JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[randomradio]

We need a separate thread on education of mr random radio guy..this is thunder thread not flying coffins or flying cows thread

Okay, then let's compare Thunder with the Flying Coffin, shall we?

Considering the configuration of the JF-17 Block 1, the Flying Coffin has a massive advantage over it in both BVR and WVR.

And with the Block 2, the Flying Coffin continues to have a WVR advantage.

The supersonic and climb performance advantages belongs to the Flying Coffin as well. And considering the Flying Coffin's superior ECM capability, either Blocks will be hard-pressed to defeat it in BVR. Once the Flying Coffin gets into merge, the JF-17 loses anyway, no HMDS, no life.

I'd recommend bringing the JF-17 at par with the F-16 B52 before you start calling our jets "Flying Coffins".

 

[CriticalThought]

Okay, then let's compare Thunder with the Flying Coffin, shall we?

Considering the configuration of the JF-17 Block 1, the Flying Coffin has a massive advantage over it in both BVR and WVR.

And with the Block 2, the Flying Coffin continues to have a WVR advantage.

The supersonic and climb performance advantages belongs to the Flying Coffin as well. And considering the Flying Coffin's superior ECM capability, either Blocks will be hard-pressed to defeat it in BVR. Once the Flying Coffin gets into merge, the JF-17 loses anyway, no HMDS, no life.

I'd recommend bringing the JF-17 at par with the F-16 B52 before you start calling our jets "Flying Coffins".

And I recommend you update your knowledge of Thunder. Do you think our Block 1s have not received any updates in a decade? In any case, the Thunder will be under EM silence, relying on AEWACS. First nail into flying coffin.

The flying coffin is well known for its limited endurance. The burst technique was used by the Egyptians to no avail. Second nail.

As for HMD, you are basically showing your ignorance of dog fighting if you think 'no HMD, no life'. Why do you think the flying coffin will be able to get anywhere within 270 degree of Thunder's tail? And why do you think your pilots will be able to move their heads under a 7G stress? Third nail.

But the final nail will only be hammered when u send your pilots in preparation for their funeral.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@waz @The Eagle
Mods please clean this thread and ban or warn guys for so many off topic posts,thread has been literally ruined and completely derailed.

 

[CriticalThought]

@waz @The Eagle
Mods please clean this thread and ban or warn guys for so many off topic posts,thread has been literally ruined and completely derailed.

There is a lot of useful information here posted by the likes of gambit. It would be best to move it to the relevant section.

 

[Sine Nomine]

There is a lot of useful information here posted by the likes of gambit. It would be best to move it to the relevant section.

That radio guy can ruin any thread.
Gambit is great posture and is always bringing up something new for learning but that thread is meant for JFT.

 

[Trango Towers]

Okay, then let's compare Thunder with the Flying Coffin, shall we?

Considering the configuration of the JF-17 Block 1, the Flying Coffin has a massive advantage over it in both BVR and WVR.

And with the Block 2, the Flying Coffin continues to have a WVR advantage.

The supersonic and climb performance advantages belongs to the Flying Coffin as well. And considering the Flying Coffin's superior ECM capability, either Blocks will be hard-pressed to defeat it in BVR. Once the Flying Coffin gets into merge, the JF-17 loses anyway, no HMDS, no life.

I'd recommend bringing the JF-17 at par with the F-16 B52 before you start calling our jets "Flying Coffins".

If it's Indian it's the best. Be it a flying coffin a rapist or a dalit beating brahmin

 

[gambit]

You should first understand what the mission was about.

No, it is YOU who still do not understand.

You talk as if American pilots needs SEAD escorts in every mission. We do not. When we fight, at least for the Air Force side, we want to take out as many types of enemy forces as possible. If there is air defense and if we can fly SEAD escorts, we will fly with the entire strike package and attack everything. If the target is valuable enough to warrant mass destruction, we will fly with every possible form of attack at our disposal.

4 Rafales flew straight into Benghazi, one of the best protected Libyan cities. They literally just flew in and blew up a bunch of tanks. No SEAD escorts, no SEAD weapons, nothing, while SAMs were still in operation in the area.

So what? That could simply mean intelligence was detailed enough that the Raffles can sneak by. We done that many times in the past.

