JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Tempest II]

Just last week I was calculating the wing-area for the FC-1, and disappointed because high wing loading are general not good for manoeuvrability. I however know the FC-1 performs best at low-level. This is still a worry for me as the Tiffy, the Raffy and the F-22 are all optimised for “high-energy state” (i.e. high speed and high altitude) and also that high speed and high altitude give your missile more range. I am not saying low-level tactics are dead. As consolation and addition to my learning curve is this from the book, “dogfight! - India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision” by Ashley J. Tellis, it says:

(page 25) ... ... In contrast, thrust-to-weight performance is less important for aircraft designed for the low level anti-surface mission, but high wing loading is actually desirable because of its benefits for airframe stability at the high subsonic speeds usually associated with surface-attack operations. … …

(Page 27) ... ... Advances in aerodynamic design, materials technology, and digital flight control systems, for example, have resulted in the development of new blended wing and fuselage configurations which, by utilizing leading and trailing edge flaps combined with high-thrust turbofan engines, enable fighter aircraft with even nominally high wing loading to exhibit extreme manoeuvrability. The F-16C is a great illustration of such a combination. Despite having a higher wing loading than, for example, a MiG-21 or a Mirage 2000, the latest generation F-16 has instantaneous turn capabilities that exceed the former and almost match the latter, while possessing better slow speed manoeuvrability — a critical advantage in close-in aerial combat—compared with both.

I am still looking for that magazine page from about 18 months ago with a few lines on the JF-17, showing #111 describing it as "low-level ... high manoeuvrable .... etc, etc". If anybody has that, please help.

 

[DARKY]

Ok first of all let me quote my own post here which started this argument.




Now please care to identify where i did mention engine quality in IAF in my post?... at least I can't see that.

Secondly, If there is no threat of war, then WS-13 time to mature is not big an issue for me as we would love to have a reliable engine with less service requirements. Couple of years wouldn't make that much difference .... it is not that big time span when we talk about aero-engineering technologies.

OK ... Now avavilbility is issue then i think you must know how many was procured.

Russia to sell additional RD-93 jet engines to Chinal

The last line.. If you can't see then that's your problem.
And it doesn't any difference weather its IAF/BAF/PAF/Whatever AF... the qualities is more or less similar.

Lots of Ifs...
If there is no war.
If the engine is upto the mark.(a big question)

100 was the initial order... and the follow on order would be 500 pieces.. now lets take the PAF Jf-17 to be around 100 with those 500 engines.. now to train at least 100 pilots with 1000hrs atleast you would need 1000x100hours now those 100 Kimov provides you with 100x400 hours before 1st servicing.. you are clearly short by a huge margin here... now even If you have 500 kimovs the no of hours before 1st servicing falls around 500x400 which would leave about half engines left for the pilots trained with 1000hrs to fight the war.(offcourse its not the way AF functions and there are separate training squadron... Its just a lamer calculation).

 

[MastanKhan]

Just last week I was calculating the wing-area for the FC-1, and disappointed because high wing loading are general not good for manoeuvrability. I however know the FC-1 performs best at low-level. This is still a worry for me as the Tiffy, the Raffy and the F-22 are all optimised for “high-energy state” (i.e. high speed and high altitude) and also that high speed and high altitude give your missile more range. I am not saying low-level tactics are dead. As consolation and addition to my learning curve is this from the book, “dogfight! - India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision” by Ashley J. Tellis, it says:

Hi,

Remember the F 86 and the Gnat----you know what their strenghths and weaknesses were---F 86 was high altitude and the Gnat a low altitude fighter.

You know paf has gone for low altitude----that is where the paf training has been concentrated on low low flight---. Anyone know why---.

Paf thinks it has a better chance of avoiding bvr's by flying close to the nape of the earth---as the missiles get confused so close the ground----.

The comments from the air marshall about the americans came in flying nape of the earth when attacking abbotabad was deceptive---. PAF prides itself in low low flying.

So, basically, it has taken the same route as that of the mirage 2k----with the jf17----smaller size---just like the Gnat---flying close to the ground---very difficult to keep lock on. For high altitude they have the F16 blk 52 and mlu's---armed with aim 120---right in your face kind of fighter.

Also the heat generated by the ground confuses the heat seeker type missiles, ground clutter is also a factor in losing missile lock or a radar lock---.

 

[Manticore]

^ i remember back in 2009 on this forum , we had a discussion on paf's bvr countermeasures [at that time paf didnt have bvrs but was training e the turks] .. some very good posts back then regarding countermeasures and war doctrine ... in which indians ultimately said that the radar on su30 was able to distinguish between the fighter and the ground clutter --- dont remember the thread though -- and i dont want members to take the discussions towards mki

 

[DARKY]

^ i remember back in 2009 on this forum , we had a discussion on paf's bvr countermeasures [at that time paf didnt have bvrs but was training e the turks] .. some very good posts back then regarding countermeasures and war doctrine ... in which indians ultimately said that the radar on su30 was able to distinguish between the fighter and the ground clutter --- dont remember the thread though -- and i dont want members to take the discussions towards mki

Any ESA Radar with Ground mapping capability can distinguish between Fighter or any flying object in ground clutter... now the latest mechanically steered radars also have this capability but they are not as efficient.... You can look the videos of snow leopard radar for example... this not only helps in air-combat but strike capabilities are also enhanced to a great extent.

 

[Donatello]

Just last week I was calculating the wing-area for the FC-1, and disappointed because high wing loading are general not good for manoeuvrability. I however know the FC-1 performs best at low-level. This is still a worry for me as the Tiffy, the Raffy and the F-22 are all optimised for “high-energy state” (i.e. high speed and high altitude) and also that high speed and high altitude give your missile more range. I am not saying low-level tactics are dead. As consolation and addition to my learning curve is this from the book, “dogfight! - India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision” by Ashley J. Tellis, it says:

Hi,

Remember the F 86 and the Gnat----you know what their strenghths and weaknesses were---F 86 was high altitude and the Gnat a low altitude fighter.

You know paf has gone for low altitude----that is where the paf training has been concentrated on low low flight---. Anyone know why---.

Paf thinks it has a better chance of avoiding bvr's by flying close to the nape of the earth---as the missiles get confused so close the ground----.

The comments from the air marshall about the americans came in flying nape of the earth when attacking abbotabad was deceptive---. PAF prides itself in low low flying.

So, basically, it has taken the same route as that of the mirage 2k----with the jf17----smaller size---just like the Gnat---flying close to the ground---very difficult to keep lock on. For high altitude they have the F16 blk 52 and mlu's---armed with aim 120---right in your face kind of fighter.

Also the heat generated by the ground confuses the heat seeker type missiles, ground clutter is also a factor in losing missile lock or a radar lock---.

Hello,

Good points. But, from what i have read on, the newer AIM 120 generation missiles are a step ahead. As they are radar guided , the newer radars have very good resolution even when pointing straight at the ground. A computer can definitely sort out a target, which flies as fast an an airplane.

After the AIM120 is launched it gets guidance from the aircraft's radar. When the radar waves hit the moving target, they reflect back in a varying shape, creating a 2d shape for the computer, sort of like a snapshot taken, but not with visible light waves, but radio waves. That particular 'picture' is then tracked in space. Even if radar gets clutter back, it knows as the clutter is moving one way and the previous 'picture' is moving the other way, it can keep the lock.

Same with the IR missiles. The newer ones don't just lock on to the heat source. They lock on to heat source and keep tracking it as a picture moves in space. That is why flares help, but can be ignored by the missile's seeker, as it continues to track a fast moving target.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Just last week I was calculating the wing-area for the FC-1, and disappointed because high wing loading are general not good for manoeuvrability. I however know the FC-1 performs best at low-level. This is still a worry for me as the Tiffy, the Raffy and the F-22 are all optimised for “high-energy state” (i.e. high speed and high altitude) and also that high speed and high altitude give your missile more range. I am not saying low-level tactics are dead. As consolation and addition to my learning curve is this from the book, “dogfight! - India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision” by Ashley J. Tellis, it says:

Hi,

Remember the F 86 and the Gnat----you know what their strenghths and weaknesses were---F 86 was high altitude and the Gnat a low altitude fighter.

You know paf has gone for low altitude----that is where the paf training has been concentrated on low low flight---. Anyone know why---.

Paf thinks it has a better chance of avoiding bvr's by flying close to the nape of the earth---as the missiles get confused so close the ground----.

The comments from the air marshall about the americans came in flying nape of the earth when attacking abbotabad was deceptive---. PAF prides itself in low low flying.

So, basically, it has taken the same route as that of the mirage 2k----with the jf17----smaller size---just like the Gnat---flying close to the ground---very difficult to keep lock on. For high altitude they have the F16 blk 52 and mlu's---armed with aim 120---right in your face kind of fighter.

Also the heat generated by the ground confuses the heat seeker type missiles, ground clutter is also a factor in losing missile lock or a radar lock---.

Bit sir I still have a doubt...If flying too close to the ground wont reduce room for maneuverability and make it vulnerable to Manpads and VSHORADs?

 

[Manticore]

Please stick to the topic next time there wont be a warning

 

[[--Leo--]]

how many percent PAC is producing parts of JF-17 first it was 58 percent but now PAC is producing avionics and radars
evaluation stage of jf-17 that how much PAC is involve or PAC is just producing
what about all the research for block 2 and 3?

My Question is in these points how much PAC is involve?

Sorry for my bad english

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

It is all true---the missiles are smarter---the su30 radar will look thru the clutter for the jf 17, but it does not mean that it will be 100% all the time----but you can't blame the air force for trying to come up with a tactic---which may work----. The bottomline is that the missile still has to impact----the higher the speed of the missile---it will slide while making a very sharp turn.


Closer to the ground how would the misiles work---we need Gambit and Chogy on this issue--couple of our guys can comment on it too.


Missiles also have proximity fuses as well----they don't actually need to hit the air craft to damage it---a detonation close may be equally deadly.

Salman Ahmed - don't let mr america wind you up --- no mentaly normal person is going to believe comments like JF-17 has put Pakistan Defence 10 years behind.

Hi,

I forget at times---don't argue with a fool--he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience---. My apologies for arguing with you----.

I totally forgot----we all know that pakistan extensively tested the Grippen----it was not a one or a two free flights kind of complimentary testing---. It was a complete and thorough flight testing of the aircraft---a final shake down for which way to go---Grippen or the BLK52.

Senor----no nation allows complete testing of the aircraft untill and unless you don't show them secure funds and resources to procure the numbers that you are interested in.

Please let the members decide what they want to think---I am still waiting for your post---your personal opinion about any defence issues----.

My recomendations to the MODS and ADMINS is that any member who does not write and post any defence related topic on his own---must not be allowed to post at all.

I think you Mods and Admins need to take charge---there is a limit to every thing.

 

[Tempest II]

Hi,

It is all true---the missiles are smarter---the su30 radar will look thru the clutter for the jf 17, but it does not mean that it will be 100% all the time----.

I agree, the look down range is unlikely to be ever the same as the look up range. I.e. it will always be shorter. I.e. there is always the advantage to fly low.
Exposure to a MANPADS position, with a range of about 8km (in theory) and depending on terrain, is seconds to a low flying, fast jet, and likely they will let off a single shot before you disappear (hit or missed).
On the other hand exposure (visibility to an opposing fighter plane) by flying high, exposes for a lot longer as the other guy can chase you and can see you for 10s of miles even from one position and can let loose 2 – 4 missiles, which because of high starting velocity (launch platform) and altitude can pursue you for longer anyway.
I was reading on the USN F-14s taking down the Libyan MiG-23s and also the RAF Harriers taking on the Argentine Mirages, in both cases the winning side chose to fight at low altitude.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

dear

dat was too rude from you as u deleted my replies to mr mastankhan are we here to get humiliated by such idiots. if dats the way u run this forum i will quite i just joined this forum to get latest news and views on jf prg but mostly their r off topic bs going on
plz tell me y u deleted my replies to him
will wait for ur reply



thanx
bye

Please ............ Because that's what his job here ..

 

[PakShaheen79]

The last line.. If you can't see then that's your problem.
And it doesn't any difference weather its IAF/BAF/PAF/Whatever AF... the qualities is more or less similar.

It you are refereing to this line

If engine is not very good one then Indians must simply have no problem with it, right?

It was directed at Indian members here like yourself and not on IAF.

 

[nasic10]

Nice Informations

 

[ababeel22]

are there ny plans to use better radar and better engine in jf? what abt its bvr capability, is it confirmed? if so then wat bvr missile does it use? can American bvr missiles be used with it? answers with proper links wold be appreciated.