What's new

How LETHAL is PAF J-10C Vigorous Dragon? The Game Changer for Pakistan Air Force...by Sqn Ldr (R) Fahad Masood, a former PAF mirage specialist.

Hi,

Thanks for the post. I did not see that he was a PAF officer---so I did not watch the video.

The info about the Lavi---one of our german member will not like that.


Oh well ... our special troll at work again! :taz:

jh7B is out of production thats why.....it no longer even participates in shaheen exes.

minor correction - but since you take facts as not that relevant anyway - the JH-7B was NEVER in production! :azn:
 
.
True of chemical fueled rocket motors with the notable exception of the meteor. Solid motors cannot throttle, the chemicals once ignited deliver uniform thrust until the chemical fuel is fully combusted. Unlike the AMRAAM or PL15,the solid propellant in the meteor is oxygen deficient, oxygen for the chemical reaction is delivered via the air intake. This oxygen deficient fuel allows the missile to carry more propellant and throttle is controlled by the amount of oxygen delivered to the combustion chamber. The disadvantage of this design choice is the need to maintain air flow into the intake limits AoA and thus maneuverability. The advantage is greater end game energy and increased range, depending on launch conditions and throttle setting the meteor will go much further than its advertised range.
Using a ramjet is not necessarily a good choice. There is a reason why the United States, China and Russia do not choose a ramjet.
There are two disadvantages while eliminating the oxidant and thereby increasing the propellant load.
On the one hand, ramjets are prone to surge or even stop due to changes in airflow during sharp turns when they implement high angle of attack maneuvers, while solid rocket motors do not have this problem.
On the other hand, the acceleration performance of ramjets is not as good as that of solid rocket motors, which results in a longer time to maximum speed than solid rocket motors, which results in greatly increased firing close range.
 
. .
it's a good choice against bombers, AWACS and mid air refueling assets. Besides, launching against a suitably equipped fast mover at 180 miles is a waste of an AAM anyway.
For combating AWACS, the shooting range of Meteor is obviously too short. After all, the detection distance of AWACS to fighter targets is about 500KM. Obviously, the large rocket-powered missile PL-21 with a range of more than 400km carried by the J-16 is more suitable for attacking targets with poor mobility such as early warning aircraft tankers.
 
.
For combating AWACS, the shooting range of Meteor is obviously too short. After all, the detection distance of AWACS to fighter targets is about 500KM. Obviously, the large rocket-powered missile PL-21 with a range of more than 400km carried by the J-16 is more suitable for attacking targets with poor mobility such as early warning aircraft tankers.

No it's not, for Pakistan the meteor is good enough
 
.
it's a good choice against bombers, AWACS and mid air refueling assets. Besides, launching against a suitably equipped fast mover at 180 miles is a waste of an AAM anyway.

Hi,

Oh really---. And that is why the US is headed that way and europe has already developed one---indeed.

No it's not, for Pakistan the meteor is good enough

Hi,

what did you mean by these comments.
 
.
Oh really---. And that is why the US is headed that way and europe has already developed one---indeed.

it will take six minutes for an Air-to-air missile launched at 300 miles flying at Mach 4 to travel the distance to its target. Enough time for pilot of the targeted fighter to land make a cup of tea and perhaps finish his laundry. Of course I exaggerate for effect but certainly enough time to disengage and get lost in ground clutter OR employ several effective counter measures to defeat the inbound missile. I didn't say long range BVR is useless, it will still force enemy fighters out of the fight and can be employed against slow movers or cruise missiles.

what did you mean by these comments.
Pakistan has very little territorial depth the meteor has enough range to target AWACS flying almost anywhere in Pakistani airspace.
 
.
Pakistan has very little territorial depth the meteor has enough range to target AWACS flying almost anywhere in Pakistani airspace.
Hi,

Opponent will have to come pretty close to the border to launch.

That scenario has been considered.

The thing is that the missile with a 250 KM range will have a very high kill % at 100-150 KM range.

So---as long as your missile out reaches the opponents missile---it is your discretion to chose the range to shoot it from.
 
