JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 2]

[Hasnain2009]

old pic I found on skyscrapercity.com

What is ur UserName @ skyscrapercity.com?

 

[Enigma SIG]

JF-17will be displayed in Paris Airshow 2009

JF-17 is not in the list of aircraft on the Paris Air Show site

2009 aircraft

 

[Tempest II]

I think that list is for ACTUAL WORKING AIRCRAFT and not for scaled down plastic models. The JF-17 photo here is a model.

 

[fatman17]

View attachment 3499

a little bit of JF-17 History!

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

View attachment 3499

a little bit of JF-17 History!

sir i think there is a targeting pod under the inlet.isnt it?

 

[hj786]

Sweet pic fatman sir. Where did you find it? I'm guessing its a wind tunnel model because it isn't decorated in any way, it probably isn't a model for display.

sir i think there is a targeting pod under the inlet.isnt it?

Where? All I see is a bomb on the centre hardpoint under the fuselage and a stand holding the nose up.

I also have a pic, found on an old post in the pakdef.info forum:



That's a model shown outside the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute of CAC, with two BVR and two short range air-to-air missiles and two Chinese C-802K anti-ship missiles (they look identical to these mounted on this JH-7: http://cnair.top81.cn/missiles/C-802K1.jpg) on the hardpoints.

Those 6 missiles together weigh about 2030 kg, so there's still room for a fuel tank under the fuselage, even two more BVRAAMs if multiple racks are used or two more hardpoints added.

 

[fatman17]

sir i think there is a targeting pod under the inlet.isnt it?

i can c AAMs, LGM and the black box could be a targeting pod!

 

[Muradk]

sir i think there is a targeting pod under the inlet.isnt it?

Its a Matra BLU 107

 

[hj786]

Its a Matra BLU 107

I see what appears to be an LGB under the fuselage, as fatman said. I don't see anything that looks like the Durandal. Could you be mistaken sir?



I think the structure under the air intake looks more similar to the FLIR pod under the nose of the Mirage ROSE night strike fighters. Looks like there is a bulge on the fuselage, between the spine and the wings - conformal fuel tanks? Perhaps they were testing feasibility of some later modifications to be made, a JF-17 ROSE?

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

I see what appears to be an LGB under the fuselage, as fatman said. I don't see anything that looks like the Durandal. Could you be mistaken sir?



I think the structure under the air intake looks more similar to the FLIR pod under the nose of the Mirage ROSE night strike fighters. Looks like there is a bulge on the fuselage, between the spine and the wings - conformal fuel tanks? Perhaps they were testing feasibility of some later modifications to be made, a JF-17 ROSE?

yes it is.i dont think that it is marta blu 70,it seems to me a targeting pod.
i ve circled the place,which appears to be a targeting pod.
check it out.

 

[hj786]

Danger-Z I don't think there is any targeting pod there. The long beam structure that is in the bottom of your circle goes underneath the laser-guided bomb, so it must be a base for standing the JF-17 model on.

I thought the thing in the top right of the circle looked like the FLIR housing of a Mirage ROSE fighter, but now I realise it is just a shadow because I can see the edge of the table through it. My imagination running away with me.




MuradK sir, do you recognise the tall fellow looking at the model?

 

[IceCold]

Is the Vixen 500E AESA radar on offer to the PAF for JF-17? As per wiki it is however PAF is looking for a more advance AESA radar. Does any one has more info on this? Also what exactly advance are we looking at in a AESA radar?

 

[mean_bird]

What is ur UserName @ skyscrapercity.com?

guest :p

Is the Vixen 500E AESA radar on offer to the PAF for JF-17? As per wiki it is however PAF is looking for a more advance AESA radar. Does any one has more info on this? Also what exactly advance are we looking at in a AESA radar?

I don't think anything has been made public as yet except that "an AESA radar of a different make is also on offer". Seeing that there are only a handful of AESA radars, one can guess.

Btw, a lot of people get too excited by the word AESA and automatically consider it superior to any other radar. It really depends on what functionality the radar offers and especially how many T/R modules it has. A good PD radar like the RC-400 is quite reliable and good enough to satisfy most requirements considering today's BVR missile technology.

 

[gambit]

guest :p




I don't think anything has been made public as yet except that "an AESA radar of a different make is also on offer". Seeing that there are only a handful of AESA radars, one can guess.

Btw, a lot of people get too excited by the word AESA and automatically consider it superior to any other radar. It really depends on what functionality the radar offers and especially how many T/R modules it has. A good PD radar like the RC-400 is quite reliable and good enough to satisfy most requirements considering today's BVR missile technology.

If 'PD' mean Pulse Doppler...

The Doppler effect is inherent in every moving object and a 'Doppler radar' is not exactly a radar of distinct design and construction from a visual perspective. You can look at an antenna and all the associated black boxes and still cannot tell if the radar is a 'Doppler radar' or not. Or more accurately if this system is capable of Doppler processing or not.

Once an object is in motion, the Doppler effect is available for data extraction and processing. That mean 'Doppler radar' is pretty much an advanced data processing capability that can be turned on/off so a phase array system can also be a non-Doppler processing radar and such a system would of course be overall inferior to a conventional slotted array system. If an object is not in motion, the Doppler processing section of the 'black box' will simply have a null value, meaning that as far as the Doppler processing section is concerned, there is nothing there.

Train whistle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doppler Effect - Explanation, Doppler effect in light waves

We all read enough about the moving and whistling train example and how the whistle's pitch rises and falls according to distance to illustrate the Doppler effect. But what if we somehow have our brains disregard what we see and feel and focus solely on the whistle? Then if the whistling sound exist but its pitch neither rise nor fall, we will conclude that there is no train approaching or leaving despite the presence of the whistling noise. But if we turn on another data processing section of our brains, then we will say: 'Aha...There is a train but it is not moving.' Doppler processing is about noticing the freq rise and fall of signals and do something with it.

The Doppler effect is a two-way street and it is crucial that we understand WHO is performing the data extraction and processing. Go back to the train whistle example and expand that into some scenarios...

- If the observer is stationary and is listening for that train whistle and its pitch changes, this is the simplest of Doppler processing -- single target motion. The scenario is that of a ground missile battery looking for aircrafts.

- If the observer is on the moving train and is the 'who' of Doppler processing, he would be listening for ECHOES of the train's whistle that bounced off the train station's building. This gets a little more complex as he must calculate his motion relative to the train station, which is non-moving. The scenario is that of an aircraft looking for a ground missile battery.

- If there are two moving trains on parallel tracks but approaching each other and if each train has an observer, it gets a lot more complex as each observer, and remember that each is the 'who' of Doppler processing, must perform TWO distint Doppler effects calculations: the approaching train's whistle and the echoes of his own train's whistle that bounced off the other train. Dual target motion. The scenario is that of two fighters pointing their radars at each other. Each fighter uses the other's radar transmissions, note that Doppler component, then note his own radar's transmission that echoed off that aircraft, perform some correlation calculations, then give a firing solution to his missile. With an inferior avionics system, the discrepancy might increase between the two Doppler effects, meaning the other fighter's transmission is giving out 600km but the echoes from his own transmission is saying 500km. This is where the more powerful radar does not necessarily mean an advantage because as the two fighters nears each other, the pulses gets more compressed and keep in mind that each fighter is processing two sets of pulses, the inferior avionics can literally quit Doppler processing because the correlations became out of bounds, whatever those boundaries might be. With any pulse Doppler radar, it is the avionics that WILL make or break the overall platform.

If the missile has its own radar, then at some point in its journey to its target, it could perform three distinct Doppler effects calculations: the other fighter's radar transmissions, the echoes off the target that came from the parent aircraft, and the echoes off the target that came from its own little radar set. I say 'could' because a missile is small and not every country is technically capable of creating avionics that small that is so capable.

The above illustration is that of a 'semi-active' missile but it should adequately give the reader a sufficient visualization of how complex Doppler effects processing can be when there are multiple moving targets. The 'semi-active' missile relies on the parent radar transmissions to create echoes off the target. This is where the fighter must keep radar lock on the target. Lose lock and the missile is blind. Those arcs can be construed as one's own radar transmissions AND echoes from the other guy's radar. Now visualize in your mind arcs coming from the missile and there you have it -- three-way Doppler effects processing.

An AESA system can do Doppler effects processing IF the requirements demands it. But pulse Doppler processing is so vital to improve one's odds of success in killing the enemy that it is foolhardly to not include it, phase array or not. The great advantage of an AESA system is that because it is so quick and precise in main beam control, an AESA system actually reduces how often it scan the target and still maintain adequate target information and in doing so, the adversary cannot be as effective in exploiting its radar transmission's Doppler component. The 'rescan' or 'relook' rate can also be erratic, further confusing the enemy. That 'rescan' or 'relook' rate can also have freq agility, pulse repition freq jittering, or amplitude jittering. The possibility are endless with an AESA system but still -- it is avionics that WILL make or break an entire system.

Doppler processing is another category under radar detection that can take up an engineer's entire career, if he choses to be so focused, from mathematics to avionics integration. What I said here will do two things: illuminate some issues and at the same time muddying the radar 'water' for those who are curious. Good luck in your own research.

 

[Muradk]

With this eye sight hell yeh, Can't see **** due to age , Can't hear due to T-33s