Nope. Spectra doesn't require sampling to perform active cancellation.

Spectra does sampling for other functions, but not to go stealth. Active cancellation works from the very first pulse.

One of my first questions to the relevant people was all that you said, PRF, jitters, pulse trains etc. They said that none of it was directly relevant to achieve AC. Then I asked how could it cancel real time when sampling cannot be done in real time. The answer was: Spectra doesn't require sampling for AC.

Now it is definitely bullshit.

Whoever you talked to, either they do not know the basics of radar detection or they are outright lying.

The radar cross section value is a DIRECT response of the combination of shaping, materials, aspect angle, and signal characteristics. We know that the RCS value directly changes with freq, so to cancel the incoming signal, you have to know its characteristics to generate the appropriate out of phase signal. Anything else, you are essentially guessing. If you guessed wrong and generate a countermeasure signal that even slightly deviate from the incoming signal, you gave yourself away.

What SPECTRA seems to do is calculate -- or guess -- the Raffle's RCS based upon analyzing the incoming signal. This is not the same thing as sampling the signal. You gave the hint as to how SPECTRA works back in post 5156 page 344 and you did not even know it.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-1...ighter-thread-7.427560/page-344#post-10586060

Every single time you add a payload on the Rafale, the aircraft undergoes rigorous RCS testing.

Why does the Raffle need such rigorous RCS measurement whenever a new form of payload is added to the jet?

Because the RCS value will change. With each measurement, the new RCS value is added to SPECTRA's library. Not a threat library, but a separate library of its many RCS values based upon different measurements of many different configurations.

If a bomb is removed, SPECTRA will move to another calculated countermeasure signal. If a missile is removed, SPECTRA will move to another calculated countermeasure signal. And so on...

So from this perspective, SPECTRA does not need to sample any incoming signal. But if it encounters a threat signal whose characteristics does not exist, what then?

RCS measurement is active, not passive. The body is put under radar bombardment from all angles, at different freqs, and should be with different signal characteristics. With each round of measurement, SPECTRA calculate the Raffle's various RCS values based upon WHAT DASSAULT KNOWS of those signals. Not what could be in combat.

Air defense radar signals are well known in their signal characteristics. You have a set of freqs for long distance search, a set for tracking targets, and a set for high focus for missile solutions. So yes, Dassault can test the Raffle with these known factors and SPECTRA can certainly calculate the necessary countermeasure signals. AWACS signals falls under the same rules so their signal characteristics are also known.

But not against the F-22 and F-35, buddy. AESA systems can generate signal characteristics that are absolutely unknown to Dassault just on the freq agility factor, let alone much more complex factors like pulse variables.

But am beginning to suspect that the real bullshitter is YOU when you did not realize how the system works from your own words.

Looks like I understand SPECTRA better than you do.

 

[The Accountant]

You are jumping to conclusions as usual. You should first understand what the mission was about.

4 Rafales flew straight into Benghazi, one of the best protected Libyan cities. They literally just flew in and blew up a bunch of tanks. No SEAD escorts, no SEAD weapons, nothing, while SAMs were still in operation in the area.



You don't get it. The French refused SEAD/DEAD support from the Growlers and USN.

There is a report detailed by NATO about Libya which said the French shouldn't have gone in without SEAD/DEAD support. Guess what the French said, "We don't need SEAD/DEAD."

In fact the Rafale doesn't even have SEAD/DEAD weapons. They depend on the US and British to provide SEAD/DEAD. But the French say they didn't get this capability on their own aircraft because they don't need this in order to operate the Rafale over the enemy. When pointed out that other French aircraft like M-2000 require SEAD, they said that by then the US and Brits would have started SEAD/DEAD anyway. So their funding priorities for Rafale were focused on completing missions without having to spend all that extra money on SEAD/DEAD.

The Rafale has been designed to be a first day aircraft and has been purposely designed to operate before SEAD/DEAD even begins, which they successfully demonstrated over Libya.

