Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[Munir]

uhh i dont think u read the mki radar info, it says it can detect the smallest (1-2 m2 at 120 km) 5 km is freaking huge.

and Munir

having more fuel does help, say ur in a dogfight and a fighter is escaping from you while ur fuel is almost out, if u have more fuel u can run after it and get a kill.

also more bvr weapons is also good, say ur a lone fighter going up against 2-3 fighters, if ur loaded with bvr and able to engage more than 1 u have an advantage.

i dont think u should underestimate the mki so much. NEVER underestimate, always overestimate.

Even if true... When will it able to track a JF17? And when will it shoot? I dot underestimate. I just use logic and tehnology. There is never a scenario of lone fighter against...

 

[saiko]

1) That usually means you can carry more fuel.

You do not have to travel to other side of China... The battle is on the border and you surely do not want weight that is making your agility as good as a gigantic fueltanker. Besides that, IFR is just as handy to have range...

If you want to use them on strike missions, fuel is terribly important. The combat radius you read about on paper usually assume few if no weapons. Start adding high-drag 1000lb bombs onto an aircraft and watch the range drop to something less tha useful.

2) That usually means you can carry more missiles/weapons.

You wil get one shot for BVR.. Then within less then minute the second chance to shoot WVR (if you still are flying. You fire your BVR around 70% of the range... Do you need lots of weapons? That is why the F16 (block52-60) do not carry a lot more then 2 bvr and 2 wvr... This is the most impressive dogfighter. And let us see how often the other tough guy (f15) used more then 1 bvr...

Combat aircraft never travel alone. And if you get into a large-scale air war, you are talking about large numbers of combat aircraft attacking each other simultaneously the ability to carry more missiles is a large advantage. It gives you the options to "waste" missiles are long ranges to force advantages when you close.

3) That usually means you have a larger radome. Assuming equvialent levels of radar technology the bigger fighter will have a better radar.

Bigger radome is bigger RCS... Bigger radar is bigger flash light that the opponent can see...

Well this is the first time I've ever had someone claim that having a better radar is actually a disadvantage.

 

[Munir]

>>>If you want to use them on strike missions, fuel is terribly important. The combat radius you read about on paper usually assume few if no weapons. Start adding high-drag 1000lb bombs onto an aircraft and watch the range drop to something less tha useful.

JF17 will defending so it just waits low and his fast heavy loaded mki. JF17 does not nead huge fuel cause its range in CAP is good enough and otherwise it will do a fine job with IFR. And I think that a heavy loaded MKI is not as agile as we tend to think. Let me give you an example. F16 is highly agile. With two winganks it is a sitting duck. MKI with fuly fuel is a sitting duck. With or without TVC. Just calculate its weight to thrust.

>>>Combat aircraft never travel alone. And if you get into a large-scale air war, you are talking about large numbers of combat aircraft attacking each other simultaneously the ability to carry more missiles is a large advantage. It gives you the options to "waste" missiles are long ranges to force advantages when you close.

In the past PAF had to use BVR evasive tactics. Now with BVR and netcentric approach there is not much in favour left for MKI. Rule about smaller is better still is valuable. And with JF17 optimized ECM we will see how much is wasted. We will see how fast SD10 hits. The Chinese know the missile. With so clear goal to counter MKI the JF17 has its teeth ready.


>>>Well this is the first time I've ever had someone claim that having a better radar is actually a disadvantage.

Well, you have things like the Vera... And ECM or DRFM etc etc... A radar is active so if you want to see something then expect that the other is catching your signals. Or do you expect them to sleep? Just for your info... F5 pilots invented first ECM... It was an ordinary speed trap scanner. They knew exactly when the rqdar started scanning or locking...

Well, I am bugging out cause there is not much entertaining in explaining basics to kiddo's.

 

[saiko]

JF17 will defending so it just waits low and his fast heavy loaded mki. JF17 does not nead huge fuel cause its range in CAP is good enough and otherwise it will do a fine job with IFR. And I think that a heavy loaded MKI is not as agile as we tend to think. Let me give you an example. F16 is highly agile. With two winganks it is a sitting duck. MKI with fuly fuel is a sitting duck. With or without TVC. Just calculate its weight to thrust.

So what you're saying is the JF-17 is not multi-role and will pretty much just be used as an interceptor? OK, gotcha.

In the past PAF had to use BVR evasive tactics. Now with BVR and netcentric approach there is not much in favour left for MKI. Rule about smaller is better still is valuable. And with JF17 optimized ECM we will see how much is wasted. We will see how fast SD10 hits. The Chinese know the missile. With so clear goal to counter MKI the JF17 has its teeth ready.

Missile payload and radar strength are still crucial. It doesn't matter how good your jamming is the mathematics involved dictate that you will burn through eventually. The better your radar is, the sooner you'll burn through the sooner you get a weapons solution.

