jagjitnatt

faisalwali786 said:


> Well the day SU 30 MKI will be planing attack , it will be detected much before by Pakistani AWACS ; rest will be a fight no matter whatever technology will be there. Todays war is a complex game. Only the best of mind will win.



AWACS would play an important role but it would only offer detection features. I highly doubt it can provide serious guidance to *medium range* air to air missiles.

In order to fire a missile the fighter has to be in 50-60 km range when head to head. There would be no advantage of guiding it through AWACS when the fighter can itself guide it at that range.

AWACS would come in handy in case of missile with range of more than 100 km, which PAF doesn't possess.

ALSO even if Erieye detects MKI at 200 km distance, it would need to send in fighters to take them out. And to take them out, PAF needs to fire missiles from fighters only. So anyways the fighter has to get in the range of the MKI.

So AWACS = detection
Fighters = do the real job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notorious_eagle

peace prophet said:


> IMHO, Its like King-Cobra fighting an earth-worm.
> 
> (SU30 being the cobra ofcourse )



Off course, after all SU30MKI is God's Gift to Aviation designed by God himself. It has a built in switch inside that automatically destroys the enemy's aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## peace prophet

notorious_eagle said:


> Off course, after all SU30MKI is God's Gift to Aviation designed by God himself. It has a built in switch inside that automatically destroys the enemy's aircraft



Compare the specs for yourself.

Only J-10 can be comparable to Tejas MK2, forget alone j17.

Most importantly it is not chinese viz, raste ka maal saste me.


----------



## TaimiKhan

peace prophet said:


> Compare the specs for yourself.
> 
> Only J-10 can be comparable to Tejas MK2, forget alone j17.
> 
> Most importantly it is not chinese viz, raste ka maal saste me.



First atleast get MK1 into service, then plzz talk about MK2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## peace prophet

TaimiKhan said:


> *First atleast get MK1 into service*, then plzz talk about MK2.



You are talking as if it will never get into service.

http://www.indian-military.org/news-archives/indian-air-force-news/534-induction-of-lca-tejas-into-iaf.html


----------



## duhastmish

threads - regarding -----tejas vs jf-17 and j10 already exist in n numbers. lets forget that vs issue.

awacs will matter alot in next battle , but then india also have some good awacs .

but here this more of some kid's fantasy thread - so lets nagotiate that awac factor may be. because as much i think therei s never goign to be full force PAF vs IAF war.


----------



## TaimiKhan

duhastmish said:


> hiya tiami bro.
> 
> i am saying f-16 is top of the line fighter for paksitan.
> and will remain so - reason being its superior avionics ,
> 
> and reliability. its been with paf for long time and PAF has biggest hand behind the sucess of f-16 .
> 
> and when it come to india - india has su-30 mki as top fighter , i bet against india's best paksitan would like send its best.
> 
> and f-16 will give a good run to su-30.
> 
> -as for rcs about some time ago - in PDF only it was discussed - in these vs thread - and i will search and find it. it was told to be around 3. something . and then it was told by some senior memeber who know what he utters. i wil lfind it too.
> 
> cheers.



Yes F-16s would be the one who would be engaging the MKIs. But kindly don't under estimate the FC-20s. They would be no less to F-16s in engine thrust, range, weapon carrying capacity and its dog fighting capabilities are good enough.

So now the game comes to avionics, well the current JF-17 radar is better then the current PAF F-16s APG-66 ones. 

FC-20 is a much larger plane, with a much bigger nose thus can accommodate a much larger radar system. 

Well if you guys wanna underestimate the Chinese toys, well then i can't say anything to that, but personally gone are the days when Chinese weapon systems were of no worth, in last one decade they have gone ahead and with these same weapons they are gonna fight their enemy. Do remember against these same Chinese toys, India is fielding their best MKIs. So if IAF is not taking these Chinese toys lightly, so shouldn't you guys. 

And 50-60 Blk 52s are not gonna contain the 250 or so MKIs, thus FC-20s are gonna supplement the Blk 52s in containing the mighty MKIs. In underestimating FC-20s by the enemy lies PAF success, the same way people underestimate the JF-17s. 

And as for RCS, well there is no official figure, nor we can guess as no one knows about JF-17 fully. It is smaller in size and shape compared to F-16s, and has DSI intakes which give it further reduction in its RCS. 

If MKIs have a 5m2 RCS, then saying JF-17 has 3.5m2 would be unjustified, as JF-17 is much smaller compared to MKIs. 

Plus, FC-20s are yet 4-5 years away, so there is much room for improvement and make it capable enough to take on a MKI. 

So lets wait and let the final product come in.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaimiKhan

peace prophet said:


> You are talking as if it will never get into service.
> 
> Induction of LCA Tejas into IAF



I did not said its not gonna enter the service, i said first get the Mk1 series into service, then talk about the Mk2 series.

And do read more about LCA, its more into the JF-17 class compared to J-10 class.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## duhastmish

TaimiKhan said:


> Yes F-16s would be the one who would be engaging the MKIs. But kindly don't under estimate the FC-20s. They would be no less to F-16s in engine thrust, range, weapon carrying capacity and its dog fighting capabilities are good enough.
> 
> So now the game comes to avionics, well the current JF-17 radar is better then the current PAF F-16s APG-66 ones.
> 
> FC-20 is a much larger plane, with a much bigger nose thus can accommodate a much larger radar system.
> 
> Well if you guys wanna underestimate the Chinese toys, well then i can't say anything to that, but personally gone are the days when Chinese weapon systems were of no worth, in last one decade they have gone ahead and with these same weapons they are gonna fight their enemy. Do remember against these same Chinese toys, India is fielding their best MKIs. So if IAF is not taking these Chinese toys lightly, so shouldn't you guys.
> 
> And 50-60 Blk 52s are not gonna contain the 250 or so MKIs, thus FC-20s are gonna supplement the Blk 52s in containing the mighty MKIs. In underestimating FC-20s by the enemy lies PAF success, the same way people underestimate the JF-17s.
> 
> And as for RCS, well there is no official figure, nor we can guess as no one knows about JF-17 fully. It is smaller in size and shape compared to F-16s, and has DSI intakes which give it further reduction in its RCS.
> 
> If MKIs have a 5m2 RCS, then saying JF-17 has 3.5m2 would be unjustified, as JF-17 is much smaller compared to MKIs.
> 
> Plus, FC-20s are yet 4-5 years away, so there is much room for improvement and make it capable enough to take on a MKI.
> 
> So lets wait and let the final product come in.



i would not even go and state anything substantial about fc-20, lets wait and let them be out, who knows by the time pakistan gets its fc-20 , they might be alreayd making a deal for j-xx or j-14 or stealth bomber who knows. 
but those are all speculation , fc-20 has a good airframe.

but still i think that chinese avionics can not match western in next 8-10 years. 
f-16 is well established platform with a very good avionics, and yes the newly bought f-16 , i think they have a better radar system, than anyhting jf-17 can offer in near future. 

it will be even childish to compare jf-17 with beauty f-16.

lets not create hype around jf-17 like most indian create around su-30 mki , calling it right next to f-22.


----------



## notorious_eagle

duhastmish said:


> i would not even go and state anything substantial about fc-20, lets wait and let them be out, who knows by the time pakistan gets its fc-20 , they might be alreayd making a deal for j-xx or j-14 or stealth bomber who knows.
> but those are all speculation , fc-20 has a good airframe.
> 
> but still i think that chinese avionics can not match western in next 8-10 years.
> f-16 is well established platform with a very good avionics, and yes the newly bought f-16 , i think they have a better radar system, than anyhting jf-17 can offer in near future.
> 
> *it will be even childish to compare jf-17 with beauty f-16.
> 
> lets not create hype around jf-17 like most indian create around su-30 mki , calling it right next to f-22*.



Nodoubt the F16 is a proven platform, this plane has been loved and adored by PAF pilots since the day it was inducted. Now that being said, it is a fact that JF17 is a better aircraft than our Block 15's. I am not saying this, the pilots flying JF17's and F16's are saying this.

The reason for that being is because JF17 has better avionics, radar and EW capabilites. In mock A2A engagements, our JF17's have constantly nailed our F16's. They were put through the grind in A2A and A2G operations during High Mark excercises, they performed exceptionally well. Now coming to the topic of dogfighting; JF17's are more maneuverable but the F16 are more agile. Out of the entire F16 series, Block 15's are the most maneuverable lot. Nobody here is cooking up stories about the capabilites of JF17, but it certinely has exceeded our expectations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hataf

pandamonkey said:


> now that I thin about it, I think duastmish is right. More likely than not if a fight ever happens it will probaly be f-16 block 52 vs mki. I don't even know what techonologies the j-10b has, the only information we know about it are just interent rumors. The chinese haven't relased any information about it.
> 
> And will Pakistan be getting the j-10b??????? how do we know its not the
> j-10a



if we are acquiring it in 2014 or 2015

than its definately j-10 b


----------



## karan.1970

notorious_eagle said:


> Yes it will, whoever detects first can get into position and start laying traps for the opposing aircraft. In my opinion both aircrafts will detect each other at roughly the same time, MKI's huge RCS with those giant engines will be hard to miss especially since AWACS have been introduced to the subcontinent.
> 
> 
> 
> Which missile does India has in its inventory that can fire 150 km? The MKI can definitely fire its BVRAAM and let the AWAC guide it into the opposing aircraft. In modern day warfare, i am willing to bet that the pilot of MKI will never fire his missiles at maximum range. If he fires his missile at maximum range the pilot for JF17 will have plenty of time to perform maneuvers to subdue missiles fired at him, besides by the time the missile reaches the opposing target it will likely be out of fuel. The pilot for JF17 will be aware of the MKI's presence and is unlikely to be caught off guard. More realistically the pilot for MKI will fire his missiles at a range of 60-70km, the exact range where the JF17 pilot will unleash his load. So, introducing the AWACS in subcontinent doesent look a good idea now does it



So let me try to rephrase the question, since I think I was not clear the 1st time.

What I wanted to know is if the following is a viable scenario

A phalcon 150 Km inside Indian territory is able to paint a 17 upto 200-250 km inside Pakistan territory. So a JF 17 about 100 km inside Pakistan air space gets painted by the Phalcon and a SU 30 from about 80-90 KM away from 17 lets loose a BVRAAM and turns back well before JF 17 can lock on to it and lets the phalcon guide the BVRAAM in..


----------



## thunder rules

thunder is being improved with enthusiasm and will be the back bone of paf and surly the future variants of thunder will be far more lethal then todays version just little western support is required , its just 2 years for thunder to get in air and its performing so well and we are comparing it with 15 years old developed sukhoi mki , that is not fair for thunder its just a beginning and it has a long way to. and those who are underestimating jf 17 are the biggest ignorants on earth and they should get a life..! when jf 17 can be so much a mature fighter combat 7 years after first prototype flew in 2003 then their is no denying that jf 17 will be the one of the best in paf inventory.!


----------



## Storm Force

Thunder is New only in Age 

Its Technology is THE PROBLEM. 

Its has no composites in its design ie Gripen Rafael Typhoon & LCA tejas. Its built using far cheaper older material ie metal alloys.. These are weaker require more bolts and are heavier in weight. 

It carries a old styl;e mechanical scanning radar MSA rather than phased aray radars like SU30 MKI or AESA LIKE apg79/81 ETC. 

The engine is single engined and will lack brute power speed and range of twin engined fighters. 

Engine design itself lack things that make the difference in air combat like TVC as per F22 & SU30MKI. 

Thunder is NEW thats true BUT IN ORDER to keep the plane very low in cost ie under $15m each compared to all other fighters be it F16/52/SU30MKI/ GRIPEN TYPHOON costing upwards of $50m each they have have cut the modern hitech parts that could make the Thunder better. 

Stil its here and ready far better than the LCA frm India


----------



## thunder rules

Storm Force said:


> Thunder is New only in Age
> 
> Its Technology is THE PROBLEM.



with the passage of time it should get mature as paf will get expertise in this regard as far as technology is concern pakistan is operating china for quite some time now and hence satisfied but western technology is also desirable to paf that is the reason they are doing efforts to acquire western assistance which would enhance the capabilities of jf 17 to a great extent.


