JF-17 & Su-30 - Which will track & fire first?

[Manticore]

WE HAD THE SAME ARGUMENT IN 2009 HOWEVER THIS TIME I AM DIVERTING THE NEW POSTS INTO THIS THREAD

PLEASE DONT START THIS DEBATE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE FUTURE

MODS, PLEASE DONT CLOSE THIS THREAD. MEMBERS GOING OFF-TOPIC OR WHO RESORT TO INSULTS WILL BE INFRACTED AND THREAD BANNED
TY

 

[My-Analogous]

again look on graph carefully




Its Clear showing 3sq m 140 not 5sq m Sky Blue Line Graph.

Atleast do some research before post
Unresolved Issues In Su-30MKI Could Impact “Super Sukhoi” Upgrade Talks

So still MKI 30 don't have AESA and when they indicted then claim.

 

[Viper0011.]

Indeed. And in doing so, PAF received a platform which is unforgiving to new pilots. PAF would have been better off modernizing the J-7 platforms to serve longer. Here another clue to this as well. Chengdu enjoys all of the work share in FC-1. Why didn't the PLAAF opt for this? The AL-31 engines on the J-10 are fuel guzzlers and unreliable at times which has proven fatal. But the PLAAF has no option for a single engine. Its either the RD-33, which is underpowered or the AL-31/WS-10. The J-10 proved to be a far better design than the J-7 or super seven. It did not have the inherit low altitude problems that persist the JF-17 hence the latter prototypes had fair share of changes to the surface controls.
In truth. I think, the FC-1 is great cheap option, but thats it. Long term growth isn't that great given NOT just the engine but the airframe itself.
If PAF had a choice the'd gone with the Gripen. The F404 provides much better safety standards maintenance. Not to mention the Gripen is much better for beginning pilots with full FBW. TWR is better and takeoff landing performance is better and safer. The same advantage the J-10 provides with out engine shortcomings.
As far as the Indians. Well, they can only fail if they selve the project for Tejas. And given SA airwarfare reqs for the next decades. Its future and necessity are pretty much invaluable and in comparison to its "rivals" its great plane. However, its success also depends on the Indians getting either the F404 or F414.
So, while the j-10 by no doubt is a amazing accomplishment by Chengdu and engineers its lack of a proper engine even Russian is its greatest flaw. The Chinese also did their work with out much foreign assistance compared to India which hooked up with Dassualt and all major companies around the globe.
So as is, as always, its location, location and location. The Indians spent less, and could only spend less until the technology became available around the globe for export. Hence the IDEA of LCA has been around since the 60's.
Only in the 90's after Soviet collapse that India would pursue the LCA when it had the money and technology. Likewise for the J-10.
Over the next decades, Private companies will set up shop with in India which is already happening and fast. We will see the result.

WHF? Did you read the moderator's warning above, to stay on topic? NOTHING from the crap from the above post makes sense, or is relevant to the topic, or a fact. These are your personal opinions that should be voiced within your family members, here, the thread has a factual title that can be supported with facts (which you have none). Instead of butchering each line of propaganda from your post, I'd like to stick to the topic.

@Manticore : apparently your warning wasn't enough. Read the post I responded to above.

With JFT block II's advance avionics and radars, which one (SU-30 vs. the JFT) will see the other first, and will lock onto it? Also, please remember, the 400 KM super duper range of SU's doesn't make a different as majority of the FOB's are within 100-130 KM of the border and that's where the action will be happening in a conflict.

 

[desimorty]

WHF? Did you read the moderator's warning above, to stay on topic? NOTHING from the crap from the above post makes sense, or is relevant to the topic, or a fact. These are your personal opinions that should be voiced within your family members, here, the thread has a factual title that can be supported with facts (which you have none). Instead of butchering each line of propaganda from your post, I'd like to stick to the topic.

@@Manticore : apparently your warning wasn't enough. Read the post I responded to above.

With JFT block II's advance avionics and radars, which one (SU-30 vs. the JFT) will see the other first, and will lock onto it? Also, please remember, the 400 KM super duper range of SU's doesn't make a different as majority of the FOB's are within 100-130 KM of the border and that's where the action will be happening in a conflict.

Source: JF-17 & Su-30 - Which will track & fire first? | Page 2

The 400 KM range is probably for frigate-destroyers and that too at high altitudes which is the norm flight altitude of Flankers.
The actual radar ranges are misleading from the manufacturer NOT to lie to client but to protect the client!
So we can read brochure or argue details but it will hit the same wall that PAF and IAF want us to.
We should take into account the "teeth" of each aircraft and their purpose and environment they'll operate in.
As for details. The Chinese radar needs details in ENGLISH and i'm not interested in minor details.

