JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Arsalan]

and we live happily ever after!

Not a chance Sir! :p

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Recent developments on part of JF-17 produce quite a ripple effect in our neighborhood. Acquisition & integration of CM-400AKG missile with JF-17 is another milestone in its short service life. Our friends (as before) first out rightly dismisses 5.5 Mach hypersonic missile & later on try to downplay its threat by highlighting IN’s SAM capability. Let us look into the real capabilities & possible scenarios in such naval battles in future.

The presence of hypersonic ASBM and ASCM make it very difficult to defend a warship. Indians will suggest that presence of ship defenses like Barak-8 and other measures will defeat such attacks. Also some will argue that a single missile strike like C-802A or CM-400AKG is not enough to destroy a ship. Let’s first look into available Pakistan’s ASMs.

C-802A:
Upgraded C802A missile is an active radar seeker, subsonic (0.9 Mach), low-altitude sea-skimmer (5 to 7 meters above sea level), featuring way point planning, on-off-on radar operation and multiple target selection. It can be used against maritime and fixed ground targets. Due to the C-802A missile's small radar reflectivity, low attack flight path and strong anti-jamming capability of its guidance system, there is a very small chance of intercepting the missile. With a warhead of 190kg and stand-off range of 180km, it is a very potent anti-ship missile.

CM-400AKG:
CM-400AKG supersonic cruise missiles with speed in access of Mach 4 (terminal speed reported to be Mach 5.5). Range of CM-400AKG is reported to be 250km with GPS and image recognition guidance system. Its flight speed of more than Mach 4 gives it the capability to breakthrough shipboard air defense network.

Exocet:
Exocet is inertial guided in mid-flight and turns on active radar late in its flight to find and hit its target. As a counter measure against the air defense around the target, it maintains a very low altitude flight, staying 1–2 m above the sea level. Due to radar horizon effect, the target may not detect an incoming attack until the missile is only 6000 m from impact. This leaves little reaction time for ship defenses. Exocet has a range of 70km and can be launched from ship, submarine and aircraft.

A warship can be attacked by above discussed anti-ship missiles at >50 nautical miles. This distance is more than radar horizon (can vary with height of ship's radar, flight level of the ASCM and the sea state at that time) and outside the range of virtually all SAMs.

The first warning a warship will get is when these missiles emerge from behind the radar horizon at about 20-25 nautical miles. Whether it is an ESM alarm or a radar track, warning time between detection and impact will be around 60 seconds for C-802A and 30 seconds for CM-400AKG. For SAM missiles the radar must acquire and track the inbound ASCM. Once in range, the radar must illuminate the ASCM for several seconds for successful interception.

What happens if there are two or more ASCMs fired in a salvo? Then the warship has to first paint one ASCM for several seconds to impact, and then quickly slew the illuminator antenna to the second ASCM to kill it. This will invariably delay the second SAM launch.

Let's now assume an increasing salvo size of ASCMs. With 3 ASCMs, the distance for the last missile interception will be much closer. SAMs have a minimum engagement range inside of which they do not have the energy to maneuver effectively to kill a supersonic target.

There is a probability of more than 98% that the ship will be hit with a salvo of 5 ASCMs. Even an Aegis cruiser with four SPG-62 engagement radars/illuminators can at best bring three radars/illuminators to bear against a single sector.

It is a standard Cold War era Soviet anti-shipping strike doctrine. Shoot off enough supersonic ASCMs and one or more will get through the saturated air defenses of a warship and either kill it, or disable it. Considering Pakistan’s fleet of Mirage-V, JF-17 and Orion aircraft along with Agosta-90B it will be quite a feat if Indians can based their Carrier group in an aggressive posture against Pakistan.

And even if the Indian SAMs intercept every ASCM, then an attacking air force merely needs to keep throwing ASCMs until the SAM magazines on the defending warships are exhausted. Barak-8 type SAMs are also very expensive and will always be available in limited numbers.

