Pakistan has been offered the Chinese 4th generation J-11 (SU27)

[Manticore]

* J-10 B improves the aircraft's air-to-ground capabilities but still falls behind when it comes to armament variation and technologocal advantage that the F-16s offer.

* Without going into details, AESA is a better radar altogether and is difficult to jam because of its ability to work with varying frequencies. The US has already incorporated this tech into their 5th gen. fighters. It is also harder to detect. F-16 E/F have AESA and this, I believe, is what we need to get for our birds as well.

* Sukhois being better is merely my opinion since I favour air-superiority fighters like F-15, Su-35 and F-22. Long-range strategic air-superiority is a must for any air-force seeking to exert influence beyond their borders.

we dont need very long range fighters as our enemy is right next to us. moreover our air refuellers come in handy in these instances aswell as most fuel is burnt during takeoff

huge fighters also have huge rcs, thus the enemy even with its light class fighters can spot the huge fighters earlier [even without awacs help]and fire the bvr earlier-- moreover chinese bvr ranges [and effective pk range aswell?] are higher

regarding the radar capability i'm optimistic... firstly we've seen j10b with aesa modifications secondly the area to place the radar [dome size] of jf17 is greater than f16,m2k,rafael etc-- and is compareable to eurofighter , so placing a better radar in jf17 is no problem

dsi alone has decreased the frontal rcs of jft by 30% -- now both our fighters jft and j10b will be having reduced rcs-- im not even mentioning composites and ram coatings in these newer blocks

fighter designs are made due to an objective in mind and i'm sure the paf personnal present in the j10b projects know what is required by paf.. an easa fighter made for an airforce which is already familiar e blk52s... yet the fighter is half the price!

secondly chinese have come up with alternatives to almost all of the western weapons.. and paf might get to manufacture them e full tot

american technology doesnt come with tot or indeginous modifications options -- the blk60 r&d project was funded by uae and i dont think it ended up as cost-effective [just my 2 cents]

avionicswise, j11bs is better than the russian varients in the plaaf-- so it stands to reason that the new j10b wont be 'technologically' inferior to su27/30 either

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/72354-thrust-weight-ratios-all-fighter-planes.html

 

[Beast]

What do you exactly mean by "JF-17 already reaches 70-80 percent of Blk52" ?
What constitutes 70-80 percent ?
But J-10 B with its improvements is undoubtedly a better aircraft.

Ask yr Air force chief. He is the one who says that.

Handling - JF-17 is better than F-16

Agility - Same as F-16

Avionics - I believe this is the area where it reaches 70-80 percent of Blk 52.

Remember, yr air force chief claim KJL-7 is as good as RC400 Thales radar. I believe in terms of air to air mode, it shall be almost same par as AP-68 radar, the weak part will be the air to ground mode. which may be only 50-60 of Blk 52.

Engine - Despite having a inferior engine than PWF-100, it manages to achieve an 1:1 ration thrust to weight ratio.
But the payload is inferior to F-16..

Overall, this is how 70-80 percent comparable to blk 52 comes about...

 

[iioal malik]

Ask yr Air force chief. He is the one who says that.

Handling - JF-17 is better than F-16

Agility - Same as F-16

Avionics - I believe this is the area where it reaches 70-80 percent of Blk 52.

Remember, yr air force chief claim KJL-7 is as good as RC400 Thales radar. I believe in terms of air to air mode, it shall be almost same par as AP-68 radar, the weak part will be the air to ground mode. which may be only 50-60 of Blk 52.

Engine - Despite having a inferior engine than PWF-100, it manages to achieve an 1:1 ration thrust to weight ratio.
But the payload is inferior to F-16..

Overall, this is how 70-80 percent comparable to blk 52 comes about...

Well said bro,i totally agree with you!!!i have been saying this from long time also

We all know how smart our air force is in limited budget we get the best equipmentst ,thunder will be very close to Bik 50 in every area

 

[holysinner]

well brother i have my doubts now regarding jf 17. if it is that much compatible to f16 block 52 then y our airforce is eager to put there hands on as many f 16 as possible. v can surely save up the money and improve the newer batches of jf 17 to be 100% comparable to an F16 block 52/60. the latest news from the airforce saying there are looking for more f16 blk 52 and as many as they can get, puts a question mark on the reliability of JF17s.

