Anatolian Eagle' 19 - Thunder to roar in Turkey !

[Armchair]

Thing is for that we already have 76 F16,
However indo pak scenario is such that 100s of Indian Strike aircraft would be escorted by hundreds of Indian fighters , these would be picked by awacs so you already know where the enemy is , you can get in a good comfortable position and launch bvrs ,
The type of aircraft you mentioned is basically for finding the enemies it self at long range and engaging from long range too ,
The thunder being our back bone would also have to hunt the 100s of low flying strike aircraft with CBU105 lest they mince our armoured regiments , for that high alt is a disadvantage and a aircraft which is designed for high alt warfare is very bad for such combat , you can even try this in simulator games like war thunder where regardless of being a jet or prop WW2 plane , the 3 different aircraft , air superiority ( high alt, find enemy and kill ) , interceptor ( high or medium alt strike packages hunter , usually have a clue where the enemy will come from ) and air interdiction ( Hunt CAS and fighters bombers at low alt , as the enemy won't use SOW for every single target like infantry and mobile artillery positions) these planes perform bad if you use them for a different role,
A all rounder balances that escpailly since we have no dedicated air superiority or interceptor craft ( F7PG by modern standards are outraged )

I was discussing kinematic performance. It doesn't matter if you can see a fighter from a 1000 miles or not. If you can't harm it, when it can harm you...

 

[airomerix]

Problem is, most of these scenarios are played out with a fixed set of range for the missile. While, in reality, your missile's range is a complicated affair. The higher you are and the faster you are flying, the greater the range of the launched missile.

Now, imagine a scenario where an enemy fighter is flying at 50,000 feet and you are at 35,000. The enemy fighter goes for a sprint and reaches mach 2 while you are stuck at Mach 1.6. If we are considering equal BVRs, the enemy fighter will be able to get the first shot(s) and f-pole. You could get into his NEZ (no escape zone) while he simply escapes yours.

Now imagine this in grand scale of many BVRs, and the enemy having medium and heavy fighters, with large loads of BVRs at play.

Suddenly, the JFT doesn't seem that great anymore, and we are reminded of @MastanKhan who kept saying that the JFT should have been 20% more...

Makes sense.

However in air combat fighters rarely reach speeds exceeding Mach 1.5. It simply burns too much fuel and puts the entire aircraft at risk. The systems vibrate, oscillations occur in crucial components and IF the aircraft is equipped with missiles, they will just break off damaging the aircraft. So in that scenario i think JF-17 might throw a punch or two. Highly depends on tens of other factors we dont know about.

 

[Armchair]

Makes sense.

However in air combat fighters rarely reach speeds exceeding Mach 1.5. It simply burns too much fuel and puts the entire aircraft at risk. The systems vibrate, oscillations occur in crucial components and IF the aircraft is equipped with missiles, they will just break off damaging the aircraft. So in that scenario i think JF-17 might throw a punch or two. Highly depends on tens of other factors we dont know about.

interesting. If I may: is there a significant difference in kinematics between, say, a Eurofighter and a JFT in real combat scenarios? (with missiles, etc)?

 

[airomerix]

interesting. If I may: is there a significant difference in kinematics between, say, a Eurofighter and a JFT in real combat scenarios? (with missiles, etc)?

Yes hell lotta difference. The Eurofighter being more powerful would simply regain energy quickly. Its structure is also built with better composites which remain intact during high stress situation.

The first JF-17 loss was due to breaking off of a wing during high speed pass at speeds in excess of Mach 1. The benchmarks used in GVT (Ground vibration tests) were not satisfactory it was later found. There is alot more to the story which i do not want to say or disclose.

 

[Ultima Thule]

interesting. If I may: is there a significant difference in kinematics between, say, a Eurofighter and a JFT in real combat scenarios? (with missiles, etc)?

Do EF-2000 participating in Anatolian eagle exercise 2019 @Armchair

 

[Army research]

I was discussing kinematic performance. It doesn't matter if you can see a fighter from a 1000 miles or not. If you can't harm it, when it can harm you...

Sorry I didn't exactly mention kinetics but I did indirectly, of all the categories I mentioned , the first one of high alt air sup is a better energy performer , where as the second cat is medium to high capability In it , however the third cat is better at turn fighting , ie better at low energy fighting and they have to be for the role they have , if you have higher speed you take longer to turn or travel more distance while you turn which might give your enemy the opportunity to lock on ( escpailly with HM clue systems) however a shorter turn and your back behind your for again

 

[HawkEye27]

Problem is, most of these scenarios are played out with a fixed set of range for the missile. While, in reality, your missile's range is a complicated affair. The higher you are and the faster you are flying, the greater the range of the launched missile.

