Again you are displaying your two-faced subtle denial of what was discussed earlier. Throughout this discussion, you have maintained that the technology is not mature enough to be fielded by the U.S. even.Again I don't know why u keep saying that...I never denied this technology's existence. Read my post 135. I only said that USAF isn't going to acquire it(operationalized/acquired in large quantities on JASSM/UAVs) until mid 2020s.
So what u r saying here is that if the French do get it they r not going to advertise it on the website...meaning there is no proof that the French acquired this tech from Raytheon/Boeing...and yet u r adamant that the French Rafales have it?
It is not a traitorous mentality. It is called considering the facts...FACTS and basing judgement on reality. Pak isn't US/China/KSA with immense capital... to throw around just bcuz u can. Pak's enemy has a much bigger capital to spend on arms...and Pak has to carefully utilize its limited resources to effectively counter and deter the enemy.
The threat of Rafales is being considered but based on facts. All the facts currently point to Rafales having top notch JAMMING capabilities, which will be countered with the upgrading of subsystems to make them less prone to jamming.
The future threat isn't being ignored either. The next gen fighter program is based on the threats PAF would face within the time frame when it would be operationalized.
I have just shown how you cherry pick on information to forward your own opinion and views. You are a toxic person who disseminates wrong information. This is the first thing I hold against you. The fact of the matter is, the USAF already has CHAMP operational in limited quantity. It is a technology that can be deployed today if emergency strikes. This lays to waste your earlier claim that the French cannot have it, since even Americans don't have it today. Look at the red rectangle below. Now tell me, do you have even a semblance of shame in yourself? How much duplicity will you display to keep your dead horse in the race?
You have one purpose in this discussion: to somehow prove your point that EMP weapons are not a threat. In order to achieve this, you will engage in everything from personal attacks to excuses of lack of finance, to shoddy displays of 'realism'. I said this earlier, and I am saying this again: it is a singular displeasure conversing with you, because you will descend to all lows in order to further your own argument. Sit in a corner, and reflect upon this.
The Indians are paying approx. 9 Billion dollars for 36 planes. Have you ever thought where this money will be spent? The simple answer is, they are getting the best technology that money can buy today. This is a no holds barred move by India to get absolute superiority in S. Asia. People like you are enemies in disguise, because you try to trivialize threats we face. You obviously don't understand where the cutting edge of technology stands, and you for one should not be telling anyone what threat is serious or otherwise.
Dude, how much knowledge do you have about aerodynamics, system design and engineering, and aircraft manufacturing? I just explained to you what a fundamental change these modifications cause to the basic characteristics of the aircraft, and you are continuing your claims of 'minor tweaks'? This is again, misinformation that you are spreading on the forum. The production of B version was launched in April 2016The JF17B already has a bigger nosecone...and so yes it has to do with AESA. This rather shows ur total lack of knowledge. These r indeed "minor tweaks" as compared to what u r arguing...which is to change the entire airframe to make it stealth.
This wasn't as big of an investment as it would be to change the entire airframe for stealth shaping. I have no purpose/agenda here for which I'm trying to ignore/change anything. Which Pakistani wouldn't like their country to have a stealth fighter? What I'm arguing is making smart use of resources. JF17 was conceptualized in the 1990s...it's purpose was to replace the aging platforms like F7s/Mirages, be sanction proof, built according to Pak needs, built indigenous capacity/industry. It is on track for all of that. Trying to modify something like that into a 5th gen is beyond retarded. Instead a new program from scratch should focus on that...and guess what it already is.
From that time, it took a year for the first flight of a working prototype. The budget for this model has not been disclosed. Do you understand the work involved in conceptualization, iterating through design choices, design verification, and eventual production? You are calling all of this, at least a whole year of hard work, a 'minor tweak'. At this point, I suggest you put the keyboard away and engage in something that is closer to your capabilities. You are an absolute clubie who is Bull Sh***ing on the forum and making uncorroborated claims.
Understand this, if something is considered valuable enough, it shall be implemented. And you are not in a position to say what is valuable enough.
Again, you have no knowledge on this subject. Either that, or you deceitfully left the F-15 out of your list. Read about the Silent Eagle here, and don't cherry pick. Don't tell me 'This is just a prototype'. The important part is that Israel has been requesting the Silent Eagles and actively denied by America. This is a very good example of a legacy jet being transformed into a LO jet.No country on earth followed the approach u r suggesting. The Americans didn't take their F16 and tried to turn it into stealth. The Russians didn't take their Su27 variants and tried turning it into a stealth fighter. The Chinese didn't take their F7s and modify it into a stealth plane. The Japanese didn't take their F2 and modify it into stealth.