 

[Black Widow]

we dont need very long range fighters as our enemy is right next to us. moreover our air refuellers come in handy in these instances aswell as most fuel is burnt during takeoff

huge fighters also have huge rcs, thus the enemy even with its light class fighters can spot the huge fighters earlier [even without awacs help]and fire the bvr earlier-- moreover chinese bvr ranges [and effective pk range aswell?] are higher

Huge Fighters have Huge radars too.. It has more T/R module... It can detect the smaller plane(of same/inferior generation) much earlier than the counterpart... It has more payloads, range as well.. so your claim is null and void.


regarding the radar capability i'm optimistic... firstly we've seen j10b with aesa modifications secondly the area to place the radar [dome size] of jf17 is greater than f16,m2k,rafael etc-- and is compareable to eurofighter , so placing a better radar in jf17 is no problem

dsi alone has decreased the frontal rcs of jft by 30% -- now both our fighters jft and j10b will be having reduced rcs-- im not even mentioning composites and ram coatings in these newer blocks

Read RCS as Frontal RCS in clean configuration... without any payload...

fighter designs are made due to an objective in mind and i'm sure the paf personnal present in the j10b projects know what is required by paf.. an easa fighter made for an airforce which is already familiar e blk52s... yet the fighter is half the price!

Totally Agree with you

secondly chinese have come up with alternatives to almost all of the western weapons.. and paf might get to manufacture them e full tot

Quality is still a concern (raised by non Chinese and non Pakistani media/expert).. You guys are ally , so china will definitely give you ToT ...

american technology doesnt come with tot or indeginous modifications options -- the blk60 r&d project was funded by uae and i dont think it ended up as cost-effective [just my 2 cents]

may be.. Americans keep the best for them and then sell the outdated technology ... never trust them...

j11bs is better than the russian varients in the plaaf-- so it stands to reason that the new j10b wont be 'technologically' inferior to su27/30 either

oops!!! this is fan-boy comment... J11 may be better than Su27 but I need proof if someone say its better than su30MKK (chinies su30)

 

[Black Widow]

well brother i have my doubts now regarding jf 17. if it is that much compatible to f16 block 52 then y our airforce is eager to put there hands on as many f 16 as possible. v can surely save up the money and improve the newer batches of jf 17 to be 100% comparable to an F16 block 52/60. the latest news from the airforce saying there are looking for more f16 blk 52 and as many as they can get, puts a question mark on the reliability of JF17s.

F16 is war proven machine... JF17 is claimed to be as good as F16B52, but it is not yet proved... JF17 is light category fighter plane in its evolution period, while F16 is near to Medium category fighter plane... No country will bet on something like Jf17 (which is not yet matured.).. PAF is doing right thing by blending Experience (F16) and innovation (JF17) in their fleet...

And please don't carry away with fan-boy comments that JF17 is better than F16..... Its still long way to go for JF!&

 

[Manticore]

[]

oops!!! this is fan-boy comment... J11 may be better than Su27 but I need proof if someone say its better than su30MKK (chinies su30)

go through different chinese forums and see for yourself

Su-27UBK, and -30 series of the late Soviet imports some body structure, combined with the latest Chinese-related technology will eventually develop into a new two-seater multi-purpose fighter-bombers heavy, which is J-11BS. The number in the "S" in the meaning is the two-seater. He appears, some users believe that the J-11BS is simple Su-27UBK the "unauthorized", is provided by the Russian technology, is simply copy the Russian goods. Strato believe that this is a very wrong view!

F-11BS and Su-27UBK there are still many differences in appearance, many significantly more than the Su-27UBK.J-11BS is the most typical heavy-duty multi-purpose fighter-bomber, similar to his performance, and use US-made F-15E "Strike Eagle" and the Russian-made Su-30MK2.
J-11BS's apparent use of a large body of China's own development using the latest epoxy resin matrix composites and carbon fiber composite material. His predecessor, the F-11B has been that, while the J-11BS is more with Jay. Among them, two tall vertical tail, nearly four fifths of the volume used in composite materials, and all moving horizontal tail is all-composite. While still in the main wing, trim, and rear air intakes and the extensive use of leading edge mobile flap composite materials and non-conductive material. A fighter in the use of such a large proportion of composite materials, which made known the fighter is extremely rare. At the same time spraying a domestic new type of radar absorbing paint. Strato that the extensive use of composite materials, primarily for as much as possible to reduce body weight, improve agility and fuel load. But also improve the aircraft's radar stealth. Also prove that the Chinese use of composite materials in terms of large-scale fighter aircraft, has been a breakthrough, and this is a fourth generation fighter development in key technology! Therefore Strato that from the J-11BS body, we can Glimpse into China in some parts of four generations of technological advances machine!

