What's new

JF-17's ECM & Design Limitations

You need to look at it from their point of view also. They don't have strategic depth. Their enemies can attack their air bases with artillery guns, let alone missiles and airstrikes. So they need aircraft that can sustain operations from roads and dirt strips. The F-35's requirement for a 8000 feet runway is insane.
Am going to address this quick to show everyone how incompetent you are at basic research.

The 8,000 ft runway is an established NATO requirement. When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (F-111E), its runway length was about 8,300 ft. When I went to MacDill (F-16), its runway was 11,000 ft. The 8,000 ft determination was for overrun and safety requirements.

When an aircraft is under design, whether it is civilian or military, the designers take into consideration available resources to support that aircraft, resources that includes common runway conditions and length, so if common NATO resources have 8,000 ft, design the fighter for that. For the F-35's variants, if you do not have the minimum NATO runway requirement, buy the V/STOL version, else buy the standard version.

You, and whatever sources that you used, are confused between minimum and operational requirements. The minimum requirement is a percentage of the standard operational length. For the F-16, which is about 3,000 ft, give or take a bit for local environmental factors. NATO specified 8,000 ft to support larger aircrafts from jets such as the C-17 to prop jobbers.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m).
Does that mean every time the C-17 take off and land, its pilot is going stress the jet and use as short a distance as possible ?

Sheesh...Civilians...:rolleyes:
 
Am going to address this quick to show everyone how incompetent you are at basic research.

The 8,000 ft runway is an established NATO requirement. When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (F-111E), its runway length was about 8,300 ft. When I went to MacDill (F-16), its runway was 11,000 ft. The 8,000 ft determination was for overrun and safety requirements.

When an aircraft is under design, whether it is civilian or military, the designers take into consideration available resources to support that aircraft, resources that includes common runway conditions and length, so if common NATO resources have 8,000 ft, design the fighter for that. For the F-35's variants, if you do not have the minimum NATO runway requirement, buy the V/STOL version, else buy the standard version.

You, and whatever sources that you used, are confused between minimum and operational requirements. The minimum requirement is a percentage of the standard operational length. For the F-16, which is about 3,000 ft, give or take a bit for local environmental factors. NATO specified 8,000 ft to support larger aircrafts from jets such as the C-17 to prop jobbers.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the mistake ex-military make and they completely forget about applying their knowledge on other air forces because they are biased about the one they worked in. You should be talking about the Israeli Air Force, not NATO. Picdel did the same when he said the ADLA replaced 600 aircraft with just 130 Rafales and that the IAF could do the same. You have to think in other people's shoes. What works for NATO may not work for others.

The F-35A needs 8000 feet without stressing the airframe. It needs 10000 feet for training operations. This has nothing to do with the C-17s. A hypothetical air force with a base that would operate only the F-35A and no C-17s would still need a massive 10000 feet runway.

The Mig-29 otoh needs 750-1200 feet of runway, depending on loads, to take off without stressing the airframe. This is the type of capability the Israelis want. And these are during conditions where 8000 feet runways are rare or no longer exist.

Comparatively the Su-30's minimum runway requirement is <3000 feet. The main requirement of the Soviet Union when they designed the Su-27 was to have it operate from Third Class airfields with runways of 4000 feet. That took into consideration the safety margin also, which was 2x the take off distance.

PAK FA/FGFA's maximum take off requirement without ABs is 1200 feet.

The F-16 was very well designed. That doesn't mean the F-35 is as good.

Does that mean every time the C-17 take off and land, its pilot is going stress the jet and use as short a distance as possible ?

Sheesh...Civilians...:rolleyes:

Runway extension may cut road | Port Stephens Examiner
An extension of the runway to 10,000 feet was necessary for training safety reasons, but had the effect of reducing the number of afterburner takeoffs, which would reduce noise pollution.

So before this extension is completed, they would have to fly the F-35s with ABs. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Yeah, I've done my research.

buy the V/STOL version,

That sacrifices too many capabilities. It was different if the F-35B was more expensive but offered similar range and payload as A. The B can't even carry 2000lb bombs and has 30 or 40% less range. That's too much of a downgrade. It's only good enough for the USMC.

Israeli Defence Forum?

Indian Defence Forum.

indiandefence.com
 
Runway extension may cut road | Port Stephens Examiner


So before this extension is completed, they would have to fly the F-35s with ABs. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Yeah, I've done my research.
You may have done 'some' research but it is clear to me -- and any flyer out there -- that you do not fully understand what you found. Part of that lack of understanding is probably because you have never been inside a cockpit other than from being a tourist.

Your source clearly stated that the runway extension is for training safety reasons AND to reduce AB take off.

Did you really think that AB is NECESSARY for take off ? Apparently so...:lol:

The reason we do AB take off is to produce as much differential air pressure over the wings IN AS SHORT A TIME AS POSSIBLE/. But give me enough distance, I can take flight even if all I can accelerate is 1 meter/sec. So if the Australians decided to extend the runway to reduce noise pollution, that does not mean the F-35 require 8,000 ft to take off.

Do you understand that ?

Your India cannot produce even an F-16 equivalent but here you are relying on old news to criticize the F-35, which is under mass production as we speak. No matter how you spin the MIG-21 about Red Flag and what not, in combat, my F-16 will eat it alive. Sorry, pal, but for the Tejas to take three decades in development, one would think that it should be better than the Pakistan-China joint venture that produced the JF-17. Instead, the best I can comment is that the two are equals.

I am not going to turn this JF-17 thread into a defense of the F-35. There are existing discussions for that and the issues that you raised are not new. Your India is struggling with the Russians, no matter how much you latch onto the Israelis to salvage your arguments.
 
1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg
 
Did you really think that AB is NECESSARY for take off ? Apparently so...:lol:

The figures I gave for Russian jets were all without AB.

But give me enough distance,

I hope you understand what 'minimum' runway requirement is. It's not maximum requirement. It's not recommended requirement. It is minimum. All air forces planning on operating the F-35 are expanding their runways to 8000 to 10000 feet in order to use the F-35. Even air forces that have operated Hornets and Vipers on smaller runways now have to make longer runways. All the Canadian FOLs, I think 6 of them, have to get this runway upgrade. Before that they were very comfortable handling Hornets on their 6000 feet runways.

If it's less than 8000, you need AB. The F-35 isn't the F-16. The F-35 is special and has special needs. An extra long runway is one of them. So your 'enough distance' is 8000 feet at the minimum.

No matter how you spin the MIG-21 about Red Flag and what not, in combat, my F-16 will eat it alive.

I don't disagree. And that wasn't the point of the argument I made.

It was for the Pakistanis who think PESA and AESA are unnecessary when you have the JF-17.

Sorry, pal, but for the Tejas to take three decades in development, one would think that it should be better than the Pakistan-China joint venture that produced the JF-17. Instead, the best I can comment is that the two are equals.

Yes, they are equals. I agree with that too. LCA Mk1 may be more sophisticated due to a more advanced engine and FBW, along with better materials and avionics, but in terms of capability they are roughly the same. Similar performance envelops, similar range and payload, similar size and weight, similar engine power. The aircraft wasn't expected to be better in these qualities at least.

The Mk1A and the JF-17 Block 3 upgrade may continue to keep the two aircraft on equal footing.

Tejas has not taken three decades in development. It has taken us three decades to build infrastructure from scratch though. What the Tejas has done is create a wonderful aerospace environment in India. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't be talking about developing 4 different stealth aircraft. And I haven't even started talking about our SSTO space shuttle program yet.

I am not going to turn this JF-17 thread into a defense of the F-35. There are existing discussions for that and the issues that you raised are not new. Your India is struggling with the Russians, no matter how much you latch onto the Israelis to salvage your arguments.

We are not struggling with the Russians, thanks. The IAF is very happy with the Russians. The MKI serviceability problems are related to bureaucracy, not technical. It is currently taking the process 1 year from the time an order is given by the IAF and the Russians start producing spares. They are working to move the production to India and cut the import time from 1 year to 1 month.

The FGFA approval has been given the go ahead. You are relying on too many anti-Russian western media articles for your FGFA news. None of them are right. If there was a problem with the FGFA we wouldn't be a part of it. The US has offered the F-35s to us anyway.

All countries are trying to bad mouth one aircraft or the other. The Russians are bad mouthing the French. The Americans are bad mouthing the Russians. All in order to grab a piece of the Indian defence pie.

It's actually hilarious if you follow it all. The Americans are saying we should choose SH over Rafale because Boeing is a bigger company compared to Dassault, even though Boeing lost all their USAF deals. Then the UK is suggesting Dassault is lying about costs even though we are on the cusp of signing the Rafale contract. Mig corp is moping about saying the IAF is not talking to them. Saab wanted to take over the LCA program and combine that with the Gripen program, that got a lot of laughs. The Russians are saying their Su-35s will whack Rafales like mosquitoes. The French are saying Russian jets are only fit to swat mosquitoes. Yeah, all this is happening in public. There have been a lot of paid media lobbyists selling their wares to the public.

Everybody is lying about each other. So I would suggest you don't get caught up in it.

That's why I trust the IAF to make decisions that's good for them. And so far it has been. The Rafales are happening, the FGFA is happening. They are supporting the LCA, AURA and AMCA programs for indigenization, possibly the LSA also. They are allowing the MoD to play politics through a second MMRCA deal since the IAF is getting everything they've asked for.
 
The figures I gave for Russian jets were all without AB.



I hope you understand what 'minimum' runway requirement is. It's not maximum requirement. It's not recommended requirement. It is minimum. All air forces planning on operating the F-35 are expanding their runways to 8000 to 10000 feet in order to use the F-35. Even air forces that have operated Hornets and Vipers on smaller runways now have to make longer runways. All the Canadian FOLs, I think 6 of them, have to get this runway upgrade. Before that they were very comfortable handling Hornets on their 6000 feet runways.

If it's less than 8000, you need AB. The F-35 isn't the F-16. The F-35 is special and has special needs. An extra long runway is one of them. So your 'enough distance' is 8000 feet at the minimum.



I don't disagree. And that wasn't the point of the argument I made.

It was for the Pakistanis who think PESA and AESA are unnecessary when you have the JF-17.



Yes, they are equals. I agree with that too. LCA Mk1 may be more sophisticated due to a more advanced engine and FBW, along with better materials and avionics, but in terms of capability they are roughly the same. Similar performance envelops, similar range and payload, similar size and weight, similar engine power. The aircraft wasn't expected to be better in these qualities at least.

The Mk1A and the JF-17 Block 3 upgrade may continue to keep the two aircraft on equal footing.

Tejas has not taken three decades in development. It has taken us three decades to build infrastructure from scratch though. What the Tejas has done is create a wonderful aerospace environment in India. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't be talking about developing 4 different stealth aircraft. And I haven't even started talking about our SSTO space shuttle program yet.



We are not struggling with the Russians, thanks. The IAF is very happy with the Russians. The MKI serviceability problems are related to bureaucracy, not technical. It is currently taking the process 1 year from the time an order is given by the IAF and the Russians start producing spares. They are working to move the production to India and cut the import time from 1 year to 1 month.

The FGFA approval has been given the go ahead. You are relying on too many anti-Russian western media articles for your FGFA news. None of them are right. If there was a problem with the FGFA we wouldn't be a part of it. The US has offered the F-35s to us anyway.

All countries are trying to bad mouth one aircraft or the other. The Russians are bad mouthing the French. The Americans are bad mouthing the Russians. All in order to grab a piece of the Indian defence pie.

It's actually hilarious if you follow it all. The Americans are saying we should choose SH over Rafale because Boeing is a bigger company compared to Dassault, even though Boeing lost all their USAF deals. Then the UK is suggesting Dassault is lying about costs even though we are on the cusp of signing the Rafale contract. Mig corp is moping about saying the IAF is not talking to them. Saab wanted to take over the LCA program and combine that with the Gripen program, that got a lot of laughs. The Russians are saying their Su-35s will whack Rafales like mosquitoes. The French are saying Russian jets are only fit to swat mosquitoes. Yeah, all this is happening in public. There have been a lot of paid media lobbyists selling their wares to the public.

Everybody is lying about each other. So I would suggest you don't get caught up in it.

That's why I trust the IAF to make decisions that's good for them. And so far it has been. The Rafales are happening, the FGFA is happening. They are supporting the LCA, AURA and AMCA programs for indigenization, possibly the LSA also. They are allowing the MoD to play politics through a second MMRCA deal since the IAF is getting everything they've asked for.

You are entertaining. Thanks.

Now let's turn our attention to JF-17 shall we? What other options apart from Indra and Chinese KGxxx series, we have to enhance ECM abilities of Thunder. Let's say for Blk3. Any suggestions by any member? ( @randomradio please excuse us if you can not speak on subject of this thread. Thanks.)
 
If it's less than 8000, you need AB. The F-35 isn't the F-16. The F-35 is special and has special needs. An extra long runway is one of them. So your 'enough distance' is 8000 feet at the minimum.
Then you cannot say that the F-35 requires 8,000 ft to take off. The AB is an integral part of the engine, whether that engine is installed in an F-16 or F-15 or F-35, so integral that even if the engine is not AB capable, it will not be installed in the jet even though the jet can take off and fly without AB. By your argument, the non-AB capable C-17 has 'special needs' because NATO requires 8,000 ft runways to support it. But even if the F-35 requires 8,000 ft of runway to takeoff, so what ? What make Israel's needs so unique that those needs override other NATO allies, of whom ALL of them already have 8,000 ft runways ?

I understand that as a non-American, you have an emotional investment in trying to put as much a negative light on US as possible, even if that mean entering into something you have no experience whatsoever. You are just like the V-22 Osprey's critics. Now that the Osprey have seen combat missions, those critics have disappeared. Not a one stayed around and offered an apology for being so wrong about the concept of a tilt rotor in general and the Osprey in particular. When -- not if -- the F-35 turns out to be superior to anything your India, Russia, or the Euros have, just like the Osprey's critics, YOU will disappear as well. :enjoy:

Special needs as a legitimate criticism against the F-35...That is just F-ing hilarious.

The Russians designed some of their fighters to have special intakes to protect the engines from FOD. Without those functional intake protectors, the jets would not be allowed to fly. So why is that not qualified as a 'special needs' ? Because India flies them.

Radar low observable bodies requires maintenance to wear 'booties' so that the maintainers will not scratch the surface, thereby compromising RCS. I guess Indian 'stealth' fighters will not have this special needs due to 'Indian physics'. :rolleyes:
 
Jf-17 internal ecm suite and jammer...

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).
 
Last edited:
My apologies for going off topic a bit.

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions. | Page 28

What I said in the above link, while using the F-35, is definitely pertinent and applicable to ALL aircrafts, civilian and military, in general principles of aircraft operations. Our Indian forum member just simply does not know what the hell he is talking about.
 
Then you cannot say that the F-35 requires 8,000 ft to take off. The AB is an integral part of the engine, whether that engine is installed in an F-16 or F-15 or F-35, so integral that even if the engine is not AB capable, it will not be installed in the jet even though the jet can take off and fly without AB. By your argument, the non-AB capable C-17 has 'special needs' because NATO requires 8,000 ft runways to support it. But even if the F-35 requires 8,000 ft of runway to takeoff, so what ? What make Israel's needs so unique that those needs override other NATO allies, of whom ALL of them already have 8,000 ft runways ?

Like I already said, distance from the enemy. In the case of NATO, the enemy was really really far. The Soviets need to conduct complex strike missions in order to get to NATO air bases.

In the case of Israel, the Jordanians can use artillery to destroy air bases and runways. They are that close to Israel. A single Russian SAM like the S-400 in Syria can cover the entire Israeli airspace. So you cannot apply NATO logic to the Israelis. Their threat environment is completely different.

Israel is heavily dependent on American aid for their military. The problem here is Israel is being forced to purchase something they have less utility for compared to a F-15SE, but the Americans are not giving them a choice due to economic and political greed. This affects Israeli national security. And even after that, the Americans have created multiple hurdles in order to use the F-35, like ALIS and the lack of a maintenance facility.

I understand that as a non-American, you have an emotional investment in trying to put as much a negative light on US as possible, even if that mean entering into something you have no experience whatsoever.

Hardly. On this forum, I have argued with an Indian member about the benefits of dealing with the US MIC, even if he didn't like it, he was part of the Indian MIC. At the same time, I argued against you when you said India has more to lose against China compared to the US.

On IDF, I support the F-35 against the French F-35 critics. But at the same time I don't glorify it about being something it is not. The F-35 may be the best thing since sliced bread to one country, but the same doesn't apply to another.

You are just like the V-22 Osprey's critics. Now that the Osprey have seen combat missions, those critics have disappeared. Not a one stayed around and offered an apology for being so wrong about the concept of a tilt rotor in general and the Osprey in particular. :enjoy:

Well, then we should be glad I wasn't one of them. I've always liked the Osprey.

When -- not if -- the F-35 turns out to be superior to anything your India, Russia, or the Euros have, just like the Osprey's critics, YOU will disappear as well.

If the F-35 turns out to be superior, then that's a plus point, but that's most unlikely. I've followed the program way too much to know it has very limited capabilities.

Performance - All competitors beat it.
Range - All competitors beat it.
Payload - Most of them match it. Some beat it outright.
Maintenance - Most of the competitors beat it.
Cost - With the exception of FGFA and AMCA, all the competitors are cheaper.

Avionics - The Rafale already matches it. By the time the F-35 achieves FOC, the Rafale won't even have a radar in the nose, it will have moved into other parts of the fuselage and give it complete 360 degree capability in more than just the X band. Expected in 2021 as part of the F3R Roadmap. The French plan on using the Rafale post 2030 also. So it has a long term development plan, including a modernized Rafale.

Stealth - The F-35's advantage comes from shaping, but the Israelis themselves have questioned it. They were the first foreign operators, so that matters a lot.

I cannot yet speak about the AMCA because information is limited and the J-20 is an enigma, but what they have told about the FGFA is pretty big. You will find a person here who can easily defend the Rafale as a direct competitor to the F-35, even in stealth. A Dassault VP said the Rafale is as stealthy as the F-22. And you will find an Air Marshal in the IAF who said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale.

According to one IAF official who earlier criticized the FGFA program said that they still need to study the FGFA program because the Russian claims were 'fantastic'. He was mocking them when he said that. A MoD led study was conducted, the technologies they planned on introducing and the way they planned to implement it were studied and the program was finally approved. The process took 3 years.

All the claims are indeed fantastic. The engine is very light, about the same weight as the SH's engine, but delivers twice the power. It is a variable cycle engine with the capability to adapt to a particular function. Like an entire engine's power can be converted to electrical power and directed towards firing a high-powered laser. I'm sure you have heard of their new photonics based radar system. They plan on completely overhauling AESA radar technology, target resolution will see up to 30 times improvement. A dozen brand new weapons are planned for induction, including hypersonic weapons in the 2015-25 period. Many of them are meant to fit into the internal bays. It is meant to function in a completely isolated environment without any support or communication. Well, naturally, if the jet is expected to cost a whopping $225M, that too for a Russian jet. To compare, the Su-35 costs $15M flyaway.

Special needs as a legitimate criticism against the F-35...That is just F-ing hilarious.

The Russians designed some of their fighters to have special intakes to protect the engines from FOD. Without those functional intake protectors, the jets would not be allowed to fly. So why is that not qualified as a 'special needs' ? Because India flies them.

It is a special need, but it has a very productive use. It means the aircraft can take off from any location, paved or unpaved. The F-35's special need for the extended runway is a drawback, a negative quality.

The F-35B needs special treatment on carrier decks. That's also a drawback.

The F-35B is capable of STOVL operation. It needs a big fan and large moving parts for the engine. So it has special needs by being more maintenance intensive, but this is not a drawback because it can be put to productive use.

There were a lot of people who criticized the F-117 as being maintenance intensive, but I see that as a special need that has an extremely productive use.

Radar low observable bodies requires maintenance to wear 'booties' so that the maintainers will not scratch the surface, thereby compromising RCS. I guess Indian 'stealth' fighters will not have this special needs due to 'Indian physics'. :rolleyes:

No. This is a special need that is undesirable but cannot be avoided. No different from the F-117. As long as it's productive, you gotta suck it up and do it. Indian physics is the same as American physics, you don't have to worry about that.

The F-35's runway requirement is insane. It has no business being that needy. In fact, I don't know how you even justify it after having flown an aircraft that needs less than 3600 feet to take off. It's fine to be biased about your air force, but please draw the line somewhere. Somebody's messed up the F-35 program, and your country and your allies will end up suffering for it. The J-20 could be something the F-35 is completely unsuited for as an adversary.
 
Like I already said, distance from the enemy. In the case of NATO, the enemy was really really far. The Soviets need to conduct complex strike missions in order to get to NATO air bases.

In the case of Israel, the Jordanians can use artillery to destroy air bases and runways. They are that close to Israel. A single Russian SAM like the S-400 in Syria can cover the entire Israeli airspace. So you cannot apply NATO logic to the Israelis. Their threat environment is completely different.

Israel is heavily dependent on American aid for their military. The problem here is Israel is being forced to purchase something they have less utility for compared to a F-15SE, but the Americans are not giving them a choice due to economic and political greed. This affects Israeli national security. And even after that, the Americans have created multiple hurdles in order to use the F-35, like ALIS and the lack of a maintenance facility.



Hardly. On this forum, I have argued with an Indian member about the benefits of dealing with the US MIC, even if he didn't like it, he was part of the Indian MIC. At the same time, I argued against you when you said India has more to lose against China compared to the US.

On IDF, I support the F-35 against the French F-35 critics. But at the same time I don't glorify it about being something it is not. The F-35 may be the best thing since sliced bread to one country, but the same doesn't apply to another.



Well, then we should be glad I wasn't one of them. I've always liked the Osprey.



If the F-35 turns out to be superior, then that's a plus point, but that's most unlikely. I've followed the program way too much to know it has very limited capabilities.

Performance - All competitors beat it.
Range - All competitors beat it.
Payload - Most of them match it. Some beat it outright.
Maintenance - Most of the competitors beat it.
Cost - With the exception of FGFA and AMCA, all the competitors are cheaper.

Avionics - The Rafale already matches it. By the time the F-35 achieves FOC, the Rafale won't even have a radar in the nose, it will have moved into other parts of the fuselage and give it complete 360 degree capability in more than just the X band. Expected in 2021 as part of the F3R Roadmap. The French plan on using the Rafale post 2030 also. So it has a long term development plan, including a modernized Rafale.

Stealth - The F-35's advantage comes from shaping, but the Israelis themselves have questioned it. They were the first foreign operators, so that matters a lot.

I cannot yet speak about the AMCA because information is limited and the J-20 is an enigma, but what they have told about the FGFA is pretty big. You will find a person here who can easily defend the Rafale as a direct competitor to the F-35, even in stealth. A Dassault VP said the Rafale is as stealthy as the F-22. And you will find an Air Marshal in the IAF who said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale.

According to one IAF official who earlier criticized the FGFA program said that they still need to study the FGFA program because the Russian claims were 'fantastic'. He was mocking them when he said that. A MoD led study was conducted, the technologies they planned on introducing and the way they planned to implement it were studied and the program was finally approved. The process took 3 years.

All the claims are indeed fantastic. The engine is very light, about the same weight as the SH's engine, but delivers twice the power. It is a variable cycle engine with the capability to adapt to a particular function. Like an entire engine's power can be converted to electrical power and directed towards firing a high-powered laser. I'm sure you have heard of their new photonics based radar system. They plan on completely overhauling AESA radar technology, target resolution will see up to 30 times improvement. A dozen brand new weapons are planned for induction, including hypersonic weapons in the 2015-25 period. Many of them are meant to fit into the internal bays. It is meant to function in a completely isolated environment without any support or communication. Well, naturally, if the jet is expected to cost a whopping $225M, that too for a Russian jet. To compare, the Su-35 costs $15M flyaway.



It is a special need, but it has a very productive use. It means the aircraft can take off from any location, paved or unpaved. The F-35's special need for the extended runway is a drawback, a negative quality.

The F-35B needs special treatment on carrier decks. That's also a drawback.

The F-35B is capable of STOVL operation. It needs a big fan and large moving parts for the engine. So it has special needs by being more maintenance intensive, but this is not a drawback because it can be put to productive use.

There were a lot of people who criticized the F-117 as being maintenance intensive, but I see that as a special need that has an extremely productive use.



No. This is a special need that is undesirable but cannot be avoided. No different from the F-117. As long as it's productive, you gotta suck it up and do it. Indian physics is the same as American physics, you don't have to worry about that.

The F-35's runway requirement is insane. It has no business being that needy. In fact, I don't know how you even justify it after having flown an aircraft that needs less than 3600 feet to take off. It's fine to be biased about your air force, but please draw the line somewhere. Somebody's messed up the F-35 program, and your country and your allies will end up suffering for it. The J-20 could be something the F-35 is completely unsuited for as an adversary.

I am sceptical about many of the FGFA claims you have made. Let's wait for the demo before counting chickens in our head. As for F-35 vs others there is simply no comparison because none have made the mark yet. While it certainly does have its faults by the virtue of being jack of all trades - it is very well suited when you consider the ecosystem around it. It isn't meant to be F-22 nor does it pretend to be.

Let's stick to what's demonstrable and more specifically merits of JF-17's ECM.

P.S. I believe you have made your point but are unlikely to convert anyone who isn't already in the camp as arguments are too speculative in nature.

Regards
 
That stupid criticism is debunked here...

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions. | Page 28

You have a reading comprehension problem.

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

All peacetime minimum figures are for safe operation. For some reason, the F-35 needs almost twice that of the F-16 for safe operation. Some air forces were perfectly happy with 6000 feet runways.

The criticism is not unfounded. The Israelis agree with me.
Israeli Air Force Contemplating Procurement of F-35B Fighter - Washington Free Beacon
Anticipating rocket barrages targeting its runways in future conflicts, the Israeli Air Force is contemplating procurement of the F-35B fighter that can land vertically and take off in just 500 feet.

I am sceptical about many of the FGFA claims you have made. Let's wait for the demo before counting chickens in our head. As for F-35 vs others there is simply no comparison because none have made the mark yet. While it certainly does have its faults by the virtue of being jack of all trades - it is very well suited when you consider the ecosystem around it. It isn't meant to be F-22 nor does it pretend to be.

Let's stick to what's demonstrable and more specifically merits of JF-17's ECM.

P.S. I believe you have made your point but are unlikely to convert anyone who isn't already in the camp as arguments are too speculative in nature.

Regards

Okay, I'm not going to go more offtopic that this about FGFA, but you can check this links here. You can google for more.

New radar system for PAK FA fighter | Russia & India Report
"In practice, this means that ROFAR can produce a detailed 3D image of what is happening hundreds of kilometres away. For example, at 400 kilometers it can not only see a person, but even recognize their face", said Vladimir Mikheyev, Advisor to KRET's First Deputy CEO.

The US and French are working on it too.

As for the Type 30, it is an 8 stage engine. The AL-31F is a 13 stage engine. That's why the big difference in weight.
 
Back
Top Bottom