----------



## aimarraul

karan.1970 said:


> What I wanted to know is if the following is a viable scenario
> 
> A phalcon 150 Km inside Indian territory is able to paint a 17 upto 200-250 km inside Pakistan territory. So a JF 17 about 100 km inside Pakistan air space gets painted by the Phalcon and a SU 30 from about 80-90 KM away from 17 lets loose a BVRAAM and turns back well before JF 17 can lock on to it and lets the phalcon guide the BVRAAM in..



unless SU-30 and phalcon only plan to shoot from india's territory and expect other side also play in your way ,your scenario is so childish in the real war &#65292;once your jets cross the border,they are not just facing your opponent's fighters and awacs but a entire air defense system,your jets probably don't even have a chance to reach their destination or go back to the base&#65292; BVRAAM is already widely used in most 3th gen jets.take china as example ,with the help from KJ-200,even china's J-8F can dig the best potential of our SD-10A.and PAF is not only have this same capability ,they jets can also fit with U.S missile,it's common consensus that U.S missile have better accuracy than russia's


----------



## Dark Angel

aimarraul said:


> unless SU-30 and phalcon only plan to shoot from india's territory and expect other side also play in your way ,your scenario is so childish in the real war &#65292;once your jets cross the border,they are not just facing your opponent's fighters and awacs but a entire air defense system,your jets probably don't even have a chance to reach their destination or go back to the base&#65292; BVRAAM is already widely used in most 3th gen jets.take china as example ,with the help from KJ-200,even china's J-8F can dig the best potential of our SD-10A.and PAF is not only have this same capability ,they jets can also fit with U.S missile,it's common consensus that U.S missile have better accuracy than russia's




Wooo man where did that come from


----------



## JonAsad

jagjitnatt said:


> JF-17's rcs is unknown. F16 C/D(newer F16 with reduced rcs) has an rcs of 1.2 m2.
> 
> So I expect JF-17's rcs to be around 1.5 m2 at least.
> 
> 
> 
> According to this image from an analysis of various radars, MKI should be able to get a lock on at a range of 80NMI ie *148 km*.
> 
> That is a LOT.
> 
> Even if PAF is able to reduce its rcs to 0.5 (highly highly unlikely), even then MKI would be able to detect it at a range of *104* km.
> 
> Its overkill. Even if JF-17 detects MKI, it won't be able to shoot it down first.




i dont think it is wise to fire a missile from maximum range u have to come close to give the missile a chance specially if the target is manuvering or taking evasive actions other wise the missile will run out of fuel.. R 27P or R77 has effective max range of almost 120 km where are u getting these extra 28 km ?? 

Detection is not an advantage any more AWACs are in the town ..the point is if u can hit the enemy wthout being hit either by air or ground missiles.. which i think in this modern era is impossible, unless u are somewhere alone with just su30 mki and jf-17 engaging i agree here its an advantage.


----------



## aimarraul

Dark Angel said:


> Wooo man where did that come from



have you ever heard the "two jets and 9 missing missiles" story.i don't know how good their own missiles though


----------



## JonAsad

yashraj said:


> Come on yaar !!!!!!!!!!! Don't cry
> 
> May be u don't understand the meaning of "Smart skin".
> And ya about That "LASER" thingi....... India is working on it under "Anti balastic missile" Prog. u will see it in 10 years from now(But it's going to be ground base)............
> 
> *And ya Pakistan will use "MAN MADE( Made in china)" Equipments even after we get """"laser beam technology! just like the star ship enterprise from star trek*"""



yashraj uhv lost it man.. next thing u gona claim is that u r an alien sent to earth in the ****in star ship enterprise with laser beam technology to log into PDF and make stupid comments on the thread neamely Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight


----------



## jagjitnatt

jonasad said:


> i dont think it is wise to fire a missile from maximum range u have to come close to give the missile a chance specially if the target is manuvering or taking evasive actions other wise the missile will run out of fuel.. R 27P or R77 has effective max range of almost 120 km where are u getting these extra 28 km ??
> 
> Detection is not an advantage any more AWACs are in the town ..the point is if u can hit the enemy wthout being hit either by air or ground missiles.. which i think in this modern era is impossible, unless u are somewhere alone with just su30 mki and jf-17 engaging i agree here its an advantage.


all is fine but I guess both Indians and Pakistanis are on cloud 9 with respect to their AWACS.

I guess we need a reality check.

No of AWACS aircraft - 2.

Now how are these aircraft gonna be available everywhere??
Assume Erieye is at Karachi and Lahore, and IAF strikes in Gilgit, what would you do?? Surprise element can be a problem too. Also the endurance of the aircraft matters. And the aircraft needs to be refueled too. Not all of the AWACS can be in air. 

Also these are expensive toys and they won't be used for little skirmishes. And there always is a risk of losing the aircraft.

Throughout the discussion AWACS is being boasted but nowhere does one take into account that they can be shot down using long range missiles and IAF has one - Novator.

Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if AWACS is shot using a Air- Surface missile while its on ground??

Not just a missile, various tricks can be played to down an AWACS too. 

Russia is working on S-500 SAMs with range of 500km. India would definitely be interested in those. What happens in case of those??

To achieve 100&#37; availability of AWACS, PAF needs at least 10-12 aircraft, which it is lacking right now.

So before 2030, the detection range of combat aircraft are very important. Lets not glorify our AWACS too much and face the reality before its too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thunder rules

pakistan will going to have around 6-8 awacs i blv, 4 from china and 4 from Sweden


----------



## DeathGod

thunder rules said:


> pakistan will going to have around 6-8 awacs i blv, 4 from china and 4 from Sweden



Source?

I dont understand why we are debating/comparing two fighters of entirely different class. For god's sake JF-17 doesnt even have a decent radar . JF-17 is at max equivalent to Mig-21 bison of IAF . 

If I compare JF-17 with Mig-21 bison then Mig-21 will win as far as BVR goes. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage on lower levels of cieling. Mig-21 excels as the altitude gets higher and higher. 

Also the SAM's wont allow JF-17/F-16 to operate in ranges where they are in their element.

The truth is PAF is definitely facing a big problem. With so many aircrafts to be retired, no real experience in using BVR and lack of funds PAF is looking at the wrong end of the barrel. It will have to come up with a surprising and maybe bold strategy to counter IAF. ( including Grippen NS and maybe some acquisition of JSF may try and retain some sembalance to PAF)


----------



## thunder rules

DeathGod said:


> Source?
> 
> I dont understand why we are debating/comparing two fighters of entirely different class. For god's sake JF-17 doesnt even have a decent radar . JF-17 is at max equivalent to Mig-21 bison of IAF .
> 
> If I compare JF-17 with Mig-21 bison then Mig-21 will win as far as BVR goes. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage on lower levels of cieling. Mig-21 excels as the altitude gets higher and higher.



read my earlier post i have said jf 17 need to get far mature in order to catch sukhoi 30mki, and its obvious sukhoi is a developed aircraft and jf 17 thunder is still being undergoing test and evaluation phases in china but yet its performing good. and currect specification of thunder is of course inferior to sukhoi but paf is trying its level best to improve , thunder its just a 7 year old baby, give it some time to mature . current chinies avionics are good but once its integrated with western avionics it will be lethal machine , just just some thing like when u sukhoi was in its early stages it was not as lethal what its today , same goes for thunder, have patience for 3-4 years . 

abt awacs comon dude every knows that paf has a plane to obtain 8 awacs , u can even search abt it u will easily find info regarding it.!


----------



## aks

jagjitnatt said:


> all is fine but I guess both Indians and Pakistanis are on cloud 9 with respect to their AWACS.
> 
> I guess we need a reality check.
> 
> No of AWACS aircraft - 2.
> 
> Now how are these aircraft gonna be available everywhere??
> Assume Erieye is at Karachi and Lahore, and IAF strikes in Gilgit, what would you do?? Surprise element can be a problem too. Also the endurance of the aircraft matters. And the aircraft needs to be refueled too. Not all of the AWACS can be in air.
> 
> Also these are expensive toys and they won't be used for little skirmishes. And there always is a risk of losing the aircraft.
> 
> Throughout the discussion AWACS is being boasted but nowhere does one take into account that they can be shot down using long range missiles and IAF has one - Novator.
> 
> Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> What if AWACS is shot using a Air- Surface missile while its on ground??
> 
> Not just a missile, various tricks can be played to down an AWACS too.
> 
> *Russia is working on S-500 SAMs with range of 500km. India would definitely be interested in those. What happens in case of those??
> *
> To achieve 100% availability of AWACS, PAF needs at least 10-12 aircraft, which it is lacking right now.
> 
> So before 2030, the detection range of combat aircraft are very important. Lets not glorify our AWACS too much and face the reality before its too late.




u wana say only russians are working n chinese are just sitting n resting lol  and about number of awacs we will have more awacs in future than india INSHALLAH


----------



## aks

DeathGod said:


> Source?
> 
> I dont understand why we are debating/comparing two fighters of entirely different class. For god's sake JF-17 doesnt even have a decent radar . JF-17 is at max equivalent to Mig-21 bison of IAF .
> 
> If I compare JF-17 with Mig-21 bison then Mig-21 will win as far as BVR goes. JF-17 will definitely have an advantage on lower levels of cieling. Mig-21 excels as the altitude gets higher and higher.
> 
> Also the SAM's wont allow JF-17/F-16 to operate in ranges where they are in their element.
> 
> The truth is PAF is definitely facing a big problem. With so many aircrafts to be retired, no real experience in using BVR and lack of funds PAF is looking at the wrong end of the barrel. It will have to come up with a surprising and maybe bold strategy to counter IAF. ( including Grippen NS and maybe some acquisition of JSF may try and retain some sembalance to PAF)



yeah pakistan is having really big problem lol paf is just sitting n watching india  they dont have any plan to counter slumyz   sources are in awacs thread go search them


----------



## Gene

aks said:


> u wana say only russians are working n chinese are just sitting n resting lol  and about number of awacs we will have more awacs in future than india INSHALLAH



You said that Pakistan will have more AEW&CS than India in future

1- india has ordered 3 Phalcon AEW&C radar systems in March 2004 (2 already arrived, one awaiting).
2- IAF negotiating for another 3 Phalcon AEW&C radar.
3- DRDO is developing its own AEW&C radar system based on Embraer ERJ 145 jet.( 3 Embraer ERJ 145 jets procured for $ 300 million, The aim is to deploy these 3 AEW & C aircraft by 2013,which will have extended AESA arrays for better range.
4- IAF could procure as much as another 6 DRDO AEW&C radar systems, which will back up the 6 Phalcon AEW&C

So, total could be ( 3 Phalcon AEW&C radar+3 planned+3 DRDO awacs planned for deployment in 2013+6 future plan ) = 15 to induct before 2020.


----------



## Gene

DRDO_AWACS


----------



## SHAMK9

to be honest su 30 r better than jf 17

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thunder rules

Gene said:


> You said that Pakistan will have more AEW&CS than India in future
> 
> 1- india has ordered 3 Phalcon AEW&C radar systems in March 2004 (2 already arrived, one awaiting).
> p:



dont get so delighted no one knows future and u are talking abt 2020 lol its too far away by going ur logic paf also have number of strategic plans to get fulfilled by 2020 . grow up dude speak little sense drod is inexperience in this field it will at least take 10 -12 years by now to prepare a good awacs for iaf , take an example of tejas which is far from induction so b4 doing blabbing have some reality check.

and for ur kind info paf will get its remaining 3 awacs by the end of 2010 and chines awacs by 2012-13.!


----------



## Storm Force

I would say using Americam Fighters as an example

Comparing SU30MKI v JF17 Thunder is like comparing 

* F16 Block40 *with apg63 Radar & Amraam c5 AGAINST the twin engined *F18 Super Hornet* with smart electronics APG79 Aesa radar and brute power difference of engines range and weapons.. 

If anthing the engine gap is even bigger with Mki because of the TVC engine performance and AOA.. (angle of attack) options. 

Just having BVR is far too simplistic. 

Even 2ND GENERATION MIG21 bisons have BVR missles.


----------



## jagjitnatt

jagjitnatt said:


> all is fine but I guess both Indians and Pakistanis are on cloud 9 with respect to their AWACS.
> 
> I guess we need a reality check.
> 
> No of AWACS aircraft - 2.
> 
> Now how are these aircraft gonna be available everywhere??
> Assume Erieye is at Karachi and Lahore, and IAF strikes in Gilgit, what would you do?? Surprise element can be a problem too. Also the endurance of the aircraft matters. And the aircraft needs to be refueled too. Not all of the AWACS can be in air.
> 
> Also these are expensive toys and they won't be used for little skirmishes. And there always is a risk of losing the aircraft.
> 
> Throughout the discussion AWACS is being boasted but nowhere does one take into account that they can be shot down using long range missiles and IAF has one - Novator.
> 
> Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> What if AWACS is shot using a Air- Surface missile while its on ground??
> 
> Not just a missile, various tricks can be played to down an AWACS too.
> 
> Russia is working on S-500 SAMs with range of 500km. India would definitely be interested in those. What happens in case of those??
> 
> To achieve 100&#37; availability of AWACS, PAF needs at least 10-12 aircraft, which it is lacking right now.
> 
> So before 2030, the detection range of combat aircraft are very important. Lets not glorify our AWACS too much and face the reality before its too late.


I wasted 15 minutes of my life trying to explain why AWACS is not the game changer today and still we have kids and fanboys telling me how they'll have more number of AWACS than each other. 
Grow up.


----------



## jagjitnatt

aks said:


> u wana say only russians are working n chinese are just sitting n resting lol  and about number of awacs we will have more awacs in future than india INSHALLAH



currently chinese use russian systems, so creating something better than russians in near term is daydreaming.

Every chinese system and equipment is based on Russian design or bought from Russia/USSR.

China isn't the top dog no matter how much you'd want to believe so.

And about the more AWACS thing, even day dreaming isn't so optimistic.


----------



## SekrutYakhni

*I am not a military expert though I think *
Suzuki Mehran cannot compete Honda Civic. 

Current JF 17 cannot compete SU30.


----------



## hataf

saad445566 said:


> Suzuki Mehran cannot compete Honda Civic.
> 
> JF 17 cannot compete SU30.
> 
> *This thread was not needed at all. *



lats say if we have this in Suzuki Mehran
turbocharger
intercooler
nitrus
direct port nitrus
ecu(electrinic control unit) for timed fule injuction & ignition

think than


----------



## Avatar

hataf said:


> lats say if we have this in Suzuki Mehran
> turbocharger
> intercooler
> nitrus
> direct port nitrus
> ecu(electrinic control unit) for timed fule injuction & ignition
> 
> think than



Good job.