In the future, J-11BS will gradually replace the Soviet -30 series,

First, the J-11BS born later than the Su-30MK2 years. And just in time for the rapid development of China's period of military aviation technology. So, he was able to use extensive use of new technology in China. Obtained from the current picture we can see the body on the J-11BS substantial use of composite materials. The advantage of this is to significantly reduce body weight, increased fuel capacity and payload increased combat radius. The Su-30MK2 use of composite materials is very limited. Su-30MK2 design mission is to focus on land / sea-based air combat secondary attack. Seek large range of high payload. Size and weight significantly more than the J-11BS.

J-11BS significantly smaller than the size and weight of the Su-30MK2, aerodynamic body structure and was inherited from the Soviet-27UBK and J-11B. Both of which have always been a strong air combat capability, particularly in high-mobility fighting powerful close-known, while the F-11BS obviously inherited these qualities. Coupled with China's new generation air - air missiles and high performance of avionics system. Therefore Strato that J-11BS in air combat capability, especially in close combat on the high mobility to be significantly stronger than the Su-30MK2!

So Strato that J-11BS in ground / sea precision strike capability will certainly be more than Su-30MK2. In addition, due to extensive use of composite materials and optimize the body structure, and spray a new type of radar absorbing paint. Therefore, the stealthy F-11BS better than Su-30MK2.

J-11BS in the range, combat radius is not as good as Su-30MK2's.

 

[Manticore]

And please don't carry away with fan-boy comments that JF17 is better than F16..... Its still long way to go for JF!&

who says jf17 blk1 is equal to f16 blk52+ ? however f16 blk 30/40 , yes

 

[RazorMC]

who says jf17 blk1 is equal to f16 blk52+ ? however f16 blk 30/40 , yes

This is what I've been saying: JF-17 is more than a match for earlier F-16s, but not the latest ones.
The Thunder's design is similar to the F-5/F-20 and seems to me that the roles are similar too. They complement the Vipers perfectly, but when it comes to air-air and air-ground edge, it is the F-16 who has it currently.

However the Thunder has been given a lot of room to upgrade and we will see better versions over time.

 

[RazorMC]

we dont need very long range fighters as our enemy is right next to us. moreover our air refuellers come in handy in these instances aswell as most fuel is burnt during takeoff

We need to develop our airforce beyond an Indian threat

huge fighters also have huge rcs, thus the enemy even with its light class fighters can spot the huge fighters earlier [even without awacs help]and fire the bvr earlier-- moreover chinese bvr ranges [and effective pk range aswell?] are higher

Not necessarily. The Vulcan frequently disappeared from enemy radar despite its size. An aircraft's design and material play an important role.
The Vulcan's shape had few sharp edges and protrusions and gave the aircraft a smoother, fluid shape which is a bit harder to detect on radars.

The Mirage 2000's delta wing and intakes gives it a slightly lower RCS than the F-16 with its gaping mouth (both without weapons)
I'm glad the J-10 addresses this issue.

regarding the radar capability i'm optimistic... firstly we've seen j10b with aesa modifications secondly the area to place the radar [dome size] of jf17 is greater than f16,m2k,rafael etc-- and is compareable to eurofighter , so placing a better radar in jf17 is no problem

I don't know about this though, aren't the EF and Rafale larger aircraft?

fighter designs are made due to an objective in mind and i'm sure the paf personnal present in the j10b projects know what is required by paf.. an easa fighter made for an airforce which is already familiar e blk52s... yet the fighter is half the price!

A modified J-10 B would be exactly what we need. The Thunder has ability to integrate Western tech so a similar ability in J-10B is much appreciated.

i dont think it ended up as cost-effective [just my 2 cents]

They have too much money... They don't need cost-effective fighters. Wish we had the same kind of money

avionicswise, j11bs is better than the russian varients in the plaaf-- so it stands to reason that the new j10b wont be 'technologically' inferior to su27/30 either

It would be unwise to underestimate Russian radar tech. Even their archer millsiles are harder to deflect than the sidewinders.