If they have to conduct SEAD, they use regular PGMs.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/125860/rafale-in-combat:-“war-for-dummies”.html
Rafale pilots are also very complementary about their SPECTRA self-protection suite, which is of critical importance as France does not have any aircraft dedicated to the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) missions. “SPECTRA allowed us to begin operations over Libya the very same day the political decision was taken, and to fly deep into Libyan territory without an escort,” says one pilot, adding that “the Americans also flew in, but only after they had fired 119 Tomahawks to take out Libyan air defenses.”

I would recommend reading the entire article.



Nope. Spectra doesn't require sampling to perform active cancellation.

Spectra does sampling for other functions, but not to go stealth. Active cancellation works from the very first pulse.

One of my first questions to the relevant people was all that you said, PRF, jitters, pulse trains etc. They said that none of it was directly relevant to achieve AC. Then I asked how could it cancel real time when sampling cannot be done in real time. The answer was: Spectra doesn't require sampling for AC.

Basically, you need a digital tranceiver system to get real time measurements. You can't do that with the obsolete (not out-dated, obsolete) transceiver system on the F-22 and F-35.



You overestimate the F-22 and F-35. The stuff on the F-22 especially is ancient by high end standards. And the F-35 doesn't use digital tranceivers either.

Neither of them can compete with the Rafale without first moving to digital tranceivers. For the F-22, it's expected in 2024. The F-35... God knows, possibly 2035.

For example, the Rafale's radar has 1000+ T/R modules, a digital radar can create 2000+ individual beams with individual characteristics, it can even go up to 5000 beams, even 10000 beams, all depends on how much power you want the beams to have, which makes it far, far superior to the F-22's radar, which cannot make more beams than the number of T/R modules on its radar.

The F-22 and F-35 are completely outclassed since the antenna type is obsolete. The difference is as big as a legacy antenna vs the AESA on the F-22. In fact, bigger.

So on first day Rafael was killing Tanks, what a great use of Aircraft ... By the way as per my knowledge of air warfare, first day is dedicated to SAMs, air ports and command centers ... Tanks are taken care at the time of military engagements ...

 

[Armchair]

The point of my post that you missed in your misguided zeal to make the Raffle greater than what it actually is, is that unless the measurement data are INDEPENDENTLY done, there is little to no credibility to any claim made by anyone, and that includes US.

I do not care if France has all the facilities comparable to US. Unless Lockheed or Dassault make public their testing methodologies and criteria, their claims should not be taken at face values.

That said...

The reason why US claims are relevant is because US 'stealth' platforms actually have combat experience. No one else does. SPECTRA is essentially unknown. Yes, we can be sure that Dassault performed many testing regimes, but I speak from experience as a radar field test designer of 'autonomous low altitude unmanned aerial vehicles', aka 'drones', that unless I see Dassault's testing regimes, I cannot in good professional conscience accepts everything Dassault says. Same goes for Lockheed or Northrop. Once in my civilian life, I designed field tests to detect drones and for drones to evade radars. I worked both sides of the EW fence.

But from the same professional experience, I absolutely understand the need for secrecy. If you know the testing regimes, you can make educated guesses all the way down to how the device was designed and built, whether that device is a computer chip or a jet fighter. That is why Lockheed, Northrop, and Dassault will say no more outside of PR releases. I do not need to see the math or the electronics. Show me the testing regimes and I will find the appropriate specialists to extrapolate further.

For example...

Now that we know that an EM anechoic chamber was used to design the F-22 or test the SPECTRA suite, we can extrapolate that every structure on the F-22 will be precisely measured as to its EM output. I can make full scale models of the F-22 with a variety of materials and test those models with my own facility. So just from the single knowledge that an EM anechoic chamber was used, already I learned much about the F-22 and its potential RCS.

SPECTRA is at best a band-aid solution to an unsatisfied need to create a peer to the US 'stealth' platforms. If there is a transmission, as SPECTRA is an active method, it WILL be ID-ed out.

It is actually very difficult to make out the dog's OUTLINES. You have to focus at every line and curve.

What SPECTRA attempts to do is like the dog produces real time on the fly each dot, hoping that the observers will not notice the changes happening. Or like the octopus as it moves from one background to the next.

News for you: Ain't.

We WILL notice and by 'we', I mean the F-22 and F-35.

