How is the F-16 when compared to JF-17s ?

[untitled]

Well one thing is for sure ..... JF-17 is not going to meet all our requirements in terms of quality .... That is why we opted for the J-10.

The Chinese are still evaluating the JF-17.

 

[Icarus]

Well one thing is for sure ..... JF-17 is not going to meet all our requirements in terms of quality .... That is why we opted for the J-10.

The Chinese are still evaluating the JF-17.

Don't worry, it will, thrust vectoring, mach 2 capable, BVR, all this stuff for 20 million dollars at most is a bargain, that's why we plan to get over 200 of these machines. As for china not getting it, they have different requirements, Russia didn't induct Su-30, doesn't make it a bad plane.

 

[dbc]

Time to impact is clearly visible on HUD in the video on previous page. It is a MAWS system with complete 360 deg coverage and is more than just a standard RWR system as stated by Mr. Professional. RWR is not just a standard fit on American fighters but a common fit for almost all the aircrafts in modern inventory. The base of jf-17s vertical tail has two sensors clearly visible on both sides and these are MAWS or MLDs that i talked about. By the way, i have never seen an RWR that calculates exact time to impact and suggest how to evade incoming threats. Maybe in F 22s but certainly not in the F 16s.

Here is the sensor image and info.

SE-2 Airborne Missile Approach Warning System - SinoDefence.com

I don't see it on the JF-17? Do you have an image?

 

[ironman]

I don't see it on the JF-17? Do you have an image?

Hope this help..

 

[Dazzler]

Here you go.

 

[dbc]

By the way, i have never seen an RWR that calculates exact time to impact and suggest how to evade incoming threats. Maybe in F 22s but certainly not in the F 16s.

Wrong, I don't know about Pakistan's Block 52's but AN/AAR-60 is installed on Danish and Israeli F-16's. The Indian's have it installed on many of their aircraft's.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/1525-eads-india-develop-missile-warning-system.html

The AN/AAR-60 MILDS (Missile Launch Detection System) is a passive missile warning system designed for installation on helicopters and aircraft. The AAR-60 consist of 4/6 uncooled UV (ultraviolet) sensors providing high resolution signals of potential incoming missiles, an external processing unit is not required. Each UV sensor weighs about 20 kg. It can be integrated with a wide range of countermeasures. The AAR-60 is exceptionally suitable against passive guided missiles, typically IR-guided missiles.

The AAR-60 provides a coverage of 360�of azimuth and 95� of elevation. It works detecting and tracking UV plume emissions from the propulsion system of the incoming missile, engaging up to 8 targets simultaneously.

 

[M8R]

JF-17 is a good fighter but not in class of Block 52.It's more like a BVR enabled high speed all weather interceptor mainly due to lack of its range as such it cannot be used in Strike missions but it's damn good IMHO.All those saying it is not good option please tell me what other jet Pakistan should have purchased for air defense role?J10's and F-16's will be used for securing outer layer of our air space as well as on strike missions.

 

[QADRI]

nabil thanks for the info .
People just got so disappointed with JF17 , i dont know wht is there problem ,Y dont they think it is just a baby and with the passage of time Im 110 percent confident that it will grow up to becum a beast.
PAF guys they are doing there best and I salute these People .

Paf cannot make everything abt JF17 public there must have many surprises in this small baby for our enemies.

One more thing comparing it with F16 is not justified.coz F16 is very matured machine and JF17 is a new machine which needs time to mature .

Long Live

Nice reply...thats the thing i am talking about that it takes time to get mature, thats just the beginning not the end.

 

[QADRI]

JF-17 is a good fighter but not in class of Block 52.It's more like a BVR enabled high speed all weather interceptor mainly due to lack of its range as such it cannot be used in Strike missions but it's damn good IMHO.All those saying it is not good option please tell me what other jet Pakistan should have purchased for air defense role?J10's and F-16's will be used for securing outer layer of our air space as well as on strike missions.

Block 52 is not the first fighter of lockheed martin. PAF pilots love thunder when compared with oldies. Block 52 is no doubt a great fighter bt lockheed martin achieve this perfection after a lot of experience. I know block 52 is much better then thunder bt i am sure that when PAC got some experience then they will build something deadly. Moreover atleast thunder is some thing we can say "APNA". So hope for the best.

 

[M8R]

I said the same thing dude.

 

[QADRI]

I said the same thing dude.

Lolz ya i am actually strengthening ur argument.