 

[Manticore]

The Thunder's design is similar to the F-5/F-20 .

do you really have any idea what youve just said or are blindly posting indian biased comments?

you can post or views in the fighter aircraft designs thread-- after going through it first
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/75408-combat-aircraft-designs-28.html

The Mirage 2000's delta wing and intakes gives it a slightly lower RCS than the F-16 with its gaping mouth (both without weapons)
I'm glad the J-10 addresses this issue.

??

 

[Manticore]

We need to develop our airforce beyond an Indian threat

for what?

The Mirage 2000's delta wing and intakes gives it a slightly lower RCS than the F-16 with its gaping mouth (both without weapons)
I'm glad the J-10 addresses this issue.[/SIZE]

i dont understand what ''synonyms'' you are using here

I don't know about this though, aren't the EF and Rafale larger aircraft?

diameter of the radar dome -rough estimate

F-20/T-50 => ~500mm (APG-67 family)
Gripen => ~500mm (PS/05 family)
M2000 => ~500mm (RDM, RDI, RDY families)
Rafale => ~600mm(RBE family)
MIG-29 => ~624 mm (N019, N010 families)
F-16 => ~660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80 families)

JFT =>~ 670-740 mm

Typhoon => ~700mm (ECR-90/CAPTOR family)
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
F-35 => ~700mm (APG-81)
F-22 => ~900mm (APG-77)
F-15 => ~950mm (APG-63, APG-70 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)
MIG-31 => ~1400mm (N007 family)

 

[satishkumarcsc]

we dont need very long range fighters as our enemy is right next to us. moreover our air refuellers come in handy in these instances aswell as most fuel is burnt during takeoff

huge fighters also have huge rcs, thus the enemy even with its light class fighters can spot the huge fighters earlier [even without awacs help]and fire the bvr earlier-- moreover chinese bvr ranges [and effective pk range aswell?] are higher

regarding the radar capability i'm optimistic... firstly we've seen j10b with aesa modifications secondly the area to place the radar [dome size] of jf17 is greater than f16,m2k,rafael etc-- and is compareable to eurofighter , so placing a better radar in jf17 is no problem

dsi alone has decreased the frontal rcs of jft by 30% -- now both our fighters jft and j10b will be having reduced rcs-- im not even mentioning composites and ram coatings in these newer blocks

fighter designs are made due to an objective in mind and i'm sure the paf personnal present in the j10b projects know what is required by paf.. an easa fighter made for an airforce which is already familiar e blk52s... yet the fighter is half the price!

secondly chinese have come up with alternatives to almost all of the western weapons.. and paf might get to manufacture them e full tot

american technology doesnt come with tot or indeginous modifications options -- the blk60 r&d project was funded by uae and i dont think it ended up as cost-effective [just my 2 cents]

avionicswise, j11bs is better than the russian varients in the plaaf-- so it stands to reason that the new j10b wont be 'technologically' inferior to su27/30 either

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/72354-thrust-weight-ratios-all-fighter-planes.html

Well I have a small doubt about this one.

Can the single RD 93 or the WS 13 generate enough electrical power to fit a larger radar inside the cone?

 

[Tajdar adil]

Twin engine fighters are not part of PAF's strategy because of their higher procurement and maintainence cost combined with more fuel consumption.
I think that we ought to acquire F-16 technology through third-parties. The JF-17 and the J-10 are not suitable for defense against the Su-30MKIs and the soon to come T-50.

No i dont thing so... Because A 5 and F 6 is also twin enjine.....

 

[Beast]

well brother i have my doubts now regarding jf 17. if it is that much compatible to f16 block 52 then y our airforce is eager to put there hands on as many f 16 as possible. v can surely save up the money and improve the newer batches of jf 17 to be 100% comparable to an F16 block 52/60. the latest news from the airforce saying there are looking for more f16 blk 52 and as many as they can get, puts a question mark on the reliability of JF17s.

F-16 Blk 52 with CFT will form the backbone of PAF deep strike role. Jf-17 will take over the escort role,air defense and near territory strike role. It is understandable PAF will look for more F-16 blk52 to fill up their strike role.