JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Bilal.]

a platform of a tiny RCS.

Bro, to be honest I have been trying to understand this point for years and not just from RCS perspective but from payload potential too. Our contention is that JFT is “very small” airframe whereas it’s almost as big as an F16. Where does the whole idea come from that it’s a small aircraft while it’s not really?

 

[airomerix]

Bro, to be honest I have been trying to understand this point for years and not just from RCS perspective but from payload potential too. Our contention is that JFT is “very small” airframe whereas it’s almost as big as an F16. Where does the whole idea come from that it’s a small aircraft while it’s not really?

RCS has barely anything to do with the actual size. Its the position of the ductless shaping or divertless intakes, angled payload, angled vertical and horizontal stabilizers that produces smaller RCS.

For example, F-18E/F's RCS is somewhat comparable to that of F-16 Block 52. This is primarily due to extensive design changes to legacy F-18 Hornet's airframe in 1992. The weapons on super hornet hang at an angle that produces less RCS. Similar learnings were incorporated into JF-17 during its development.

F-16s front and rear RCS is very small. As soon as it is tracked from sideways, it becomes bigger. An F-117 nighthawk can become as big as a B-52. But its RCS will remain low.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Bilal.]

RCS has barely anything to do with the actual size. Its the position of the ductless shaping or divertless intakes, angled payload, angled vertical and horizontal stabilizers that produces smaller RCS.

For example, F-18E/F's RCS is somewhat comparable to that of F-16 Block 52. This is primarily due to extensive design changes to legacy F-18 Hornet's airframe in 1992. The weapons on super hornet hang at an angle that produces less RCS. Similar learnings were incorporated into JF-17 during its development.

F-16s front and rear RCS is very small. As soon as it is tracked from sideways, it becomes bigger. An F-117 nighthawk can become as big as a B-52. But its RCS will remain low.

I hope this answers your question.

Yes it does since usually people attribute the low RCS of of JFT to its small size where as you explained its more to do with the shaping. Thanks.

 

[aliyusuf]

Bro, to be honest I have been trying to understand this point for years and not just from RCS perspective but from payload potential too. Our contention is that JFT is “very small” airframe whereas it’s almost as big as an F16. Where does the whole idea come from that it’s a small aircraft while it’s not really?

RCS signature is based on shape (i.e. how radar waves are reflected away) and composition/material (i.e. how incident radar waves are absorbed) of an aircraft. When shape and composition is just about similar, only then size comes into play. I too have heard this from a few of my ex-colleagues who have worked at AERO and thru some other indirect sources ... that till date the Thunder has the lowest RCS of all PAF fighters. But I have never been able to corroborate this.

 

[StormBreaker]

Bro, to be honest I have been trying to understand this point for years and not just from RCS perspective but from payload potential too. Our contention is that JFT is “very small” airframe whereas it’s almost as big as an F16. Where does the whole idea come from that it’s a small aircraft while it’s not really?

Bro, RCS has got nothing to do with the size of aircraft.

F-22 is believed to have a RCS comparable to a bird feather, while DSI hosting fighters generally have lower RCS compared to exposed intakes.

F-15 and SU-30MKI and SU-35/37 are all platforms of same league when it comes to size and payload.

F-15 is rumoured to have a RCS of <5m^2 (taking x kms as distance), at the same distance, MKI has 13< m^2 RCS which is horribly huge while SU-35 is 2-3m^2.

Thunder at that x range could most possibly be around 3 and nothing more than that.

J-20, F-22 and F-35 have RCS in 0.00xyz m^2

RCS signature is based on shape (i.e. how radar waves are reflected away) and composition/material (i.e. how incident radar waves are absorbed) of an aircraft. When shape and composition is just about similar, only then size comes into play. I too have heard this from a few of my ex-colleagues who have worked at AERO and thru some other indirect sources ... that till date the Thunder has the lowest RCS of all PAF fighters. But I have never been able to corroborate this.

DSI is the reason
I am pretty sure Super 7 and Thunder must have noticeable difference in RCS with values of around 3-4 at least.

If thunder is 3 then super 7 should be 6-7

 

[Nomad40]

What made you think PAF is making blunders? Please take into consideration Pakistan's diplomatic standing and its military buildup vis a vis India. We are far ahead when it comes to indigenization and inhouse upgradation. We took Mirages of 60s and retrofitted them to release stand off weapons. Today India has to worry about some 100 odd BVR capable JF-17s which can pop up from anywhere. This is before we get to 76 F-16s capable of launching 6 AMRAAM's each.

Look at Iran. They have been rebuilding F-5's and calling them different names. Your Afghan example barely fits here too.


Budget constraints are there. Its no secret. Despite a tiny budget in literal terms, we have been at war since years now. Do you know how much 1 hour of F-16's sortie costs?



You have no idea what you are talking about.



Nope. Poor assessment. I hope you're working for the IAF's air intelligence. Do feed them this information. It will come in handy for us.



JF-17 Block III which has flown today is ready to challenge 4.5 generation fighters over the next 15 years. You have no idea what a PL-15 is capable of once it gets mated with AESA on a platform of a tiny RCS.



Closure of F-16s production line is irrelevant to its performance.




Can you try to be a little more scientific or logical in your approach? What is it with all this rhetoric?

Project AZM is a 5th stealth program. Over the course of its development, it will be equipped with state of the art technologies may it be from 6th generation or whatever is available to us. The fact that AZM is still in its premature state gives us an edge to make it even better and well suited to the battle of the future.