 

[Saurabh jindals]

The upgraded version is already in service. Production of 10 aircrafts has already been completed (block II) --

Regarding the basic KLJ-7, I checked and there was indeed a mention of an upgrade back in 2008 ( a range upgrade was not mentioned), which could be termed V1, but that upgraded model is still what usually is considered as the basic version (as the first PAC JFT's were handed in late 09) which has a 105 Km for 5m2 RCS as it was the model that went in to service with the JFT blk-1...

However standard JF-17 for PAF would be the block II, meaning the remaining 50 JF-17's will be brought up to the block II standard ...If you want to know about KLJ-7 and how it's range was reported over the years ... you can look at the following ...

1.In 2008 Janes reported an upgrade in KLJ-7 ( i.e the radar could detect 40 targets, track around 10 and engage 2 at the same time)

China's NRIET outlines fighter radar improvements - Jane's Defence Weekly

The upgraded version is already in service. Production of 10 aircrafts has already been completed (block II) --

Regarding the basic KLJ-7, I checked and there was indeed a mention of an upgrade back in 2008 ( a range upgrade was not mentioned), which could be termed V1, but that upgraded model is still what usually is considered as the basic version (as the first PAC JFT's were handed in late 09) which has a 105 Km for 5m2 RCS as it was the model that went in to service with the JFT blk-1...

However standard JF-17 for PAF would be the block II, meaning the remaining 50 JF-17's will be brought up to the block II standard ...If you want to know about KLJ-7 and how it's range was reported over the years ... you can look at the following ...

1.In 2008 Janes reported an upgrade in KLJ-7 ( i.e the radar could detect 40 targets, track around 10 and engage 2 at the same time)

China's NRIET outlines fighter radar improvements - Jane's Defence Weekly

2.Around 2009 official claims of range that were quoted in Jane's did indeed say 75 Km for 3m2 ..​

KLJ-7/10 Fire Control Radar (FCR) (China) - Jane's Avionics

3.Then the brochure of the manufacturer surfaced which said 105 for 5m2 RCS ..

4.Then the Kanwa interview with Javaid Ahmad (project director of JFT) mentioned 130 Km for 5m2 with the tracking capability increased to 16 aircrafts compared to 10 as reported by janes ... ( I think this was reported in the May of 2013)

5.Lastly, while there hasn't been another claim regarding the range of KLJ-7, lets not forget that there was a slide in the presentation of the chief designer (Dubai, Nov of 2013) which was putting an F-16 C/D model at 120 Km range ...

If we take the 130 Km for 5m2 RCS claim, and substitute the values, for the F-16C with a clean config RCS is reported around 1.2m2 and a loaded F-16C will probably be around an RCS of 3.5 m2 ... with this 3.5m2 consideration,the Approx range does indeed come out to be 118 odd Km's if we put the values in the formula ...


Bottom line ... The manufacturer claim for the basic KLJ-7 is 105 Km for 5m2, For KLJ-7 V2, the claim is 130 Km for 5m2 ..

2.Around 2009 official claims of range that were quoted in Jane's did indeed say 75 Km for 3m2 ..​

KLJ-7/10 Fire Control Radar (FCR) (China) - Jane's Avionics

3.Then the brochure of the manufacturer surfaced which said 105 for 5m2 RCS ..

4.Then the Kanwa interview with Javaid Ahmad (project director of JFT) mentioned 130 Km for 5m2 with the tracking capability increased to 16 aircrafts compared to 10 as reported by janes ... ( I think this was reported in the May of 2013)

5.Lastly, while there hasn't been another claim regarding the range of KLJ-7, lets not forget that there was a slide in the presentation of the chief designer (Dubai, Nov of 2013) which was putting an F-16 C/D model at 120 Km range ...

If we take the 130 Km for 5m2 RCS claim, and substitute the values, for the F-16C with a clean config RCS is reported around 1.2m2 and a loaded F-16C will probably be around an RCS of 3.5 m2 ... with this 3.5m2 consideration,the Approx range does indeed come out to be 118 odd Km's if we put the values in the formula ...


Bottom line ... The manufacturer claim for the basic KLJ-7 is 105 Km for 5m2, For KLJ-7 V2, the claim is 130 Km for 5m2 ..

V1 accepted but there is no credible source to confirm V2 range. what is its searching range ?

 

[abdulbarijan]

V1 accepted but there is no credible source to confirm V2 range. what is its searching range ?