Now put those same upgrades of superior quality on the Honda Civic, and then *think*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avatar

This thread is pointless. 

The only purpose of it's creation is self satisfaction and self deception. 

It is an openly known fact that J-10 (which is superior to JF-17) is inferior or as good as the latest F-16s. The US pilot who criticized the IAF also admitted that the Su-30MKI is *marginally better * than the newest F-15s ..but nowhere near the F-22. 

Hence it is proven that JF-17 is nowhere near MKI, let alone J-10. 

F-22 > MKI > F-15 > J-10 > JF-17 > Mig-21 Bison > Mig-21/J-7


----------



## duhastmish

Mr. cool said:


> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.............
> 
> JF-17 Made in china SUPER DUPER fighter beats SU-30MKI, each time and every time.......
> 
> 
> Now please lets discuss JF-17 VS F-22..........



jf -17 have smaller size to f-22 
so rcs should be less.

its a new platform so it can accomaodate more and latest gears.

with french avionics it will ahead. 

its chinese aircraft so the suprior technology.

its chepaer so more in number , they can produce more jf-17 than f-22

--- f-22 have had problem with santioning from american congress.

i think jf-17 wins hands down. the score should be 20 - 1

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thunder rules

Avatar said:


> Good job.
> 
> Now put those same upgrades of superior quality on the Honda Civic, and then *think*.



dont worry future variants of jf 17 thunder would be BMW  now u think again


----------



## karan.1970

aimarraul said:


> unless SU-30 and phalcon only plan to shoot from india's territory and expect other side also play in your way ,your scenario is so childish in the real war &#65292;once your jets cross the border,they are not just facing your opponent's fighters and awacs but a entire air defense system,your jets probably don't even have a chance to reach their destination or go back to the base&#65292; BVRAAM is already widely used in most 3th gen jets.take china as example ,with the help from KJ-200,even china's J-8F can dig the best potential of our SD-10A.and PAF is not only have this same capability ,they jets can also fit with U.S missile,it's common consensus that U.S missile have better accuracy than russia's



Thanks for a childish response to an allegedly childish question. 

The question was simple.. Can a plane fire a A2A without getting a lock from its own radar and using the radar of a friendly AWACS to aquire and guide the missile.. 

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed..


----------



## Mani2020

I think u all guys have messed it up alltogather

Its awful thng that u are comparing fighters of two completely different leagues,its better to compare jf-17 with f-16 ,gripen and su-30mki with f-15 eagle and f-18

But because of the old rivlary u guys here are again comparing odd stuff

Su-30mki and jf-17 both have different roles to play so they both have different characteristics jf-17 is a light weight multi role fighter intended for low cost solution for PAF ,to attain much higher sorties at low cost and to induct them in numbers to manage both cost and numbers and its a new platform still to be matured

Where as 

Su-30 mki is some extent an air superiority heavy weight fighter intended to carry much higher payloads at far distances mainly intended for China , much costly too maintain and fits the IAF needs as China is much bigger as compared to Pakistan and India ,plus su-30 is a matured platform with inputs from various countries having much mature technology

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kinetic

Mani2020 said:


> I think u all guys have messed it up alltogather
> 
> Its awful thng that u are comparing fighters of two completely different leagues,its better to compare jf-17 with f-16 ,gripen and su-30mki with f-15 eagle and f-18
> 
> But because of the old rivlary u guys here are again comparing odd stuff
> 
> Su-30mki and jf-17 both have different roles to play so they both have different characteristics jf-17 is a light weight multi role fighter intended for low cost solution for PAF ,to attain much higher sorties at low cost and to induct them in numbers to manage both cost and numbers and its a new platform still to be matured
> 
> Where as
> 
> Su-30 mki is some extent an air superiority heavy weight fighter intended to carry much higher payloads at far distances mainly intended for China , much costly too maintain and fits the IAF needs as China is much bigger as compared to Pakistan and India ,plus su-30 is a matured platform with inputs from various countries having much mature technology



Su-30 MKI and JF-17 are built for two difference purposes. Technology wise they are different. One is heavily armed long range air dominance fighter while another is light weight multi-purpose fighter.


----------



## deckingraj

Mani2020 said:


> I think u all guys have messed it up alltogather
> 
> Its awful thng that u are comparing fighters of two completely different leagues,its better to compare jf-17 with f-16 ,gripen and su-30mki with f-15 eagle and f-18
> 
> But because of the old rivlary u guys here are again comparing odd stuff
> 
> Su-30mki and jf-17 both have different roles to play so they both have different characteristics jf-17 is a light weight multi role fighter intended for low cost solution for PAF ,to attain much higher sorties at low cost and to induct them in numbers to manage both cost and numbers and its a new platform still to be matured
> 
> Where as
> 
> Su-30 mki is some extent an air superiority heavy weight fighter intended to carry much higher payloads at far distances mainly intended for China , much costly too maintain and fits the IAF needs as China is much bigger as compared to Pakistan and India ,plus su-30 is a matured platform with inputs from various countries having much mature technology





Kinetic said:


> Su-30 MKI and JF-17 are built for two difference purposes. Technology wise they are different. One is heavily armed long range air dominance fighter while another is light weight multi-purpose fighter.



I am sorry but have a different view on this..speaking from my limted knowledge here is my POV...

As far as i know most of out MKI's are stationed near PAK border...So saying that MKI are only for China is not correct...Secondly in case of a war scenario IAF is going to use its best fighter so MKI will defnitely be in picture...Now if we have a consensus on this then lets move to next one...

What role does JF17 going to play in PAF??? I believe its role would be of interceptor(though it can perform other roles but best suited as interceptor)...As far as i know MKI role is to attack and achieve Air Superiority...so can you guys please enlighten me why you think MKI and JF17 comparison is not worth...Both fighters are going to have a go at each other in war scenario....

I agree if i am looking out to buy a long range heavy air dominance aircraft it would be foolish of me to compare MKI's with JF17 as both are for different purpose however when it comes to war i believe right comparison would be b/w the Air Dominance Fighter vs Interceptor....In that sense this comparison makes perfect sense....What you guys think??


----------



## flaming arrow

Kinetic said:


> Su-30 MKI and JF-17 are built for two difference purposes. Technology wise they are different. One is heavily armed long range air dominance fighter while another is light weight multi-purpose fighter.



Both the jets are of different category but the truth is that both will be facing each other in a possible future air battle...Thats beyond doubt..
It wil be interesting to see how PAF,optimises jf-17 to the best of its use..PAF is a very proffessional force(in my personal view best compared to the other arms).......it did plan to give thunder the killer punch with the help of french avionics..but that is history now,now it depends on how the pakistani government plays so that it can provide its force with something better then the chinese tech..french deal clears us that PAF had planed(plan is still on cards) to use the thunder platform to custom make a jet which meets the need..something like sukhoi 30mki for us...
many fanboys are saying we will g for j-11,thats a possibility can become true but not in near future,it will be interesting to see how many j-10 they induct....


----------



## SekrutYakhni

hataf said:


> lats say if we have this in Suzuki Mehran
> turbocharger
> intercooler
> nitrus
> direct port nitrus
> ecu(electrinic control unit) for timed fule injuction & ignition
> 
> think than




Well you know the structure of the plane tells its capacity. SU 30 is twin engined jet and has a bigger structure. No matter what you do with JF 17, you can't compete SU 30 in terms of speed etc

*I am not a military expert.*


----------



## Avatar

thunder rules said:


> dont worry future variants of jf 17 thunder would be BMW  now u think again



Future variants of MKI would be James Bonds Aston Martin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thunder rules

Avatar said:


> Future variants of MKI would be James Bonds Aston Martin



yeah just like fictional james bond series.. mki wont be any thing else then a fiction in near future


----------



## Jigs

I don't see why this is still being discussed. Go research both aircraft and you will see there is zero point in discussing or comparing the two.


----------



## holysaturn

i dont know guys i dont how people compare the mki with a fighter whose radar choice is yet to be defined.......has it cleared IOC, FOC ,has it fired bvr missiles(as it has a poor radar),has it fired pgm's,or even dropped bumb bombs(like lca)..........there are no reports,so it is a crazy thing to compare a fighter with theoritical(or i shud say speculative) future capabilities with a fully operational aircraft whose base aircraft(su-30) capabilities are widely known and proved in lot of international ex.


----------



## TaimiKhan

holysaturn said:


> i dont know guys i dont how people compare the mki with a fighter whose radar choice is yet to be defined.......has it cleared IOC, FOC ,has it fired bvr missiles(as it has a poor radar),has it fired pgm's,or even dropped bumb bombs(like lca)..........there are no reports,so it is a crazy thing to compare a fighter with theoritical(or i shud say speculative) future capabilities with a fully operational aircraft whose base aircraft(su-30) capabilities are widely known and proved in lot of international ex.



Before coming up with such , it would be better if you read the JF-17 thread and see what it has done so far. 

Moun miyaan mithoo naa bana karoo tu behter hooo gaaa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## holysaturn

TaimiKhan said:


> Before coming up with such , it would be better if you read the JF-17 thread and see what it has done so far.
> 
> Moun miyaan mithoo naa bana karoo tu behter hooo gaaa.



sorry i don understand hindi.....and i dint find any bvr tests or pgm tests may be if u post i wud be happy to view them...by the way the italian radar is not as capable as the bars..........engine not even close(while su's get uprated ones in future)...........EW warfare,with the new mayavi the su's will be more capable...........in the future along with operational datalink and brahmos,crystal maze,sudharshan,delilah,astra,fixed wing tactical nag,aesa upg and other pak-fa packages the su can comfortably handle future threats.

for the jf-17 it has to bring a m-88 or m-53 or any higher thrust chinese alternative,work with the chinese or italians on an advanced aesa radar(may be an islamic aesa scalable radar like the islamic bomb can do) and upgrade packages,integrate raad,h-2,h-4 or whatever advanced missiles u could procure...in that case it can stand a good fight.


----------



## SekrutYakhni

Okay so the party is going on. I just used Mehran as an example but the next page was full of James bond, Mercedes etc

Coming back to the point now!

You cannot compare *future* versions of JF 17 Thunder with *current* SU 30. Who knows the future SU 30 (if any)...


----------



## TaimiKhan

holysaturn said:


> sorry i don understand hindi.....and i dint find any bvr tests or pgm tests may be if u post i wud be happy to view them...by the way the italian radar is not as capable as the bars..........engine not even close(while su's get uprated ones in future)...........EW warfare,with the new mayavi the su's will be more capable...........in the future along with operational datalink and brahmos,crystal maze,sudharshan,delilah,astra,fixed wing tactical nag,aesa upg and other pak-fa packages the su can comfortably handle future threats.
> 
> for the jf-17 it has to bring a m-88 or m-53 or any higher thrust chinese alternative,work with the chinese or italians on an advanced aesa radar(may be an islamic aesa scalable radar like the islamic bomb can do) and upgrade packages,integrate raad,h-2,h-4 or whatever advanced missiles u could procure...in that case it can stand a good fight.



I did not said, Su-30 is comparable to JF-17, as it is not. Any sane person and mind can see that both are different aircraft, with different roles. Su-30 is much superior to JF-17, so even discussing such thing is of no use. 

JF-17 has become operational, first Sqd has already been raised and by next year end, around 50 of them would be operational. 

All the weapon tests have taken place, it has fired PGMs & BVR missiles, otherwise it would not have been inducted and given a go ahead for production. 

Pakistan as per past practice, doesn't tells each and every little or big information about its weapon systems. 

And your this Islamic thingy, well i can guess what you are upto and what is your intention, so be careful. 

Ra'ad, H2 or H4 are all Pakistan based weapon systems, so they can easily be integrated with JF. Do remember JF-17 has western standard MIL-STD-1760 data-bus architecture with the Stores Management System, thus western weapons can be integrated with it, provided source codes are there. 

JF-17 is for now a very good and capable fighter, but not by comparing it to Su-30.

And that was not hindi, it was Urdu.


----------



## Jigs

saad445566 said:


> Okay so the party is going on. I just used Mehran as an example but the next page was full of James bond, Mercedes etc
> 
> Coming back to the point now!
> 
> You cannot compare *future* versions of JF 17 Thunder with *current* SU 30. Who knows the future SU 30s (if any)...



This will all depend on what exactly goes into the JF-17. Trust to weight ratio must be improved along with avionics and engines. Currently the SU-30MKI is ahead by a good margin in all areas. The future upgrades may still have it lacking in certain areas but the JF-17 could be made into a 4.5 gen aircraft with the right stuff.


----------



## Jigs

TaimiKhan said:


> I did not said, Su-30 is comparable to JF-17, as it is not. Any sane person and mind can see that both are different aircraft, with different roles. Su-30 is much superior to JF-17, so even discussing such thing is of no use.
> 
> JF-17 has become operational, first Sqd has already been raised and by next year end, around 50 of them would be operational.
> 
> All the weapon tests have taken place, it has fired PGMs & BVR missiles, otherwise it would not have been inducted and given a go ahead for production.
> 
> Pakistan as per past practice, doesn't tells each and every little or big information about its weapon systems.
> 
> And your this Islamic thingy, well i can guess what you are upto and what is your intention, so be careful.
> 
> Ra'ad, H2 or H4 are all Pakistan based weapon systems, so they can easily be integrated with JF. Do remember JF-17 has western standard MIL-STD-1760 data-bus architecture with the Stores Management System, thus western weapons can be integrated with it, provided source codes are there.
> 
> JF-17 is for now a very good and capable fighter, but not by comparing it to Su-30.
> 
> And that was not hindi, it was Urdu.



