JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Tempest II]

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.

What kind of confirmation are you after? Aviation Week, in one of their daily bulletins from Dubai (go to page 23 http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416198891&o=ext ) did print that PAF JF-17s have SD-10A … … and the latest SIPRI Arms Transfers Register (from last month) show that the PAF has received 175 SD-10 missiles “For JF-17 and possibly modernized Mirage-3/5 combat aircraft”

 

[ababeel22]

confirmation by paf people ?

 

[Tempest II]

confirmation by paf people ?

What are the chances? have their ever made public announcements of that type?

 

[Beast]

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.

Unless it fit with a western radar , it can never fired AIM-120.

I don't say it impossible for Chinese radar to fire AIM-120 missiles provided they can cracked the source code but American and Chinese all do the same way. They make their radar fire only their own BVRAAM to keep their own business. Precisely why Chinese now not buying Russian radar as they refused to provide source code or modification of their radar to fit chinese BVRAAM(SD-10).

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

Hi,

That is why I was asking about the F86 and the Gnat comparison---the reason PAF pilots were successful was that during the heat of the battle, they remembered the strengths of their F86 and the weaknesses of the Gnat----. And in a dog fight---at that time----that was the most important thing---and still is----. Do you remember what you were trained to do----make the enemy forget what he was taught---take the enemy away from his position of strength to his position of weakness---and you have won 2/3's of the battle---the rest is for your weapons system to deliver.

And there were some indian pilots who remembered their training as well.

Supposed the enemy radar can lock on you---but it still needs the missile to take you out----the question remains----how does an air to air missile lock and act on a target flying close to the ground----if it misses on the first go----there are good chances that it would slam into the ground---now is slamming into the ground and exploding---is it as lethal and damaging as a proximity explosion in the air---I would say no----because most of the propellants would be heading into the ground---. Heat seeking missiles always have problems with heat generated by the ground---smart missiles---well some of the pros can answer better.

And also not al aircraft in the enemy's arsenal have the radar capable of seeing perfectly through the ground clutter---.

 

[Tempest II]

Assuming the defensive air operations role the JF-17 is likely to have, it will be operating most over home territory, and that lessons the threat of ground fire, it will likely have support from ground radar and other assets. Fighting at low level at home means your friend ground systems can fire at the enemy too - is fact, this is desired and could be part of planning. Just like long range radar, enemy jamming is less effective at low-level due to various natural and man-made obstacles and curvature of the earth. Like MK said, missile guidence systems (both radar and IR) dont work at optimum against the ground. The danger for low-level is that the aerodynamics of the missiles are better at LL due to denser air.

I also believe, assuming home territory, and hundreds if not thousands of flying hours in training, the JF-17 pilot is more familiar and comfortable with the terrain than the invading pilot.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Hi,

That is why I was asking about the F86 and the Gnat comparison---the reason PAF pilots were successful was that during the heat of the battle, they remembered the strengths of their F86 and the weaknesses of the Gnat----. And in a dog fight---at that time----that was the most important thing---and still is----. Do you remember what you were trained to do----make the enemy forget what he was taught---take the enemy away from his position of strength to his position of weakness---and you have won 2/3's of the battle---the rest is for your weapons system to deliver.

That is the thing...
Over the last 2 decades the majority of battle responsibility has gone away from the aircraft and into the weapons (missiles) and the radar.
Modern schooling is to avoid dog fights, never get too close , seek early, fire long range, let the mission computer and the missile sort out the details.
The role of the aircraft is coming full circle now.
i.e, back to the earliest helium balloons whose primary objective was to provide a high altitude observation and firing post.

 

[Tempest II]

That is the thing...
Over the last 2 decades the majority of battle responsibility has gone away from the aircraft and into the weapons (missiles) and the radar.
Modern schooling is to avoid dog fights, never get too close , seek early, fire long range, let the mission computer and the missile sort out the details.
The role of the aircraft is coming full circle now.
i.e, back to the earliest helium balloons whose primary objective was to provide a high altitude observation and firing post.

Was reading a few days ago that, if a force can afford it, they avoid the merge by sending their fighters in waves. The front wave fires its BVR missiles, and when they have exhausted these or they are getting too close to the enemy, they fly out of the way, and the second group, still at BVR range, starts firing, then the 3rd group, etc.
Smaller air forces may not afford enough numbers but it is an interesting tactic but I am sure in some satiations merges will be inevitable.

 

[fatman17]

That is the thing...
Over the last 2 decades the majority of battle responsibility has gone away from the aircraft and into the weapons (missiles) and the radar.
Modern schooling is to avoid dog fights, never get too close , seek early, fire long range, let the mission computer and the missile sort out the details.
The role of the aircraft is coming full circle now.
i.e, back to the earliest helium balloons whose primary objective was to provide a high altitude observation and firing post.

if we look at the stats of BVR 'kills' they are few and far between (6 to 8 kills only since the BVR was developed). in modern warfare, it better to destroy the adversary's aircraft on the ground along with its radar sites. - make them blind!