Another example is the FC-20 project. It takes the overall Thunder platform, and transforms it into a more stealthy design. Yes, seniors on this very forum have confirmed such a project was planned back in 2009, but lack of funding killed it.
So yes, stealth features for JF-17 make perfect sense.
Yes, you don't know. Which is why you should be the very last person to confidently opinionate on the subject.Yes I did use the word "probably"...regarding ur comment about the stealth shaping of JF17 airframe...
"moreover to create such a precise frame on PAC's production lines would probably require a major technological upgrade."
Bcuz unlike u I don't claim to know something if I don't know it. I don't know the current capabilities of PAC in terms of precision manufacturing. Considering the PAC hasn't produced a stealth fighter before where the airframe has extremely low levels of tolerances...I assume that it would require some upgrades in the manufacturing process.
Probably, the news went unnoticed by yourself, but recently we got to know that PAF is acquiring a new Europoean solution for Aircraft Health Management. Read the news on Quwa
and the official press release by the company
The PAF is constantly modernizing itself. There is no reason to believe it cannot acquire the precision manufacturing technologies needed for a basic stealthy design.
Have you ever read a technical review of stealth planes? Every review starts by commenting on the aircraft's surfaces. To give you an example, read an analysis of F-22 stealthYes PAC should acquire such capabilities over time as they will be needed for the next gen fighter jet program...and not the JF17. The JF17 program is working fine...accomplishing what it was intended for.
That's they keyword there...bang for the buck. The reduction in IR signature with the modified intake cowls would help evading a heat seaking missile increasing survivability. Stealth shaping the airframe and not using increased amount of composites and ram coatings doesn't fully deliver the deliver the benefits of the stealth shaping and has a massive cost associated with it...hence it is not going to happen.
Now, do you see why surface geometry matters more than RAM coatings? Let me spell this out to you, loud and clear. In order to achieve stealthy design, it is more important to have the right angular surfaces than RAM coatings. So, yes, a diamond nose accompanied by other structural changes will definitely make a difference.Low observability is achieved by a range of measures. The F-22 employs planform shaping and faceting with blended facet boundaries, the latter a necessary concession to high performance aerodynamics. This is apparent in the shape of the nose, the fuselage sides about the inlets and engines, and the upper forward fuselage. Lockheed/B/GD used serrated edges extensively, as with the F-117A, to control the returns from panel boundaries, this is very visible on the undercarriage and weapon bay doors. The planform results in a multiple lobe design, as the boundaries of the major surfaces are not parallel with respect to each other. Planform return lobe structure is defined by the radiation pattern lobes resulting from surface wave reflections which occur at the leading and trailing edges of the airframe's major surfaces. The objective of lobing is to concentrate this unavoidable radar return into specific directions so as to minimise frontal/aft/beam aspect return and maximise scintillation in the direction of the lobe. Scintillation is a measure of how rapidly the size of the return varies with angle, the greater this variation, the more difficult a target is to track. The lower the number of lobes and the narrower the lobes, the lower the probability of detecting any return.
Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM. For example, new ceramic-matrix RAM is utilized on the engine exhaust nozzles to reduce radar and IR signatures, and a greater amount of wide-band structural RAM is used on the wing edges. The interesting shape of the radome on the F-22 reflects radar signals at all frequencies except the precise wavelengths emitted from the F-22. This can be attributed to the radome's low bandpass type.
Yes, this is a pointless discussion. You know why? Because I have no where maintained that Block 3 *will have* stealth features. I like indulging in hypotheticals, and I like listing my wishes. They tend to be informed wishes and I like engaging in constructive discussions with others on the forum. Remember this before trying to butt heads with me. I don't take kindly to uninformed individuals who pass off their baseless opinions as the ultimate truth and destroy the quality of the forum.This discussion has become pointless. U can continue to believe what u want. Let's stop here and let time be the judge. Let's come back when block III is unveiled and see if it has diamond nose and the rest of the airframe stealth shaped. If it is I will admit right here in front of everyone that I was wrong...u were right...
but if block III comes out without that diamond nose/stealth shaping...and looks more or less like JF17 and JF17B...r u willing to do the same?
Let's just leave it up to the actual experts(ppl involved JF17 project) and time...and we will find out who was right.