Interesting thoughts about Spectra and active cancellation. Seems to be a step-up from DRFM, but seems to be a transient solution as the moment AESA radars are introduced into the mix, their effectiveness goes downhill.

 

[denel]

this amount of gloating on vintage mig21 is not done by any sane person..one exception is if someone is high or drunk..see them all the time in ED

ja. let us enjoy .... not worth my time to write for that fellow; he is clearly challenged.

 

[aftab_s81]

Hi,

Theodore Hertzl's two line came true---The Sultan knew it a century ago---and the blind pakistanis are still too blind to see it---watch the whole video.

https://www.facebook.com/

The myth of blue stripes is refuted by Jews as well as Goras.

 

[Cookie Monster]

We need a separate thread on education of mr random radio guy..this is thunder thread not flying coffins or flying cows thread

He is not the type anyone should bother educating. For one to learn and be educated they should be willing to accept new knowledge and not be locked into their preconceived notions. He is a tinfoil hat kind of guy who is convinced that his outlandish beliefs are correct and anyone who doesn't agree is stupid.

U r right that this is a JF17 thread and this randomradio guy is deviating from it(quite extensively). So it would be nice if mods could clean this up.

 

[Deltaviper]

No, it is YOU who still do not understand.

You talk as if American pilots needs SEAD escorts in every mission. We do not. When we fight, at least for the Air Force side, we want to take out as many types of enemy forces as possible. If there is air defense and if we can fly SEAD escorts, we will fly with the entire strike package and attack everything. If the target is valuable enough to warrant mass destruction, we will fly with every possible form of attack at our disposal.


So what? That could simply mean intelligence was detailed enough that the Raffles can sneak by. We done that many times in the past.


Now it is definitely bullshit.

Whoever you talked to, either they do not know the basics of radar detection or they are outright lying.

The radar cross section value is a DIRECT response of the combination of shaping, materials, aspect angle, and signal characteristics. We know that the RCS value directly changes with freq, so to cancel the incoming signal, you have to know its characteristics to generate the appropriate out of phase signal. Anything else, you are essentially guessing. If you guessed wrong and generate a countermeasure signal that even slightly deviate from the incoming signal, you gave yourself away.

What SPECTRA seems to do is calculate -- or guess -- the Raffle's RCS based upon analyzing the incoming signal. This is not the same thing as sampling the signal. You gave the hint as to how SPECTRA works back in post 5156 page 344 and you did not even know it.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-1...ighter-thread-7.427560/page-344#post-10586060

Why does the Raffle need such rigorous RCS measurement whenever a new form of payload is added to the jet?

Because the RCS value will change. With each measurement, the new RCS value is added to SPECTRA's library. Not a threat library, but a separate library of its many RCS values based upon different measurements of many different configurations.

If a bomb is removed, SPECTRA will move to another calculated countermeasure signal. If a missile is removed, SPECTRA will move to another calculated countermeasure signal. And so on...

So from this perspective, SPECTRA does not need to sample any incoming signal. But if it encounters a threat signal whose characteristics does not exist, what then?

RCS measurement is active, not passive. The body is put under radar bombardment from all angles, at different freqs, and should be with different signal characteristics. With each round of measurement, SPECTRA calculate the Raffle's various RCS values based upon WHAT DASSAULT KNOWS of those signals. Not what could be in combat.

Air defense radar signals are well known in their signal characteristics. You have a set of freqs for long distance search, a set for tracking targets, and a set for high focus for missile solutions. So yes, Dassault can test the Raffle with these known factors and SPECTRA can certainly calculate the necessary countermeasure signals. AWACS signals falls under the same rules so their signal characteristics are also known.

But not against the F-22 and F-35, buddy. AESA systems can generate signal characteristics that are absolutely unknown to Dassault just on the freq agility factor, let alone much more complex factors like pulse variables.

But am beginning to suspect that the real bullshitter is YOU when you did not realize how the system works from your own words.

Looks like I understand SPECTRA better than you do.

Random radio guy stopped making sense when he claimed that sampling is not needed for Active cancellation. That one statement shows how ignorant he is! Even if frequency changes as a factor is overlooked, sampling will be required to ascertain the signal intensity. only then can spectra hope to send out a signal for cancellation.

@gambit wouldn't the angle of the inbound radar signal also have an impact on Spectra's performance? Unless it has antennas mounted all over the plane...

 

[Basel]

IAF (MKI) will be flying at high altitude, combined with our ground systems, denying any low altitude activity from PAF at the border.

PAF will be forced to fly away from the border to gain altitude and come back at a respectable altitude, draining its ability (fuel) for dogfights (likely against MiG29 and Tejas).

In real life, PAF is at an utter disadvantage and the gap will keep widening as Indian ground systems are taking a giant leap.

Wake up, you are dreaming too much. Its better to face reality then feeding ego with lies.

That is not what I was referring to.

But if you want to go there...

SEAD escorts are always optional. Whether they are used or not depends on intelligence and mission analyses. From the way you talk, it revealed two major things about you: ignorance and hubris.

You think that a mission that do not employ SEAD escorts must mean the Raffle do not need such AT ALL. I challenge you to find an air force in the world that will agree with you. Maybe the French could not afford dedicated SEAD escorts. Maybe they took missions that the calculated risks were acceptably low enough without SEAD escorts. What you are doing is demanding that we take your words for it unconditionally.


Yeah...We value our pilots' lives.


SPECTRA is a camouflage TECHNIQUE. Spin it any way you like.

The core of what SPECTRA does is -- sampling.

A radar signal is composed of multiple discreet pulses -- a pulse train.

A train can have distinct pulse characteristics, but the next train can have different characteristics. And so on...

Standard EW countermeasures requires sampling a percentage of that pulse train. Too small a sample and the countermeasure signal would not be effective at all. Against an opponent that do not perform pulse train alterations, SPECTRA will be effective. But against an opponent who does perform such alterations, the odds of SPECTRA creating an effective countermeasure drops. If the frequency and pulse characteristics changes rapid enough from pulse train to pulse train, there is no way for SPECTRA to keep up.

An adaptive sampling system must examine the radar signal from pulse to pulse to see if there are discreet packets of pulses with predictable characteristics.

Let us take a pulse train of 1,000 pulses for a simple example.

Of the first 10 pulses, there are differences between pulses. Of the next 10 pulses, the pulse characteristics are different. Of the next 10 pulses, more differences. But on the fourth set of 10 pulses, the patterns are the same as the first 10. Now I have a clue of the 5th set of 10. I can try to predict that the 6th set of 10 pulses will have the same characteristics of the 2nd set of 10. And so on all the way to 1000 pulses.

But if there are no predictable patterns inside that 1000 pulses, I am stuck with analyzing ALL 1000 pulses with no end in sight.

Now against an AESA equipped opponent like the F-22 or F-35 who can alter tens of millions of pulses, from freq to amplitude to variable pulse gaps, in a single burst, SPECTRA will be reduced in efficacy, if not outright defeated. What do you expect Dassault to say? Yes, we are defeated by the Americans? Of course they are going to say it is as good as shaping, even though they know they are misleading the public.

So it begs the question of why not every radar system perform complex signal alterations? Because that is also a burden on the transmitter. Not only does the transmitter have to create the changes, it must remember those characteristics to recognize the echo signals as its own. Not every country have the money and the technical sophistication to create such a radar system. The result is the disparity between countries, each saying that it has the best without revealing the weaknesses.

Against most air defense systems out there, SPECTRA is probably as effective as an F-22, but SPECTRA will not be so effective against the F-22 or F-35. Your mistake is assuming if SPECTRA is good against one type of opponent, it must be good against all.

How capable new airborne AESA radars of Russia and China may perform against SPECTRA?

 

[Goku-kun]

Sorry bro my mistake,you're telling others that curved/circular surfaces for a stealth fighters is bad for stealth, the opposite is absolutely true, CURVED/CIRCULAR SURFACES ARE ESSENTIALLY NEEDED FOR STEALTH FIGHTER FOR REDUCED RCS BECAUSE RADAR SIGNALS SLIP TO CURVED/CIRCULAR SURFACE AND FLEW AWAY IN RANDOM DIRECTIONS AWAY FROM RADAR RECIVIERS @Goku-kun

ok..
flat surfaces reducs RCS not curved bro..