Now, imagine a scenario where an enemy fighter is flying at 50,000 feet and you are at 35,000. The enemy fighter goes for a sprint and reaches mach 2 while you are stuck at Mach 1.6. If we are considering equal BVRs, the enemy fighter will be able to get the first shot(s) and f-pole. You could get into his NEZ (no escape zone) while he simply escapes yours.

Now imagine this in grand scale of many BVRs, and the enemy having medium and heavy fighters, with large loads of BVRs at play.

Suddenly, the JFT doesn't seem that great anymore, and we are reminded of @MastanKhan who kept saying that the JFT should have been 20% more...

Height is not always an advantage in BVR. The look down performance of adversary radar can be exploited.

It all comes to employment. For a 120 million rafale we can employ 6 JFs. So pat le jo patna ha rafale

 

[khanasifm]

Technically if they want they can put 4x2 = 8sd-10 plus 2x pl5 on wingtip on jf 17 provided 4 dual launcher are carried on wings and no drop tanks except centerline, all stations are mil1760 wired

But standards load is different

 

[loanranger]

Yes hell lotta difference. The Eurofighter being more powerful would simply regain energy quickly. Its structure is also built with better composites which remain intact during high stress situation.

The first JF-17 loss was due to breaking off of a wing during high speed pass at speeds in excess of Mach 1. The benchmarks used in GVT (Ground vibration tests) were not satisfactory it was later found. There is alot more to the story which i do not want to say or disclose.

Did the pilot survive?
Difficult task syncing your ejection to a rotating aircraft about its axis....

 

[Armchair]

Yes hell lotta difference. The Eurofighter being more powerful would simply regain energy quickly. Its structure is also built with better composites which remain intact during high stress situation.

The first JF-17 loss was due to breaking off of a wing during high speed pass at speeds in excess of Mach 1. The benchmarks used in GVT (Ground vibration tests) were not satisfactory it was later found. There is alot more to the story which i do not want to say or disclose.

Thank you so much. I always learn from your posts, you're a treasure trove!

 

[airomerix]

Technically if they want they can put 4x2 = 8sd-10 plus 2x pl5 on wingtip on jf 17 provided 4 dual launcher are carried on wings and no drop tanks except centerline, all stations are mil1760 wired

But standards load is different

SD-10's have large fins unlike AMRAAM C series which are sleek. Hence SD-10 will be difficult to mount on double/triple ejector pods.

Did the pilot survive?
Difficult task syncing your ejection to a rotating aircraft about its axis....

Fortunately he did.

The only pilot loss of JF-17 was during a low level sea skimming mission of JF-17 over Arabian sea. The body was never found.

 

[Armchair]

SD-10's have large fins unlike AMRAAM C series which are sleek. Hence SD-10 will be difficult to mount on double/triple ejector pods.



Fortunately he did.

The only pilot loss of JF-17 was during a low level sea skimming mission of JF-17 over Arabian sea. The body was never found.

I think the PL-15 fins are smaller, perhaps they can be loaded in the MERs?

 

[Ultima Thule]

SD-10's have large fins unlike AMRAAM C series which are sleek. Hence SD-10 will be difficult to mount on double/triple ejector pods.

Yes you're but slightly bigger than AMRAAM C have a look

 

[airomerix]

I think the PL-15 fins are smaller, perhaps they can be loaded in the MERs?

PL-15 is an expensive missile and we have very less in numbers. A shipment of 100 arrived in early March.

Also, China wouldn't allow us to simulate that missile with western airforces. It has yeilded very impressive performance results in the past years.

 

[Ultima Thule]

PL-15 is an expensive missile and we have very less in numbers. A shipment of 100 arrived in early March.

Also, China wouldn't allow us to simulate that missile with western airforces. It has yeilded very impressive performance results in the past years.

Do you telling us PAF currently have PL-15 in its arsenal, if you say yes then which platform will fire, if you say JF-17 block-2 than KLJ-7V2 radar range of only 130 KM, we don't exploit the full potential of PL-15 from Block-2, i think it just a rumor for mr expert @airomerix @airomerix