I still have not bring into equation SEAD missions against Indian surface fleet and from a strategic point of view acquisition of strike weapons like CM-400AKG has put Indian naval planners on defensive. Now, every ship Indians get will be focusing more on her own defense, which ultimately put lots of extra cost and effect its operational capability also.

For Pakistan, the lesson is to invest more in air force, submarines and fast attack missile crafts. Large warships in today’s environment are more a liability then a force projection.

 

[Saeed_Khan]

China's first ARM breaks cover:​

By Robert Hewson

November 29, 2012: A new air-launched anti-radiation missile (ARM) is being promoted for export by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). The LD-10 (Lei Dian = Thunderbolt) is a product of the Luoyang Optoelectro Technology Development Centre (LOEC) - AVIC's primary air weapons specialist - and is closely based on LOEC's SD-10 (PL-12) beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (AAM).

The LD-10 was exhibited in public for the first time at Airshow China 2012, which was held in Zhuhai from 13-18 November. The LD-10 is the first dedicated ARM to be observed in China, and LOEC officials told IHS Jane's the weapon was already in production for an (unnamed) export customer.

AVIC data identify the PAC/AVIC JF-17 Thunder (FC-1) lightweight fighter as a "typical carrier aircraft" for the LD-10. This points directly to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) as the customer for the missile.

At Airshow China, a senior PAF officer noted that the Brazilian-built Mectron MAR-1 ARM was already integrated and operational with the JF-17 but suggested it was preferable to have "options" when it came to future JF-17 exports.

(Courtesy: Janes Defence and Security Report)

 

[VCheng]

O........ Hence doing it twice requires an immense thrust to weight ratio

Is "immense" greater or less than 1:1 T:W ratio?

 

[DARKY]

Recent developments on part of JF-17 produce quite a ripple effect in our neighborhood. Acquisition & integration of CM-400AKG missile with JF-17 is another milestone in its short service life. Our friends (as before) first out rightly dismisses 5.5 Mach hypersonic missile & later on try to downplay its threat by highlighting IN’s SAM capability. Let us look into the real capabilities & possible scenarios in such naval battles in future.

The presence of hypersonic ASBM and ASCM make it very difficult to defend a warship. Indians will suggest that presence of ship defenses like Barak-8 and other measures will defeat such attacks. Also some will argue that a single missile strike like C-802A or CM-400AKG is not enough to destroy a ship. Let’s first look into available Pakistan’s ASMs.

C-802A:
Upgraded C802A missile is an active radar seeker, subsonic (0.9 Mach), low-altitude sea-skimmer (5 to 7 meters above sea level), featuring way point planning, on-off-on radar operation and multiple target selection. It can be used against maritime and fixed ground targets. Due to the C-802A missile's small radar reflectivity, low attack flight path and strong anti-jamming capability of its guidance system, there is a very small chance of intercepting the missile. With a warhead of 190kg and stand-off range of 180km, it is a very potent anti-ship missile.

Upgraded C-802A have got dual radar and imaging infrared guidance/dual television and imaging infrared guidance/dual band (infrared and imaging infrared) guidance/dual television and infrared guidance.

Out of which radar and infrared guidance is most preferred as it is cheaper while the Dual television and IR guidance has proved to be more successful.

The dual sets of guidance was preferred due to the poor performance of the Active radar seeker and poor ability to over come a simple jamming techniques employed by modern Radar systems and EW kits used by warships these days.

Hence the IR imaging seekers are used to provide with constant snaps of the target once the radar seeker fails... which it usually does in an ECM environment.

This missile failed to sink a 1000ton Israeli corvette... what is significant here is that the corvette
returns for duty in a short time after conducting repairs on its own.

CM-400AKG:
CM-400AKG supersonic cruise missiles with speed in access of Mach 4 (terminal speed reported to be Mach 5.5). Range of CM-400AKG is reported to be 250km with GPS and image recognition guidance system. Its flight speed of more than Mach 4 gives it the capability to breakthrough shipboard air defense network.

