JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Dazzler]

1. Hence I moved discussion to another thread.

2. Bamu sahab, RCS reduction depends upon shaping and construction material, There are no plans to increase the percentage of composites or to shape the JF-17. Block-2 Swash Plate Radar already increases RCS value and it is most likely the AESA would be Swashplate too ( If they choose Selex Aesa). In a standard cap mission, 2 WVR+2 BVR + 1 drop tank does it make JF-17 any stealthy? In present configuration keeping radar detection capabilities of both aircraft in mind and both being fully loaded , Which Aircraft would detect and shoot first ?

A BVR truck forces the hand of defenders by firing it's 8-10 BVR missiles at a range of 70-80 KM. Defender would fire 3-4 BVR missiles towards SU. SU turns, full throttles, exit the kill zone of missile. While those 8-10 BVR missiles fired towards let's say a formation of 6-8 Jets, wouldn't they try to exit kill zone of BVR as well ?

By the time Block III arrives, Our adversary SU- would already had AESA or integrating AESA on older SU's. Another addition would Astra Smokeless BVR. Though Performance parameters of SD-10 and Astra are similar but where it has plus point is in it's smokeless motore, JF-17 MAWS would not be able to detect smokeless Astra as UV based MAWS only works with missiles having smoke motor.Addition of another variable in complex equation.



Primitive figures. Indian sources quote the range of their Bars at 200 KM. Mini-Awacs term wouldn't had been coined if it can detect 5 m^2 at 140 KM. I did some research, Indian R-77 version is 80-100 KM. 100 Being launched from a higher altitude

The scenario that is being discussed here is JF-17 SU-30, one on one engagement, who would detect and shoot first, and who would force the other to disengage.

and you believe their figures? some of them quoted 300km for fighter sized target, even f22 would struggle with apg77 aesa. anyways, no more offtopic stuff here. i suggest google n011m bars figures, you will some "real" info.

 

[Chak Bamu]

1. Hence I moved discussion to another thread.

2. Bamu sahab, RCS reduction depends upon shaping and construction material, There are no plans to increase the percentage of composites or to shape the JF-17. Block-2 Swash Plate Radar already increases RCS value and it is most likely the AESA would be Swashplate too ( If they choose Selex Aesa). In a standard cap mission, 2 WVR+2 BVR + 1 drop tank does it make JF-17 any stealthy? In present configuration keeping radar detection capabilities of both aircraft in mind and both being fully loaded , Which Aircraft would detect and shoot first ?

A BVR truck forces the hand of defenders by firing it's 8-10 BVR missiles at a range of 70-80 KM. Defender would fire 3-4 BVR missiles towards SU. SU turns, full throttles, exit the kill zone of missile. While those 8-10 BVR missiles fired towards let's say a formation of 6-8 Jets, wouldn't they try to exit kill zone of BVR as well ?

By the time Block III arrives, Our adversary SU- would already had AESA or integrating AESA on older SU's. Another addition would Astra Smokeless BVR. Though Performance parameters of SD-10 and Astra are similar but where it has plus point is in it's smokeless motore, JF-17 MAWS would not be able to detect smokeless Astra as UV based MAWS only works with missiles having smoke motor.Addition of another variable in complex equation.



Primitive figures. Indian sources quote the range of their Bars at 200 KM. Mini-Awacs term wouldn't had been coined if it can detect 5 m^2 at 140 KM. I did some research, Indian R-77 version is 80-100 KM. 100 Being launched from a higher altitude

The scenario that is being discussed here is JF-17 SU-30, one on one engagement, who would detect and shoot first, and who would force the other to disengage.

What you have written only supports my contention that BVR suits defenders rather than aggressors. All a defender really needs to do is to disrupt attackers. That is the value of JF-17 in an air-defense role.

Nobody can say for sure if JF-17 Block III is not going to employ frontal stealth features. Specs are probably not yet fixed, options are probably open at this point. I have come across this issue enough times to feel that it is a possibility. At least the idea was explored and could be workable provided some money is spent. Folks at CAC are experts at stealth now that J-20 is nearing design finalization. If we can, we should go for it.

I am not discussing SU vs. JF as such. I just want to point out that there are enough complications and unknowns that we can not give declarations in this matter. If we keep on with this, Indians are going to join and make this a long vs debate. Someone is then bound to mention LCA and then we are going to be looking at a dozen pages of mayhem on this thread. Its best to take Windjammer's info on its face value and not over-analyze it.