Exactly the JF-17 is a very effective fighter for PAF and the right choice and with select upgrades will be even better but currently it is apples and oranges when comparing it to the MKI. I hope Pakistan doesn't take too long with selecting what it needs to upgrade the platform as we are getting closer to the fifth generation of aircraft that will be coming into many air forces.


----------



## blueoval79

Unnecessarily comparing two fighter jets of Different Class......Su 30 MKI has been in service for over a Decade now..and JF 17 has not even started its journey.....Even PAF would be working double time to understand what the aircraft can do and its strategic fit in overall frame work.... and people here are comparing it to a Fighter jet that has been tightly integrated into the war doctrine with its capabilities fully understood and role clearly defined.....


----------



## holysaturn

TaimiKhan said:


> I did not said, Su-30 is comparable to JF-17, as it is not. Any sane person and mind can see that both are different aircraft, with different roles. Su-30 is much superior to JF-17, so even discussing such thing is of no use.
> 
> JF-17 has become operational, first Sqd has already been raised and by next year end, around 50 of them would be operational.
> 
> All the weapon tests have taken place, it has fired PGMs & BVR missiles, otherwise it would not have been inducted and given a go ahead for production.
> 
> Pakistan as per past practice, doesn't tells each and every little or big information about its weapon systems.
> 
> And your this Islamic thingy, well i can guess what you are upto and what is your intention, so be careful.
> 
> Ra'ad, H2 or H4 are all Pakistan based weapon systems, so they can easily be integrated with JF. Do remember JF-17 has western standard MIL-STD-1760 data-bus architecture with the Stores Management System, thus western weapons can be integrated with it, provided source codes are there.
> 
> JF-17 is for now a very good and capable fighter, but not by comparing it to Su-30.
> 
> And that was not hindi, it was Urdu.



sorry for the urdu mistake mate(they seemed very similar).........don be serious with the islamic bomb mate,i was mentioning ur jointness(if u could join to make bomb then y not an aesa and install it on all fighters,ships with the islamic countries,i mean the chances for getting suvh tech from the vest or china is difficult)...........and for the operational thing u see the ef-2000,rafale were produced initially without firing pgm's,bvr and then integrated or for example even iaf placed an order for 40 lca's without these tests(without even the radar installation) and they would be added later.....but the su has undergone all these tests and thus is called fully operational.........the f-111 was produced in small numbers but was not declared fully operational by the us navy and it later went for the f-14....
and an important thing is that jf does not use *MIL-STD 1760 but the MIL-STD-1553B databus architecture*(even the mig-35 uses 1553).....1773 optical fibre ones(which is the latest) is currently only used for advanced western aircraft like the f-16e/f,ef-2000,f-15se,f-18e/f.........this is one requirement the iaf is looking for in mmrca.

*The IAF also feels the MIL-STD-1773 data bus on the fighter will be an enormous and valuable legacy leap, and this has been a point of some discussion during internal presentations made on the MMRCA contenders.*
LiveFist - The Best of Indian Defence: MMRCA Part 1 - The F-16IN Super Viper


----------



## TaimiKhan

Jigs said:


> Exactly the JF-17 is a very effective fighter for PAF and the right choice and with select upgrades will be even better but currently it is apples and oranges when comparing it to the MKI. I hope Pakistan doesn't take too long with selecting what it needs to upgrade the platform as we are getting closer to the fifth generation of aircraft that will be coming into many air forces.



Yeah, but even with 5th gen aircraft, air forces around the world will not discard their 4th gen or other aircraft for decades to come. 5th gen aircraft are expensive, similarly their maintenance would also be expensive. So what air forces around the world will do, induct few Sqds of stealth 5th gen aircraft, who will do the major destruction as they are stealth, first priority would be destruction of opposing forces air defences, once done, then even 4th gen aircraft can roam freely and do their job. So 4th gen aircraft are gonna be there for decades to come. 

JF-17 is for now very capable in terms of PAF requirements, and it has still a future to come. Its radar has 120+KM range, capable to fire BVR missiles, PGMs, data linking facility with western platform even, for PAF its the best so far, better then PAF current F-16s, but less then Blk 52s. All it needs is one good 100kN or so engine, which will give it extra boost. Someone wants to degrade Chinese avionics, most welcome, but for PAF they aren't cheap avionics.


----------



## Jigs

TaimiKhan said:


> Yeah, but even with 5th gen aircraft, air forces around the world will not discard their 4th gen or other aircraft for decades to come. 5th gen aircraft are expensive, similarly their maintenance would also be expensive. So what air forces around the world will do, induct few Sqds of stealth 5th gen aircraft, who will do the major destruction as they are stealth, first priority would be destruction of opposing forces air defences, once done, then even 4th gen aircraft can roam freely and do their job. So 4th gen aircraft are gonna be there for decades to come.
> 
> JF-17 is for now very capable in terms of PAF requirements, and it has still a future to come. Its radar has 120+KM range, capable to fire BVR missiles, PGMs, data linking facility with western platform even, for PAF its the best so far, better then PAF current F-16s, but less then Blk 52s. All it needs is one good 100kN or so engine, which will give it extra boost. Someone wants to degrade Chinese avionics, most welcome, but for PAF they aren't cheap avionics.



Yeah your right for 4th gen aircraft will still be in service as a workhorse for many of these air forces once they acquire 5 gen stuff. Turkey would be a good example of that. We will have around 240 F-16s most upgraded to block 50 level around the time the F-35s come in. So we will have more then double the number of F-16s to F-35s which will result in us most likely retiring all F-5s and F-4s and maybe some older airframes of F-16s but keeping the rest. Still though the first countries that get 5th gen aircraft will have a good advantage over ones with 4th gen which is what i was referring to when i said PAF should be fast about upgrading their JF-17s(which will be their workhorse) and acquiring a low number of advanced fighters. I guess Pakistan is already doing something like this though with the J-10s hopefully they turn out well and will be sufficient.


----------



## TaimiKhan

Jigs said:


> Yeah your right for 4th gen aircraft will still be in service as a workhorse for many of these air forces once they acquire 5 gen stuff. Turkey would be a good example of that. We will have around 240 F-16s most upgraded to block 50 level around the time the F-35s come in. So we will have more then double the number of F-16s to F-35s which will result in us most likely retiring all F-5s and F-4s and maybe some older airframes of F-16s but keeping the rest. Still though the first countries that get 5th gen aircraft will have a good advantage over ones with 4th gen which is what i was referring to when i said PAF should be fast about upgrading their JF-17s(which will be their workhorse) and acquiring a low number of advanced fighters. I guess Pakistan is already doing something like this though with the J-10s hopefully they turn out well and will be sufficient.



What can be seen or thought about PAf future is, 4 type of aircraft which will make PAF fighter inventory. 

F-16s
JF-17s
FC-20s 

& hopefully and probably Chinese 5th gen in the ranks, as we can;t get western 5th gen. 

So these 4 types hopefully will make up PAFs inventory.


----------



## TaimiKhan

indianarmy2020 said:


> no comparison between su-30mki and jf-17. jh-17 is a cheap aircraft which made by china for pakistan. technology of jf-17 is much older than su-30mki.
> su-30mki is made by russia for india. su-30mki is one of the modern aircraft of the world. specialist believes that su-30mki is better than f-16. so how can anyone compare su-30mki and jf-17.why not china accepting jh-17 even they made it bcoz they know the technology of jf-17. china have already much better aircraft that is su-30mkk. so please don't compare these two aircraft.



another genius on the form.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SekrutYakhni

indianarmy2020 said:


> no comparison between su-30mki and jf-17. jh-17 is a cheap aircraft which made by china for pakistan. technology of jf-17 is much older than su-30mki.
> su-30mki is made by russia for india. su-30mki is one of the modern aircraft of the world. specialist believes that su-30mki is better than f-16. so how can anyone compare su-30mki and jf-17.why not china accepting jh-17 even they made it bcoz they know the technology of jf-17. china have already much better aircraft that is su-30mkk. so please don't compare these two aircraft.



There were no facts mentioned such as air speed, weapon capacity etc
Therefore, your post has nothing but junk in it.


----------



## KS

saad445566 said:


> There were no facts mentioned such as air speed, weapon capacity etc
> Therefore, your post has nothing but junk.



Do u even need Facts for this..? 


air speed - 1.8 mach vs 2.35 mach
weapon capacity - 7 points vs 12 of Sukhoi.

these r the simple facts...power,weapon load,maneavourability .....pls tel one area which the Sukhoi is lacking nd Thunder has better..?


Dont take me wrongly..but even comparing a Su 30MKI with a Thunder doesnt do justice to the Flanker.


----------



## SBD-3

TaimiKhan said:


> another genius on the form.



I think the main problem is, "Every one can post"


----------



## KS

hasnain0099 said:


> I think the main problem is, "Every one can post"



Even though wat he said may be in a crude way...his content is true..
Even though a Thunder mayb a good fighter in its own way,
Su 30MKI vs JF 17 thunder = no fight


----------



## SBD-3

Karthic Sri said:


> Do u even need Facts for this..?
> 
> 
> air speed - 1.8 mach vs 2.35 mach
> weapon capacity - 7 points vs 12 of Sukhoi.
> 
> these r the simple facts...power,weapon load,maneavourability .....pls tel one area which the Sukhoi is lacking nd Thunder has better..?
> 
> 
> Dont take me wrongly..but even comparing a Su 30MKI with a Thunder doesnt do justice to the Flanker.



sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! 
Every sensible member here respect MKI ( I'm one of them)...We all know these facts boy...But comparing the characteristics on magnitude is not what a good member would do...I always say...in combat now....Dogfighting will soon become history...So in short it is about weapons package...If thunder is able to get a better Avionics and weapons pack then..it can defeat any other plane...A sword is worth nothing against a gun.....Taking this..PAF is now more concentrated on getting good weapons and Systems rather than design parameters which makes sense as you need a good missile to take out likes of MKI rather than a top noch plane...


----------



## KS

hasnain0099 said:


> sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> Every sensible member here respect MKI ( I'm one of them)...We all know these facts boy...But comparing the characteristics on magnitude is not what a good member would do...I always say...in combat now....Dogfighting will soon become history...So in short it is about weapons package...If thunder is able to get a better Avionics and weapons pack then..it can defeat any other plane...A sword is worth nothing against a gun.....Taking this..PAF is now more concentrated on getting good weapons and Systems rather than design parameters which makes sense as you need a good missile to take out likes of MKI rather than a top noch plane...




sighhhhhhhhhhhhh even i can say if MKI were to get this it can defeat the JSF,if it can get that it can defeat the raptor..

thats not hw u go by "boy"...if u make a comparison ,make with the things that the thunder has now with wat the MKI has now..not with which it will have after an upgrade deal that is yet to be signed.

nd if u dont want to compare on magnitude then u shouldn do any comparison at all before they have met each other in the air..


----------



## notorious_eagle

Karthic Sri said:


> Even though wat he said may be in a crude way...his content is true..
> Even though a Thunder mayb a good fighter in its own way,
> *Su 30MKI vs JF 17 thunder = no fight*



Nodoubt, one on one it will be a suicide for JF17. But what about when you add the force multipliers ; thats exactly what they were bought for to make sure we negate MKI's biggest advantage, its radar. Let me make it clear for you as i have said this before a hundred times, JF17 and MKI will meet each other in combat but never on one. You always make your adversary fight by your rules, not his.


----------



## KS

notorious_eagle said:


> Nodoubt, one on one it will be a suicide for JF17. But what about when you add the force multipliers ; thats exactly what they were bought for to make sure we negate MKI's biggest advantage, its radar. Let me make it clear for you as i have said this before a hundred times, JF17 and MKI will meet each other in combat but never on one. You always make your adversary fight by your rules, not his.



fine the Eriye finds the Flanker at a longer range and he will relay the info to the JF 17...But With wat will the JF 17 take out the MKI..? Jus detecting alone will not do the trick.
To launch nd sucesfully guide its missile it has to come near and wen it comes its game over for the thunder as MKI radar can guide its own missiles before coming into the range of the Thunder's radar..


----------



## hataf

Karthic Sri said:


> Even though wat he said may be in a crude way...his content is true..
> Even though a Thunder mayb a good fighter in its own way,
> Su 30MKI vs JF 17 thunder = no fight



in 1965
before war
people says
gant vs saber = no fight


after war
people were forced to say 
saber vs gant = no fight

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

hataf said:


> in 1965
> before war
> people says
> gant vs saber = no fight
> 
> 
> after war
> people were forced to say
> saber vs gant = no fight



ur analogy is completely off the point...
in those days radars,avionics,thrust vectoring,missiles didn play as much a part as they play today.
the main armament in those days were guns,rockets so the only way to fight was to dogfight and in that technology was not that important as maneovarability..

so pls think before making comparisons. cheers


----------



## duhastmish

hataf said:


> in 1965
> before war
> people says
> gant vs saber = no fight
> 
> 
> after war
> people were forced to say
> saber vs gant = no fight




absolutly right that's why GNAT was given the name of - sabre slayer 
after 1965.
as they shot down seven sabre - if ti was not for f-108 they would have not got that gnat down.


