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

[kursed]

There seems to be three different sets of warning systems onboard the JF-17s. RWR, LWS and OESP. I know about RWR, can anyone in here explain the other two?

 

[Dazzler]

No one can debate that jf-17 at such an early stage of its life is comparable to f-16 that has perhaps seen most development than any modern fighter aircraft in all dimensions over a span of 30+ years. There is a reason for its versatility and advanced blocks i.e. 52+ and 60 have the ultimate derivatives of technology developed for Falcon at the beginning of its service. It also borrowed technology from other USAF fighter programs. I pointed out just one dimension where PAF and AVIC have put a special emphasis, the EW capability. Despite that, it WILL serve the mainstay slot of PAF and few other air forces around the world.

 

[Chogy]

I do agree that what I have seen of the JF-17 is impressive. Speculating about it right now is much like guessing at the capabilities of the PAK-FA. Looks cool, flies well, but we don't know much more, nor will we until the program matures a bit.

Programs like these take years, even decades, to reach their pinnacle of performance. For example the APG-63 on the F-15A was revolutionary in that it could be updated via software. Most radars prior to that were hard-wired - what you see is what you get, and improving one is usually not cost-economical. Today, it (the basic APG-63 AI radar) is dated. We have tweaked it as far as it can go. However, retrofitting the F-15C with the (v)2 AESA provides a quantum leap in capabilities.

We will see similar things with the JF-17. As the years go by, it will be massaged into numerous (and more capable) variants.

 

[anathema]

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.

Excellent questions Chogy !!!

I have wondered some of these myself (points 3 & 4). Would love to know the answers !!

 

[mistehbab]

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

I request everyone to avoid cross-talk, word brawls, etc etc. Please focus on discussing;

(a) technical aspects
(b) output of these fighters in dog fight
(c) output of these fighters in one to one scenarios'
(d) output of these fighters in one to many scenarios'

The point of opening this thread was to;

(1) discuss technical details

(2) discuss dog fight capabilities of these war planes

(3) compare these war planes with each other for both defense and offense

(4) compare these war planes with all others out there, especially those which are more powerful

(5) discuss service age of these war-planes, possible upgrades, improvements, maturity that can be brought into them versus other .. better options available to us

(6) discuss comparison on output that can be gained from them

(7) evaluate how as well as why which of the planes is best suited for Pakistan's needs for establishing our air superiority, when looking at local, regional, international, inter-continental scenarios

(8) what we have for defense compared with what other countries have against us

(9) technical details/wish-list on improvements we need to/for these planes

I also want to compare F-16s, JF-17 to F-22, F-14 Tomcat, JSF war planes, Mig-29, etc etc. I hear of war-planes that are extremely maneuverable i.e., they can decrease speeds or stop quicker, turn quicker, make sharp turns and twists during dog fights. Are the F-16s, JF-17 Pakistan have capable of defending or carrying out offensive missions against planes with such deadly maneuverability ?

P.S. If there are other threads with similar topics, please post links of those on this thread. I will check them out as well.

 

[hboGYT]

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.

Can it 'triangulate' information of a threat by using multiple sensors simultaneously?

I think it doesn't distinguish all that. It just sends out a warning if anything like a missile comes near the aircraft regardless of its actual target.

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?

Aren't IR and UV sensors supposed to detected radiation produced by friction with the air?

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]

.....................

It appears that the SE-2 sensor is intended for heat seeking missiles, missiles that do not trigger the RWR. Passive sensors generally provides only threat sector information and are interfaced to the counter measure dispenser.

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

guys we r all getting the wrong idea on this thread we r not looking on the stratejic aspect of these aircrafts and just compairing tech .for example we need to keep in mind the no ,the crater of deployment ,the role in a specific field etc.all we do all the time is compair radar ranges and jamming systems have we discussed how will the crafts be used in all out war how will they complement each other in a mission (SEAD for example ) ill give an idea ,jf17 as we all know have a very low RCS and thus even the biggest radars ll have problems deceting it at long ranges ,secondly PAF pilots said its more menouver able than f16 thus it act as a swarmind shock and aaw fighter against intruders .we need to broden our field of discussion plz dont discuss every thing again .i m sorry if i offend any of u but i feel we need to evolve on this forum now

 

[Donatello]

Hi,

I will say, that recently, the ACM said JF-17 is superior to Blk 10/15s that we had but 80% the capability of the new BLK 52+.


Rest assured, they named it "-17" for a reason, for their whole concept was to have a fighter along the parameters of F-16, which even today, are finest in any regard (with exception of fifth gen and stealth, of course)

 

[Manticore]

some physical parameters

----------------------------Gripen ---JF17[blk1]----F16[blk30]

LENGTH [M]----------------14.1---14.0----14.8
WINGSPAN[M]----------------8.4----9.5-----9.8
HIEGHT[M]---------------------4.5----4.8-----4.9
WING AREA [M2]------------30.0---24.5----27.0
THRUST [KN]---------------80.5---84.4---127.0
MAX SPEED -----------------2.0----1.8-----2.0
COMBAT RADIUS[KM]----------800---1352----1500
FERRY RANGE [KM]-----------3200---3000----4000
SERVICE CIELING[M]-------15000--16700---17000
WING LOADING[KG/M2]--------333----370----431
THRUST TO WT--------------0.97---0.99----1.09

the empty wt and total loaded wt is where we have to work on , rest of the parameters are quite similar

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-6.html#post1546101

diameter of the radar dome -rough estimate

F-20/T-50 => ~500mm (APG-67 family)
Gripen => ~500mm (PS/05 family)
M2000 => ~500mm (RDM, RDI, RDY families)
Rafale => ~600mm(RBE family)
MIG-29 => ~624 mm (N019, N010 families)
F-16 => ~660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80 families)

JFT =>~ 670-740 mm

Typhoon => ~700mm (ECR-90/CAPTOR family)
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
F-35 => ~700mm (APG-81)
F-22 => ~900mm (APG-77)
F-15 => ~950mm (APG-63, APG-70 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)
MIG-31 => ~1400mm (N007 family)

 

[500]

Main advantage of F-16 is that it can carry more fuel (esp with CFT), has more hardpoints and has bigger thrust/weight ratio. Therefore F-16 will have advantage in deep strike missions and long range interceptions. In CAS and protection of own territory they are quite equal.

 

[Donatello]

Main advantage of F-16 is that it can carry more fuel (esp with CFT), has more hardpoints and has bigger thrust/weight ratio. Therefore F-16 will have advantage in deep strike missions and long range interceptions. In CAS and protection of own territory they are quite equal.

...that's the reason PAF opted for JF-17....to have a verstatile fighter in all parts of the country that can be called in for Maritime attack, Recon, Ground Attack and Interceptor role...while heavier roles go to F-16s and J-10.

 

[For Ever Pakistan]

if there was a war wich plane would you go up in ( this applys 2 all the posters regarding this post) myself the tomcat he he

 

[Jahid ali]

You can do anything bro. I think next threat will be can jf 17 can conquer f 22.i don't think you can compare an 80 million f16 to bearly 25 to 30 million jf17. Well nice approach at all