 

[gambit]

Time to impact is clearly visible on HUD in the video on previous page. It is a MAWS system with complete 360 deg coverage and is more than just a standard RWR system as stated by Mr. Professional. RWR is not just a standard fit on American fighters but a common fit for almost all the aircrafts in modern inventory. The base of jf-17s vertical tail has two sensors clearly visible on both sides and these are MAWS or MLDs that i talked about. By the way, i have never seen an RWR that calculates exact time to impact and suggest how to evade incoming threats. Maybe in F 22s but certainly not in the F 16s.

Here is the sensor image and info.

SE-2 Airborne Missile Approach Warning System - SinoDefence.com

Now we are getting somewhere...

For starter...What we have here is the failure to distinguish the difference between 'function' and 'mechanism'. The 'function' is to detect a threat and assess the degree of urgency of said threat. The 'mechanism' is the sensor type and we have passive, active or both. When we see the phrasing 'radar warning receiver' it is safe to assume the 'mechanism' that support the 'function'. When we see the phrasing 'missile launch detector' we have no idea on what is the 'mechanism' used to detect a missile launch.

Is it possible to have a high degree of confidence that with passive radiation detection alone, one can know if a missile was either launch or a missile launch is imminent? Absolutely...

Radar warning receiver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...the RWR may be able to detect the change in mode that the radar must use to guide the missile and notify the pilot with much more insistent warning tones and flashing, bracketed symbols on the RWR display...

An increase in pulse repetition freq (prf) signals the victim that the radiation impacting his aircraft has seeking radar mode characteristics consistent of producing high target information such as range, altitude and speed. If a seeking radar is capable of such mode switching, odds are good that a missile launch may be imminent. Given the speed of air-air missiles, it is somewhat needless to tell the pilot how many seconds he has remaining, but the convenience of such features are debatable anyway. What is there to suggest as far as countermeasures go? Either chaff or flare or more likely both are deployed anyway.

This 'missile launch detector' uses passive infrared detection looking for an IR 'flare-up' compared against a relatively cooler background consistent of a missile launch. It is debatable on whether this system alone is sufficient since by the time a missile is away, the victim's target characteristics are already established via a seeking radar. That is not a good thing. It is preferable to deny the enemy a 'look-see' opportunity no matter what type of missile he has. Now coupled this with an RWR system and we will have something to boast about as unique and an 'advancement'.

So my advice is to look beyond the fancy and scary names, American or Russian or Chinese, of the device that perform a 'function' and examine the device's particular 'mechanism'. That would make for a more interesting debate on the efficacy of what type in what situation.

 

[Chogy]

I am having an extremely difficult time imagining that device, which is apparently a passive optical sensor, doing the following:

1) Identifying a missile launch in all weather conditions, including IMC, or a SAM from below an undercast. Attenuation of the IR signal from the rocket motor will be severe. Are the mounted in the forward quadrant as well? Missiles arrive from all aspects.

2) Determining time of flight. An IR plume is simply an IR plume. A passive sensor cannot determine whether it is a MANPAD, a PAC-3, or a sidewinder. Given that, how does it know the velocity of the missile? By line of sight? This will fail as different missiles have differing intercept profiles. And what happens when the sensor detects a surface to surface rocket launch, like MLRS? Does it force the pilot to begin some wild, evasive maneuver based upon ANY IR plume detected? That would tend to detract from the mission a bit.

3) Finally, recommend an evasive procedure: The geometry involved is astronomically complicated. I can see it deploying chaff, but if it pops flares willy-nilly, that may be the last thing you want. Flares are visible at extreme distances and can attract lurking bandits for 25+ nautical miles.

4) Rocket motor burn-out. Missiles don't burn during their entire time of flight. Once the motor burns out and the missile is coasting, how does it keep track of it?

If it is an active sensor, and emits something, then it can gather more data... but anything active (radar, laser, etc) is also visible to other platforms with appropriate sensors.

I may be 100% wrong. I am basing all this on the image of the device itself, which appears to be an IR detector, probably cooled, with some sort of gimbal system that allows it to track IR.

 

[dbc]

I may be 100% wrong. I am basing all this on the image of the device itself, which appears to be an IR detector, probably cooled, with some sort of gimbal system that allows it to track IR.

LOL you're a 100% right Chogy, a mutual friend asked me to say hello!

 

[Donatello]

Not sure about that. We called the MIG-21 'Fishbed', the MIG-25 'Foxbat'. Care to guess who got labeled 'Fagot'?




Neither does sucking up to the Chinese in implying somehow they are more 'matured' than US by not naming their gear. Give me a break.






Yes I could. But usually I wait until someone make an assertion that violate known laws of physics. Or at least tread close to it.

No one is violating laws of Physics. If you can't add something actually useful than i really don't know if you can talk about maturity or not.