----------



## hataf

duhastmish said:


> absolutly right that's why GNAT was given the name of - sabre slayer
> after 1965.
> as they shot down seven sabre - if ti was not for f-108 they would have not got that gnat down.



seven sabers against how many gants


----------



## notorious_eagle

Karthic Sri said:


> fine the Eriye finds the Flanker at a longer range and he will relay the info to the JF 17...But With wat will the JF 17 take out the MKI..? Jus detecting alone will not do the trick.



Your knowledge in this regard seems a bit flawed, i will repeat something i have repeated a thousand times. True, JF17 datalinked with an Erieye will pick up the location of MKI roughly at the same time MKI will pick up its position. Both pilots will get into position and try to take the opposing pilot from a position of strength. 



Karthic Sri said:


> To launch nd sucesfully guide its missile it has to come near and wen it comes its game over for the thunder as MKI radar can guide its own missiles before coming into the range of the Thunder's radar..



I dont know if you are aware of this but the Thunder can launch its BVRAAM and it can let the Erieye guide it in to the MKI, just like the MKI could do that with the Phalcon. But lets for arguments sake say both sides use their own radar to guide their BVRAAM's, what missile does the MKI possess that ranges more than 150km. Thunder's radar has roughly a range of 150km, thats more than enough time for it to detect the MKI and launch its missile and guide it through his radar. 

The more realistic scenario is that both these aircrafts will take a shot at each other roughly around 60-70km at the same time. At this range, the proababilities of getting a kill are higher than getting a kill at their maximum ranges. So my friend, its not as easy as you make it sound. Just because it is an SU30MKI does not means it automatically wins against the JF17, a lot of other factors come into play. What will matter the most is the skill of the pilot, which ever side has better trained pilots is likely to outclass the other. 

We should all write a Thank You note to IAF for introducing AWACS into the subcontinent, without them we had no answer to the MKI's radar . As they say, the bigger it is the harder it falls. Would love to see the MKI with its huge engine and RCS dodge a heat seeking missile.


----------



## thunder rules

thunder is a complete new platform its not as old and mature like mki , mki is around 18 years old i mean it was introduced in 90's and hence witnessed alot of improvement since then. now thunder is just introduced is performing really good once paf got hand on western avionics which will make thunder lot more improved fighter. currently its good light weight low cost fighter for pakistan .


----------



## KS

notorious_eagle said:


> Your knowledge in this regard seems a bit flawed, i will repeat something i have repeated a thousand times. True, JF17 datalinked with an Erieye will pick up the location of MKI roughly at the same time MKI will pick up its position. Both pilots will get into position and try to take the opposing pilot from a position of strength.



Both the pilots will not pick up each other at the same time..that s wat im trying to say..ther MKI with the BARS radar will pick up the JF 17 way before the JF 17 pilot even knows a MKI is out there.





notorious_eagle said:


> I dont know if you are aware of this but the Thunder can launch its BVRAAM and it can let the Erieye guide it in to the MKI, just like the MKI could do that with the Phalcon. But lets for arguments sake say both sides use their own radar to guide their BVRAAM's, what missile does the MKI possess that ranges more than 150km. Thunder's radar has roughly a range of 150km, thats more than enough time for it to detect the MKI and launch its missile and guide it through his radar.
> 
> The more realistic scenario is that both these aircrafts will take a shot at each other roughly around 60-70km at the same time. At this range, the proababilities of getting a kill are higher than getting a kill at their maximum ranges. So my friend, its not as easy as you make it sound. Just because it is an SU30MKI does not means it automatically wins against the JF17, a lot of other factors come into play. What will matter the most is the skill of the pilot, which ever side has better trained pilots is likely to outclass the other.
> 
> We should all write a Thank You note to IAF for introducing AWACS into the subcontinent, without them we had no answer to the MKI's radar . As they say, the bigger it is the harder it falls. Would love to see the MKI with its huge engine and RCS dodge a heat seeking missile.



As for ur claims that an Erieye can guide a missile ...im not aware of..so i ll try to research it nd get bak to u..
in the mean time if u can give the links to it..thx.


----------



## holysaturn

thunder rules said:


> thunder is a complete new platform its not as old and mature like mki , mki is around 18 years old i mean it was introduced in 90's and hence witnessed alot of improvement since then. now thunder is just introduced is performing really good once paf got hand on western avionics which will make thunder lot more improved fighter. currently its good light weight low cost fighter for pakistan .



u r one of the intelligent members on the forum...........if it is introduced recently it doesnt mean that it has some of the recent tech and room for improvement...........look at the present tech in it no quad fly by wire,no pesa let alone aesa,negligible composites(not even titanium but just aluminium is outdated for high performance combat aircraft and used only as alloys presently.......the mirage-2000 appeared later than the f-16 but the f-16 has improved a lot compared to the mirage and still is while the mirage remains stuck in the late 1990s.........i hope u get the difference.


----------



## thunder rules

boys give some time to thunder to prove its effectiveness.. atleast 2-3 years more then the picture will be more clear abt the worth of jf 17.. currently thunder which is of just us$ 15 million per unit is a remarkable fighter for paf . and it has a great room for improvement. we should have patience for few years i am sure jf 17 will prove its worth in near future.


----------



## thunder rules

holysaturn said:


> u r one of the intelligent members on the forum...........if it is introduced recently it doesnt mean that it has some of the recent tech and room for improvement...........look at the present tech in it no quad fly by wire,no pesa let alone aesa,negligible composites(not even titanium but just aluminium is outdated for high performance combat aircraft and used only as alloys presently.......the mirage-2000 appeared later than the f-16 but the f-16 has improved a lot compared to the mirage and still is while the mirage remains stuck in the late 1990s.........i hope u get the difference.



u seem to have very less knowledge abt thunder, any waz i also dont have much , thunder has been developed in accordance with the current needs of paf, why would paf will go for any thing which is obsolete?? think abt it, i am not much aware of its specifications but why would pakistan air force will introduce its first fully squadron if it was so worthless?? current jf 17 thunder unit cost is just around us$ 15 million , and under such cost jf 17 has become a complete state of the art combat fighter , of course not as good as mki but but its is of great worth to paf, that is the reason paf has developed its frist squadron so early. and paf is also trying hard to get hand of any western avionics which will enhance its performance to a great extent.


----------



## holysaturn

thunder rules said:


> u seem to have very less knowledge abt thunder, any waz i also dont have much , thunder has been developed in accordance with the current needs of paf, why would paf will go for any thing which is obsolete?? think abt it, i am not much aware of its specifications but why would pakistan air force will introduce its first fully squadron if it was so worthless?? current jf 17 thunder unit cost is just around us$ 15 million , and under such cost jf 17 has become a complete state of the art combat fighter , of course not as good as mki but but its is of great worth to paf, that is the reason paf has developed its frist squadron so early. and paf is also trying hard to get hand of any western avionics which will enhance its performance to a great extent.



that is wat i tried to say the jf-17 is currently behind and it needs improvements to match even the current status of the mki or any other international platform..........obviously the mki is better in terms of tech even though it appeared early .


----------



## jagjitnatt

thunder rules said:


> u seem to have very less knowledge abt thunder, any waz i also dont have much , thunder has been developed in accordance with the current needs of paf, why would paf will go for any thing which is obsolete?? think abt it, i am not much aware of its specifications but why would pakistan air force will introduce its first fully squadron if it was so worthless?? current jf 17 thunder unit cost is just around us$ 15 million , and under such cost jf 17 has become a complete state of the art combat fighter , of course not as good as mki but but its is of great worth to paf, that is the reason paf has developed its frist squadron so early. and paf is also trying hard to get hand of any western avionics which will enhance its performance to a great extent.



thunder is not obsolete. It is a great fighter, but only for the role it is intended to play. It is not the high-end for PAF. It is a replacement for the aging Mirage III/V, and in future for F7, which is why it is being made in huge number. Thunder was never meant to replace the F16. Today Thunders are new, so people believe it is advanced, but it is here to stay for 25 years, it will become old then. Also don't count too much on upgrading thing. You seem to be too optimistic about upgrades. But that remains to be seen.

F16 still is the top dog and will be replaced with a new high end in the future.

So Thunder is good for its role, F16 good for its. No comparison between the two.


----------



## thunder rules

holysaturn said:


> that is wat i tried to say the jf-17 is currently behind and it needs improvements to match even the current status of the mki or any other international platform..........obviously the mki is better in terms of tech even though it appeared early .



when did i denied this?? but u have to look at other areas as well like cost and preparation time..one unit of jf 17 is only of us$ 15 million unlike mki which is around us$45 million a unit.. i think we should compare them when thunder also incur the cost as its incurred on mki. but then u indians should not underestimate this new machine of paf , it has its own worth that is the reason first squadron is fully functional for paf and some source say its better then f 16 AB in certain areas as well. jf 17 thunder has a great potential to improve its just need little time to prove its combat effectiveness to world.


----------



## thunder rules

jagjitnatt said:


> thunder is not obsolete. It is a great fighter, but only for the role it is intended to play. It is not the high-end for PAF. It is a replacement for the aging Mirage III/V, and in future for F7, which is why it is being made in huge number. Thunder was never meant to replace the F16. Today Thunders are new, so people believe it is advanced, but it is here to stay for 25 years, it will become old then. Also don't count too much on upgrading thing. You seem to be too optimistic about upgrades. But that remains to be seen.
> 
> F16 still is the top dog and will be replaced with a new high end in the future.
> 
> So Thunder is good for its role, F16 good for its. No comparison between the two.



f 16s have been improved time to time like f 16 AB TO EF u can clearly identify the difference between f 16 variants, f 16 block 15 is a 4 gen fighter and f 16 block 52/60 are 4.5 gen with great improvements and are far superior then earlier variants of f 16. same goes for jf 17 , its in its earlier days , thunder have to travel alot its obvious with the passage of time it will get more and more mature paf wont be negligible to it. that is the reson they were after French avionics no matter its history now but in future it may open again. comon people thunder its just 2 year old baby let it be more mature. and u rightly said its basically replacing old f 7's and mirages but paf wont replace them with any thing less then a 4 gen fighter.


----------



## Storm Force

Maximum range of the SD10 is about 70km. 
Maximum range of R77 vympel is 90km 
su30mki carries twice as many missles as a Thunder
Mki combat radius is 1000km versis 400km for Thunder
The Electroinc warefare suite and jammers are far more advanced than anthing on Thunder
The Angle of attack is far wider due to TVC engines. 
Accelartion speed of the MKI is immense of the russian flanker. 

In short its a high end twin engined fighter versis a single engined small fighter. of meduim tech. 

Theres only one winner regardless of Awacs or not. 

If all we needed was AWACS to match high end fighters IAF mig21 BISONS WOULD STIL RULE THE ASIAN SKIES..


----------



## Avatar

Isn't it a known fact that J-11B is much superior to JF-17 ...and J-11B is a copy of Su-27 which is much inferior to Su-30, which again is much inferior to Su-30MKI. 

*Su-30 MKI/Su-35 > Su-30MKK > Su-30 > Su-27 > J-11B > JF-17 
*

So *that's the difference.*

BTW, the Su-30MKM is the best fighter jet in the Chinese inventory.


----------



## thunder rules

Storm Force said:


> Maximum range of the SD10 is about 70km.
> Maximum range of R77 vympel is 90km
> su30mki carries twice as many missles as a Thunder
> Mki combat radius is 1000km versis 400km for Thunder
> The Electroinc warefare suite and jammers are far more advanced than anthing on Thunder
> The Angle of attack is far wider due to TVC engines.
> Accelartion speed of the MKI is immense of the russian flanker.
> 
> In short its a high end twin engined fighter versis a single engined small fighter. of meduim tech.
> 
> Theres only one winner regardless of Awacs or not.
> 
> If all we needed was AWACS to match high end fighters IAF mig21 BISONS WOULD STIL RULE THE ASIAN SKIES..



thats the reason mki cost around 45million us$ per unit and thunder around 15million us$ per unit. mki is 3 times expensive then thunder , and few reasons are mentioned above.


----------



## jagjitnatt

thunder rules said:


> f 16s have been improved time to time like f 16 AB TO EF u can clearly identify the difference between f 16 variants, f 16 block 15 is a 4 gen fighter and f 16 block 52/60 are 4.5 gen with great improvements and are far superior then earlier variants of f 16. same goes for jf 17 , its in its earlier days , thunder have to travel alot its obvious with the passage of time it will get more and more mature paf wont be negligible to it. that is the reson they were after French avionics no matter its history now but in future it may open again. comon people thunder its just 2 year old baby let it be more mature. and u rightly said its basically replacing old f 7's and mirages but paf wont replace them with any thing less then a 4 gen fighter.



The reason F16 was upgraded from time to time was that the US Air Force was using them and in huge numbers, and not just US Air Force, half the world was using this aircraft. There was a market ready for the upgrade and willing to pay for it.

US is the biggest spender in defense equipment. They can afford to upgrade every plane of theirs tens of times, but beyond US there is no other nation that offers upgrades regularly. Even Russia is not willing to upgrade their planes.

JF-17's upgrades would be a financial problem, not just for cost of parts but also for R&D. I do expect Thunder to be upgraded but just twice in its lifetime, one within 5 years from now, and the other around 2025.

It just won't be like F16's upgrade program. F16's upgrade program is the most successful upgrade program in the history of Aviation.

Gotta admit that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avatar

jagjitnatt said:


> The reason F16 was upgraded from time to time was that the US Air Force was using them and in huge numbers, and not just US Air Force, half the world was using this aircraft. There was a market ready for the upgrade and willing to pay for it.
> 
> US is the biggest spender in defense equipment. They can afford to upgrade every plane of theirs tens of times, but beyond US there is no other nation that offers upgrades regularly. Even Russia is not willing to upgrade their planes.
> 
> JF-17's upgrades would be a financial problem, not just for cost of parts but also for R&D. I do expect Thunder to be upgraded but just twice in its lifetime, one within 5 years from now, and the other around 2025.
> 
> It just won't be like F16's upgrade program. F16's upgrade program is the most successful upgrade program in the history of Aviation.
> 
> Gotta admit that.



People need to understand that JF-17 is JF-17 and F-16 is F-16. There is no comparison. 

If JF-17 was really as efficient as people are thinking, then why would the PAF spend so much money on F-16s ? Surely the PAF know what they are doing. 

In modern aerial combat, technology is a more important factor than numbers. 

A more realistic thread would be F-16 block 52 vs Su-30 MKI

Anyhow I wish the best to PAF.


----------



## thunder rules

jagjitnatt said:


> The reason F16 was upgraded from time to time was that the US Air Force was using them and in huge numbers, and not just US Air Force, half the world was using this aircraft. There was a market ready for the upgrade and willing to pay for it.
> 
> US is the biggest spender in defense equipment. They can afford to upgrade every plane of theirs tens of times, but beyond US there is no other nation that offers upgrades regularly. Even Russia is not willing to upgrade their planes.
> 
> JF-17's upgrades would be a financial problem, not just for cost of parts but also for R&D. I do expect Thunder to be upgraded but just twice in its lifetime, one within 5 years from now, and the other around 2025.
> 
> It just won't be like F16's upgrade program. F16's upgrade program is the most successful upgrade program in the history of Aviation.
> 
> Gotta admit that.



well u say jf 17 will upgraded around 2015, thats weired because we have seen paf is intend for improvement as they were expecting french avionics but as its been on hold paf is looking for other alternatives , and paf knows its requirement better then u or me so declaring thing like that will not be wise , thunder has been improved alot since 2003 and its current specification provide great room for improvements as its has been design in accordance with the paf needs and requirements so we cant say what will be strategy affiliated to jf 17 because the person who take such decisions are far mature intellectuals then u and me.


----------



## Avatar

Sorry but I found this very hilarious. We need to realize that fantasy and reality are different from each other.


----------



## thunder rules

Avatar said:


> People need to understand that JF-17 is JF-17 and F-16 is F-16. There is no comparison.
> 
> If JF-17 was really as efficient as people are thinking, then why would the PAF spend so much money on F-16s ? Surely the PAF know what they are doing.
> 
> In modern aerial combat, technology is a more important factor than numbers.
> 
> A more realistic thread would be F-16 block 52 vs Su-30 MKI
> 
> Anyhow I wish the best to PAF.




some sources revealed that jf 17 has been proved better then f 16 old block 15 in certain areas, its obvious jf 17 is inferior to block 52 . and pakistan is spending on acquiring f 16 . but they are also not in great number may be 2 dozen of them but paf back bone will be thunder in future.


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Avatar said:


> Sorry but I found this very hilarious. We need to realize that fantasy and reality are different from each other.
> 
> YouTube - 2 JF-17 Thunders vs. 4 SU-30 MKIs



this fantasy is similar to urs dozens stealth fighter programs along with LCA(with experience of aprox 20 years being in production).
and yeah thats in ur Avatar would be thirteenth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

danger-zone said:


> this fantasy is similar to urs dozens stealth fighter programs along with LCA(with experience of aprox 20 years being in production).
> and yeah thats in ur Avatar would be thirteenth.



Dozens of stealth fighters.? are u the chairman of HAL smartie..?
INdia as of now only one stealth fighter program and that is the PAKFA
that we r developing in a similar way to ur Thunder.(even though we r contributing more than just funds).
U do not have any equivalent of the Tejas prog..do u?
So wat it is in development for 20 years..?
Wat we have is a beautiful 4++ generation fighter.
Have u atleast tried producing one..?The experience we have got producing this LCA will definitely help in our forthcoming programs..


----------



## thunder rules

Karthic Sri said:


> Dozens of stealth fighters.? are u the chairman of HAL smartie..?
> INdia as of now only one stealth fighter program and that is the PAKFA
> that we r developing in a similar way to ur Thunder.(even though we r contributing more than just funds).
> U do not have any equivalent of the Tejas prog..
> So wat it is in development for 20 years..?
> Wat we have is a beaitiful 4++ generation fighter better than ur Thunder in almost all aspects.
> Have u atleast tried producing one..?The experience we have got producing this LCA will definitely help in our forthcoming programs..



damn man b4 blabbing huge abt tejas first get it functional their is no worth of tejas 4++ or what ever which is on only paper,  recent news has revealed it will inducted by 2014-5 isnt it shameful for you people? so the truth is thunder is far better the lca tejas because its fully functional and serving paf, and compare thunder with tejas when if ever it get functional  

and what u knw abt thunder production ?? our engineers were equally involved in the production of jf 17 thunder, that is the reason we are manufacturing them locally .. get a life.


----------



## Avatar

thunder rules said:


> some sources revealed that jf 17 has been proved better then f 16 old block 15 in certain areas, its obvious jf 17 is inferior to block 52 . and pakistan is spending on acquiring f 16 . but they are also not in great number may be 2 dozen of them but paf back bone will be thunder in future.



Can you elaborate what *sources* and what *areas *? Economics is one area I approve of.

Su-30 MKI also performs better than F-22 raptor in some areas. Does not mean the two are comparable.


----------



## Avatar

danger-zone said:


> this fantasy is similar to urs dozens stealth fighter programs along with LCA(with experience of aprox 20 years being in production).
> and yeah thats in ur Avatar would be thirteenth.



You shattered whatever level of respect I had for your posts. 

The vehicle in my avatar is not a fighter jet. It is a reusable space delivery vehicle and developed by ISRO, not DRDO. 

I am not ruling out the possibility that it can be used to deliver other "payloads".  

I really like your mathematic and logical skills.


----------



## KS

thunder rules said:


> damn man b4 blabbing huge abt tejas first get it functional their is no worth of tejas 4++ or what ever which is on only paper,  recent news has revealed it will inducted by 2014-5 isnt it shameful for you people? so the truth is thunder is far better the lca tejas because its fully functional and serving paf, and compare thunder with tejas when if ever it get functional



buddy getting emotional wont get u anywere nor will i make everything u said true.Wat if the tejas is not inducted yet.It has been confirmed that Tejas will be getting IOC by this year end and the first batch of 40 will be started to be produced..nd please elaborate on y u think Tejas is not a 4++ gen platform.



thunder rules said:


> and what u knw abt thunder production ?? our engineers were equally involved in the production of jf 17 thunder, that is the reason we are manufacturing them locally .. get a life.



building with full Tot doesnt mean it is indigenously produced.Can u pls elaborate wat parts of thunder are designed and produced by pakistan.?
if u think manufacturing locally implies that they r indigenous then i think we indigenously produce the Su 30 MKI right from the nut bolt to the AL 31 F engine.


----------



## Avatar

Karthic Sri said:


> buddy getting emotional wont get u anywere nor will i make everything u said true.Wat if the tejas is not inducted yet.It has been confirmed that Tejas will be getting IOC by this year end and the first batch of 40 will be started to be produced..nd please elaborate on y u think Tejas is not a 4++ gen platform.
> 
> 
> 
> building with full Tot doesnt mean it is indigenously produced.Can u pls elanorate wat parts of thunder are designed and produced by pakistan.?
> if u think manufacturing locally implies that they r indigenous then i think we indigenously produce the Su 30 MKI right from the nut bolt to the AL 31 F engine.



I just noticed he is new ...He has a lot to learn !


----------



## thunder rules

Avatar said:


> Can you elaborate what *sources* and what *areas *? Economics is one area I approve of.
> 
> Su-30 MKI also performs better than F-22 raptor in some areas. Does not mean the two are comparable.




u are far older member then me , i have read it the this forum as well and on news as well by some former air chiefs as well and u will find the same news here as well..

and grow up buddy as far as i knw the only advantage f 22 enjoys over mki is i think stealth technology. other wise both can b comparable.. other wise its u people only who call mki second best fighter in the world. and use ur head jf 17 is suppose to better then earlier f 16s because pakistan wont accept any thing which is inferior or obsolete..


----------



## karan.1970

thunder rules said:


> and what u knw abt thunder production ?? our engineers were equally involved in the production of jf 17 thunder, that is the reason we are manufacturing them locally .. get a life.



I somehow dont find any chinese sources that back that claim of Pakistani engineers being significantly (forget equally ) involved in JF 17's design. I am obviously not counting PAF defining specs for JF 17 as contributing to design.

And about production, the % of local production of SU 30 MKI in India is more than the % local production of JF 17 in Pakistan. That doesn't make the flanker an Indian product...


----------



## Avatar

thunder rules said:


> u are far older member then me , i have read it the this forum as well and on news as well by some former air chiefs as well and u will find the same news here as well..
> 
> and grow up buddy as far as i knw the only advantage f 22 enjoys over mki is i think stealth technology. other wise both can b comparable.. other wise its u people only who call mki second best fighter in the world. and use ur head jf 17 is suppose to better then earlier f 16s because *pakistan wont accept any thing which is inferior or obsolete..*



You have to change this mentality. Under the current situation Pakistan does not have much of a choice. Your own air chiefs have said that if it was possible then PAF pilots would be flying Eurofighters and not JF-17s. PAF is only accepting what China is offering and all the statements you see are more for morale boosting.

JF-17 is better than the fighters it is replacing. 

I never for myself claimed MKI is the second best. I personally feel a combination of Eurofighter and MKI is very very lethal. 

MKI and F-22 are not comparable because stealth takes F-22 a world apart. Once the stealth is compromised, both are in the same league ...but if you use the stealth well, then the enemy will never find out what hit them (until it's too late).


----------



## thunder rules

Karthic Sri said:


> buddy getting emotional wont get u anywere nor will i make everything u said true.Wat if the tejas is not inducted yet.It has been confirmed that Tejas will be getting IOC by this year end and the first batch of 40 will be started to be produced..nd please elaborate on y u think Tejas is not a 4++ gen platform.
> 
> 
> 
> building with full Tot doesnt mean it is indigenously produced.Can u pls elaborate wat parts of thunder are designed and produced by pakistan.?
> if u think manufacturing locally implies that they r indigenous then i think we indigenously produce the Su 30 MKI right from the nut bolt to the AL 31 F engine.



lca tejas may be 4++ but still its on papers what is the point be being so proud when its prototypes are still flying? its far from induction here is toi article Tejas LCA project to cost more than Rs 13,000 crore over 35 years - India - The Times of India now how can one thing which is not fully ready for combat services is comparable with something which fully functional and performing remarkably in the air? by going ur logic i should come up with stealth version jf 17 which paf wish to produced near 2018 . lol. 

and abt thunder production , pdf is a very diverse forum with great information related jf 17 is available u can easily found the contribution of Pakistan in the preparation of thunder. 

and how come tejas is fully indegenious? when half of the components are either from israel or russia..


----------



## thunder rules

Avatar said:


> You have to change this mentality. Under the current situation Pakistan does not have much of a choice. Your own air chiefs have said that if it was possible then PAF pilots would be flying Eurofighters and not JF-17s. PAF is only accepting what China is offering and all the statements you see are more for morale boosting.
> 
> JF-17 is better than the fighters it is replacing.
> 
> I never for myself claimed MKI is the second best. I personally feel a combination of Eurofighter and MKI is very very lethal.
> 
> MKI and F-22 are not comparable because stealth takes F-22 a world apart. Once the stealth is compromised, both are in the same league ...but if you use the stealth well, then the enemy will never find out what hit them (until it's too late).



lack of opportunity dose not meaned that paf will go for junk kind things.. paf has spended huge time and amount in r&d of jf 17 thunder and by the way thunder project is not a current project it was sought bact in 1992 after usa embargo on arm sales so in order to avoid future problems paf decided to go for self reliance and result of huge efforts of china and Pakistan is jf 17. and lack of opportunities dsnt mean that paf will waste its resources and funds on obtaining an obsolete and non reliable fighter.. of course jf 17 is a reasult of great r&d and hard work dedication of 10 years , which is , if not equal to f 16 but very much near to f 16s., and then future upgrades will make it more lethal.


----------



## thunder rules

karan.1970 said:


> I somehow dont find any chinese sources that back that claim of Pakistani engineers being significantly (forget equally ) involved in JF 17's design. I am obviously not counting PAF defining specs for JF 17 as contributing to design.
> 
> And about production, the % of local production of SU 30 MKI in India is more than the % local production of JF 17 in Pakistan. That doesn't make the flanker an Indian product...




then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..

dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things.