 

[Side-Winder]

There is no guarantee that a BVR truck itself can not be at massive risk. An missile laden aircraft with near about 20 sq. M of radar cross-section can be a truck, but not be as effective a fighter. Moreover, if an in-coming package can have top-cover, so can the defending party. If anything the defenders probably have it easier for various reasons. In my view BVR scenario suits defenders more than aggressors, and that is the value of JF-17 for us. When even the Lo component has BVR capability, intruders are not going to feel safe.

Reportedly, Block III incorporates seriously improved frontal stealth, and with that we can effectively deter any number of MKIs. Imagine a stealthy JF-17 carrying 'only' 2 BVRs vs MKI BVR truck. Which one would detect and shoot first? Which one has a greater chance of scoring a kill?

Sir, what would the Block-III do when it gets to see NOT a Sukhoi rather SUPER sukhoi which is supposed to be having a lot reduced RCS (approx near 1m2)?

and you believe their figures? some of them quoted 300km for fighter sized target, even f22 would struggle with apg77 aesa. anyways, no more offtopic stuff here. i suggest google n011m bars figures, you will some "real" info.

Sir, as per the chart displayed at Aero india 2011 the range of BARS is aprox 140 KM for fighter sized object

 

[Chak Bamu]

Sir, what would the Block-III do when it gets to see NOT a Sukhoi rather SUPER sukhoi which is supposed to be having a lot reduced RCS (approx near 1m2)?

We'll see when Super Sukhoi comes. Hiding those engine blades is not going to be easy, for example. I doubt that RCS can be reduced to that extent with RAM alone. 1m2 is going to be a serious challenge for Su. And even when done, there is no telling what JF-17 Block III might be like.

 

[shaheenmissile]

No idea about Lockon range but the current version of JF-17 radar has a detection range of 120 KM for a fighter jet size target.
Add the Data link capability to the mix and Ground radar+AWACS can significantly increase Detection and Lockon range of any PAF jet regardless of the capabilities of Onboard Radar.
Thats why PAF has been so obsessively concentrating on "Force multipliers".

 

[Bratva]

 

[UFO77]

Only discuss digital is meaningless, and the future of war between the competition system, the existence of the early warning aircraft can't be ignored.
Beyond visual range air-to-air missile, no one will go to launch in maximum range. First aircraft entering find opponent, then the supersonic flight, so that can provide greater initial velocity for the missile. In the region of the aircraft maneuver is invalid, a missile can ensure that, from hitting their targets.

 

[nomi007]

 

[alimobin memon]

R

1. Hence I moved discussion to another thread.

2. Bamu sahab, RCS reduction depends upon shaping and construction material, There are no plans to increase the percentage of composites or to shape the JF-17. Block-2 Swash Plate Radar already increases RCS value and it is most likely the AESA would be Swashplate too ( If they choose Selex Aesa). In a standard cap mission, 2 WVR+2 BVR + 1 drop tank does it make JF-17 any stealthy? In present configuration keeping radar detection capabilities of both aircraft in mind and both being fully loaded , Which Aircraft would detect and shoot first ?

A BVR truck forces the hand of defenders by firing it's 8-10 BVR missiles at a range of 70-80 KM. Defender would fire 3-4 BVR missiles towards SU. SU turns, full throttles, exit the kill zone of missile. While those 8-10 BVR missiles fired towards let's say a formation of 6-8 Jets, wouldn't they try to exit kill zone of BVR as well ?

By the time Block III arrives, Our adversary SU- would already had AESA or integrating AESA on older SU's. Another addition would Astra Smokeless BVR. Though Performance parameters of SD-10 and Astra are similar but where it has plus point is in it's smokeless motore, JF-17 MAWS would not be able to detect smokeless Astra as UV based MAWS only works with missiles having smoke motor.Addition of another variable in complex equation.



Primitive figures. Indian sources quote the range of their Bars at 200 KM. Mini-Awacs term wouldn't had been coined if it can detect 5 m^2 at 140 KM. I did some research, Indian R-77 version is 80-100 KM. 100 Being launched from a higher altitude

The scenario that is being discussed here is JF-17 SU-30, one on one engagement, who would detect and shoot first, and who would force the other to disengage.

Respected sir whoever told you that su30mki has 220 km range is someone crazy. its 160km max with aa targets of 5m^2 which is detection range and effective range is around 140 to 145 while'st jf17 effective range is 130km

 

[Chak Bamu]

R

Respected sir whoever told you that su30mki has 220 km range is someone crazy. its 160km max with aa targets of 5m^2 which is detection range and effective range is around 140 to 145 while'st jf17 effective range is 130km

It would be good to have some sources. About JF-17 we have 'em, but about SU there should be something trust-worthy. But again, I do not want this to become a vs thread. There is a thread about how should PAF handle SU-30 threat. This discussion belongs there.

 

[Bilal.]

@Bratva JFT maws detect both in UV and IR band.

 

[Bratva]

@Bratva JFT maws detect both in UV and IR band.

Every where it is mentioned UV based. On PAC website, CAC-PAC presentations or I missed something ?

 

[Bilal.]

Every where it is mentioned UV based. On PAC website, CAC-PAC presentations or I missed something ?

I remember reading both IR/UV. Can you please share the links?

Plus if I am not mistaking UV does not have anything to do with whether the motor is smokeless or not but is emitted from the exhaust of booster, even the smokeless ones. Moreover, the RWR would also warn the pilot that his plane is being painted, so he won't be completey clueless.

 

[Bratva]

I remember reading both IR/UV. Can you please share the links?

Plus if I am not mistaking UV does not have anything to do with whether the motor is smokeless or not but is emitted from the exhaust of booster, even the smokeless ones. Moreover, the RWR would also warn the pilot that his plane is being painted, so he won't be completey clueless.

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3] | Page 256

 

[rockstarIN]

1. Hence I moved discussion to another thread.

2. Bamu sahab, RCS reduction depends upon shaping and construction material, There are no plans to increase the percentage of composites or to shape the JF-17. Block-2 Swash Plate Radar already increases RCS value and it is most likely the AESA would be Swashplate too ( If they choose Selex Aesa). In a standard cap mission, 2 WVR+2 BVR + 1 drop tank does it make JF-17 any stealthy? In present configuration keeping radar detection capabilities of both aircraft in mind and both being fully loaded , Which Aircraft would detect and shoot first ?

A BVR truck forces the hand of defenders by firing it's 8-10 BVR missiles at a range of 70-80 KM. Defender would fire 3-4 BVR missiles towards SU. SU turns, full throttles, exit the kill zone of missile. While those 8-10 BVR missiles fired towards let's say a formation of 6-8 Jets, wouldn't they try to exit kill zone of BVR as well ?

By the time Block III arrives, Our adversary SU- would already had AESA or integrating AESA on older SU's. Another addition would Astra Smokeless BVR. Though Performance parameters of SD-10 and Astra are similar but where it has plus point is in it's smokeless motore, JF-17 MAWS would not be able to detect smokeless Astra as UV based MAWS only works with missiles having smoke motor.Addition of another variable in complex equation.



Primitive figures. Indian sources quote the range of their Bars at 200 KM. Mini-Awacs term wouldn't had been coined if it can detect 5 m^2 at 140 KM. I did some research, Indian R-77 version is 80-100 KM. 100 Being launched from a higher altitude

The scenario that is being discussed here is JF-17 SU-30, one on one engagement, who would detect and shoot first, and who would force the other to disengage.

This result reflects today's level of technology, in which the within-visual-range (WVR) and beyond-visual-range (BVR) envelopes are separate. A BAE Systems paper from 1996 -- reflecting the UK thinking that led to the adoption of the BAE Systems Meteor AAM for the Typhoon -- points out that a target beyond 40km range "can feel free to maneuver without fear of engagement". This is echoed by Robert Shaw, former US Navy fighter pilot and author of Fighter Combat Tactics. "There is virtually no missile that you can't outmaneuver at maximum range." With today's weapons -- the BAE paper notes -- most MRAMM engagements will take place between 15-40 km range. Older short-range AAMs "lack not only total energy but also missile speed" and are most lethal at ranges under 8 km, according to BAE. Between 8-and-15 km, therefore, there is a "commit zone" where the target can still avoid a merge into close combat if the odds are unfavorable.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Fighter_1.pdf