 

[Beast]

If your ECM is good enough. Those BVRAAM might not have much advantage..

Since the 80s, we have never seen a real air fight between forces of equal strength in aircraft and electronic measures.
Those tatic of trying to play long range shooter is good against weaker forces without decent BVRAAM or lousy electronic counter measures. One great example is Gulf War I. Despite possessing some decent Mig-23, Mig-29 and Mig-25 with BVRAAM. Its radar is heavily jammed and most become useless. Only one F/A-18 was shot down. While Iraq sustain a series of fighter shot down by coalition forces. Most were burn on ground or escape to Iran.

If Iraq possess certain efficiency of ECM and jamming, the outcome might be abit different. My bet is do not trust too much on yr BVRAAM. Unless yr foe are weak.

 

[Pfpilot]

The Iranian air force decimated the Iraqis employing the long range phoenix missile; often times the Iraqi pilots wouldn't know they were locked on, until the missile hit. The superiority of Iranian equipment was a major reason so it has limited relation to our scenario, but the f-14 had a similar edge and was employed in a similar manner as to how the IAF will used the sukhois against our JF-17 fleet. They will not risk losing their advantageous position and will try to remain at a distance whenever possible.
Equally, modern BVR combat gets a bad rep. because of the limited rules of engagement the USAF has often fought under, often requiring visual identification before a plane can be shot down.
The race to develop ever more maneuverable and longer range BVR missiles is a more accurate representation of the importance of BVR. The hundreds of war games and tests undertaken by these air forces and corporations must have provided some immense tangible benefits, or the development of BVR missiles would not dominate the landscape of present and future warfare.
Let us not forget, the gun in world war one and the heat seaker in the Israeli-Arab and Indo-Pak wars of the 60s and 70s were pathetic devices with little reliability. It is only a matter of time before the BVR missile becomes the be all and end all of air combat.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Was reading a few days ago that, if a force can afford it, they avoid the merge by sending their fighters in waves. The front wave fires its BVR missiles, and when they have exhausted these or they are getting too close to the enemy, they fly out of the way, and the second group, still at BVR range, starts firing, then the 3rd group, etc.
Smaller air forces may not afford enough numbers but it is an interesting tactic but I am sure in some satiations merges will be inevitable.

if we look at the stats of BVR 'kills' they are few and far between (6 to 8 kills only since the BVR was developed). in modern warfare, it better to destroy the adversary's aircraft on the ground along with its radar sites. - make them blind!

Another very important concept to keep in mind is "Commanders"
Air Marshals, the guys in the top two tiers still belong to an era when BVR was a "concept" and dog fight heroics were still "hype".
as younger officers will replace the aging tiers, newer tactics will find acceptance beyond mere "courses" ; BVR will find more and more application.

What does make me happy is the air launched version of our cruise missile.
The teams responsible for it should be working in turbo mode, improving the engine and the sensors.

 

[Leviza]

Another very important concept to keep in mind is "Commanders"
Air Marshals, the guys in the top two tiers still belong to an era when BVR was a "concept" and dog fight heroics were still "hype".
as younger officers will replace the aging tiers, newer tactics will find acceptance beyond mere "courses" ; BVR will find more and more application.

What does make me happy is the air launched version of our cruise missile.
The teams responsible for it should be working in turbo mode, improving the engine and the sensors.

are your talking about something related to childs play????? my son, people on top are always updated on all the new facts which are important for anything related to defence/offence...

 

[SQ8]

Another very important concept to keep in mind is "Commanders"
Air Marshals, the guys in the top two tiers still belong to an era when BVR was a "concept" and dog fight heroics were still "hype".
as younger officers will replace the aging tiers, newer tactics will find acceptance beyond mere "courses" ; BVR will find more and more application.

What does make me happy is the air launched version of our cruise missile.
The teams responsible for it should be working in turbo mode, improving the engine and the sensors.

The current leadership is very much in touch with today's demands..

 

[rockstarIN]

Was reading a few days ago that, if a force can afford it, they avoid the merge by sending their fighters in waves. The front wave fires its BVR missiles, and when they have exhausted these or they are getting too close to the enemy, they fly out of the way, and the second group, still at BVR range, starts firing, then the 3rd group, etc.
Smaller air forces may not afford enough numbers but it is an interesting tactic but I am sure in some satiations merges will be inevitable.

It is/was(?) the Russian doctrine, I read somewhere else such kinda tactic.