. . .
it's a good choice against bombers, AWACS and mid air refueling assets. Besides, launching against a suitably equipped fast mover at 180 miles is a waste of an AAM anyway.

Very good point I missed in the past when commenting on ramjet vs dual pulse for these newer extended range, modern medium range missiles.

Europe has chosen ramjet path for these missiles because it has the more unique position of needing to worry about hundreds of Russian bombers making sweeps onto Europe. Ramjets generally do not fare quite as well as rocket for lots of sharp turning as someone else raised. It is certainly more prone to issues and has more risks of losing thrust but against bombers and large important targets like AWACS or refuel tankers this is not much of a problem. Lots of air to surface or anti ship missiles use ramjet propulsion since 50 years ago. It's just not great against fast moving targets if all other factors equal.

The Indian Akash SAM missile system got rid of the ramjets as soon as the Indians modified it after domesticating the Soviet Kub missile (first Akash system) which the Soviets threw out, favoring many other of their SAMs over the Kub ramjet powered SAM... because ramjets for a missile aiming at fighters just isn't as good if all other factors equal. For Meteor, well 50 years of technology later it should be much better but stretching the range to deal with large and slow aircraft, ramjet is more than reliable enough.
 
.
it's a good choice against bombers, AWACS and mid air refueling assets. Besides, launching against a suitably equipped fast mover at 180 miles is a waste of an AAM anyway.
Hi,

It still has benefits. So---if the opponents BVR max range is 130 miles---why would you launch your missile from 180 miles--- you can launch your missile from 135 miles---which is 75% of its max range---which means that the missiles terminal velocity at the target would be much much higher thus a higher kill ratio.
Opponent shooting from 130 miles will have a like 50% kill ratio.
 
.
Hi,

It still has benefits. So---if the opponents BVR max range is 130 miles---why would you launch your missile from 180 miles--- you can launch your missile from 135 miles---which is 75% of its max range---which means that the missiles terminal velocity at the target would be much much higher thus a higher kill ratio.
Opponent shooting from 130 miles will have a like 50% kill ratio.

sure if it's a 60's era Mig 21. Not the latest block F-16's or similar, @ 135 miles the F-16 pilot knows he/she is being tracked/locked, knows a missile is inbound upon launch. Knows launch platform and missile type.

The pilot then has the following options in no particular order:
- electronic counter measures, noise jamming, range gate stealing, velocity gate stealing etc.Noise jamming is easy, range gate and velocity gate needs to exploit the specific weakness of the launching platform and the seeker.
- independent maneuvering, pilot tries to break lock by exploiting the physics of doppler returns.
- cooperative maneuvering, pilot and wingman fly a loose deuce formation on a mile long string, overlapping each other and then separating until the lock is broken.
- MALD decoys
- walk the dog i.e. towed decoy
- chaff
- disengage

if all else fails the towed decoy is super effective but then disengaging and getting lost in ground clutter is also an option.
 
Last edited:
.
sure if it's a 60's era Mig 21. Not the latest block F-16's or similar, @ 135 miles the F-16 pilot knows he/she is being tracked/locked, knows a missile is inbound upon launch. Knows launch platform and missile type.

The pilot then has the following options in no particular order:
- electronic counter measures, noise jamming, range gate stealing, velocity gate stealing etc.Noise jamming is easy, range gate and velocity gate needs to exploit the specific weakness of the launching platform and the seeker.
- independent maneuvering, pilot tries to break lock by exploiting the physics of doppler returns.
- cooperative maneuvering, pilot and wingman fly a loose deuce formation on a mile long string, overlapping each other and then separating until the lock is broken.
- MALD decoys
- walk the dog i.e. towed decoy
- chaff
- disengage

if all else fails the towed decoy is super effective but then disengaging and getting lost in ground clutter is also an option.
PAF should add towed decoys as standard on all modern fighters jf17 blk-III, J10C.
Don't know if chinese or Turks got one in the works, In that case only option seems to be Leonardo's.
 
.
PAF should add towed decoys as standard on all modern fighters jf17 blk-III, J10C.
Don't know if chinese or Turks got one in the works, In that case only option seems to be Leonardo's.

PLAAF is working on one for domestic flankers, not sure if it will be for export.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom