JF-17's ECM & Design Limitations

[gambit]

So you're saying the minimum runway length of an F-16 for safe operation was also 8000ft?

Like I said -- serious reading comprehension problem.

Right... Bridge - sell.

How dare you say that about the Russians for what they sold you...

 

[gambit]

You do have it. Firstly, that blog came from the RAAF. It is not the blogger's opinion. That means the previous jets they operated did not have any such requirement. All their forward bases need to be upgraded to 8000 feet runways now that they plan on operating the F-35.

I do not care if it came from the RAAF or not. But that is irrelevant. The interpretation of it is wrong regardless of origin.

You have conveniently used NATO's standard runway requirements and hashed that onto the F-35's minimum requirements. You may fool the others, but I'm not fooled.

You fooled yourself.

The F-16 doesn't.

And this is where you fooled yourself. NATO set the standard of 8,000 ft, which you did not know before. So just because the F-16 can safely operate at less than 8,000 ft, that does not equate to any takeoff distance below 8,000 ft.

So here is the gist of your argument: The F-16 does not have any safe operation runway distance.

This is absurd. Take this to any pilot, even an Indian one, and he will laugh you out of his presence. You are STILL confused between runway takeoff distance vs total safe operation distance.

I will ask a simple question: If an aircraft require 1,000 meters to takeoff and 800 meters for braking roll, what SHOULD be a reasonable minimum safe distance to accommodate most situations, from normal to emergency ?

 

[Paksanity]

The gist of my argument is: The F-16 does not need 8000 feet for safe operation. It needs lesser than that.

You could say the F-35 design team messed up so bad that their minimum runway requirement for a fighter jet matched the NATO's runway requirement. And then exceeded even that for training.

You have totally confused yourself by combining the two.

The very fact that you don't want to give away the F-16's minimum runway requirement for safe operation proves that you are wrong. As far as I know it's 6000 feet for forward operation. All other air forces with 6000 feet of runway now have to upgrade for the F-35.

F-16
Forward base = 6000 feet
Normal base = 8000 feet

F-35
Forward base = 8000 feet
Normal base = 10000 feet

And the very fact that less than 8000 feet will no longer make the F-35 conducive for safe operation is hilarious.

NATO must be crazy. They need some thinkers (*sigh*) like you to understand these matters. Do you realize you are arguing with someone who has flown fighter jets for good part of his life? That too in NATO! If I were you, I would rather listen to him and try learn something. Now beat it and let the thread return to its topic. Please!

The gist of my argument is: The F-16 does not need 8000 feet for safe operation. It needs lesser than that.

You could say the F-35 design team messed up so bad that their minimum runway requirement for a fighter jet matched the NATO's runway requirement. And then exceeded even that for training.

You have totally confused yourself by combining the two.

The very fact that you don't want to give away the F-16's minimum runway requirement for safe operation proves that you are wrong. As far as I know it's 6000 feet for forward operation. All other air forces with 6000 feet of runway now have to upgrade for the F-35.

F-16
Forward base = 6000 feet
Normal base = 8000 feet

F-35
Forward base = 8000 feet
Normal base = 10000 feet

And the very fact that less than 8000 feet will no longer make the F-35 conducive for safe operation is hilarious.

NATO must be crazy. They need some thinkers (*sigh*) like you to understand these matters. Do you realize you are arguing with someone who has flown fighter jets for good part of his life? That too in NATO! If I were you, I would rather listen to him and try learn something. Now beat it and let the thread return to its topic. Please!

 

[Dazzler]

I'm going to disagree here. European countries are still reluctant to share DRFM based tech with Pakistan. Remember the korean fiasco where US blocked them to sell DRFM based EW to Pak? and If it is your guestimate that we got -500 then I have to say it seems improbable they have sold this particular jammer. I speculate spain must have sold this SPJ instead

The protection of deployed forces is one of the growing concerns of all armed forces. At Eurosatory, Indra will present its SIMBA self-protection suite for aircraft. This system integrates the ALR-400 radar warning system, a missile launch warning, laser systems detection and Chaff & Flare countermeasure management system. Indra has implemented the ALR-400 radar warning system, as an individual unit and as part of the full SIMBA suite, in platforms such as the F-18, the A400M and the C295 and in helicopters such as the Tiger, the NH90, CH53, the Cougar and the Chinook.

Indra to Present Its Army Solutions at Eurosatory


And description from MoDP matches SIMBA SPJ somewhat as well

EW Suite Controller (EWSC): M/s Indra’s EW Suite Controller (EWSC) pre-integration was successfully accomplished in DSI Lab. Chaff & Flare Dispenser (CFD) made by Air Weapons Complex (AWC) has also been interfaced with EWSC, and pre-integration has been verified in DSI lab.


Following salient activities were undertaken in respect of production and testing group:-

Independent Volume Control of RWR (JF-17).

two things here..

the eoropeans and americans knew we had the tech in hand already despite not having the ALQ-200 tech. Hint, your ALQ-211 (both v4 and v9) are equipped with DRFM capability. both kg-300g and kj-8605 are equipped with DRFM capability, the latter being an internal jammer equipping JH-7 and the j-10s.

Spain offered both options for the jf-17 EW suite

 

[Quwa]

Jane's (in the 2015 Dubai Air Show article about PAF sticking to RD-93) said that the JF-17 Block-II was equipped with an 'Indra ECM.' It was very vague, but generally ECM would refer to ALQ-500, whereas RWR (alone) falls under EW. Of course, the writers could have very easily made mistakes...

All that said, I don't think DRFM technology is as big a deal anymore. The U.S.' reluctance was in 2006-2007, i.e. about 10 years ago when there weren't many COTS DRFM solutions available. Nowadays, they're quite common and not a big deal; rather, a necessary staple.

 

[syed_yusuf]

I can't imagine JFT blk3 without aesa radar

Hell jl10 is been exported with pesa radar

 

[Humble Analyst]

Bhai They BLocked Me TheRe So I Thought k yaha RepLy kRo apP ko.
q k ApP PehLe MembeR a Yaha k JsS Ne Mazaq Ni oRaya N jsS Ne Sahi Se RepLy kiya .
Yeah I KNw What DoNaLd Said ABout MusLims. But Mjhe Ni Lgta k Wo itNa Bewaquf hoga JitNa Wo Dikha Raha a.
He has Hugh business HeRe iN MiddLe East . So He wouLd Not Spoil it
SoRRy FoR Ma WRitiNg

Sometimes one is commited by his promises and the things he has said are aginst the US constitution. What is scary that nobody is crticising him the way he should be criticised.