What's new

Possibility of further Russian Tech in JF17

JF-17 is not a frontline fighter, its goal is to go to fight along with its elder brother the F-16 to help him out.

I think you guys should develop it into a 4.5 Gen. If you consider the fact that you already have the airframe down, it needs to be expanded a bit with more hard points, a powerful engine and with more modern Avionics (AESA, ECM, etc). That's your 4.5 Gen right there.

You guys have the basic tech already. Now its time to expand it. The Chinese can help with micro-tech as they are using smaller versions of avionics in their J-10 series, The same technologies were designed for their Stealth platforms / 5th Gen platforms with more power and size.
In fact the JFT airframe needs to be expanded a bit for more hard points (given a more powerful engine is available). That would mean you could use some Radar and other components directly from the J-10 series. Another option is that the Chinese can reduce the size to fit into the JFT in its current shape (you'll lose some capability but that's the tradeoff, and I don't suggest that either as the plane needs a bigger body and engine in the future).
 
Last edited:
.
But SD10 have proven range of only 80km but R77 range is surely 130km
In case of long range conflicts on a much broader geographical level, I can understand the concept here.But in India-Pakistan's scenario, even 80 KM or 100 KM is too much BVR IMO with high risk of failure. BVR is a term that is loosely used by people a lot.

Every BVR missile acts different within different flight envelops. The same missile may bleed 5X more energy when fired at altitude and / or distance X compared to when being fired from altitude and / or distance Y. So what would happen to the range in this case?? The range changes significantly. In combat, you may not always be at the ideal altitude, etc to get optimal output from your BVR as you may need to fire and run back or maneuver to break the incoming BVR lock. BVR's are best proven at 60% of their slated rage. The last thing you want from your BVR is to finally meet the enemy but have no energy left to chase after it and deal with evasive maneuvers......that's a waste.
What's more important is the "No Escape Zone" of the missile instead of the range. In that regards, Russian BVR's don't have that large of a No Escape Zone. Slammer (AMRAAM), thus far in all BVR missile categories has the largest No Escape Zone out there. I think the NATO did some testing on this. The Israelis definitely did home work on this to see if the next gen Derby would be comparable to AMRAAM. But the Slammer beats others by a large margin with respect to the No Escape Zone. So if you have SD-10 or AMRAAM with larger No Escape Zones, the 130 KM or 160 KM range of a Russian platform doesn't matter a lot. Plus think about the close proximity, if a SU-30 fires its missiles from 110 KM's, the interceptor plane that took off from a Pakistani FOB, landed back and decided to let the SAM's take the first shot at the SU-30....what would happen to the 130 KM missile? Its lock doesn't exist as the target plane is on the ground and the incoming missile is on a wild goose chase.......
 
Last edited:
. .
I have also thought the same but bit different in terms of missiles, in my opinion two box of 5th gen missiles like ASRAAM (because of LOAL & LOBL capabilities) will be great for defending AWACS specially from incoming missiles, reason for box is that it will help to reduce RCS like the pod in F-18s and will accommodate more missiles like 4 to 6 at least.

I think @gambit can put some light on that and explain what really is possible.
Missile against missile aerial engagement is still very much theoretical. The most difficult is the head on scenario where you basically have only one chance of defense.

I read a few papers about this a long time ago and the best odds is using proximity fused explosion to disrupt the attacker's flight path, as in aerodynamic disruption, in conjunction with fragmentation damages (hopefully), to the attacker.

Something to mull over...

The AIM-54's warhead is about 135 lb or 60 kg to produce a maximum blast radius of about 100 ft or 30-something meters. The AIM-120 AMRAAM warhead is about 40 kg.

Understand that these missiles are intended to be against large bodies -- like aircrafts -- where the bodies have wide expanses of surfaces that are vulnerable to the blast wave and any fragments.

Designing Buildings to Resist Explosive Threats | Whole Building Design Guide
Blast Loading

Because this Resource Page focuses on explosive threat, one must first understand how a blast affects its surrounding environment. When an explosive device is detonated at or near the ground surface, shock waves radiate hemispherically and the peak intensity blast pressure decays as a function of the distance from the source. The incident peak pressures are amplified by a reflection factor as the shock wave encounters an object or structure in its path. Reflection factors depend on the intensity of the shock wave and the angle of obliquity of the shock front. However, when the explosion is within an occupied space, the confinement of the explosive by-products produces a quasi-static gas pressure that needs to be vented into the atmosphere.

The intensity of the blast pressures is therefore a function of the charge weight and the standoff distance to the protected space. Charges situated extremely close to a target structure impose a highly impulse, high intensity pressure load over a localized region of the structure. This high intensity loading tends to shatter or shear through the structural materials. At greater distances, the intensity of the peak pressure is significantly reduced; however, the surface area over which it acts is much greater. As a result, the hazard potential is increased over a larger portion of the structure.
Blast effects on a combination of material, structure, and rigidity is the reason why light weight and low mass objects like paper survives explosions. It is also the reason why the more accurate and precise the missile, the less warhead load necessary to produce the desired goal -- destruction of the target.

Of course, the greatest accurate and precise interceptor would not need any warhead at all but rely strictly on a collision to effect a kill -- a kinetic kill weapon.

When a missile physically collide with an aircraft, the collision alone is enough to render the aircraft ineffective for whatever its mission, the explosion from the warhead is just gravy or candy, so to speak. But if it is not possible to physically collide with the aircraft -- 100% -- then we must rely on warhead and its blast effects to produce any level and types of disruption and/or physical damages to the aircraft. We already know that airfoils require uniform airflow across their surfaces in order to give us stable and controllable flight. A blast wave would definitely disrupt those airflow and most likely send the aircraft out of controlled flight, no matter how temporarily.

Tactically speaking, if you are in a four-ship sortie and one of you is under attack, the rest of the flight will scatter. You will unload your bombs, originally designated for some vital enemy ground targets, and effect some kind of self defense. This is what happened back in the Vietnam War where the North Vietnamese Air Force was able to disrupt many USAF ground strike missions just by hit-and-run against a few heavily loaded F-100s or F-4s.

But to return to the missile against missile defense...

The attacking missile is already small size and low profile to start. In order for any aerodynamic disruption to be effective, the blast effects, therefore the explosion, would have to be very close, more like a few meters, not dozens. Any ideas on why hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) are either angled or curved topside ? Explosions, like electricity and pressurized water, always seek the paths of least resistance. Angled faceting and/or curvatures works very well in being blast wave protection methods. The missile with its rounded body is already naturally protective. So in order to knock a missile off its course via a blast wave, the explosion would have to be on the missile's side and very close, or the warhead would have to be larger than 60 kg to produce as large a blast wave as possible.

To date, the best defenses against a missile, assuming it has acquisition, are seduction/distraction methods. We are not talking about ground based ballistic missile defense, which is another can of technical worms, have been discussed elsewhere here, and why a kinetic kill in that scenario is more possible than an aerial missile vs missile scenario.
 
.
My mind just pop out a idea of putting hard points under AWACS and put long range BVR under it because its wings are long and hard and may be hard points can be made.. Is this good idea????

Yes Israel AWACS has I have heard are very good in jamming may be we need to reactive our AWACS thread on PDF.... So we can get answers from senior PDF members....
Interesting thought. But dont you think a radar lock and firing an active radar homing missile from an AWACS will make ot valunerable to detection?
Plus there are no BVRs that match the Radar Range of AWACS. BVRs ranges are 80 to 160km max. If we fire a bvr from this close range for an effective hit, it will make the plane a breakfast for incoming Enemy Jets
 
.
Guys Russian Tech or not but you have to agree here.
JF17 have more potential then what is currently exploited by PAF.
It was a modular design for the same purpose i.e to make modifications easier.
We can have a potent 4.5 gen Air Superiority fighter and Interceptor Variant. That too at much less cost compared to inducting a new platform.
Make a new variant with improved Radar from Salex, Thales or Phazetron.
A new engine, a better RD93 or a something from Rolls Royce or Pratt Witney or General Dynamics.
Get RAM Coating on it.
I know it will be costly compared to basic JF17 configuration. But compared to Gripen, J10 and F16 blk52 that it will match after upgrades, It will be hell of a lot cheaper and better export market.

considering the small RCS of fighter. If we incorporate the above upgrades. Believe me JF17 will become a Flanker Slayer surely.
Costly compared to Basic JF, but very cheap compared to other equally pitted fighters.
 
.
Considering the warming relations between Russia and Pakistan. I was wondering what possible hardware can we purchase from them.
I am aware that procurement of a full Fighter jet platform is a bit too far fetched.
But Can we get a custom versions of following items for our JF17 thunders blk III

1-Phazatron Zhuk E AESA Radar. Can we see a customized variant of the one we see in Mig35 recently instead of KLJ7?