----------



## KS

thunder rules said:


> lca tejas may be 4++ but still its on papers what is the point be being so proud when its prototypes are still flying? its far from induction here is toi article Tejas LCA project to cost more than Rs 13,000 crore over 35 years - India - The Times of India now how can one thing which is not fully ready for combat services is comparable with something which fully functional and performing remarkably in the air? by going ur logic i should come up with stealth version jf 17 which paf wish to produced near 2018 . lol.



there is a world of a difference b/n a plane that is still in ur minds and a plane that has completed 1300 filghts with all weapons integration tests done sucesfully..
Can u pls give me the link to the weapons integration tests done on the JF 17.?..thx




thunder rules said:


> and abt thunder production , pdf is a very diverse forum with great information related jf 17 is available u can easily found the contribution of Pakistan in the preparation of thunder.


No were is it is mentioned.perhaps u could give me as ur uncle is the vice marshall.It wuld be very helpful.
If i remember correctly even a separate thread was started by a Indian member for that..but that was closed. 



thunder rules said:


> and how come tejas is fully indegenious? when half of the components are either from israel or russia..



if u culd prudly say that JF 17 is indigenopus wen only u did the funding then we with abt 60 % Indian components can definitely say that the Tejas is indigenous.


----------



## Dazzler

Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already, every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards. 

Want to know more contribution?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

thunder rules said:


> lack of opportunity dose not meaned that paf will go for junk kind things.. paf has spended huge time and amount in r&d of jf 17 thunder and by the way thunder project is not a current project it was sought bact in 1992 after usa embargo on arm sales so in order to avoid future problems paf decided to go for self reliance and result of huge efforts of china and Pakistan is jf 17. and lack of opportunities dsnt mean that paf will waste its resources and funds on obtaining an obsolete and non reliable fighter.. of course jf 17 is a reasult of great r&d and hard work dedication of 10 years , which is , if not equal to f 16 but very much near to f 16s., and then future upgrades will make it more lethal.



No it is not a junk fighter...People would be fool to call JF17 a junk fighter...However one has to understand that JF17 is not the best choice available in the market...Due to Arms Imbargo and other sanctions complemented with lack of funds this is the best PAF could field...Now honestly tell me if you get a chance to put your hands on Eurofighter would you still go for JF17??? Looking at specs and capabilities answer would be "HECK NO"...However looking at other factors (theater of war, role of fighter, self sufficiency, cost) etc your answer would be "Yes i would choose JF17", Had my economy better with no fears of sanctions i would have gone for Eurofighter but with all those restriction JF17 is the best i can some up with....

Remember JF17 is a force multiplier for you...It would be a sitting duck for MKI in 1-on-1.. Things changes when theater of conflict moves from 1-on-1 to a war scenario and many other factors...So chilax....JF17 is not the best in the market but is the best that PAF could field....


----------



## Avatar

thunder rules said:


> then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..
> 
> dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things.



It is true that PAF has assisted the Chinese in the development (merely as an observer). The question ere is what are your *contributions* 

As for LCA, the entire R&D was done in India. Some components might be foreign but we aim to make it as Indian as possible. 

LCA is not meant to be a budget fighter and IAF is in not desperate to induct them. LCA is going to be a state of the art light weight multi role with the best techs in the world. LCA has also provided India with lot of learning experience that will be used while developing MCA. 

The LCA today is different from the LCA that was visualized 20 years ago. I'm sure the final product will be the best in it's class.

JF-17 is not something you can call "State of the art". It is simply a modern fighter jet with all the basics to keep the cost low.


----------



## Dazzler

Pakistani engineers were ther right from the aircraft R&D and took part in every single development of the entire project. PAF wanted it to be on par with its requirements. 

*"Fierce Dragon" Avionics R & D centers from various professional institutes to send less than 35 years the average age of more than 50 technical staff and Pakistan sent 24 technical staff. Project started on the face unusual test. Difficult technical innovation, research and development time constraints, difficulties in the transfer of technology to Pakistan, which like the three big mountains firmly pressing difficulties triple R & D center in the hearts of everyone. Many in the history of R & D centers are blank. The new avionics technology is the "Fierce Dragon" highlights the aircraft is a very difficult road of innovation. The entire development cycle from system level design, software development, facilities set up to complete the comprehensive test system DSI just only two years, three generations of this machine in our country for all types of avionics system design unprecedented in the history. In addition to avionics systems development, the R & D center will need to implement a large number of technology transfer to Pakistan. Is the need for Pakistan to conduct technical training for engineers and technicians, and technical difficulty of such a workload is no less than designing a new avionics system. Thousands of copies of the English document, more than 5,000 A4 drawings, digital prototype is complete. Selection of technical difficulties, personnel training Pakistani ... ... According to the schedule, all procedures were orderly. The young team of experienced avionics system design of our history has never been a severe test, just two years time, they were beautiful with a node declared "Xiaolong" avionics success of the project, realized in China Avionics system design from a technical introduction to the overall technical output of a historic leap. *

link http://www.cannews.com.cn/zghkb/html...tent_6516.htm#


NOTE: The CAD software was provided to Chinese by Pakistanis as it came with the Agosta 90b TOT program from France. This greatly helped in designing and later modifying the aircraft later in the fourth prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blain2

On the lighter side, who won? The JF-17 or the MKI?



Carry on.


----------



## blain2

Avatar said:


> It is true that PAF has assisted the Chinese in the development (merely as an observer). The question ere is what are your *contributions*
> 
> As for LCA, the entire R&D was done in India. Some components might be foreign but we aim to make it as Indian as possible.
> 
> LCA is not meant to be a budget fighter and IAF is in not desperate to induct them. LCA is going to be a state of the art light weight multi role with the best techs in the world. LCA has also provided India with lot of learning experience that will be used while developing MCA.
> 
> The LCA today is different from the LCA that was visualized 20 years ago. I'm sure the final product will be the best in it's class.
> 
> JF-17 is not something you can call "State of the art". It is simply a modern fighter jet with all the basics to keep the cost low.



In the end, you will see JF-17s shooting down LCAs and possibly JF-17s being shot down by the LCA.

State of the art does not matter here. LCA is nothing revolutionary and JF-17 never claimed to be anything revolutionary either. In the hands of PAF pilots, the LCA pilots will have their hands full coping with the JF-17s and I suspect the same the other way around. 

Your putting down our workhorse of the future to make your own workhorse look better is an exercise in futility as you know nothing about the JF-17 or its potential, your pilots have never flown against it and you have no idea how efficiently the Pakistani side will employ it.

For the very same reason, I desist from putting down anything that the IAF may field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

thunder rules said:


> then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..
> 
> dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things.



Defining user specifications/strategic requirements is very different from Designing the aircraft to meet those requirements. Not denying PAF's role in doing the 1st.. Only questioning the 2nd..

Its also not good to be a fool to believe all that media with unnamed sources feeds you...


----------



## karan.1970

nabil_05 said:


> Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already, every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards.
> 
> Want to know more contribution?



1 Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already: *Does not signify any contribution to aircraft design..Only to defining Specifiactions*

2. every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer *Again refers to defining requirements and specifications*

3. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards. *Again specifications*


Never argued that the plane was not designed specifically for PAF (specially since Chinese airforce anyway doesnt want the plane)


----------



## karan.1970

blain2 said:


> On the lighter side, who won? The JF-17 or the MKI?



Hopefully we'll never have to find out...


----------



## blain2

Specifications in many cases were innovative and new for the Chinese because they were not exposed to some of the gear that we have been interfacing with. Having flown with Airforces of more than 12 countries in the recent past with vastly different inventories including the very latest has provided our folks with design insights that most other Air Forces lack.

Secondly, Pakistani ground crews have had a similar opportunity interfacing on the engineering end with not only the diversity in our own air fleet, but also that of other air forces.

The specifications give way to design innovations because the requirements drive the design and capabilities. Most of the other Airforces have to fit their requirements to what is available. In our case with the JF-17, from the very beginning we were involved in the design process (The Air Force itself was involved all along and there was no third party involved).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

This is a special case of "Ignorance is a Bliss" as after giving hundreds of posts, articles, there is simply no use. Some things developed by Pakistani engineers are.

1. HUD 

2. WMMC (weapon and mission management computer)

3. Stores Management computer. Just to name a few

There are many others and i will discuss them with you later. Even if we did not design a single piece of it, what difference would it make? As long as it fills the role of future mainstay of PAF the way it is right now, it fits in BIG TIME !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

blain2 said:


> *In the end, you will see JF-17s shooting down LCAs and possibly JF-17s being shot down by the LCA.*



Umm not a realistic scenario..Both are going to fulfill interceptor roles...




> State of the art does not matter here. LCA is nothing revolutionary and JF-17 never claimed to be anything revolutionary either. In the hands of PAF pilots, the LCA pilots will have their hands full coping with the JF-17s and I suspect the same the other way around.



As said there is hardly any chance both of these fighters will pitch against each other....




> Your putting down our workhorse of the future to make your own workhorse look better is an exercise in futility as you know nothing about the JF-17 or its potential, your pilots have never flown against it and you have no idea how efficiently the Pakistani side will employ it.


Sir this is true for any fighter which have not seen combat...All we can do is compare fighter jets based on their knows specifications and think which one would come as winner....




> For the very same reason, I desist from putting down anything that the IAF may field.


Was wondering how to military strategist work because they also have limited knowledge about how the opponent going to field their weapons system...All you would know is how potent the weapon is going to be and work out a strategy to cope with it...Anyways i can see what you are trying to say however the more we discuss the more we will learn...Don't you think so??


----------



## deckingraj

nabil_05 said:


> This is a special case of "Ignorance is a Bliss" as after giving hundreds of posts, articles, there is simply no use. Some things developed by Pakistani engineers are.
> 
> 1. HUD
> 
> 2. WMMC (weapon and mission management computer)
> 
> 3. Stores Management computer. Just to name a few
> 
> There are many others and i will discuss them with you later. *Even if we did not design a single piece of it, what difference would it make? As long as it fills the role of future mainstay of PAF the way it is right now, it fits in BIG TIME *!



And who is challenging that??? However the truth of the matter is its always better to have indegenous capabilities than depending on others...India and Pakistan both have long way to go however seems like we have taken baby steps and you guys are still onn drawing board... but i agree with you that when wepoans fire in anger it doesn't matter they are indegenous or not...


----------



## KS

nabil_05 said:


> Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already, every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards.
> 
> Want to know more contribution?



See defining the specifications is entirely different from desingning them..for example lets take the FBW system..the PAF requested it..but did PAKISTANI engineers R & D it..?NO the chinese did it..
But in the case of Tejas it was defined and DESIGNED by Indians..

That was wat i was asking for..?wat was the contribution of Pakistani scientists nd Engineers other than defining the specifications..?


I the case of HUD ,WMMC can u pls give links..?it wuld be of gr8 help..thx


----------



## Usama86

Since SU-30 mki and F-22 have been compared quite a few times on this thread so i would like to share a video clip, even though its off topic but since this has been discussed here before so i will take the liberty. I believe most of the guys here must have seen it already but its a good one.

Future Dogfights Pt 1 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net

Future Dogfights Pt 2 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net

Future Dogfights Pt 3 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net


----------



## Dazzler

Little off topic but...


The greatest favor IAF will ever do to PAF is to under estimate an aircraft that is co-designed, developed, co-conceived and eventually mastered by PAF in due course. The program was almost abandoned until PAF came up with an entirely new project which we see today as jf-17. It has nothing to do with an enlarged, modified SABER 2 or SUPER SEVEN. IAF has only seen our pilots flying ready made fighters such as sabers, f-6s, Mirages, F-16s and F-7s. I can imagine just how will they perform on a platform that they have co-developed with their own specifications. Out performing the Falcon was just a glimpse of what this nifty fellow can achieve in future..


----------



## Storm Force

By The Time PAF have Added 1 possibly 2 upgrades to the Thunder and indeed inducted 150-200 Thunders i would imagine we will be looking at a Time frame of 7-10- years.

I have 2 Questions 

1. How much will these upgrades cost in particular if they are sourced frm the west

2. Wat will the IAF look like in 2017-2020. 

Bear in mind TONITE as we speak there are barely 10 Thunders inducted so far. 

VERSIS 

6 sqds of Flankers with nearly 110 SU30MKI.. in service.

BY 2016 IAF will have inducted over 230 possibly even 270 su30mki..

Worse stil the IAF may have the first 80+ of 126 MMRCA eg Typhoon or Super Hornets. 

Even Worse THE FGFA 5 gen PAK FA will be entering the fray by 2018. 

"will the thunder last in this theatre" ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

This is the umpteenth time you have posted this stats !! Amazing.....


----------



## Storm Force

WAT AMAZES ME after 18 months and 2000 posts some people are trying to convince us " AND THEMSELVES" that the PAF new JF17 Thunder is more than just a low cost meduim multi role fighter ....


----------



## Avatar

Usama86 said:


> Since SU-30 mki and F-22 have been compared quite a few times on this thread so i would like to share a video clip, even though its off topic but since this has been discussed here before so i will take the liberty. I believe most of the guys here must have seen it already but its a good one.
> 
> Future Dogfights Pt 1 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net
> 
> Future Dogfights Pt 2 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net
> 
> Future Dogfights Pt 3 Video ?zle ?ndir - ?zles.net



The Documentary is very well done but it is also very biased. 
They are making it look like the enemy are sitting ducks. 
Is there a separate thread where this video is discussed ?


----------



## Usama86

Documentary is biased agreed, but why do they show that the Rafales survive the BVR strikes and then are shot down by a Visual range dogfight. They say that the Rafale uses its AESA radar to jam the incoming missile, so the Su-30mki doesnot have an AESA radar??


----------



## Super Falcon

if we look at in reality JF 17 never stands a chance against SU 30 but it doesent mean that JF 17 can never have a kill over SU 30 with the help of ALMIGHTY ALLAH we have showed IAF before how our old jets killed new IAF jets but fact remains the fact SU 30 is more capable jet than JF 17


----------



## Super Falcon

but yes J 10 and Su 30 will be the fair combat


----------



## Avatar

Usama86 said:


> Documentary is biased agreed, but why do they show that the Rafales survive the BVR strikes and then are shot down by a Visual range dogfight. They say that the Rafale uses its AESA radar to jam the incoming missile, so the Su-30mki doesnot have an AESA radar??



They are completely ignorant about the missiles and tech used by Su-30MKI and Rafale. 

At one point they show the American Bomber getting hit by a missile and then going back to friendly airspace at MACH 2 ! 

At another point they keep blabbering about how Thrust Vectoring has transformed F-22 into a dogfight champion for several minutes and at another point they show how F-22 can do Cobra without losing control. Both of these abilities are also on the MKI, but there is no say about it in the video. 

The scenario's are typical bollywood stuff. They are making this up just because USAF is involved in the production. Remember when BVR missiles were first introduced they took the cannons off the jets, but in vietnam they had to mount external cannons. 

Obviously anyone who goes to war with USAF will be 100% aware that they are going to face F-22's and will be prepared for countering them in some way. 

MKI has AESA radar and Israeli jamming tech IIRC. 

They purposely let the Rafale survive because MKI would make the dogfight harder for F-22 (both having TV, able to do Cobra)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

where are my posts


----------



## thunder rules

Storm Force said:


> By The Time PAF have Added 1 possibly 2 upgrades to the Thunder and indeed inducted 150-200 Thunders i would imagine we will be looking at a Time frame of 7-10- years.
> 
> I have 2 Questions
> 
> 1. How much will these upgrades cost in particular if they are sourced frm the west
> 
> 2. Wat will the IAF look like in 2017-2020.
> 
> Bear in mind TONITE as we speak there are barely 10 Thunders inducted so far.
> 
> VERSIS
> 
> 6 sqds of Flankers with nearly 110 SU30MKI.. in service.
> 
> BY 2016 IAF will have inducted over 230 possibly even 270 su30mki..
> 
> Worse stil the IAF may have the first 80+ of 126 MMRCA eg Typhoon or Super Hornets.
> 
> Even Worse THE FGFA 5 gen PAK FA will be entering the fray by 2018.
> 
> "will the thunder last in this theatre" ???



damn man u are too over exaggerating iaf and too underestimating paf, its true paf has number of changeling task coming ahead but paf is working hard. on the other hand iaf is enjoying great support from russia israel and america as well which are providing iaf every thing they are in need of . but this is not the case with paf, paf have financial constrains other international pressure as well
on the other hand by 2015 paf will have handy amount of deterrence and we are expecting 100+ thunder in to service . and about indian mmrca , their first squadron of 15-18 planes mmrca will be functional by 2014 then on what ground u say they will say they would have 80+ by 2015?


----------



## thunder rules

Super Falcon said:


> if we look at in reality JF 17 never stands a chance against SU 30 but it doesent mean that JF 17 can never have a kill over SU 30 with the help of ALMIGHTY ALLAH we have showed IAF before how our old jets killed new IAF jets but fact remains the fact SU 30 is more capable jet than JF 17



its obvious jf 17 thunder with current specification is inferior then mki but once it would be integrated with western avionics then it would be a lethal machine. hope paf makes wise decision in order to obtain western support for our baby.


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Super Falcon said:


> if we look at in reality JF 17 never stands a chance against SU 30 but it doesent mean that JF 17 can never have a kill over SU 30 with the help of ALMIGHTY ALLAH *we have showed IAF before how our old jets killed new IAF jets* but fact remains the fact SU 30 is more capable jet than JF 17




man are u serious.....new jets of IAF.
in both war of 65 n 71 PAF had superiority over IAF.although IAF got birds in huge quantity but they were not more then crap as compared to PAF.and yes it was done by the grace of ALLAH.
yes su30mki is far more superior then thunder but both never put into any war and hence no result.just have to wait n c


----------



## Avatar

Instead of saying things like "MKI will kill JF-17" or "JF-17 CAN kill MKI" or "With the grace of god JF-17 will be able to shoot down MKI" people should write down possible scenarios or situations where this is actually possible. 


As far as my opinion is concerned, it is impossible for JF-17 to take down an MKI in aerial combat, 1 vs 1. 

We can design a scenario where a formation of JF-17's and F-16's faces a formation of MKI's and LCA/Mig-29/Mirage/Bison


----------



## Avatar

danger-zone said:


> man are u serious.....new jets of IAF.
> in both war of 65 n 71 *PAF had superiority over IAF*.although IAF got birds in huge quantity but they were not more then crap as compared to PAF.and *yes it was done by the grace of ALLAH.*
> yes su30mki is far more superior then thunder but both never put into any war and hence no result.just have to wait n c




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



> Unable to deter India's activities in the eastern sector, on December 3, 1971, *Pakistan launched an air attack in the western sector on a number of Indian airfields, including Ambala in Haryana, Amritsar in Punjab, and Udhampur in Jammu and Kashmir. The attacks did not succeed in inflicting substantial damage. The Indian air force retaliated the next day and quickly achieved air superiority. *On the ground, the strategy in the eastern sector marked a significant departure from previous Indian battle plans and tactics, which had emphasized set-piece battles and slow advances. The strategy adopted was a swift, three-pronged assault of nine infantry divisions with attached armored units and close air support that rapidly converged on Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan. Lieutenant General Sagat Singh, who commanded the eighth, twenty-third, and fifty-seventh divisions, led the Indian thrust into East Pakistan. As these forces attacked Pakistani formations, the *Indian air force rapidly destroyed the small air contingent in East Pakistan and put the Dhaka airfield out of commission.* In the meantime, the Indian navy effectively blockaded East Pakistan. Dhaka fell to combined Indian and Mukti Bahini forces on December 16, bringing a quick end to the war.





> Though the Indian conduct of the land war on the western front was somewhat timid, *the role of the Indian air force was both extensive and daring.* During the fourteen-day war, the *air force's Western Command conducted some 4,000 sorties.* There was *little retaliation by Pakistan's air force*, partly because of the paucity of non-Bengali technical personnel. Additionally, this lack of retaliation reflected the *deliberate decision of the Pakistan Air Force headquarters to conserve its forces because of heavy losses incurred in the early days of the war.*




Source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+in0189) 


You call that Air Superiority ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahakaya

DAMN - A 105 pages of JUNK on this thread - A JF-17 Vs an MKI 

Hahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaahaha <PAUSE> 

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

How can the mods just let this thread be!

LOL this is funny! - JF-17 cant compete against Mig 29 K or as a matter of fact will be just comparable to the Tejas (or most likely far from it too) and here we have a thread on a plane killing the HEAVYWEIGHT SUPER FIGHTER!

GET REAL GUYS!


----------



## deckingraj

^^^^^^^^

Dude Avatar you have opened a pandora box...Why can i see this topic turning into 1947-1965-1971-Kargil war discussion...???


----------



## Avatar

deckingraj said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Dude Avatar you have opened a pandora box...Why can i see this topic turning into 1947-1965-1971-Kargil war discussion...???



Because I cannot stand lies. 

I'm sorry, just wanted to break a few misconceptions. 

This entire thread is meaningless as it is.


----------



## deckingraj

Avatar said:


> Because I cannot stand lies.
> 
> *I'm sorry, just wanted to break a few misconceptions. *
> 
> This entire thread is meaningless as it is.



Futile exercise...anyways good luck!!!


----------



## Usama86

Chuck Yeager and the Pakistan Air Force
An Excerpt from Yeager,
the Autobiography of General (Retd.) Chuck E. Yeager (USAF)

When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh, or East Pakistan, as it was known in those days, and Russia was backing India with tremendous amounts of new airplanes and tanks. The U.S. and China were
backing the Pakistanis. My job was military advisor to the Pakistani airforce, headed by Air Marshal Rahim Khan, who had been trained in Britain by the Royal Air Force, and was the first Pakistani pilot to exceed the speed of sound. He took me around to their different fighter groups and I met their pilots, who knew me and were really pleased that I was there.

They had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s. They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying. One of my first jobs there was to help them put U.S. Sidewinders on their Chinese MiGs, which were 1.6 Mach twin-engine airplanes that carried three thirty-millimeter canons. Our government furnished them with the rails for Sidewinders. They bought the missiles and all the checkout equipment that went with them, and it was one helluva interesting experience watching
their electricians wiring up American missiles on a Chinese MiG. I worked with their squadrons and helped them develop combat tactics. The Chinese MiG was one hundred percent Chinese-built and was made for only one hundred hours of flying before it had to be scrapped - a disposable fighter good for one hundred strikes. In fairness, it was an older
airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them. They delivered spare parts, but it was a tough airplane to work on; the Pakistanis kept it flying for about 130 hours.

War broke out only a couple of months after we had arrived, in late November 1971, when India attacked East Pakistan. The battle lasted only three days before East Pakistan fell. India's intention was to annex East Pakistan and claim it for themselves. But the Pakistanis counter-attacked. Air Marshal Rahim Khan laid a strike on the four closest Indian air fields in the western part of India, and wiped out a lot of equipment. At that point, Indira Gandhi began moving her forces toward West Pakistan. China moved in a lot of equipment, while Russia backed the Indians all the way. So, it really became a kind of surrogate war - the Pakistanis, with U.S. training and equipment, versus the Indians, mostly Russian-trained, flying Soviet airplanes.
The Pakistanis whipped their [Indians'] ***** in the sky.
The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made
Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks on Pakistani soil, documented them by serial number, identified the components such as engines, rocket
pods, and new equipment on newer planes like the Soviet SU-7
fighter-bomber and the MiG-21 J, their latest supersonic fighter. The Pakistani army would cart off these items for me, and when the war ended, it took two big American Air Force cargo lifters to carry all those parts back to the States for analysis by our intelligence division. I didn't get involved in the actual combat because that would've been too touchy, but I did fly around and pick up shot-down Indian pilots and take them back to prisoner-of-war camps for questioning. I interviewed them about the equipment they had been flying and the tactics their Soviet advisers taught them to use. I wore a uniform or flying suit all the time, and it was amusing when those Indians saw my name tag and asked, "Are you the Yeager who broke the sound barrier?" They couldn't believe I was in Pakistan or understand what I was doing there. I told them, "I'm the
American Defense Rep here. That's what I'm doing."

India flew numerous raids against the Pakistani air fields with brand new SU-7 bombers being escorted in with MiG 21s. On one of those raids, they clobbered my small Beech Queen Air that had U.S. Army markings and a big American flag painted on the tail. I had it parked at the Islamabad
airport, and I remember sitting on my front porch on the second day of the war, thinking that maybe I ought to move that airplane down to the Iranian border, out of range of the Indian bombers, when the damned air-raid siren went off, and a couple of Indian jets came streaking in overhead. A moment later, I saw a column of black smoke rising from the air field. My Beech Queen was totaled. It was the Indian way of giving Uncle Sam the finger.

I stayed on in Pakistan for almost a year after the war ended, and it was one of the most enjoyable times of my life. From 1972 until we came home in March 1973, I spent most of my time flying in an F-86 Sabre with the Pakistani fighter outfits. I dearly loved the Sabre, almost as much as I enjoyed the P-51 Mustang from World War II days. It was a terrific airplane to fly and I took one to see K-2, the great mountain of Pakistan and the second highest mountain in the world, about an hour's flight away
[from Islamabad] at over 28,000 feet. It's a fabulous peak, as awesome and beautiful as any on earth, located in the middle of a high range that runs the length of the Chinese-Pakistani border. We actually crossed over into China to get there, and I've got some pictures of me in my cockpit right smack up against the summit. I made two or three trips up to K-2 - real highlights. I also did some bighorn sheep hunting in the Himalayan foothills. Susie owned a little Arabian mare. She took her horse when I went hunting and actually learned some of the Urdu language of the mountain people.


Military History: Chuck Yeager on Pakistan Air Force

Hey Avatar you just stepped in mud man, we all are gonna be slinging mud at each other now lol... good work

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avatar

Usama86 said:


> Hey Avatar you just stepped in mud man, we all are gonna be slinging mud at each other now lol... good work



I asked you for a reliable source. When you do have one, make sure you highlight the important parts so I dont have to go through the whole article again. 

The Americans were supporting you (at the time of writing) and the American pilot when he wrote this piece was obviously flattered by your hospitality. I gave you an official source, not a blog.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

Oh MODS please stop these people from destroying this thread! they are back to discusiing 65,71 and all! when clearly these topics have been discussed to death in the history section!!! clearly AVATAR hasn't read up on the history section of these points!


----------