CM-400AKG the new marketing piece from China uses a rocket motor which If the claims are to be considered allows the missile to reach an apogee of about 40km before diving and and achieving the claimed speed of 4mach or 5.5mach in terminal stages... absence of proper guidance... makes it a worse weapon as compared to C-802A.

Considering the missile to be around about the dimension of C-802A.. while the C-802A can have the extra IR imaging seeker which provides the pilot with the images of the target and helps him guide the missile... the High 5.5mach speed of this missile removes any possibility of such seeker as the IR camera would turn blind thanks to the excess of hot gas formation around the nose of the missile.

I would conclude here that Naval warfare is all about early warning, satellite tracking, large powerful radars and support and smart fire and forget ASM which don't require guidance updates from the user.

The JF-17s or the Mirages would have to comfort the Su30s and Mig29Ks before even picking a destroyer of IN.

To add on... radars such as Elta star has been specifically designed with a look down mode allowing it to track a sea skimming ASM flying barely 1-3meter above the sea surface from a distance of 80-120km from a destroyer's mast and 40-60km from a frigate mast... can track 1000s of targets and engage 8 of per array means a total of 16 engagement in normal mode and upto 32 if all 4 arrays are used... the good thing here is that one ship can use the missiles of other ships and guide it to his target.

I didn't intend to spoil your parade here.

But PA needs to focus more on coastal defense and anti-air capability[SAM] along with underwater boats and attack crafts than fancy goods such as C-802A/CM-400AKG... that too in large numbers.. If it wants to prevent embarrassing blockades by IN on the Pakistani coasts.

 

[Dazzler]

Upgraded C-802A have got dual radar and imaging infrared guidance/dual television and imaging infrared guidance/dual band (infrared and imaging infrared) guidance/dual television and infrared guidance.

Out of which radar and infrared guidance is most preferred as it is cheaper while the Dual television and IR guidance has proved to be more successful.

The dual sets of guidance was preferred due to the poor performance of the Active radar seeker and poor ability to over come a simple jamming techniques employed by modern Radar systems and EW kits used by warships these days.

Hence the IR imaging seekers are used to provide with constant snaps of the target once the radar seeker fails... which it usually does in an ECM environment.

This missile failed to sink a 1000ton Israeli corvette... what is significant here is that the corvette
returns for duty in a short time after conducting repairs on its own.



CM-400AKG the new marketing piece from China uses a rocket motor which If the claims are to be considered allows the missile to reach an apogee of about 40km before diving and and achieving the claimed speed of 4mach or 5.5mach in terminal stages... absence of proper guidance... makes it a worse weapon as compared to C-802A.

Considering the missile to be around about the dimension of C-802A.. while the C-802A can have the extra IR imaging seeker which provides the pilot with the images of the target and helps him guide the missile... the High 5.5mach speed of this missile removes any possibility of such seeker as the IR camera would turn blind thanks to the excess of hot gas formation around the nose of the missile.

I would conclude here that Naval warfare is all about early warning, satellite tracking, large powerful radars and support and smart fire and forget ASM which don't require guidance updates from the user.

The JF-17s or the Mirages would have to comfort the Su30s and Mig29Ks before even picking a destroyer of IN.

To add on... radars such as Elta star has been specifically designed with a look down mode allowing it to track a sea skimming ASM flying barely 1-3meter above the sea surface from a distance of 80-120km from a destroyer's mast and 40-60km from a frigate mast... can track 1000s of targets and engage 8 of per array means a total of 16 engagement in normal mode and upto 32 if all 4 arrays are used... the good thing here is that one ship can use the missiles of other ships and guide it to his target.

I didn't intend to spoil your parade here.

But PA needs to focus more on coastal defense and anti-air capability[SAM] along with underwater boats and attack crafts than fancy goods such as C-802A/CM-400AKG... that too in large numbers.. If it wants to prevent embarrassing blockades by IN on the Pakistani coasts.

All the best wished for your fantasy parade.

 

[SQ8]

All the best wished for your fantasy parade.

This parade somehow does all that is possible to ensure that the best case scenario for India always emerges..

 

[trident2010]

^^^^^^ Good analysis Darky !!

 

[VCheng]

Is "immense" greater or less than 1:1 T:W ratio?

This parade somehow does all that is possible to ensure that the best case scenario for India always emerges..

Never mind the parade, may I request an answer to my question?

Is "immense" greater or less than 1:1 T:W ratio?

Please quantify this word "immense" as used here. Is it as vague as "more full better plentiful power"?

 

[SQ8]

Never mind the parade, may I request an answer to my question?



Please quantify this word "immense" as used here. Is it as vague as "more full better plentiful power"?

Every aircraft can do a vertical loop.. provided it has enough speed to do it.
But the one specifically seen by the likes of the F-16 and F-15.. yes very well can be accomplished by the Thunder.. however.. it does not require a T:W ratio of 1:1 or greater as that is relevant to the efficiency of the loop and not how it is undertaken.
For eg.. the eagle is capable of accelerating during a climb.. So was the CF-105 arrow..
The Thunder can maintain a climb at constant speed.. for a while.. but it cannot accelerate in it.

 

[VCheng]

Every aircraft can do a vertical loop.. provided it has enough speed to do it.
But the one specifically seen by the likes of the F-16 and F-15.. yes very well can be accomplished by the Thunder.. however.. it does not require a T:W ratio of 1:1 or greater as that is relevant to the efficiency of the loop and not how it is undertaken.
For eg.. the eagle is capable of accelerating during a climb.. So was the CF-105 arrow..
The Thunder can maintain a climb at constant speed.. for a while.. but it cannot accelerate in it.

Has the JF-17 ever demonstrated a straight climb right after pull-up? Yes, it is claimed that it can do so, but it is unproven as of yet, as far as I am aware.

 

[SQ8]

Has the JF-17 ever demonstrated a straight climb right after pull-up? Yes, it is claimed that it can do so, but it is unproven as of yet, as far as I am aware.

Unproven.. as in undocumented.
As someone who "has" had some experience of being in places where "undocumented" things do happen.
You should understand when some "undocumented" things actually do exist...
It does seem to act as a thorn to those like me who actually have worked/seen touched.. "undocumented" things.

 

[Donatello]

Has the JF-17 ever demonstrated a straight climb right after pull-up? Yes, it is claimed that it can do so, but it is unproven as of yet, as far as I am aware.

VCheng, in this case i would take Oscar's word for it. Doing a loop isn't new. However, as he said, accelerating while doing a loop is now a different ball game.

Does anyone know which pylons will the JF-17 carry the CM400AKG on?

Considering JF-17 can fire C802 and CM400AKG for anti-ship roles, we can assume that Future naval attack units will be JF-17?

 

[Dazzler]

VCheng, in this case i would take Oscar's word for it. Doing a loop isn't new. However, as he said, accelerating while doing a loop is now a different ball game.

Does anyone know which pylons will the JF-17 carry the CM400AKG on?

Considering JF-17 can fire C802 and CM400AKG for anti-ship roles, we can assume that Future naval attack units will be JF-17?

CM-400/ C-802 can be carried on inner most wing pylons as well as under belly. It is destined to replace Mirage-5PA2-3 in naval role.

 

[Dazzler]

Never mind the parade, may I request an answer to my question?



Please quantify this word "immense" as used here. Is it as vague as "more full better plentiful power"?

In literal sense, immense is used here to demonstrate the thrust of 1:1.

It is from someone who is knowledgeable, also, loop is a basic maneuver for most post WW2 fighter aircraft including Mig-17, 19, F-7s, even draggy Mirages can pull them.