Tejas is just one example of rolling out an aircraft early and then getting succumb to its mediocrity and its eventual design obsoleteness.

My son I have answers to all of your question's but I prefer that time will answer for the both of us.

 

[StormBreaker]

My son I have answers to all of your question's but I prefer that time will answer for the both of us.

No offence. You are new.
Kindly go through aeromerix’s posts to get a basic understanding of how credible he possibly is !!!

 

[Nomad40]

No offence. You are new.
Kindly go through aeromerix’s posts to get a basic understanding of how credible he possibly is !!!

None taken sir, I will do that. Can you kindly send me links to it as I always get lost . I take it seriously because i work against the IAF

 

[The Accountant]

None taken sir, I will do that. Can you kindly send me links to it as I always get lost . I take it seriously because i work against the IAF

U have to make some efforts bro. Otherwise u should you rely on opinion of seniors here.

@airomerix is right here

 

[MastanKhan]

Its a creative discussion and No offence to anyone at all....
Mki with his thrust vectoring And high flares deployment capacity can easily evade 1 or may be 2 AMRAAMS if it is in the hand of a capable pilot not like 27 Feb maroon and Mki with PESA radar and with AWACS support can deploy it's BVRs before AMRAAM....
It was no offence at all.... I was only saying that caring only 2 BVRs is not sufficient
It should be at least 4 and every wise person will agree with me.
As far as your question about having
4 BVRs....What do you think Lookheed Martin,Boeing,Dassualt Aviation,General Dynamics, and Sukhoi company are some kind of FOOLISH TO DESIGN jets capable of caring more than 4 damn BVRs???? or you are wise enough than them?
Again no offence I am as patriotic Pakistani as anyone else but When you able to understand that you will have your answer....

Hi,

The optimal number of BVR missiles on the JF17 would be 4 + 2 WVR missiles.

 

[Shabi1]

Hi,

The optimal number of BVR missiles on the JF17 would be 4 + 2 WVR missiles.

You are correct.
In case of PAF I think the reason why they usually only carry 2 SD-10s instead of 4 is probably because of its radar limitation of being able to guide only two missiles at a time. However with Block-3 we can expect this to change and have 4 BVR equipped loadout via multi rail as KLJ-7A (or the localized offshoot) stated to have the ability to guide 4 missiles at a time.

KLJ-7 V1 could only guide only guide 2 Missiles at a time. No idea on V2 but could be same.

LKF601E Air Cooled AESA (For JF-17 upgrades) is capable of guiding 4 missiles at a time.

KLJ-7A.
The upgraded KLJ-7A is an AESA radar with an reported range of 170km for a 3 m2 target and 200km for 5 m2, with the ability to track 15 targets and engage 4.
https://www.quora.com/How-good-is-KLJ-7A-aesa-radar-for-JF17

 

[aliyusuf]

KLJ-7A.
The upgraded KLJ-7A is an AESA radar with an reported range of 170km for a 3 m2 target and 200km for 5 m2, with the ability to track 15 targets and engage 4.

A radar that detects a 3m² target at 170km will detect 5m² target at 193km.
Not 200km.
i.e. Target Detection Range = [(5/3)^0.25] X 170 approx equals 193

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

This is before we get to 76 F-16s capable of launching 6 AMRAAM's each.

Sir 13 of our F 16s are not BVR capable i have heard.

Today India has to worry about some 100 odd BVR capable JF-17s which can pop up from anywhere. This is before we get to 76 F-16s capable of launching 6 AMRAAM's each.

Considering IF all our F16s are BVR Capable.
76 F 16s vs 3 Rafales+242 MKIs+50 Mig 29 UPGs+36 Mig 29Ks
Around 100 Thunders vs 41 Mirage 2000s+18 Tejas
Dont u think this is ryt or u think JFT Blk 1s and 2s are capable of taking on Su 30 MKIs and Mig 29 UPGs/Ks?

 

[JohnWick]

Hi,

The optimal number of BVR missiles on the JF17 would be 4 + 2 WVR missiles.

So where the fuel came then?

 

[The Accountant]

Sir 13 of our F 16s are not BVR capable i have heard.


Considering IF all our F16s are BVR Capable.
76 F 16s vs 3 Rafales+242 MKIs+50 Mig 29 UPGs+36 Mig 29Ks
Around 100 Thunders vs 41 Mirage 2000s+18 Tejas
Dont u think this is ryt or u think JFT Blk 1s and 2s are capable of taking on Su 30 MKIs and Mig 29 UPGs/Ks?

Why do you think thunders can't take on against MKI and Mig29 ? Thunders were designed after induction of MKIs and were specially designed to face MKI.

Modern war in its simplest form is see first kill first. Thunder having smaller RCS and MKI having bigger RCS is designed to have advantage of initial detection whereas BVR of both the aircrafts are of similar performance metrix therefore it is highly likely that in one on one Thunder will actually take down MKI.

Furthermore, thunder is based on the model sweden used to design Grippen. Gripen was also supposed to face Migs and Su and they had lower budgets than Russia, so the conceived a smaller agile fighter which is lower in weight class but is equivalent in terms of capabilities of avionics, missile systems and other sub-systems. Thunder is also based on similar principles.

So where the fuel came then?

4 BVRs can be hanged by using dual racks.