If you bothered to look at the very post you quoted ... I've mentioned the source ... i.e Javaid Ahmed of PAF who is the "Chief Project director" of the JFT project who said its range is 130 Km for 5m2 Radar cross section...

I don't know about you ... but when a "chief project director" of ABC project, tells something about that ABC project ... it is taken as fact ...

 

[Spy Master]

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec You guys might want to add your opinions in this thread to counter the OP...Just for knowledge purpose, a clean respectable discussion..!

 

[danger007]

JF 17 will detect and fire first... Mai hands down... No matter what we argue threads will lead nowhere... JF 17 small size, Mki with big RCS...

as far as I see, JF 17 encircled LCA than Mki... op got good knowledge..

 

[cerberus]

JF 17 will detect and fire first... Mai hands down... No matter what we argue threads will lead nowhere... JF 17 small size, Mki with big RCS...

as far as I see, JF 17 encircled LCA than Mki... op got good knowledge..

MKI is onboard with passive IRST sensors.Mki won't even needed to switch its radar to track incoming aircrafts

India also has R-77 infrared homing missile's

There various arguments involved in Modern A2A combat scenarios

F-15C has largest RCS in modern fighter's aircraft's that doesn't make less potent eventually its most successful aircraft in service of USAF, IDF and other air force's

 

[danger007]

MKI is onboard with passive IRST sensors.Mki won't even needed to switch its radar to track incoming aircrafts

India also has R-77 infrared homing missile's

There various arguments involved in Modern A2A combat scenarios

F-15C has largest RCS in modern fighter's aircraft's that doesn't make less potent eventually its most successful aircraft in service of USAF, IDF and other air force's

I know about Mki bro... it just am fed up with such vs thread... Anyhow am Indian member for your info... you really don't get my point, do you...

 

[Abingdonboy]

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec You guys might want to add your opinions in this thread to counter the OP...Just for knowledge purpose, a clean respectable discussion..!

This reminds me very much of the Cope India 2004/5 results wherein IAF MiG-21 Bisons with tiny RCS were able to sneak up on USAF F-15s and make them pay for it. The USAF in that case were very quick to point out they were playing with a degraded set of ROE and in parameters that favoured the IAF that were not realsitic to how they (USAF) would actually fight. The most pertinent point they made was that they would never go into a fight without extensive situational awareness with AWACS on hand.

In a 1vs1 head on fight as depicted in the above scenerio one can summise that the MKI's superior sensors are (somewhat) equalised by the low frontal RCS of the JFT which may mean that they have near identical engagement distances relative to one another. I can't deny this logic but this is a scnerio devoid of any context. Yes it is important who fires first but it is also important a) what you are firing b) the ECM capabilties of either fighter. I shan't comment on where the two fighters stack up in these regards but I think it is apparant.


To flesh out a possible engagment more one should remember that it is almost unfathomable that an MKi and JFT would be engaged in a 1vs1 full frontal fight. In my first paragraph I alluded to the USAF's doctrine and it will not be dissimilar to the IAF's, situational awareness will be vital for them (and of course both sides) and here the IAF should have a distinct advantadge with the superior AWACS as well as onboard sensors of their fighter fleet. The MKIs are designed to each act as a "mini-AWACS" and the twin-seat/WSO arrangment allows for flights of MKIs to maintain a decent situational awarness with just a few MKIs of the flight providing relevent sensor data and the rest having their radars in passive mode (allowing them to present a far smaller target). The IAF is also going to be in possession of multiple highly capable fighters who will have smaller RCS but highly capable sensors that can all datalink with one another. Also, the IAF will be the first airforce in S.Asia to deploy AESA-equipped fighters.



Both sides will have their tactics/capabilties and counter-tactics/capabilties and it will be a bloody affair but I don't think it is fair to entirely discount the MKI, the IAF is not stupid nor are their actions not heavily scrutinised. They are fully accountable for every ruppee they spend to the civlian government and are throughly scrutinised by the CAG- they couldn't have got away with ordereing 272+ highly expensive MKIs without there being a damn good case for them.


@PARIKRAMA

 

[farhan_9909]

@amardeep mishra

what do you think?Please read the first page and only reply than

 

[Viper0011.]

This reminds me very much of the Cope India 2004/5 results wherein IAF MiG-21 Bisons with tiny RCS were able to sneak up on USAF F-15s and make them pay for it. The USAF in that case were very quick to point out they were playing with a degraded set of ROE and in parameters that favoured the IAF that were not realsitic to how they (USAF) would actually fight. The most pertinent point they made was that they would never go into a fight without extensive situational awareness with AWACS on hand.