2-A custom variant of the RD93 based on the New RD33 deployed in Mig35 that are smokeless and create more Thrust then basic variants and are less prone to engine Failure.

3-The well known R77 Adder BVR and Alamo WVR considering Russian Radar and Data Link.

A JF17 incorporated with above tech can become potent Air Superiority Fighters. We can get upto 70 Such Kits and have 70JFs in Interceptor or Air superiority roles. And Basic Configuration JFs can still perform Attack role.
I wish it may happen sooner then we can think off

Dear my point is that instead of Acquisition of J10 or any other entirely new Platform to counter MKI. Why not a modified JF for that? A new Platform will be too much expensive and will also create maintenance nightmare as well.

I mean if we consider the present Configuration of JF17 MKI flanker can detect our JF with 3m2 RCS fully reloaded at about 140km and JF17 with KLJ7 can detect a fully loaded Su30MKI with 15m2 at almost 120km. But SD10 have proven range of only 80km but R77 range is surely 130km

If we can slightly kick up our Thunder with better radar engine and BVR missile. MKI will be a 1 on 1 with JF17 and that option is cost effective as compared to other options. Whats your take on that? and whay other options do we have?
I Salute your way of thinking brother
 
Last edited:
.
Guys Russian Tech or not but you have to agree here.
JF17 have more potential then what is currently exploited by PAF.
It was a modular design for the same purpose i.e to make modifications easier.
We can have a potent 4.5 gen Air Superiority fighter and Interceptor Variant. That too at much less cost compared to inducting a new platform.
Make a new variant with improved Radar from Salex, Thales or Phazetron.
A new engine, a better RD93 or a something from Rolls Royce or Pratt Witney or General Dynamics.
Get RAM Coating on it.
I know it will be costly compared to basic JF17 configuration. But compared to Gripen, J10 and F16 blk52 that it will match after upgrades, It will be hell of a lot cheaper and better export market.

considering the small RCS of fighter. If we incorporate the above upgrades. Believe me JF17 will become a Flanker Slayer surely.
Costly compared to Basic JF, but very cheap compared to other equally pitted fighters.
Salutations again !!!! I agree with u , please , lets us all agree to this and let it be decided where decision matters

Better engine, better radar and more hardpoint. I believe these changes will raise up a generation of jf17.
It surely will
 
. . . .
only China is not able to full upgrade that aircraft? just curious
 
.
Russia still supplies 75% of India's hardware, so it would be 'foolhardy' to think such.
 
.
In case of long range conflicts on a much broader geographical level, I can understand the concept here.But in India-Pakistan's scenario, even 80 KM or 100 KM is too much BVR IMO with high risk of failure. BVR is a term that is loosely used by people a lot.

Every BVR missile acts different within different flight envelops. The same missile may bleed 5X more energy when fired at altitude and / or distance X compared to when being fired from altitude and / or distance Y. So what would happen to the range in this case?? The range changes significantly. In combat, you may not always be at the ideal altitude, etc to get optimal output from your BVR as you may need to fire and run back or maneuver to break the incoming BVR lock. BVR's are best proven at 60% of their slated rage. The last thing you want from your BVR is to finally meet the enemy but have no energy left to chase after it and deal with evasive maneuvers......that's a waste.
What's more important is the "No Escape Zone" of the missile instead of the range. In that regards, Russian BVR's don't have that large of a No Escape Zone. Slammer (AMRAAM), thus far in all BVR missile categories has the largest No Escape Zone out there. I think the NATO did some testing on this. The Israelis definitely did home work on this to see if the next gen Derby would be comparable to AMRAAM. But the Slammer beats others by a large margin with respect to the No Escape Zone. So if you have SD-10 or AMRAAM with larger No Escape Zones, the 130 KM or 160 KM range of a Russian platform doesn't matter a lot. Plus think about the close proximity, if a SU-30 fires its missiles from 110 KM's, the interceptor plane that took off from a Pakistani FOB, landed back and decided to let the SAM's take the first shot at the SU-30....what would happen to the 130 KM missile? Its lock doesn't exist as the target plane is on the ground and the incoming missile is on a wild goose chase.......
The missile should be dealt with too, since it might hit something still in the skies or drops down into a civilian neighborhood...

The KLJ7 has proven its anti jamming capacities, I think that is why it has been retained. Combined with AESA radars and PEASA radars in Block 2 and 3, it will certainly give an edge to PAF in EW.
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom