Possible steps to counter the rising threat from IAF ?

[Hasnain2009]

Range of JF-17

FC-1 (JF-17 Thunder) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) Thunder / Fighter China-1 (FC-1) Fierce Dragon

JF-17 Thunder / Fighter China-1 (FC-1) Fierce Dragon

 

[ironman]

I read your other posts and decided that you are not like some of the other people here, so I deleted the parts of my above post that you have already addressed with this:

Please ignore my previous post except for the statement I left there.



I will just reply to this.
It seems you are the one lacking common sense. The report you are talking about is NOT written by the Australian government or the Australian air force. It is written by some guy who has an agenda and it does not contain the full facts. It is CLEARLY biased against F-18 super hornet.
USA produces the most advanced aircraft in the world. If F-18E SH (super hornet) could not take on the latest sukhois they would simply upgrade it until it could. F-18E has advanced AESA radar and many RCS reducing modifications, it is DESIGNED to kill any non-stealth sukhoi. Why would US Navy want sukhois when it can get something better?
Seriously, you are trying to tell me that the US Navy will fill all its aircraft carriers with F-18E SH if it is inferior to latest Russian fighters? You aren't making any sense.

"if by critisizing a aircraft u can can get a better one then why dont u critisize f-16 block 50 . who knows they might give you f-22 and f-35"
Why don't you criticise F-16IN? Who knows, they might give you F-22.

PAF will soon have 8 AEW/C, so yes there is enough to provide cover for all PAF aircraft. Four of them have the proven Erieye AESA radar that has a similar range to Indian AWACS radar, so while Indian AWACS may be better than PAF AEW/C "if compared on neutral ground", they are certainly enough for PAF's needs.

jf-17 with AEW/C support against Su-30mki, Its ok a good concept. Lets put some logic ERIEYE finds a mki flying around 250km long, which BVR PAF will use??well..they dont have any. If this mki fitted with Brahmos?? (not considering AEWCS support).

 

[mean_bird]

i also think the same but it is definitely the best fighter in asia right now .

That's highly debatable. Asia includes Korea with F-15K, China with J-11B, Australia with F-18, Israel F-15I strike eagle (Israel version) and F-16I, UAE with F-16 blk 60, Saudi with F-15S.

You will have to prove your claim (Red Flag anyone?)


As for JF-17 vs Su-30... i don't think the question arises, as they belong to different categories one being a light weight and the other a heavy weight. At the present, I don't think the JF-17 is equal or better than the Su-30 but it certainly has a chance.... a fair chance. That chance will significantly increase by the induction of an AESA radar and a more potent missile.

Victory will be determined by stealth, EW/ECM, and most importantly the range and accuracy of the BVR missile. (Assuming) the Su-30 can detect a JF-17 at 150-200km but it can't fire (with a good chance of hitting) until it gets much closer. The JF-17 would neutralized this by AWACS...it will be aware of the presence of the Su-30 even at distances of 350+ km. But it too can't fire a missile until the Su-30 comes within the range of its radar and missile.

Of course, I am simplifying things here like ECM and the fact that a missile is seldom fired from its max range but much closer or within what is called the "no escape zone", also the scenario where the Su-30 is the deep striker and JF-17 is the defender. Not to mention, that SAM's would be seeing the Su-30 as a fat-a$$ elephant with its big RCS.

 

[ironman]

3000km without re-fueling!!

With 2300kg of maximum fuel capacity You cannot get 3000km ferry range.I too doubt about the operational radius of 1350km. Russian engines are not that fuel efficient.

 

[hj786]

jf-17 with AEW/C support against Su-30mki, Its ok a good concept. Lets put some logic ERIEYE finds a mki flying around 250km long, which BVR PAF will use??well..they dont have any. If this mki fitted with Brahmos?? (not considering AEWCS support).

Firstly, no it is not a good concept, it is reality as of next year.
Secondly, so what if this mki is fitted with bragmos? If InAF launches cruise missiles at Pakistan, PAF can easily retaliate with their own cruise missile launched from Mirage, JF and soon J-10. Where is the logic in your post?

With 2300kg of maximum fuel capacity You cannot get 3000km ferry range.I too doubt about the operational radius of 1350km. Russian engines are not that fuel efficient.

Then keep doubting. If you don't even realise that 2300kg fuel is internal tanks only, i.e. no external fuel tanks, that is your problem.

 

[adm_havemercy]

That's highly debatable. Asia includes Korea with F-15K, China with J-11B, Australia with F-18, Israel F-15I strike eagle (Israel version) and F-16I, UAE with F-16 blk 60, Saudi with F-15S.

You will have to prove your claim (Red Flag anyone?)


As for JF-17 vs Su-30... i don't think the question arises, as they belong to different categories one being a light weight and the other a heavy weight. At the present, I don't think the JF-17 is equal or better than the Su-30 but it certainly has a chance.... a fair chance. That chance will significantly increase by the induction of an AESA radar and a more potent missile.

Victory will be determined by stealth, EW/ECM, and most importantly the range and accuracy of the BVR missile. (Assuming) the Su-30 can detect a JF-17 at 150-200km but it can't fire (with a good chance of hitting) until it gets much closer. The JF-17 would neutralized this by AWACS...it will be aware of the presence of the Su-30 even at distances of 350+ km. But it too can't fire a missile until the Su-30 comes within the range of its radar and missile.

Of course, I am simplifying things here like ECM and the fact that a missile is seldom fired from its max range but much closer or within what is called the "no escape zone", also the scenario where the Su-30 is the deep striker and JF-17 is the defender. Not to mention, that SAM's would be seeing the Su-30 as a fat-a$$ elephant with its big RCS.

first of all australia is not in asia

secondly about SAM you shot down our mig-21 during the kargil conflict but couldnt shoot mig-29 or mirage 2k . do you know the reason .
the reason is that modern fighters are equipped with modern jammers . so shooting down a sukhoi with a sam is not that simple like you are making it to us .

 

[adm_havemercy]

I read your other posts and decided that you are not like some of the other people here, so I deleted the parts of my above post that you have already addressed with this:

Please ignore my previous post except for the statement I left there.



I will just reply to this.
It seems you are the one lacking common sense. The report you are talking about is NOT written by the Australian government or the Australian air force. It is written by some guy who has an agenda and it does not contain the full facts. It is CLEARLY biased against F-18 super hornet.
USA produces the most advanced aircraft in the world. If F-18E SH (super hornet) could not take on the latest sukhois they would simply upgrade it until it could. F-18E has advanced AESA radar and many RCS reducing modifications, it is DESIGNED to kill any non-stealth sukhoi. Why would US Navy want sukhois when it can get something better?
Seriously, you are trying to tell me that the US Navy will fill all its aircraft carriers with F-18E SH if it is inferior to latest Russian fighters? You aren't making any sense.

"if by critisizing a aircraft u can can get a better one then why dont u critisize f-16 block 50 . who knows they might give you f-22 and f-35"
Why don't you criticise F-16IN? Who knows, they might give you F-22.

PAF will soon have 8 AEW/C, so yes there is enough to provide cover for all PAF aircraft. Four of them have the proven Erieye AESA radar that has a similar range to Indian AWACS radar, so while Indian AWACS may be better than PAF AEW/C "if compared on neutral ground", they are certainly enough for PAF's needs.

you seem to be a very up to dated man sir . i would like you to tell me the facts that the author has forgotten to write in the article . ( as you know that they are not there ) .
also i bet you know that usa is offering us f-35 in future if f-16in is selected which acc.to me is very much comparable to f-22 . so you loose another point .
and i said that fighter aircrafts are compared on neutral ground not awacs .

dont get hyper . its a healthy debate .

 

[hj786]

you seem to be a very up to dated man sir . i would like you to tell me the facts that the author has forgotten to write in the article . ( as you know that they are not there ) .
also i bet you know that usa is offering us f-35 in future if f-16in is selected which acc.to me is very much comparable to f-22 . so you loose another point .
and i said that fighter aircrafts are compared on neutral ground not awacs .

dont get hyper . its a healthy debate .

Like you said, this is a healthy debate, I must not get hyper, so no. How about you tell me the facts that the author uses to prove flankers are superior to F-18 super hornet and so F-35/F-22 are needed to defeat them (as you know that they are there).
Also, I bet you know that USA will never offer you F-22 in future, even if you buy their entire air force as well as F-16IN, and F-35 is not in the same league as F-22. I don't care how many "points" I loose in your imagination, you lost 10 points as soon as you concluded that because of just one heavily biased "analysis", Australians believe sukhois are superior to F-18E.

60 degress off boresight doesn't help if you never get your target into your
frontal aspect after the merge.

If you want to talk merge scenarios, we can do that. Barring pilot error or a major pilot skill imbalance the JF-17 is unlikely to get to the opportunity to fire its missiles except prior to the merge, short of bleeding almost all of its energy for a one-time, risky snap shot. If it fails to get a kill in that scenario it will die and the Su-30MKI won't even need to expend a missile to do it.

And that's not even considering TVC. The crucial factor is the decisive T/W ratio advantage of the Su-30MKI.

Can you explain why JF can never get Su-30 into its frontal aspect? The way I see it, JF has enough thrust and turn rate to at least do that. The latest IR missiles can't be avoided by the Su-30 once they're on their way, no matter how good its TWR or TVC may be.

 

[adm_havemercy]

Like you said, this is a healthy debate, I must not get hyper, so no. How about you tell me the facts that the author uses to prove flankers are superior to F-18 super hornet and so F-35/F-22 are needed to defeat them (as you know that they are there).
Also, I bet you know that USA will never offer you F-22 in future, even if you buy their entire air force as well as F-16IN, and F-35 is not in the same league as F-22. I don't care how many "points" I loose in your imagination, you lost 10 points as soon as you concluded that because of just one heavily biased "analysis", Australians believe sukhois are superior to F-18E.

i have been seeing you . and u have this strange habit of throwing things back at others . that article is all about how sukhoi is superior to f-18 . so go through it again but u havnt answer my question that what r the missing facts .
yep u r right that we have no chance of getting a f-22 but what about FGFA . ???

and now ur gone . ur a strange man hj786

 

[mean_bird]

jf-17 with AEW/C support against Su-30mki, Its ok a good concept. Lets put some logic ERIEYE finds a mki flying around 250km long, which BVR PAF will use??well..they dont have any. If this mki fitted with Brahmos?? (not considering AEWCS support).

Welcome kid....can you tell me which BVR the MKI will be using from 250km?

Did you know we are talking about A2A fight and Brahmos is not a BVR? Heck, do you even know that the Brahmos cruise missile won't enter service in IAF before 2012 at the earliest?

You are right... Su-30 MKI firing the Brahmos is just a concept.

The Ra'ad cruise missile that can be fired from Mirage and JF-17 has a range of 350 km

first of all australia is not in asia

Depends how you count your continents...but even if you don't count Australia you are yet to show its better than the others.

secondly about SAM you shot down our mig-21 during the kargil conflict but couldnt shoot mig-29 or mirage 2k . do you know the reason .

Kargil had too much politics involved in it. I don't want to go into details because thats not the topic of discussion.

Either way, we have moved a whole decade now. We no longer have sanctions we had in the 90s.

the reason is that modern fighters are equipped with modern jammers . so shooting down a sukhoi with a sam is not that simple like you are making it to us .

I am not making it look simple. Just like fighters have advanced, so have SAMs. It might or might not be that simple, depending on the type of SAM, but the threat is always there.

Jammers are a good counter-measure but do not make you invincible. Guess why we are going for stealth?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

You missed the point of what I was getting at. The SU-30MKI doesn't even need to use TVC to beat the JF-17.