In a 1vs1 head on fight as depicted in the above scenerio one can summise that the MKI's superior sensors are (somewhat) equalised by the low frontal RCS of the JFT which may mean that they have near identical engagement distances relative to one another. I can't deny this logic but this is a scnerio devoid of any context. Yes it is important who fires first but it is also important a) what you are firing b) the ECM capabilties of either fighter. I shan't comment on where the two fighters stack up in these regards but I think it is apparant.

Once in a while you come across very real, and talented posts from our Indian members. And you wonder....why could it not be like this on all posts? But very well summed up post. Good work

the IAF should have a distinct advantadge with the superior AWACS as well as onboard sensors of their fighter fleet.

I disagree with this statement. The IAF would have a distinct advantage if the other side was mounting an offense inside the Indian territory, meaning attacked her airbases. But here, 80% of the time in any conflict, the IAF's jets will be mounting offense inside Pakistan. So at that time, you are at a disadvantage as the PAF will be using ALL of their sensors to fight the IAF and defend their country.

The MKIs are designed to each act as a "mini-AWACS" and the twin-seat/WSO arrangment allows for flights of MKIs to maintain a decent situational awarness with just a few MKIs of the flight providing relevent sensor data and the rest having their radars in passive mode (allowing them to present a far smaller target).

The term "Mini Awacs" isn't a wonder of the world. Pretty much all American aircraft do that. The term means Long range radar and data link capability. Which, the F-16's and the F-15's and the F-14's have been practicing for decades. In this Indo-Pak theater, an F-16's or a JFT's radar and data link capability would be very similar to the SU-30's. Majority of the war will be fought, from either border, within 100-150 KM area, as the PAF's FOB's are within 100 KM of any border. So for the SU-30's, to monitor air traffic around Islamabad, when they are attacking Lahore, would be useless, so the "mini AWACS", is then downgraded to a similar level of range and data link, compared to a JFT or the -16.

SU-30's range for a F-16 sized fighter aircraft isn't more than 130-150KM. Similar range that the F-16's and the JFT will have to detect the SU-30, due to her much larger side. Plus both sides have AWACS and Civilian air traffic control radar, which also see over 100 KM across the border. So AWACS or Mini Awacs aren't really bringing in something that didn't exist before.

The IAF is also going to be in possession of multiple highly capable fighters who will have smaller RCS but highly capable sensors that can all datalink with one another. Also, the IAF will be the first airforce in S.Asia to deploy AESA-equipped fighters.

But how does "introducing AESA" change the face of the warfare in South Asia?? . This is where the thread and a good post, got off and went back to Propaganda!!

Any nation using 4th Gen jets today, will have AESA upgrades. That's just the future. When the world is onto the Smart Phones, no one would use that 5 Pound Motorola phone with a 6 inch antenna. Does anyone STILL use the Video tapes, instead of DVD's???

Pakistan will get AESA in their -16's, JFT's and whatever they get in the future. If they decide to get J-11D tomorrow, or J-10C, they'll become the first country to introduce AESA. BTW, Erieye and Karakoram Eagle AWACS and the Phalcon, all use AESA's. And they've already been introduced. Each side knows what AESA is, how it works and what, when, and how's of the tech.

Both sides will have their tactics/capabilties and counter-tactics/capabilties and it will be a bloody affair but I don't think it is fair to entirely discount the MKI, the IAF is not stupid nor are their actions not heavily scrutinised. They are fully accountable for every ruppee they spend to the civlian government and are throughly scrutinised by the CAG- they couldn't have got away with ordereing 272+ highly expensive MKIs without there being a damn good case for them.

No one's discounting the MKI. However, in my experience, the topic's been, don't discount the -16's, the JFT, and the PAF's ELINT capability. MKI is an excellent platform, but now a days, the physical platform is depending upon the quality of the missile fired at it.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

This reminds me very much of the Cope India 2004/5 results wherein IAF MiG-21 Bisons with tiny RCS were able to sneak up on USAF F-15s and make them pay for it. The USAF in that case were very quick to point out they were playing with a degraded set of ROE and in parameters that favoured the IAF that were not realsitic to how they (USAF) would actually fight. The most pertinent point they made was that they would never go into a fight without extensive situational awareness with AWACS on hand.

In a 1vs1 head on fight as depicted in the above scenerio one can summise that the MKI's superior sensors are (somewhat) equalised by the low frontal RCS of the JFT which may mean that they have near identical engagement distances relative to one another. I can't deny this logic but this is a scnerio devoid of any context. Yes it is important who fires first but it is also important a) what you are firing b) the ECM capabilties of either fighter. I shan't comment on where the two fighters stack up in these regards but I think it is apparant.


