What's new

JF-17 Thunder - Information Pool

Which are rumored to be stand off missiles / weapons and it would be surprising if they would weight just 250Kg and were laser guided. No, it sounds more like a LGB comparable to Paveway series, I just wondered why it is given with more range than LS-6, which hints to wings or a AASM propulsion type.

The triple racks of JF 17 afaik are used for dumb bombs only.

At some point early in the negotiations with the French for the avionics deal.. this was discussed.
Since the french were at that point looking towards a Rafale deal to us and offered to make the JF-17 a "mini-rafale" in terms of avionics and weapons.
The deal fell through.. the idea of a true multi-role capability did not.

This weapon in question may not be powered.. but the range quoted may be at altitude.
 
At some point early in the negotiations with the French for the avionics deal.. this was discussed.
Since the french were at that point looking towards a Rafale deal to us and offered to make the JF-17 a "mini-rafale" in terms of avionics and weapons.
The deal fell through.. the idea of a true multi-role capability did not.

This weapon in question may not be powered.. but the range quoted may be at altitude.

So now French are off limits to us as India has awarded MMRCA to Rafale. However, why doesn't PAF approach Eurofighter/EADS consortium and asks for avionics from them? I am sure they can develop Radar + Electronic Warfare and Counter measure systems for JF-17/J-10??
 
The below pic shows the GBU-12 bombs configuration on a dual ejector rack, thus clearly showing that JF-17 MER can support PGMs be it laser ones or GPS ones.

I said the triple rack is meant for dumb bombs, exactly because I have seen these twin PGM configs for JF 17, J10 or other Chinese fighters so far as well. Also you have to keep in mind that the guidance and wing kits adds weight and changes the size too, but the weight limit of the midwing stations seems not to allow such heavy weights (750+Kg for 3 x GBU 12 and the weight of the triple rack)


At some point early in the negotiations with the French for the avionics deal.. this was discussed.
Since the french were at that point looking towards a Rafale deal to us and offered to make the JF-17 a "mini-rafale" in terms of avionics and weapons.
The deal fell through.. the idea of a true multi-role capability did not.

This weapon in question may not be powered.. but the range quoted may be at altitude.

I think you get me wrong, I didn't meant to say it was AASM that was tested, but that the weapon might had a similar propuslion kit like AASM has to increase the range. A normal LGB has only a range of a few Km (Paveway LGBs for example around 15Km), so 65Km with a similar weapon is only possible with retrectable wings like the LS-6 has, or any booster propulsion, that's why I'm interested.
 
So now French are off limits to us as India has awarded MMRCA to Rafale. However, why doesn't PAF approach Eurofighter/EADS consortium and asks for avionics from them? I am sure they can develop Radar + Electronic Warfare and Counter measure systems for JF-17/J-10??

Hi,

What has happened over the years--specially since 2007---pakistan has dug a really deep grave for itself---due to its shenanigans in dealing with the terrorists in pakistan---it has created issues that are not conducive to good relationships with other european nations----.

This fiscal crisis is of pakistan's own creation---they should have thought better and stopped burning their trains and their industries. Supestars come here and simply say---pakistan has no money----why don't they say that pakistanis burnt that money and have slowed down.
 
I said the triple rack is meant for dumb bombs, exactly because I have seen these twin PGM configs for JF 17, J10 or other Chinese fighters so far as well. Also you have to keep in mind that the guidance and wing kits adds weight and changes the size too, but the weight limit of the midwing stations seems not to allow such heavy weights (750+Kg for 3 x GBU 12 and the weight of the triple rack)

Ft-5 & LS-6 kind of 100kg bombs are made for just that purpose. 3 ft-5s / LS-6s with hardpoint and kits would be not more then 500-550Kg, which can be carried on the 2 & 6 number hardpoints. So, very much feasible and as said that Chinese have MERs which can carry 3 PGMs at a single time. Not a very hard issue to incorporate it on JF-17s.
 
Ft-5 & LS-6 kind of 100kg bombs are made for just that purpose. 3 ft-5s / LS-6s with hardpoint and kits would be not more then 500-550Kg, which can be carried on the 2 & 6 number hardpoints. So, very much feasible and as said that Chinese have MERs which can carry 3 PGMs at a single time. Not a very hard issue to incorporate it on JF-17s.

The hardpoints 2 and 6 can carry:

1 x LS-6 500Kg class PGMs
2 x 250Kg class LGBs/PGMs

Which both is shown in most official weapon configs and 3 x Mk82 class dumb or practice bombs as shown in the pic.

Lighter 100Kg class LGBs/PGMs obviously would fit as well, but that wasn't the point as we were talking about 250Kg class LGBs/PGMs. Again, it depends on size and weight, because these hardpoints has certain limitations and from all official sources that I could see at PDF, carrying 3 x 250Kg LGBs/PGMs is not possible at these hardpoints or intended for JF 17.
 
The hardpoints 2 and 6 can carry:

1 x LS-6 500Kg class PGMs
2 x 250Kg class LGBs/PGMs

Which both is shown in most official weapon configs and 3 x Mk82 class dumb or practice bombs as shown in the pic.

Lighter 100Kg class LGBs/PGMs obviously would fit as well, but that wasn't the point as we were talking about 250Kg class LGBs/PGMs. Again, it depends on size and weight, because these hardpoints has certain limitations and from all official sources that I could see at PDF, carrying 3 x 250Kg LGBs/PGMs is not possible at these hardpoints or intended for JF 17.

Or may be the triple rack system or the lighter weight PGMs were not there when the picture of that configuration came out.

you never know, but i do believe the triple rack system with lighter PGMs can work on JF-17 and is a viable solution.
 
pnw1B.gif

oldies


I am going to say something that maybe i shouldn't but to shut some members once and for all...

The actual RCS of JFT is Classified but what i know, it is MUCH less than even the Falcons and goes in mere fractions! To such an extent that during simulated engagements, Falcon pilots were having difficulty to trace it ! The biggest contribution to this is the DSI intake which reduces the RCS to a great extent. About the radar, KLJ-7 is based on RP-35 zhemchug series which itself was specifically made as a high performance, multirole radar for Mig-35. Though still mechanical pulse doppler, it is one hell of a radar that includes technologies from IAFs favorite ELAT 2032 and RP-35s joined by Chinese expertise in electronics and PCB, micro processors. Keep under estimating this fighter folks, it will benefit us. On the topic, MIG-29 versions before the SMT are inferior to JFT in terms of avionics, radar, weapon and sensor fusion. This is a reality that India at the moment DOES NOT have any SMTS and till they do, theirs are inferior to JFT. Bitter pill to swallow for them but i trust my source a lot.

the first prototype had a frontal rcs of 2.6 m2 which was later confirmed to me. Current jft has much less. Link given by whiplash lost credibility on more than one accounts particularly on the issue of RAM....

Just eyeballing the airframe... as others have said, I would place it in the F-16 class, which is not bad at all. The F-16 has one of the lower RCS of traditional fighters.

Again, hang stuff under the wings, and the RCS skyrockets on any aircraft.


gambit said:
You took several important variables out of the picture. Nothing wrong with that because from my experience, we do/did that all the time by either altering the physical structures of the targets or by 'handicapping' the radar via software if we cannot alter the physical structures.

If you sort of 'equalize' the fighters in every way, as highlighted below, then the burden of the kill falls ENTIRELY upon the weapon. We have done this in the past when we are faced with physically dissimilar 'adversaries' but we must 'equalize' them somehow. The most commonly used technique is to install radar enhancer on the smaller body to where the estimated RCS is within 5% of its adversary's RCS. To 'hack' a radar's software involved too much time, possible security breaches and worst of all -- copyright related crap.

Anyway...If two fighters detect each other at the same time, and even if one shoot later than his opponent, assuming both fighters know full well the range capability of his missile, then it depends on missile's sophistication such as g-rating, the type of flight controls system, fuel formulation and shapes because they affect thrust and burn duration, missile guidance avionics...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Missile Control Systems
NASA Quest > Space Team Online

...In short, everything that we discuss about manned fighters, you can transfer to the missiles because a missile IS an aircraft that have a higher performance envelope because it does not have to worry about keeping a human alive.

Here is the problem for your scenario...If one fighter is physically larger than the other, does that mean it has a larger RCS as well? Not necessarily. Even a B-52 can have an RCS of a bird, but at a very far distance. The problem is that if both fighters detect each other at the same time despite being physically dissimilar, it mean both have the same RCS -- FROM THEIR RADARS' PERSPECTIVES. An RCS value depends on the transmitting radar's signal and data processing sophistication. It mean a physically smaller body can have the same RCS as the larger body at the same distance because radar sophistication varies widely between manufacturers.

If two fighters of physically dissimilar sizes detect each other at the same time, then it mean the larger fighter have the superior radar system to compensate for its larger physical dimensions. If we assume that both fighters have the same radar sophistication -- no matter what -- then your scenario is impossible. The larger fighter will be detected first and will die first REGARDLESS OF MISSILE SOPHISTICATION.

Let us use 1m2 at 100km distance for example. If both fighters that are physically dissimilar detect each other at the same time, it mean both fighters have the same RCS of 1m2 according to their respective radars' sophistication at 100 km distance. Get it?

It mean the smaller fighter have an inferior radar because if it have the same level of sophistication, it should have detected the physically larger fighter at 120 or even 150 km distance without itself being detected. In other words, assuming if both fighters have the same radar sophistication, the larger fighter would be 1m2 at 150 km distance while the smaller fighter would be 1m2 at 100 km distance. Who would die first? The larger fighter.

For your scenario that have an engagement between physically dissimilar fighters where both detect each other AT THE SAME TIME the smaller fighter must have an inferior radar, and if both shoot at roughly the same time, then it depends entirely upon missile sophistication for the kill.

The reason why I often say '150-200' km distance for 1m2 RCS is precisely because of variations in radar sophistication. That 50 km distance variable is a terrible figure but it is the truth about the industry. That figure is about the distance for several missiles so you can see how important it is to gain even just 5 km of further out detection distance.


Is it possible to have even a rough RCS value guesstimate for any fighter? No.

But...You can place it in the same class -- base upon 'eyeballing' -- as long as you have a reasonably accurate RCS value from one or several aircrafts that set the standard for that class. The clean F-16 pretty much set the bar for 'stealth', meaning you must get below 1m2 at 150-200 km distance in order to be a credible 'stealthy' threat. So can you say 2.85m2 at 121.8 km distance based upon pure eyeballing? No.

Personally, I would place the JF into the F-16 class based upon what I personally know about the F-16's RCS and based upon my 'eyeballing' the JF.

I do not know how your friend had this 2.6 figure 'confirmed' to him. Absent assurance on how this figure came to be, such as if it was measured in isolation as in enclosed anechoic EM chamber, that decimal level of precision is dubious.

Same for the RCS reduction value of the DSI structure. Each DSI structure must be carefully custom tailored for the aircraft out of aerodynamic demands and because of that, its purported RCS reduction or RCS contributorship compare to the diverter plate is difficult to assess in regard to that percentage you cited. I mean...Were there measurements on the design that have the diverter plate assembly? If the design never intended to have the diverter plate in the first place, then how credible is that 30-35% figure?

That does not mean the DSI structure is not beneficial in trying to effect RCS contributorships from diverse structures on as complex a body like an aircraft. It is beneficial because you want to have as low a contributorship FOR EACH structure as possible. On the other hand, if there is one or if there are several large contributorships from several different structures that utterly dominate measurements then it is pointless to debate on whether to install the diverter plate or the DSI structure.

To sum it up...It is reasonable to presume a 'class' but not reasonable to declare a value, and if said declaration involve a decimal point, time to be suspicious.

SD-10A has an upgraded seeker, a better rocket motor and more engagement functions developed in the light of flaws found in the basic variants. It also has a better HOJ (home on jam) and 40 G maneuvering capability. Range is most likely between 90-100 kms. A hint to this range is also given on PAC website. Klj-7 radar has a track range (look up) in access of advertised 105 kms. This is what i was told. Look down range is more than 85 kms.

I cannot verify this through internet.

Your frustration is exactly what the PAF wants and is achieving just that ! Some of the equipment is as follows

1. Two 32 bit powerful weapon and mission management computers

2. Systems approach applied throughout the project which includes engine, avionics, EW, fuel capacity etc

3. Complete EW suite with active defense capability including SE-2 MAWS (this is a fact)

4. RCS is lower than the F-7 series which has lower RCS than the Falcon (block 15)

5. APU for power backup

6. Complete HUMS for aircraft integrity

This should be enough for you not to underestimate this fighter .
 
Soon, may be in a week;)

I am eagerly waiting the Chapter 6: Chaff/flare dispensers and hoping good quality image attachments like other Chapters.
Besides, we had a long discussion on that topic if u remembered.
emoticon-00116-evilgrin.gif
 
Its quite some dense reading, at least the author tries to make some effort on it. Feng pretty much said it all, much of the stuff appears gleamed online, then given analysis and summary. IMO, the first part of the article seems a more interesting before he drifted to the range, radar, avionics and engine issues. Here is a google translation on his comments on the aerodynamics. Its a long analysis though to explain the obvious, the expanded LERX allows the plane to maneuver at higher angles of attack. Also he is correct in the observation that the LERX and the DSI adds to the negative stability of the plane (will make the plane pitch up automatically requiring an FBW needed to keep the nose down in oscillating movement). The LERX will move the center of lift forward, while the weigh reductions in the front as a result of the DSI implementation will move the center of gravity backward. Hence this also improves the plane's maneuverbility.


According to the information obtained by the author, with surfers and explore! 1. 1 configuration. side of Xiaolong 04 and 16 similar to the configuration, Medium used pneumatic normal aspect ratio wing edge of the layout, highlighted the strong performance of low-altitude and high-subsonic mobility. But in the details, the two were different, Xiaolong 04 : First, the edge of the area and more than 01 planes. also much higher than the F-16. Aircraft wings are designed to improve the edge of the lift-to-drag ratio under a certain angle of attack, improving the performance of the aircraft at high angles of attack. But using such a large edge design of the aircraft is not, it is estimated that only a F-18E/F. Trouble from the edge of the 5.2 m 2 to 7 m 2, increased by 34%. It will not only raise the maximum lift coefficient aircraft, taking off and landing capabilities. also greatly enhanced the mobility of the aircraft at high angles of attack. extremely powerful vortex edge of the wing airflow postpone the occurrence and development. F-18E/F excellent performance at high angles of attack apparently inseparable from its side of the wing design. Meanwhile, behind the Xiaolong 04 / end up greatly, bow torque at high angles of attack can provide. Xiaolong 04 while increasing the use of its high angle of attack expected to further enhance mobility! But more important role is that of Xiaolong 04 will be significantly increased while the focus of aerodynamic brought forward. We know that while the focus of the aircraft is located, Lift edge of the vortex caused by the contribution of the wing while washing aerodynamic flow will significantly toward the center. Therefore side of the aircraft configuration is usually static longitudinal instability, active control technology needed to be addressed. For example, the F-16 is a typical "relaxed static stability" with the conventional design : layout, F-16 wings moved forward by 40.6 centimeters, so aerodynamic center forward. M0.9 at its static stability in slightly negative, and 8% at M1.2. Aerodynamic focus toward growing cause of the border, Xiaolong 04 will be the focus might change (after I speculated that it might be a slight shift : DSI weight because the more obvious the former fuselage, Yields rear edge of the electronic module will be partially offset by the increased weight and nose). Aerodynamic focus light Xiaolong 04, the focus changes I guess Xiaolong 04 earlier in the static stability will be further relaxed. And the use of "the entire longitudinal flight control authority fax + 40 degrees more than two simulated redundancy backup" system will be fully satisfy the static stability After the relaxation of control! Xiaolong 04 relaxed static stability will not only further enhance their mobility, More importantly, will be greatly reduced in the span of supersonic trim resistance and help span performance of the supersonic, DSI combination of the weight and the weight of the whole growth pushed down, The greatest number may be more than 04 M M1.6 the biggest increase in the original design! Of course, increasing the edge of the edge of the vortex induced intensity can also lead to larger aircraft pitch moment of non-linear problems, Early mechanical-hydraulic control system's apparent inability to solve, but a good example of Xiaolong 04 flight control solution! 2. Details from the wing of the main wings, Xiaolong 04 and F-16 are different, Xiaolong 04 wing leading-edge sweep angle of 42 °, composite wing bending and torsion, and the latter leading edge sweep angle of 40 °. Aspect ratio of about 3.0, both front and rear wing. F-16 wing no reverse! Contrast can see that Xiaolong 04 of the wing leading edge sweep angle greater aspect ratio smaller than the root shoot, Airfoil closer delta, in a large range of airfoil stall characteristics, and inter-and supersonic flight resistance small! Is likely to be absorbing the essence of the Russian type pneumatic three generations! Even more noteworthy is that Xiaolong 04 in a front flap with the same strain J-10 on the basis of bending and torsion using a composite wing design No composite wing bending and torsion and 16. Why? Design, I believe that this may be related to Xiaolong 04 delta is closer to the airfoil, delta is the biggest drawback of induced resistance, easy airflow vortex formation, loss of front lift. With the front flap and using composite reversed, can improve the overall speed of the largest lift-to-drag ratio. India's LCA has a similar design, I see in inspection data on the Indian side in the LCA had explained his comments : He said the purpose of this design is used to improve the characteristics of wing lift, as he thought the wing dihedral angles of attack. first stall at high angles of attack, time pressure center moves, bow torque produced, and yet Winglet stall. Therefore horizontal control. That the design can be used to enhance the lateral stability of aircraft at high angles of attack. As we all know, single Yields Yields larger aircraft to fly at high angles of attack is the reason, Yields will be shielded fuselage turbulence lose lateral stability, thereby restricting the mobility single Yields aircraft at high angles of attack. If the speculation is true, then the combined side of the design Xiaolong 04 will increase their ability to fly at high angles of attack. able to its excellent maneuverability at high angles of attack! Gen will bring slightly smaller than Winglet flutter, usually cut with a sharp or heavy objects to be resolved Xiaolong Winglet whose every missile in flight test of time with this estimate, and the increase in the electronic module Yields dropped after a sharp cut. While it can be resolved flutter, but feel a bit uncomfortable in the number of visual!
Last edited by crobato; 02-27-2007
some oldies -- by crobato



Here is an interesting read originally from a Chinese Article published in Chinese Aviation Magazine and the Author is a Chinese Test Pilot. Its babel fish translation but still readable. Interesting that he compared thunder 04 with blk 52 ! (early ones not Advanced ones) Interestingly, he also explained 04s fly by wire functionality with details.

"04 JF-17 in the fast changing technology really been fully reflected. This also appears local farm laborers said admiringly its first 03 years. After some mediocre performance of an aircraft packed with high-tech carefully modified, we have clearly started to develop his demeanor, the eyes of the world focused Chengdu, the international community continued to speculate that the level has reached 04 in the end. It has been dealing with the F-16, such as master head in a fight on the strength of the international market? According to the information obtained by the author, with surfers and explore! 1. 1 configuration. side of the JF-17 and 04 F-16 similar to the configuration, Medium used pneumatic normal aspect ratio wing edge of the layout, highlighted the strong performance of low-altitude and high-subsonic mobility.

But in the details, the two were different, the first 04 : JF-17 edge of the area and more than 01 planes. also much higher than the F-16. Aircraft wings are designed to improve the edge of the lift-to-drag ratio under a certain angle of attack, improving the performance of the aircraft at high angles of attack. But using such a large edge design of the aircraft is not, it is estimated that only a F-18E/F. Trouble from the edge of the 5.2 m 2 to 7 m 2, increased by 34%. It will not only raise the maximum lift coefficient aircraft, taking off and landing capabilities. also greatly enhanced the mobility of the aircraft at high angles of attack. extremely powerful vortex edge of the wing airflow postpone the occurrence and development. F-18E/F excellent performance at high angles of attack apparently inseparable from its side of the wing design. Meanwhile, behind the JF-17 04 / end up greatly, bow torque at high angles of attack can provide. while 04 increased their use of the JF-17 High Angle of Attack expected to further enhance mobility! But more important role is that of the JF-17 while 04 will be significantly increased focus on aerodynamic brought forward.

We know that while the focus of the aircraft is located, Lift edge of the vortex caused by the contribution of the wing while washing aerodynamic flow will significantly toward the center. Therefore side of the aircraft configuration is usually static longitudinal instability, active control technology needed to be addressed. For example, the F-16 is a typical "relaxed static stability" with the conventional design : layout, F-16 wings moved forward by 40.6 centimeters, so aerodynamic center forward. M0.9 at its static stability in slightly negative, and 8% at M1.2. Aerodynamic focus toward growing cause of the border, 04 JF-17 center might change (after I speculated that it might be a slight shift : DSI weight because the more obvious the former fuselage, Yields rear edge of the electronic module will be partially offset by the increased weight and nose). 04 JF-17 combination of aerodynamic focus, the focus changes I guess the static stability compared to the earlier 04 JF-17 will be further relaxed. And the use of "the entire longitudinal flight control authority fax + 40 degrees more than two simulated redundancy backup" system will be fully satisfy the static stability After the relaxation of control! JF-17 04 relaxed static stability will not only further enhance their mobility, More importantly, will be greatly reduced in the span of supersonic trim resistance and help span performance of the supersonic, DSI combination of the weight and the weight of the whole growth pushed down, The greatest number may be more than 04 M M1.6 the biggest increase in the original design! Of course, increasing the edge of the edge of the vortex induced intensity can also lead to larger aircraft pitch moment of non-linear problems, Early mechanical-hydraulic control system is obviously not, but for the JF-17 flight control run well in the 04! 2. Details from the wing of the main wings, the JF-17 and 04 F-16 are different. JF-17 04 wing leading-edge sweep angle of 42 °, composite wing bending and torsion, and the latter leading edge sweep angle of 40 °. Aspect ratio of about 3.0, both front and rear wing. F-16 wing no reverse! Contrast can see that the wing leading edge sweep JF-17 04 greater aspect ratio smaller than the root shoot, Airfoil closer delta, in a large range of airfoil stall characteristics, and inter-and supersonic flight resistance small! Is likely to be absorbing the essence of the Russian type pneumatic three generations!

Even more noteworthy is that JF-17 strain J-10 and 04 in the same front wing on the basis of bending and torsion using a composite wing design No composite wing bending and torsion and 16. Why? Design, I believe that this may be related to the airfoil 04 JF-17 is more like a delta wing, delta is the biggest drawback of induced resistance, easy airflow vortex formation, loss of front lift. With the front flap and using composite reversed, can improve the overall speed of the largest lift-to-drag ratio. India's LCA has a similar design, I see in inspection data on the Indian side in the LCA had explained his comments : He said the purpose of this design is used to improve the characteristics of wing lift, as he thought the wing dihedral angles of attack. first stall at high angles of attack, time pressure center moves, bow torque produced, and yet Winglet stall. Therefore horizontal control. That the design can be used to enhance the lateral stability of aircraft at high angles of attack. As we all know, single Yields Yields larger aircraft to fly at high angles of attack is the reason, Yields will be shielded fuselage turbulence lose lateral stability, thereby restricting the mobility single Yields aircraft at high angles of attack. If the speculation is true, then in connection with the design of the JF-17 while 04 will increase their ability to fly at high angles of attack. able to its excellent maneuverability at high angles of attack! Gen will bring slightly smaller than Winglet flutter, usually cut with a sharp or heavy objects to be resolved JF-17 in each Winglet whose missile flight test of time with this estimate, Yields in Canada and the electronic module removed after a sharp cut, although flutter can be resolved, but feel a bit uncomfortable in the number of visual! 3. 04 JF-17 inlet using the DSI Inlet (internally called "shell" inlet ), this inlet many online discussion, the author is no longer in detail, in general terms, are : Compared with the F-16 fixed inlet and improve the gas efficiency reduce the total pressure loss (equivalent to a certain extent, increase engine thrust-weight ratio) and also to simplify the structure, lowering the weight. Performance benefits of stealth aircraft! Second, the engine / thrust-weight ratio in addition to the performance fighter configuration with a great relationship, Engine performance had a great relationship with, for example, the fighter is close to the level of performance and acceleration, not much difference between drag coefficient in the circumstances, greater engine thrust, higher thrust-weight ratio, the greater the aircraft SEP. reach their natural / acceleration more! JF-17 currently used by 04 turbofan engine is Russia's RD-93/RD-33K Engine thrust RD-33 increase of 5% over the entire thrust of 8,300 kilograms of thread, 5,040 kilograms of thrust operations. Pushing for more than 6.62-6.7. CAC learned from the website of the JF-17 01 6,411 kg body weight of the air. normal takeoff thrust-weight ratio of 0.915, more than 200 kg in weight after 04, hold in esteem than the estimated increase (approximately 0.94%), but still did not reach 100. Of course, in the future, promote the use of domestic over 8 WS-13A (Mountains), will enhance the performance of aircraft.

F-16 Block 50/52 and is the latest equipment to enhance thrust Fll0-GE- 129 and Fl00-pW-229 to Fl00-pW-229 example, maximum thrust to 12,890 (daN), in the middle Thrust 7918 (daN) Fl00-pW-220 hold in esteem than the 7.2 to 7.9, good performance. Of course, there has been an increase in the weight of the F-16 Block 50/52 fuselage, the F-7 air-emphasis, 8 to 386 kg, 472 kg (Fl00-pW-229) increased by about 1 ton of weight Although the thrust increased, but rather a piece of hold in esteem the F-115 decline According to information available to 1.05%. Climbing / sexual circled by contrast, we can see that the engine restrictions JF-17-16 04 hold in esteem relatively lower, the situation is not much difference in configuration, air gap between the drag coefficient is the case, according to the formula, we can see SEP. F-16 Block 50/52 and cross-close. M supersonic velocity and maximum performance may be slightly ahead. Circled with the engine thrust-weight ratio and stable performance to a certain extent, Transient stability circled and circled and circled generally consists of the two aircraft have different requirements for stability circled, reduce the height and velocity in the circumstances, in order to pursue the smallest radius circled, Aircraft must satisfy two important conditions that the maximum lift coefficient wing aircraft. relatively high engine thrust-weight. The reason is that the plane circled stability, Thrust = aircraft must meet resistance (gravity combined with lifting the level of solidarity Y), if the aircraft circled the small radius. must be able to weed out the lift, thrust, if not at this time, unable to overcome the large lift-off, the aircraft will not be able to maintain stability will swap high. Similarly, even thrust a great aircraft, but small lift coefficient, can provide a stronger level of cohesion, The plane circled a small radius would not, because the F-16 is a higher thrust-weight ratio and greater lift coefficient. it is very stable circled outstanding, JF-17 04-16 more than the maximum lift coefficient with even a slight advantage, However, the gap may still lead to hold in esteem than their less stable circled on the F-16. And the plane then circled the instantaneous hold in esteem than modest. instantaneous decision circled the main wing aircraft and load the maximum lift coefficient, While hold in esteem than JF-17 and 04 F-16 Block 50/52 of a difference, but in the wing set. 04 JF-17 is obvious advantages, the JF-17 wing area of 24.2 m2. only less than 16 m2 3 Series 27.87 13.53 However, the F-16 Block 50 empty than 2 tons of light, the author projections for a moment. JF-17 air wings which contained about 04 of 380 0.9kg/m 13.53 Early in the F-394 m2 0.9kg/m than lower and the F-16 Block 50 combat wings are projected to be 430 0.9kg/m 13.53 04 JF-17 more than their low! And the instantaneous load-wing aircraft circled closely related to performance, wing lift coefficient in similar circumstances (JF-17-16 should be slightly higher than 04). lower wing loading units under the weight of the wing and circled greater solidarity, the more rapidly changing perspective. Mirage-2000 can achieve the instant spiral angle of 30 degrees with 264 0.9kg/m m2 3/s wing set are inseparable. Although the F-16 also adopted the edge of the wing combination blended wing body design to reduce the wing load, circling high performance. However, it may be inferred that the JF-17 contains 04 low-wing blink disk performance should be even better!

Comprehensive configuration and engine performance, the F-16 configuration is extremely successful, even later become fighters reference design targets, coupled with the strong support of the engine. F-16 air combat performance is extremely fine ;JF-17 configuration and the F-16 is closer to 04. But JF-17 in 04 hours later introduced to absorb the East and West, the three-generation planes aerodynamic design lessons DSI and the combination of new technology, the pneumatic, JF-17 04 16 aerodynamic should be further optimized design based on the results But the F-16 engine with a slight lag, Overall performance of JF-17 flying 04 F-16 should be very close to win! 3. range / JF-17 combat radius CAC website of the biggest turn 01 only 2,037 km range. The 3,000 km with promotional data are not unified, very differently. The former estimate is likely to be a cause of this difference in the situation in which oil was contained inside the range under which data is calculated to bring in three The case reached the drop tank, but the flight of JF-17 with a radius of 04 changes The fuel capacity of more than 200 kg in weight and increase, estimated coefficient of 0.284 containing oil. The increasing number of 0.25 compared with 01 planes, carrying three drop tank has a range of over 3,000 km will be, its combat radius of 1200 km in accordance with its mandate should be between different profiles. Although the flight and combat radius with the F-16 is still lagging behind, it can meet the needs of various operational tasks! Fourth, radar / navigation radar aircraft nose properties of space is very important. MiG-21 nose inlet large size makes it difficult to install the radar antenna, severely limits the ability of the order on the beyond-visual! After the adoption of DSI, 04 fuselage in front of a marked change from 01. pictures can be seen on the 3rd JF-17 airframe parts is the apparent dip, similar V-shaped cross-section. allegedly to pre-compressed air entering the inlet. However, the adoption of DSI, the abolition of this design, from the photos, 04 planes closer to a round cross-section of the fuselage, There are rumors nose radar diameter from 04 to 03 increased the 600MM 660MM. Analysis from the photos seem to be very credible. If the JF-17 04 660MM if the diameter of the nose radar, French Mirage 2000 will be extremely close, French Mirage 2000-5 2000C and the diameter of 674MM/670 RDI/RDY radar MM! JF-17 with a difference of over 10 MM 04, there is no guarantee of space in the nose, What we have to do is to raise the level of production in the design of the radar! F-16Block40/42 groups from the United States began to 50/52 lots APG-68 to improve the equipment of its F-16 (V) 5 radar. The main emphasis of the improvements to enhance the radar-time-between-failures (to 100 hours). while retaining the right to a strong resolution against moving targets on the ground and, Doppler Beam Sharpening ratio of 64:1. According to verify : APG-68 (V) 5 for RCS=3 target detection range as 75 kilometers can be achieved on the level Tracking distance of 45 km. Good performance, but acknowledged radar device to a level slightly lower than the Mirage 2000-5! In 2000 and after, The new edition has started to change F-16Block50/52 APG-68 (V) 9 radar. APG-68 further improve its performance compared to the earlier, a 30% increase from the space probe. RCS=3 target detection range estimate of more than 100 kilometers, and the integration of SAR, Airborne Early 10 times faster than the computer! This is not equipped with radar but F-16Block50/52, mainly for export to Turkey. Greek Air Force F-16 and the Israeli escalation plan "thunderstorms"!

In the 1980s, China began to make contact with the West advanced radar and fire control systems "model for peace" project, Americans got a taste of China's strength in multifunction radar system. APG-66 understanding of the radar systems, which were reflected in the integrated thinking and then contact the radar for the European and Israeli-made advanced radar developed later, we have laid a solid foundation. 04 JF-17 radar program to be elected, Early concerns over the Italian FIAR Grifo sp radar. Pakistan is a series of radar Grifo traditional users, the introduction of the production line and is widely used in the F--7P. F -7PG other aircraft. Grifo-7 radar performance Yes, maximum detection distance conjecture before inferred (RCS=5) 38-40km distance tracking, which can simultaneously track 10 targets (TWS. Tracking side scan format) and the two hit the target! Meanwhile, Locally Israel Herta and French Thomson company (the validity) provided adapted from a Mirage 2000-5 R DY radar from the RC-400 and EL/M-2032, the same outstanding performance. But with the PD-made multi-purpose radar to participate in competition and the unexpected situation, Domestic PD radar because of the advantages of performance and compatibility, Pakistan finally accepted our radar system plan. We recommend what radar can defeat many of the foreign experts in radar? Data show that domestic flight 607 was developed PD radar, which is launched from the air intercept. close combat fighting, and sea attacks, aided navigation and other functions. Clutter can be a serious under the circumstances, as provided under the effective launch capability. This radar is high, a variety of low-frequency waveforms and waveform adaptive pulse compression and adaptive management. Tracking the edge scanning function tracking 10 targets from 40. OTH also can be controlled missile attack in which two of the two, The radar target of a typical fighter (radar reflectivity cross-sectional area of 3 square meters) found that a distance of more than 75 km. Under distance of more than 45 kilometers, a distance of more than 135 km off target discovery. IFF devices and radar cross-linking and modular design, and have a good electronic countermeasure capability. Although the information given is not very detailed, and also confirmed that it can be seen that JF-17 in this radar equipment, Early F-16Block50/52 achieve its overall performance level! In addition to the radar, I was most interested in the use of highly integrated 04 JF-17 "centralized distributed" navigation framework We know that the structural development of avionic system has gone through a separation ceremony, the joint ceremony and the highly integrated four stages : the first generation of integrated avionics system for discrete structures, radar, communications, mutually exclusive navigation equipment have their own independent antennas, RF front-end processors and monitors. using point-to-point links. Second-generation avionics system for joint architecture use several low-bandwidth data processor to complete the exchange of data transmission functions, such as navigation and weapon delivery, store management, control, the number of bus diplomacy between the modules together through sharing resources and the control of the backend only show in the information chain link.

The link between the equipment simplified to reduce the volume and weight of the system. Comprehensive processing and display control of the mission to resolve the problem of integrated avionics system has played a significant role in promoting the function and performance of aircraft a step forward, and F-15, F-16, F /A-18 universal application. Integrated Avionics took third structure, based on the "treasure pillar" of the F-22 program for 1974. Further improve the overall level of this structure. Its main technical characteristics are shared with the integrated core processor system (ICP) to complete almost all of the signal and data Department Jimmy, ranging from display and control system integrated onto data processing. The structure features is the integrated core processor integrated fire control, navigation and computing and management, cockpit display graphics, Store management, system management tasks, such as monitoring the system intact, scheduling and task management. Call integrated core processor modules different functions at different stages of implementation. Fourth, took the highly integrated avionics structure, based on "platform gemstones," Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as its representative, To meet future war fighter was developed by the high-tech indicators Integrated Avionics Architecture. In the field of RF and optoelectronic two widely used modular, and can change the design outfield, a comprehensive aircraft skin sensors. RF integrated functions, and put into practice. Many of radar, communications, electronic warfare functions from hardware configuration gone, the acquisition of these functions entirely through software. According to the "International Air" on the 2004-11 period, we know that, "JF-17" aircraft in the air -- subsystem in the current third-generation avionics system on the basis of joint steps to achieve a higher level of aggregation. Avionics System mainly through its two mutually redundant MIL-STD-1553B of the various subsystems and equipment Bank link Two interchangeable parts which weapons task management computer (WMMC) as "JF-17" aircraft control and management system -- Jimmy the core, using the PPC processor, running the system operational flight software (OFP) procedures. complete the task management and navigation systems manipulation and Fire Control Solution, store management, comprehensive information, display control, Alarm voice, data transmission and other tasks. We know that through understanding, "JF-17" is still based on MIL-STD-1553B data bus network. In data processing and transmission speed, data fusion with a large gap between the F-22, The overall design of the second generation have been far greater than in the structure of the joint concept. Integrated Avionics structure and third-generation concept very similar. So that the design meets the standard in Europe, "the two wind" standard is no exaggeration! And the task of modular processing system (MMC), it was not until August 01, began to experiment. Most F-16Block50/52 before the show or HUD computer control / fire control handle dollars Computer / center for the three sets of computer interface modules independent storage management system for a typical two-generation framework "JF-17" (WMMC) are very different. Even the latest installment of F-16Block60. its mandate with significant control computer or separate from the computer, information integration remains limited. The use of advanced integrated avionics system, which will greatly reduce the burden on the pilot in a future war. raise its key issues of judgment and the judgment of speed and enhance the combat effectiveness of fighter!

With Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missile missiles and infrared imaging fighting growing popularity it is necessary to stress that under the JF-17 "04's electronic warfare system, according to information. its radar warning receiver (RWR) and missile approach warning (MAW), with Chaff injected with infrared devices (CFD), and electronic warfare device components. specific properties are advanced. But T that is the most salable, "JF-17" Yields on the 04-built response initiative jamming aircraft Directional interfere with the sophisticated technology used to detect the exact position of power will be concentrated at the threat of interference radiation source This system may disrupt a class of advanced AIM-120 air-to-air missile radar seeker, while also confront the fighters and targeting radar locked onto. Reportedly, Chengdu Aircraft Design of the electronic warfare system designed mainly focused on the future combat environment, Pakistan in particular targets users of the Indian Air Force are equipped to face the large number of R-77 missiles. and the ability of the aircraft in India is not available in the basic, Pakistan does not have access to the F-16. I believe this system could directly from J11. 5. , the stealth / low detectability is no doubt that JF-17 04 this point certainly prevail, In addition to DSI is important to help improve the performance of the Stealth, the F-16 is more than a piece of the compact is one of the reasons for their appearance. Although the JF-17 04 F-35 did not achieve all like stealth, but with the help of RAM coating, With its appearance advantage of JF-17 04 can greatly reduce the adversary's radar detection range. offset opponent on the radar performance advantages. In circumstances similar to radar performance. JF-17 04 enemy can be done entirely found that enemy positions. with low detectability of the JF-17 in the order on the beyond-visual (BVRAC) is a huge advantage! 6. 04 JF-17 is used as the weapon system MIL-STD-1760 bus, it PL-9C SD-10 and domestic use in the circumstances, can also use a variety of other weapons, Interestingly, South Africa, Pakistan, which is based on research R-Darter H-4 in the range of 120 kilometers. active radar homing also reported good performance, taking into account the relationship between Pakistan and South Africa. Daniel and South African companies in the development of various precision strike weapons on the strength and the JF-17 configuration can be made with the forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track (IRST) system and, therefore, The JF-17 should not be exported only after there is a lack of precision weapons to attack the problem! As for flight control. Cabin - level, there are many pictures online information, I will not repeat in! In a very short time, CAC To meet the changing market environment. come up with the rapid-Block50 significance lies in the level reached F-16 Block50 less than half the price, which is the domestic market or the international market. will have a major impact! "
Crobato's analysis of an article published by Chinese magazine are as follows:

Some of the highlights on the test pilot article.

"The maneuverability has a profound effect on me. This is one extremely nimble plane". He says when you pull the stick on the J-7, you can only pull it gradually so you can hold the proper angle of attack. The radius of turn is wide and the maneuverability is not good. On the FC-1, if you pull the stick, you can pull all the way in and get a very big instantaneous turn rate. Due to a quad Fly-by-wire, turn rate of this fighter is just remarkable. (something we witnessed in squadron induction ceremony)
Then the Chinese pilot asked PAF pilot how JF-17's maneuverability compares with F-16? PAF pilot said jf-17 maneuvers better. Then, PAF pilot asked Chinese pilot (who flew F-16 in UK before) the same question, he said they are probably similar. Then, he also said that this maneuverability is just for when it is horizontal and that F-16 is still slightly better for vertical (climb rate) due to superior T/W ratio. Then he talked about the cockpit with the 1 HUD and 3 MFDs. He said that it's like the ones on Gripen and F-18. The MFD gives pilots a really easy interface to work with. each one has 20 buttons to select different information. This allows the pilot to keep his head on flying the aircraft. Then he talked about how China's cockpit and MFD is much further ahead than the Russian ones and the Russians were surprised.

He says or agrees that the FC-1 has superior horizontal maneuverability over the F-16A (maneuvering in the horizontal plane). However due to inferior thrust to weight ratio, the F-16 still has the advantage on the vertical plane.
Avionics are very advanced and pilot workload is easier than any Chinese or even Russian plane at the moment. When compared to the Su-27, the FC-1's horizontal maneuverability easily holds its own, but the vertical maneuverability is inferior than the Flanker. Again thrust to weight ratio is the reason. The FC-1 cannot compare to the Su-27's ultra maneuverability aspects. He explains something here, which is interesting for people to learn. On a mechanically controlled plane like the J-7, you cannot pull the stick all the way through. At transonic speeds, on a delta winged aircraft, the delta can only use a small angle of attack. Once you pull past that limit, you will lose speed, and with it, lift, and the nose of the aircraft goes down. On a fly by wire plane such as the jf-17, you cannot have this problem because the FBW computer processes the inputs and carefully controls the angle of attack.
 
The KLJ-7


The KLJ-7 has multiple modes, both beyond-visual-range (BVR) and close-in air-to-air modes, ground surveillance modes and a robust anti-jamming capability. The radar can reportedly manage up to 40 targets, monitor up to 10 of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. The detection range for targets with a radar cross-section of 3 square meters is stated to be ≥75 km (≥35 km in look-down mode). Surface sea targets can be detected at up to 135 km. Most modern Chinese air-launched weapons, such as the short-range PL-9C and the beyond-visual-range PL-12 (SD-10) air-to-air missiles are supported by the KLJ-7. It has been reported that KLJ-7 also has modes to support a range of NATO weaponry.

According to a Pakistan Aeronautical Complex programme officer, after having "flown with this radar" as well as "other models... such as the Thales RC400" and evaluating them for the JF-17 lightweight fighter, it was found that "the Chinese radar is every bit as capable as its contemporary analogues."
Frequency: X-band
Range:
Look-up: >75 km (for RCS of 3 m2)[1]
Look-down: >35 km (for RCS of 3 m2)[1]
Total targets tracked: 10 in TWS (Track-While-Scan) mode
Reliability:
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure): 220 hours
MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery): 0.5 hours
Weight: ≤120 kg
Volume: 0.065 m3
KLJ-7 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The KLJ-7

klj7.jpg

The KLJ-7 has multiple modes, both beyond-visual-range (BVR) and close-in air-to-air modes, ground surveillance modes and a robust anti-jamming capability. The radar can reportedly manage up to 40 targets, monitor up to 10 of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. The detection range for targets with a radar cross-section of 3 square meters is stated to be ≥75 km (≥35 km in look-down mode). Surface sea targets can be detected at up to 135 km. Most modern Chinese air-launched weapons, such as the short-range PL-9C and the beyond-visual-range PL-12 (SD-10) air-to-air missiles are supported by the KLJ-7. It has been reported that KLJ-7 also has modes to support a range of NATO weaponry.

According to a Pakistan Aeronautical Complex programme officer, after having "flown with this radar" as well as "other models... such as the Thales RC400" and evaluating them for the JF-17 lightweight fighter, it was found that "the Chinese radar is every bit as capable as its contemporary analogues."
Frequency: X-band
Range:
Look-up: >75 km (for RCS of 3 m2)[1]
Look-down: >35 km (for RCS of 3 m2)[1]
Total targets tracked: 10 in TWS (Track-While-Scan) mode
Reliability:
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure): 220 hours
MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery): 0.5 hours
Weight: ≤120 kg
Volume: 0.065 m3
KLJ-7 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The radar in this picture is not KLJ-7, rather Thales RC-400
 
MAR-1 ARM
Short-range, laser-guided, air-to-surface missile.

Development

MAR-1 is an anti-radiation missile (ARM) developed by Brazil's Mectron and the Aerospace Technical Center (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial, CTA) of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB). Development began in 1997 and was kept under tight secrecy, for many years the weapon's manufacturers refused to acknowledge its existence. The missile is guided by a Brazilian-developed passive anti-radiation seeker designed to target different types of land-based and sea-based radars with different modes, including high power surveillance radars, low power mobile radars and radars used by surface-to-air missile systems. Enemy radars can be targeted by the missile independently or with targeting data from the launch aircraft's electronic warfare systems, such as the radar warning receiver.

Design
The missile's airframe is constructed from composite materials to reduce its radar cross-section. MAR-1 has been reported to have a range of 25 km when launched from an altitude of approximately 33,000 feet, but according to a Brazilian engineer the actual range is far larger than this. The MAR-1 is fully MIL-STD-1553 and -1760 databus compatible. For non databus-equipped aircraft a standalone integration using a dedicated fire-control unit and display can be fitted in the cockpit. That is the approach adopted for Brazil's non-upgraded Embraer AMX (A-1) attack aircraft.

Operational Status

In December 2008 the Brazilian government approved the sale of 100 MAR-1 missiles to the Pakistan Air Force in a contract worth $108 million.

In mid-2011 it was reported that MAR-1 was being integrated with the JF-17 which shows that Pakistan has a well-structured program to expand the capability of the aircraft beyond its Chinese roots. The MAR-1 is the second non-Chinese weapon that the JF-17 is known to be adopting after the HAFR runway penetration bomb.

Once operational, the MAR-1 will be the PAF's only modern anti-radiation weapon and a significant boost to its combat capabilities. The missile has several operational modes, but is typically used in a pre-programmed attack against known emitting targets in a lock-on-after-launch engagement. Mectron has developed a dedicated mission planning system for such operations.

The MAR-1 is likely to operate, at least initially, with a 'missile-as-sensor' function, meaning that the weapon's own wideband radio frequency seeker is the primary sensor for emitter location and targeting. The JF-17's Chinese developers certainly have the expertise to produce a more capable emitter location system in the future. The MAR-1 can also use supplementary targeting information from the JF-17's radar warning receivers.

Pakistan has a growing number of electronic intelligence (ELINT) systems with which it can build an electronic order of battle of hostile emitters to support MAR-1 targeting. This includes the highly capable HES-21 ELINT system carried by the PAF's recently delivered Erieye airborne early warning and control aircraft.

The MAR-1 has yet to enter formal FAB service, but understands that qualification flight testing in Brazil will conclude by the end of 2011.

SPECIFICATIONS :

Type: Anti-radiation missile (ARM)
Manufacturer: Mectron, Brazil
Weight: 274 KG (600 lb)
Length: 4.03 meters (13.2 ft)
Diameter: 0.23 metres (0.75 ft)
Warhead: High Explosive
Warhead Weight: 90 KG (200 lb)
Detonation mechanism: Laser / contact proximity fuse
Guidance: Passive radar homing, home-on-jam
Launch platform aircraft: Northrop F-5, AMX, JF-17 Thunder, Mirage-III
air-force
 
Back
Top Bottom