I'm assuming the rest of your post refers to the F-16 MATV program? If you are, you are just plain wrong. The lead flight test engineer for the F-16 MATV wrote an article about the programme in the mid 90s (published widely in the military community - I remember because I became interested in military aviation at about that time) and basically contradicted your entire post about TVC and wrote extensively about their simulated dogfights and the effect TVC had on them.

That's to say, the technology in the 1990s was already dramatically improving the F-16's combat performance in real, proven terms - from the cockpit. As to why it was cancelled - the F-16 MATV programme was cancelled in 1997. The JSF development contract was signed 16 November 1996. You do the math.

Besides - straight up turn performance stopped being the decisive factor in WVR air combat in 1942.

that's incorrect, the technology hadn't matured at that time, and the americans shied away from the task of introducing it to their aircraft. also, the effects of TVC were only useful against one-on-one combat, two aircraft on one negates those effects-and please keep in mind the F-16 test platform was a very light aircraft to begin with. the same technology was brought to the F-15, but required a lot of aerodynamic changes to the airframe. you can quote an out-dated, shady article if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the americans only introduced the technology through the F/A-22, which has far superior flight controls.

as for the Su-30MKI being superior to the JF-17 in WVR combat, without TVC, I think you're going a bit overboard. the aircraft is simply too large. to add to that problem, using TVC will expose the aircraft even more when it starts to loose drag during the process. the only aircraft that can seamlessly add vectoring to augment its aerodynamic performace without loosing drag is the F/A-22, no other aircraft till this day has been able to do that. Su-30MKI can maintain an edge with better radar, weapons systems, and ECM/EW kits.

Try being a little less condescending in your posts, especially when you're wrong.

I can say the same to you, practice what you preach...

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

xpecting a rply frm asad ul islam !

you can't speak, write, read, or interpret english very well can you? I don't need to reply to you, your own post does that for me.

 

[adm_havemercy]

you can't speak, write, read, or interpret english very well can you? I don't need to reply to you, your own post does that for me.

thank you . i will keep dat in mind for d nxt debate competition .

 

[adm_havemercy]

that's incorrect, the technology hadn't matured at that time, and the americans shied away from the task of introducing it to their aircraft. also, the effects of TVC were only useful against one-on-one combat, two aircraft on one negates those effects-and please keep in mind the F-16 test platform was a very light aircraft to begin with. the same technology was brought to the F-15, but required a lot of aerodynamic changes to the airframe. you can quote an out-dated, shady article if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the americans only introduced the technology through the F/A-22, which has far superior flight controls.

as for the Su-30MKI being superior to the JF-17 in WVR combat, without TVC, I think you're going a bit overboard. the aircraft is simply too large. to add to that problem, using TVC will expose the aircraft even more when it starts to loose drag during the process. the only aircraft that can seamlessly add vectoring to augment its aerodynamic performace without loosing drag is the F/A-22, no other aircraft till this day has been able to do that. Su-30MKI can maintain an edge with better radar, weapons systems, and ECM/EW kits.


I can say the same to you, practice what you preach...

sir so you mean that tvc in mki has no advantage over jf-17 .
just a simple answer yes or no .

 

[Myth_buster_1]

jf-17 with AEW/C support against Su-30mki, Its ok a good concept. Lets put some logic ERIEYE finds a mki flying around 250km long, which BVR PAF will use??well..they dont have any. If this mki fitted with Brahmos?? (not considering AEWCS support).

no you are wrong. by the time we have AEWCS cleared FOC, Erieye can spot MKI at 400km range, track at 370km range calls JF-17 equiped with MICA or SD-10 and shoot it down within 60KM. or F-16 with AMRAAM (the most advance BVR AAM in da world) can shoot down MKI and unlike any current IAF bvr AAM it is capable of shooting down at 100KM range. you guys wont have anything good as AMRAAM for 5-6 years from now. and why did you bring brahmos in air to air topic? we have Speda-2000 plus SAM which is capable of shooting down just about any non stealth flying thing.