JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 1]

[shehbazi2001]

The future air defence program is about JF-17 and FC-20.

The radar, weapons ,mission computers and other avionics do not seem to be finalised. I dont know of a deadline when first fully-equipped and armed JF-17 squadron shall be inducted, not the ones without BVRs or other advanced tools.

But the decision to fit these aircrafts with western systems should be taken once we are satisfied with the flight performance of airframe like range, turning performance, climb rate, short take-off and landing, ceiling, acceleration, payload capacity etc. This performance should be better than F-16A because these are going to be future fighters of Pakistan and they should beat a 1970s design in performance.

However lets look at other chinese aircraft that Pakistan acquired earlier.
A-5, F-6 and F-7.......PAF managed to fit AIM-9s on them and installed italian radars on F-7s. Lately perhaps added some defensive suits. I am just limiting myself to weapons, radar and defensive suits, not other things like radio, ejection seats etc. Thus it means that there is some experience and bold decisions can be taken.

At the same time, its good to study and monitor these programs continuously to determine whether they would neutralise the threat. Three important elements are radar, weapons and countermeasures (Thinking that engine is not an issue).

JF-17 and FC-20......The company that shall be chosen to install the radar will also be charged of the integration of various missiles be WVR or BVR. If its a french company, the french missiles can be easily integrated but the client may also demand the integration of other missiles like ASRAAM or IRIS-T or some South-African.

The same process can be done with an Italian radar. Thus any radar provider should be told of the requirements of weapons integration work too. Not only A2A, but A2G and anti-ship weapons too need to be integrated with radar.

The same is the case when choosing IRST(A2A) and FLIR systems (A2G). The provider of IRST/FLIR should integrate these sensors with the weapons too like IRST to cue the A2A missiles and FLIR to cue A2G ones like Mavericks.

The provider of A2A missiles should also integrate these weapons with a Helmet-mounted sight at least if not helmet-mounted display.

Then is the integrated electonic warfare system to counter the growing technologies of the SAM systems. Close support to the army may become a very risky and costly mission keeping in view the latest SAMs that are better than earlier systems. SAMs......like SPYDER (18 systems to be produced by Bharat Dynamics), Barak 8 joint-development program, Tunguska etc

The 4-barrel 23mm ZSU-23 Shilka is being replaced by Tunguska system that combines short range missiles with guns. The Shilka was effective till 7,000 feet and one needed to be above 7,000 feet to avoid these guns. In simulator Israeli Air Force, I flew in an F-4 at low level over an area covered by Shilka and this gun was simply devastating. But with AGM-88, the gundish radar of shilka was always destroyed in the simulator. India is also using the twin-barrel manual AA ZSU-23 guns. With 30mm guns of Tunguska, I dont know whats the safe altitude against it.

So an EW system comprising of warning elements and counter-action elements is vital. The warning element may be an Advanced Warning Receiver, which not only gives the warning of radar search, tracking, locking but also of missile launch and calculates the bearing and range of those radars.

The counter-action elements may consist of various kinds of chaff, at least two types of flares, fitted/fixed RF and IR jammers, podded jammers and towed decoys. RF Jammers shall be required till advanced AESA radars having themselves the jamming capability are installed in JF-17/J-10.

To counter the double-band Imaging Infra-Red seekers like that of Python-5 AAM, the flare dispenser needs to carry two types of flares, each flare reproducing a different Infra-red band. Thats what I think......correct me if its wrong.......

The usual wavelengths are 5-8 micro meter (figures basically for an IRST system), but the flares should be tailored according to the seeker of the WVR missile. If the seeker is looking for 8 micro-meter wavelength radiations and flare represents 5 micro-meter wavelength radiations, the missile shall not be fooled.

Thats why the Python and the new heat-seeker dont rely on a single band. They are dual-band and fighter aircraft need to carry at least two types of flares each representing a different IR band. The evolution of heat-seeking missiles is an interesting but lengthy story and it shall be nice if a member can post this evolution.

But in short, the early heat-seekers like AIM-9B looked for the hottest spots on the aircraft and evidently it was the engine exhaust. Thats why a shot was possible from rear quarter only. Then the technology advanced and the missiles were not necessarily looking for the hottest spot. They were more tuned to spot the hot airframe like leading edges of wings etc. This was possible through Imaging IR technology.

So I dont know how much time shall be needed for the integration of these three principal systems (radar, weapons, countermeasures suit).

One questiong for the members......what should be the best direction of dispensing flares.......simple backwards or some other direction.....what about the different flare throwing pattern of Flanker......which pattern is better and why......????

 

[shehbazi2001]

I just wanted to know about the overall cockpit visibility of JF-17.....Esp the rear-quarter visibility.......

It seems that the cockpit visibility is not at par with F-16 or J-10. The cockpit is not as raised as in F-16, F-15, F-14 or J-10.

Although better than a Mirage or A-5, the cockpit designs seems to be fitting the role of an Interceptor. The air superiority fighters like F-86 always have a raised cockpit.

What u guys think??? (Now don't tell me that its BVR era, its just for close combat)

I am adding that the cockpit visibility of JF-17 is better than that of Indian LCA, which seems to follow the cockpit designs of Mirage-series, F-5, F-4 Phantoms etc.

 

[x_man]

I just wanted to know about the overall cockpit visibility of JF-17.....Esp the rear-quarter visibility.......

It seems that the cockpit visibility is not at par with F-16 or J-10. The cockpit is not as raised as in F-16, F-15, F-14 or J-10.

Although better than a Mirage or A-5, the cockpit designs seems to be fitting the role of an Interceptor. The air superiority fighters like F-86 always have a raised cockpit.

What u guys think??? (Now don't tell me that its BVR era, its just for close combat)

I am adding that the cockpit visibility of JF-17 is better than that of Indian LCA, which seems to follow the cockpit designs of Mirage-series, F-5, F-4 Phantoms etc.

You are right, the rear quarter visiblity of F-16, F-15, F-14 or J-10 is far better than JF-17....but its not that bad too...The PAF pilots who would convert to Thunder from A-5 , Mirage and F-7P will love its un-interrupted front view from the single glass canopy and rear visiblity is also much better than our current fighters...check the below pic, imagine the rear view from pilots perspective, its not that bad...




See the below video also, it has some nice views from the cockpit that might give you some more idea ...

Aviation Video: JF-17 Thunders evolution from SaberII project to all new Thunder PT04 | Patrick's Aviation

 

[Imran Khan]

jf-17 web site


JF-17.com : Links

 

[EagleEyes]

KLJ-7 Radar

The KLJ-7, also referred to as the Type 1478 is an airborne X-band firecontrol radar developed by the China Electronics Technology Company's (CETC's) No 14 Research Institute, Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology (NRIET).

[edit] Development

The KLJ-7 uses a mechanically-steered slotted array antenna and bears similarities with the various Russian radars imported in the 1990s. Russian radar design houses Phazotron and NIIP had worked closely in the past with the Chinese radar design bureaus and provided technical assistance as well as operational models of Russian-made radar sets that were used as benchmarks in the process of these Chinese firms developing their own design. Up to 20 units of the Phazotron Zhemchoug ('Pearl) radar were imported in the mid-1990s for evaluation along with 2 units of Phazotron (NIIR) RP-35, which is the upgraded version of the Zhemchoug.

[edit] Capabilities

The KLJ-7 has multiple modes, both beyond-visual-range (BVR) and close-in air-to-air modes, ground surveillance 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 up to 3 m 2 is 120 km or 50 km in look-down mode. Surface sea targets can be detected at up to 135 km. Target data is displayed on a digital map in the cockpit.

Most modern Chinese air-launched weapons, such as the Luoyang Electro-Optical Equipment Research Institute PL-9C and Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute SD-10 air-to-air missiles (AAM), are supported by the KLJ-7. However, there are reportedly modes on board to support a range of NATO weaponry, including Raytheon Missile Systems' AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range and AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range AAMs.

KLJ-7 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IceCold]

Will PAF be able to modify KLJ-7 to fire MICA? I know we are working on separate deal with the french over the sale of RC-400. I ask this question since KLJ can fire various NATO weaponry.

 

[p2prada]

Will PAF be able to modify KLJ-7 to fire MICA? I know we are working on separate deal with the french over the sale of RC-400. I ask this question since KLJ can fire various NATO weaponry.

Has the JF-17 even fired a weapon

 

[Muradk]

Has the JF-17 even fired a weapon

Yes a lot of times I think you can see couple of videos on youtube.
And yes it has also fired weapons after induction in PAF.

 

[fatman17]

if this is a repeat thread, pls accept my apology...

Chinese Dimensions of the 2007 Dubai Airshow

by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on January 20th, 2008
ARMS SHOW REPORTS

Twin Seat JF-17 Back On

A Pakistani official stated that the Pakistan side has elected to proceed with the development of a twin-seat version of the Chengdu FC-1 or JF-17 in Pakistan service. A CATIC official refused to comment on this development. The Pakistan Air Force’s requirement for a twin seat version of this fighter was first noted to the author by Pakistan Air Force officials in 2004. However, subsequent reports have noted that China was not interested in such a twin-seat version of the FC-1. The Pakistani official at the Dubai show stated, however, that Pakistan has elected to pay for the development of the twin seat version, and that is now proceeding. This official explained that as Pakistan is sharing in the full spectrum of production, usage and sales of the JF-17, that it therefore requires the twin seat version to fully exploit this aircraft. The twin seat version will be used to support training missions and will also be developed into a dedicated attack model. This same official noted that Pakistan will only purchase the Chengdu J-10 fighter, which is therefore of less industrial interest to Pakistan. Other sources have noted that Pakistan intends to purchase an initial force of 40 J-10 fighters.

FC-1/JF-17 Multirole Fighter: Pakistan is now funding development of a twin-seat version of this low-cost multirole fighter. Source: RD Fisher


Since the Dubai show Russia’s Kommersant has reported that Russia has approved the Klimov RD93 engine in the FC-1/JF-17 for re-export to six countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Re-export to Pakistan had been an issue of serious contention between Russia and India, which uses the RD33, the basis for the RD93, in its MiG-29 fighters. Russia’s decision is a blow for Delhi, which will now face the JF-17 in significant numbers not only in Pakistan but also potentially in Bangladesh. China will also soon be able to arm the FC-1/JF-17 with 5th generation air-to-air missiles, such as the PL-10 derived from the South African Denel A-DARTER, and another radar-guided missile derived from the Denel R-DARTER. These weapons will greatly increase the combat potential of this low-cost but modern platform. At the same time, it is a major boost for Pakistan’s and China’s effort to promote the FC-1/JF-17 as the pre-eminent low-cost 4th generation multirole fighter. Until South Korea can market a single-seat combat version of its T/A-50 trainer, the FC-1/JF-17 will face no competition in its price range. The willingness of China and Pakistan to transfer full co-production capability will enhance the attractiveness of this fighter to many countries also looking to bolster their developing aerospace industries.

New AAMs: Revealed by Chinese Internet sources last December and then very early January 2008, the PL-10 (PL-ASR) and a yet to be identified AAM, appear to be derived from A-DARTER and R-DARTER, both developed by the Denel Corporation of South Africa. Source: Chinese Internet

Progress Engines for L-15

A Ukrainian source indicated that the Motor Sich Company was completing an order for 100 Al-222 turbofan engines to support the Chinese twin-engine Hongdu L-15 supersonic trainer. In 2005 there were reports that China would order over 200 of these engines, so this update indicates the PLA has settled on a smaller initial number for this new supersonic trainer. The L-15 was developed with design consulting from Russia’s Yakovlev, and the L-15 is basically a cleaned up Yak-130 with after-burning engines to support supersonic training. An order of 100 engines might support a small number of test aircraft and then about two regiments of training aircraft. The L-15 program deserves watching as it is the most modern trainer now in production in China. Reports indicate China may be considering a navy carrier version for pilot training. And as has been the case with the Yak-130, the L-15 basic design could also support potential dedicated close air-support or even unmanned combat aircraft versions.

Hongdu L-15: This modern Chinese supersonic trainer could be developed into multiple versions. Source: RD Fisher

 

[smt]

iv asked this before, but the last thread got lost before i could read a response. my question was, how comparable is the jf 17 to the f 16. in terms of performace, wat version of the f 16 could it match? and another question, if the jf 17 is exported, who will take the profits, will china and pak split the profits or wat?

 

[Muradk]

As long we are a joint venture they will split the money but when we have full TOT them it will depend who gets the contract, Mostly China there production rate will be much higher and faster than ours.

 

[smt]

wat about my other question, what version of the f 16 is the jf17 most comparable to in terms of performance and capability, im hoping its one of the newer versions...

 

[fatman17]

wat about my other question, what version of the f 16 is the jf17 most comparable to in terms of performance and capability, im hoping its one of the newer versions...

the forum has answered this question many times over, so kindly do a bit of research and find your answer.

 

[smt]

i was hoping not to have to do a phd on the subject and read thru 87 long pages for one question, but whatever....

 

[fatman17]

i was hoping not to have to do a phd on the subject and read thru 87 long pages for one question, but whatever....

life's a b**** isnt it!