What's new

Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
13,230
-21
12,994
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Air cooled part is on the pic on page 77 right bottom

What is also interesting and if my interpretation is correct the production radar has 65% more range than the prototype (81NM) giving a range of almost 134NM or 250km for a 5sq m target! It’s a beast!

Also I didn’t find the air cooled part. Can you point out the page?
Prototype means prototype of KLJ7A

By prototype couldn't it have meant the radar on the prototype JF-17 i.e. the mechanically steered KLJ-7v1? And the more than 81NM range stated in the article is for the current one i.e. KLJ-7A?

Also, this could be the open market export version specs. Because why should we reveal what prowess our own Thunders would be having in the context of radar ranges?
 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
13,230
-21
12,994
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
To be honest it is a disappointing article mostly based on hearsay or guesswork and so many contradictions. Nothing official.


Yes. Already pointed by the member. But another confusion since in the article they say liquid cooled and then they use a speculative language in the picture caption as in: “it looks like” KLJ7AESA radar will be air cooled.
 

aliyusuf

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2010
1,385
6
2,182
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
KLJ-7v1/2 have already been marketed at around 110km for 5 sq m RCS target if I remember correctly so how would 81 NM (150Km) be 65% more? Also if we refer to the updated specs of LKF601, it’s now touted to be 200Km.
Could be that initially, the radar on the prototype Thunder could have had a range of around 90 km? Additional 65% of which could be around 150KM or 81N?

But then again, as I stated before, all this is for the open market customers. So that we don't boast our stats and then deliver them watered-down versions ... most likely what the Russians do and earn a bad rep in the process.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
5,903
8
8,924
Where will the hard points for all this come? I mean Jeff is still a lightweight aircraft. There would be airframe limitations, engine output issues. Should we also not be looking at developing a medium-weight fighter?
Hard point for what? Loyal wingman are supposed to be drones that fly (and takeoff and land) on there own but controlled though the aircraft.
 

sneakerspark

FULL MEMBER
Sep 3, 2015
149
0
184
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
As per my limited knowledge on about how a Fox 3 works, radar is not required to guide the missile till it impacts the target. It is only required to guide the missile until it becomes active. After that missile uses its own radar to guide itself to the bullseye. So even if max range of pl15 exceeds the max range of radar (lets say 80nm) it can still manage to go and hit a target beyond 80nm. This is only theoretically speaking of course. There are a lot of other factors to consider while letting a missile off the rail. You need to see the aspect of the enemy aircraft, closure rate, angels at minimum to decide if to go for a kill or not. Firing at max range, it is relatively easier for enemy aircraft to evade the missile and no air force and in the world will train its pilots to do that. However, for deterrence point of view, you can play with enemy's mind by stating a fact that you have first shooter advantage
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
9,073
79
15,090
Point 7 is crown jewel.
7. RD-93 baseline to speed up induction as RD-93MA still being evaluated.

Without an engine which gives more T/W atleast 1 or 1.1 is limited in power, maneuverability, total weight carrying capacity, and combat range. With RD-93MA, JFT Block III shall compete with any lightweight single engine multirole fighter in the market even beat it.

This is also the reason, IMO, that PAF is acquiring J-10C while JFT Block III are about to be delivered. It is underpowered.
Not related to your post directly but did anyone notice that the 93MA is described as having DEEC rather than FADEC. Any thoughts .sq, @Bilal Khan (Quwa), @Hodor, @JamD . Comments appreciated.
A
 
Last edited:

Falcon26

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 24, 2015
2,372
3
6,532
Country
United States
Location
United States
It’s quite strange that PAF hasn’t thought of integrating IRST on the BLK III. Now they are getting into a scenario where potential customers are asking for one and a non integrated IRST isn’t going to cut for these customers.

The same thing happened with the twin seaters, for many years PAF claimed that there was no reason for twin seaters for the JF-17. But after demands by customers, PAF not only built them but also saw a need for such twin seaters.

There is something wrong with PAF’s thinking process.
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
23,882
190
46,240
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Can you please point where the article says that the radar has shorter range than PL15? Because I read completely opposite to it that the radar range exceeds all current and future BVRAAMs range.

I wasn't pointing towards Article. My opinion was in continuation what Member(s) been concerning & worrying in regard to short range Radar. I was just stating the solution & not to worry about.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
18,517
10
19,253
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Point 7 is crown jewel.
7. RD-93 baseline to speed up induction as RD-93MA still being evaluated.

Without an engine which gives more T/W atleast 1 or 1.1 is limited in power, maneuverability, total weight carrying capacity, and combat range. With RD-93MA, JFT Block III shall compete with any lightweight single engine multirole fighter in the market even beat it.

This is also the reason, IMO, that PAF is acquiring J-10C while JFT Block III are about to be delivered. It is underpowered.
Rd93 is not really underpowered for most of the missions
Problem is range/endurance, with rd93ma u get greater dry thrust, better effiency and better safety/reliability
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom