JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Tempest II]

110km is said to be the minimum range the PAF required for the radar. So its on the minimum

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

1nm=1.852 KM, => 1x60nm= 1.852KMx60nm= 111.12 KM

earlier reported ranges were 130KM for target of 5m^2 RCS, and 75Km for target of 3m^2 RCS, if this article indicate improvement and we consider latest BVR development for JF-17then likely scenario emerges as this improvement is for target of 3m^2 RCS

SD-10 is supposed to have range of about 70+ KM
SD-10B is supposed to have range of about 100+ KM

While discussing ranges of any BVR missile crucial factor is "No Escape Zone". No one actually knew at what altitude this range of SD-10 is stated. Increase altitude from 20,000 feet to 30,000 will instantly increase any BVR range from 70km to 100km.
So considering these factors range of 70km and Radar range of 130km for a fighter size target is not bad. BVR engagements will usually occurred at 50km to 70km ranges. No one will fire a missile at its max range as it will be surely a loss of 0.4 million doller unless the target is a slow moving, non-maneuverable turbo prop. Even if Indian MKI fire a bvr at JF17 say at a range of 80km+. It will give JF17 enough time to just turn away and prevent a hit.
BVR is a very complex kind of dog fight with so many factors. Till date all bvr hits were against slow moving targets etc. Still WVR dog fight is the main thing and will remain so in near future.

 

[Bilal.]

110km is said to be the minimum range the PAF required for the radar. So its on the minimum

Although we have followed the JF-17 very closely but still it's a bit of a mystery... We have 2 different figures for payload, 2-3 different radar range, 2 different max speed numbers, don't know for sure if there is an internal jammed in th ECM suite and all sorts of stories of which weapons are integrated and operational.

 

[araz]

JF-17 production with China’s support

Pak contribution rises to 70pc in avionics

Mian Saifur Rehman
December 3, 2013

The Pakistani security apparatus and allied engineers not only produced the JF-17 Thunder prototype in a record period of two-and-a-half years as against a period of 8-9 years taken in the advanced world on the first model of a combat aircraft, they have also taken the Pakistani contribution in the avionics’ preparation to the optimum level of 70 per cent of the Pak-China joint endeavour and to a satisfactory figure of 58 per cent in the preparation of other essential components.

Talking to The News, Pakistani functionaries who had been working in commanding positions in the manufacture of the JF-17 Thunder disclosed that China’s cooperation has been efficiently reciprocated by Pakistani engineers and technicians whose talent has been acknowledged by Chinese scientists.

Given the high level of this talent, the JF-17 Thunder aircraft can be easily compared even with some highly efficient blocks/models of F-16 especially in the area of avionics. Avionics in fact has enabled the JF-17 planes to acquire considerable airpower edge over the adversary’s aircraft.

And in the area of acceleration forces that enable the aircraft to overcome the gravitational pull, JF-17 is a G-8 plane as compared with F-16 that is a G-9 plane (G denotes acceleration force applied against the Gravitational pull to lift the aircraft). In this manner, JF-17 is no less capable and efficient an aircraft than many advanced planes of the world.

While the credit for accomplishing this excellence goes primarily to the Chinese friends, the role of Pakistani engineers, technicians and officials has been equally remarkable as also acknowledged by the Chinese company Avic (China Aviation Import-Export Corporation).

One of the prime factors that provided fresh impetus to JF-17 co-production was the frequent visits of senior functionaries of PAF to different parts of the world to procure international specifications, including those matching with first-class American aviation standards that are rated as the best standards. It was due to these exclusive efforts of PAF seniors or their frequent visits to countries having soft corner for Pakistan that a G-8 aircraft was produced.

As for the difference between G-8 and G-9, that is only due to metallurgy in use of both China and Pakistan. According to sources, producing a G-8 aircraft was not an easy task too. For this purpose the PAF seniors also sought the technical assistance of experts of a Middle Eastern country that is not much friendly with Pakistan. That diplomatic overture of PAF did work well and the aircraft with many capabilities no less than most of the modern warplanes of the contemporary world came into production within a record, brief period of two to two-and-half years.

Chinese friends are happy over the vigorous input of Pakistani engineers and functionaries that they say has resulted in a big success of international level with export orders expected from many countries. Appreciation has been especially expressed for Pakistanis’ fine diplomacy and specification-collecting skills.

When The News posed a question what hope the people of Pakistan should pin on its pride co-production, JF-17 Thunder, the sources replied: “It is now one of the best and most reliable combat planes of the world as, apart from the G-8 versus G-9 factor, its radar range is 60 aeronautical miles which comes on a par with advanced international standards. Moreover, JF-17 is equipped with a far more advanced BVR system i.e. Beyond Visual Range system that gives it an edge over the enemy aircraft which it can hit from a considerable distance and move far away with full speed in a flash after firing the missile.

JF-17 production with China’s support - thenews.com.pk

Too much emphasis on the G factor. The G zone is good for other stimuli but but has very little role in modern day aviation.
Araz

 

[Tempest II]

Although we have followed the JF-17 very closely but still it's a bit of a mystery... We have 2 different figures for payload, 2-3 different radar range, 2 different max speed numbers, don't know for sure if there is an internal jammed in th ECM suite and all sorts of stories of which weapons are integrated and operational.

130km for a 5sqm target corresponds to 114km (near enough 60nm) for 3sqm.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Nice read.


So JF-17 can carry SD-10s only on the 2 middle wing-hardpoint, while some members were claiming otherwise posting 6-7 year old airshow-posters while JF-17 was still in development as proofs, and a certain moderator was claiming he has "inside sources" that it can carry on the innermost wing hardpoint.
There seems to be a pattern here which screams out--"Never trust forum fanboys"... atleast in this place.

Before you come up with anything, do read the weapons flexibility para. it says all the hard points are connected with the MIL-STD 1760 system, which means any weapon can be integrated / placed / positioned at any of the hard points. And the officer says that it can carry 4 SD-10s, but since fuel is more precious, thus we are now flying them with just 2 SD-10s and fuel tanks on rest if the 3 hard points. Tomorrow with IFR capability, more missiles can be carried. So i say again, any kind of weapon, be a dumb bomb or a precision guided munition, can be positioned at any of the hard points.

So once again read the weapons flexibility para, especially the first 4-5 lines.

130km for a 5sqm target corresponds to 114km (near enough 60nm) for 3sqm.

The range/capabilities of PAF JF-17 equipped radar will never be revealed in full. We will always know what the export order radar version is capable. PAF will keep its radar capability hidden to the best of its abilities.

While 26 degrees seems equal to Gripen and F16 i expected the lrex to give a higher AOA.

Concerning the radar, 60nm is 110km. We were given 130km somewhere. So one has to know the reference rcs for the range being given.

Again true or exact figures would never be revealed in the public. Surprise element will always be kept.

 

[HRK]

While discussing ranges of any BVR missile crucial factor is "No Escape Zone". No one actually knew at what altitude this range of SD-10 is stated. Increase altitude from 20,000 feet to 30,000 will instantly increase any BVR range from 70km to 100km.
So considering these factors range of 70km and Radar range of 130km for a fighter size target is not bad. BVR engagements will usually occurred at 50km to 70km ranges. No one will fire a missile at its max range as it will be surely a loss of 0.4 million doller unless the target is a slow moving, non-maneuverable turbo prop. Even if Indian MKI fire a bvr at JF17 say at a range of 80km+. It will give JF17 enough time to just turn away and prevent a hit.
BVR is a very complex kind of dog fight with so many factors. Till date all bvr hits were against slow moving targets etc. Still WVR dog fight is the main thing and will remain so in near future.

My post was not about BVR engagement or about the incremental range of BVR at different altitudes.... I just tried to make a calculated guess about the incremental range of KLJ-7 with respect to RCS ....

 

[Tempest II]

There is an article/interview in Tom Cooper's site and the Chinese guy gives some insight into ranges sd10, amraam and r77 with launch speeds and altitudes. It is many years old. Maybe 5 years

 

[Kompromat]

I thought Blk I also has BVR, does it not?

First squadron does not, as its meant for pilot conversion, 2nd squadron does.

 

[nomi007]

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

My post was not about BVR engagement or about the incremental range of BVR at different altitudes.... I just tried to make a calculated guess about the incremental range of KLJ-7 with respect to RCS ....

Yes i got your point but same is with the case of radar and RCS. A target with large RCS is easy to track even at longer distances. But a target with relatively smaller RCS (like JF17 vs MKI) is difficult to track. Now agreed that MKI carries much powerful radar in terms of watts that it can out-put and larger aperture, so more range. But it has a drawback too and that is when at longer ranges its radar tries to search and track by out-putting more power, it itself becomes exposed. Anyways everything has pros and cones, PAF must have get some valuable lessons when they pitched thunder against J11s. Eventually such exercises will evolve such tactics which will be helpful in actual conflict.

 

[Basel]

If Apache helicopter can be assisted from UAV than why the same can not be done with our JF-17s, PAF must look in this option in which UAV can locate and provide target data with its on board sensor including an AESA radar, further if possible a UCAV armed with at leat 2 SD-10B will be awesome to assist the JF-17s in many ways.

below is link of the concept for JF-17 i was referring to:

Boeing: Defense, Space & Security - AH-64 Apache News

 

[farhan_9909]

The problem arises with small size is the limitations in terms of range, avionics and weapons load. If with its small radar JF-17 tracks MKI from 50-60 kms and with its much powerful radar MKI detects JF-17 from 100kms, it will put JF-17 in disadvantage.
Therefore, what one need is the Hi-Lo mix of fighters augmented with AWACS and ground based radars .

130km is for 5m2 RCS target.

The MKI a loaded one will have RCS in excess of 15-20m2.now calculate the possible range(though i do know their is a limit aswell)

BVR are not fired at max range aswell.If the BVR range is 100km.the pilot will most probably fire it at max 70-80km or even more like 50km.

 

[BATMAN]

First squadron does not, as its meant for pilot conversion, 2nd squadron does.

According to ACM's interview, both squadrons are ready for normal duty.
There is no dedicated squadron for pilot training.

 

[sancho]

The issue is not of engine thrust.

I didn't said that thrust would be an issue, just that there is a big difference in what the GE414G offered wrt to performance increase to Gripen, compared to what an upgraded RD93 would offer to JF 17. Also, if that bit of performance advantage over WS13 would be enough for PAF to fund the Russian varient.
The Chinese engine and independance of Russian spare supply or future upgrades is not only important for PAF, but also for any potential export customer and that's what makes WS13 actually to a priority upgrade, even for PAF imo.

I have a fleeting suspiscion that PAF will Pit RD13 against WS13 to see how much leverage it can get out of both the parties.

I don't think PAF is in the position to field a competition and take leverage of the Chinese, since they are a partner of the JF 17 too! They can simply veto the integration of an upgraded RD93 if they want, or leave PAF with all the costs for it, including airframe modifications.
Also keep in mind that PAF is dependent on the Chinese wrt further upgrades and modernisations of JF 17, because China has no own requirement to do it, since they don't operate the fighter and no other export customer has selected it yet. So when you start to put pressure on the Chinese, they might get even less interested in JF 17 and modernisations and PAF might lose more than they would gain of the Russian engine.