To flesh out a possible engagment more one should remember that it is almost unfathomable that an MKi and JFT would be engaged in a 1vs1 full frontal fight. In my first paragraph I alluded to the USAF's doctrine and it will not be dissimilar to the IAF's, situational awareness will be vital for them (and of course both sides) and here the IAF should have a distinct advantadge with the superior AWACS as well as onboard sensors of their fighter fleet. The MKIs are designed to each act as a "mini-AWACS" and the twin-seat/WSO arrangment allows for flights of MKIs to maintain a decent situational awarness with just a few MKIs of the flight providing relevent sensor data and the rest having their radars in passive mode (allowing them to present a far smaller target). The IAF is also going to be in possession of multiple highly capable fighters who will have smaller RCS but highly capable sensors that can all datalink with one another. Also, the IAF will be the first airforce in S.Asia to deploy AESA-equipped fighters.



Both sides will have their tactics/capabilties and counter-tactics/capabilties and it will be a bloody affair but I don't think it is fair to entirely discount the MKI, the IAF is not stupid nor are their actions not heavily scrutinised. They are fully accountable for every ruppee they spend to the civlian government and are throughly scrutinised by the CAG- they couldn't have got away with ordereing 272+ highly expensive MKIs without there being a damn good case for them.


@PARIKRAMA

Since you mention AWACS, let me pop your bubble with of your tiny Mig-21 bisons. No modern combat will be fought without radar cover, from ground or air. Do you really believe aircraft will be going against each other without have a global eye?

Once in a while you come across very real, and talented posts from our Indian members. And you wonder....why could it not be like this on all posts? But very well summed up post. Good work



I disagree with this statement. The IAF would have a distinct advantage if the other side was mounting an offense inside the Indian territory, meaning attacked her airbases. But here, 80% of the time in any conflict, the IAF's jets will be mounting offense inside Pakistan. So at that time, you are at a disadvantage as the PAF will be using ALL of their sensors to fight the IAF and defend their country.



The term "Mini Awacs" isn't a wonder of the world. Pretty much all American aircraft do that. The term means Long range radar and data link capability. Which, the F-16's and the F-15's and the F-14's have been practicing for decades. In this Indo-Pak theater, an F-16's or a JFT's radar and data link capability would be very similar to the SU-30's. Majority of the war will be fought, from either border, within 100-150 KM area, as the PAF's FOB's are within 100 KM of any border. So for the SU-30's, to monitor air traffic around Islamabad, when they are attacking Lahore, would be useless, so the "mini AWACS", is then downgraded to a similar level of range and data link, compared to a JFT or the -16.

SU-30's range for a F-16 sized fighter aircraft isn't more than 130-150KM. Similar range that the F-16's and the JFT will have to detect the SU-30, due to her much larger side. Plus both sides have AWACS and Civilian air traffic control radar, which also see over 100 KM across the border. So AWACS or Mini Awacs aren't really bringing in something that didn't exist before.




But how does "introducing AESA" change the face of the warfare in South Asia?? . This is where the thread and a good post, got off and went back to Propaganda!!

Any nation using 4th Gen jets today, will have AESA upgrades. That's just the future. When the world is onto the Smart Phones, no one would use that 5 Pound Motorola phone with a 6 inch antenna. Does anyone STILL use the Video tapes, instead of DVD's???

Pakistan will get AESA in their -16's, JFT's and whatever they get in the future. If they decide to get J-11D tomorrow, or J-10C, they'll become the first country to introduce AESA. BTW, Erieye and Karakoram Eagle AWACS and the Phalcon, all use AESA's. And they've already been introduced. Each side knows what AESA is, how it works and what, when, and how's of the tech.




No one's discounting the MKI. However, in my experience, the topic's been, don't discount the -16's, the JFT, and the PAF's ELINT capability. MKI is an excellent platform, but now a days, the physical platform is depending upon the quality of the missile fired at it.

IRST is being specified for Block III JF17.

 

[kṣamā]

Hmm... Just a small argument. Radar range will mean next to nothing when the other side is sporting an EW Capable aircraft. I am sure JF 17 will have some EW capabilities but so dose MKI. The difference being, JFT being a single engine small medium fighter will have lesser powered EW pods. Where as being a mamoth of the sky MKI is huge and has its disadvantages, but it has its plus points too. Like bigger more powerful engines making a truck load of power driving massive EW pods and built in EWs. More over with the bigger Radar it can use its massive power output to "Burn through" enemy EW.

Though it might not be ground breaking but definitely an edge. Also this 1 vs another is worthless bcoz they are not meant to go head on without their pack. And did we just discount SAM?