Well, you have things like the Vera... And ECM or DRFM etc etc... A radar is active so if you want to see something then expect that the other is catching your signals. Or do you expect them to sleep? Just for your info... F5 pilots invented first ECM... It was an ordinary speed trap scanner. They knew exactly when the rqdar started scanning or locking...

Well, I am bugging out cause there is not much entertaining in explaining basics to kiddo's.

You'd best bug out since you have at terrible argument here. You think you need to explain basics to me but you're also saying having a better radar is actually a disadvantage when every single air force in the entire world will disagree with you - including the PAF - who replaced the cheaper indigenous Chinese radar with a better, foreign radar on the JF-17.

How you utilize that radar matters of course but if both sides are noise jamming he with the more powerful radar wins - burn through range matters and the math is very clear about how burn through works.

 

[saiko]

and i think mki also has some ecm system so dont underestimate its ecm either and remember jf-17 is smaller so it will carry less ew equipment. but since the huge size differences ecm are balanced out.

but 1 thing...

what are ew and ecm systems used for?

to fight and disrupt radar? or the missile chasing you?

ECM can be used against both the fire control radar of the platform firing a missile against you and the missile fired against you.

a lot of warplanes dont carry on-board ECM equipment - they use jamming pods instead. even some planes with on-board ECM equipment will carry add-on ECM pods anyways to enable them to jam more effectively (either by covering more threats or increasing the power output against the threats being jammed). most of the add-on jamming pods are self-powered (using a Ram Air Turbine) to make them them modular.

you get the same power output regardless of the size of the aircraft if they are using such external jamming pods.

 

[maverick2009]

A PAF which is proficient and well trained will not engage SU30 MKI with JF17 in a 1 on 1 SITUATION.

Just has in Kargil War PAF will only engage IAF if they have 50% chance of surviving the engagement.

OTHERWISE they will avoid the scenario.

USA & Israel only engage wen they know they can WIN...

THAT MEANS engaging IAF flankers with Amraam equipped F16s or FC20.

I can,t SEE how a JF17 in Its current guise carrying SD10 with KLJ7 radar can go into combat against a PESA BARS equipped SU30 MKI carrying R27./R77.

The flanker has better radar, better missles, more armament, more fuel; better jammers, more EW suites.

JF17 VERSIS MIG29 is a 50/50 ENGAGEMENT

F16/52 VERSIS SU30 MKI is also much closer

*** To take on SU30 MKI and win in majority of your clashes PAF needs better warplane than SU30MKI.

TODAY that means 60+ Rafael or Typhoon.

 

[PAFAce]

I agree with everything you said above, except the two quotes below.

JF17 VERSIS MIG29 is a 50/50 ENGAGEMENT

I think the balance shifts towards the JF-17 on this one, just for being a fresher platform if nothing else.

Edit I'm sorry, I thought you said Mig-21, not Mig-29. You may be correct in your assessment afterall.

PAF needs better warplane than SU30MKI... TODAY that means 60+ Rafael or Typhoon.

Unrealistic, and frankly, irresponsible, to even consider these aircraft in present times. With the FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be, we would be in much better shape to counter the Su-30MKI. In fact, if you consider PAF strategy and doctrine thus far, the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically).

 

[MastanKhan]

I agree with everything you said above, except the two quotes below.


I think the balance shifts towards the JF-17 on this one, just for being a fresher platform if nothing else.

Edit I'm sorry, I thought you said Mig-21, not Mig-29. You may be correct in your assessment afterall.


Unrealistic, and frankly, irresponsible, to even consider these aircraft in present times. With the FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be, we would be in much better shape to counter the Su-30MKI. In fact, if you consider PAF strategy and doctrine thus far, the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically).

Hi,


We are talking about the defence of pakistan---and then about the most important procurement in the current history of PAF---FC 20

you state---"FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be "---is this how strategic assests are developed---or is this how an average pakistani feels that they should develop---or is is this how we pakistanis feel that it is normal where the MAYBE part comes in. What if FC 20 doesnot turn out not to be what it is---what if there is a further delay with its powerplant---plus how about the time frame involved in integrating the FC 20 into the mainstream

Don't you think that it is high time that pakistani public should start questioning the promises made by PAF---and start looking beyond the statements of GRANDIOSE made by the PAF heirarchy and look closely and dissect the failure that the PAF has been in the past 20 years and take measures to correct those mistakes and bring about a change to the mindset of the PAF.

 

[PAFAce]

Hi,

We are talking about the defence of pakistan---and then about the most important procurement in the current history of PAF---FC 20

you state---"FC-20, if it turns out to be all that it is supposed to be "---is this how strategic assests are developed---or is this how an average pakistani feels that they should develop---or is is this how we pakistanis feel that it is normal where the MAYBE part comes in. What if FC 20 doesnot turn out not to be what it is---what if there is a further delay with its powerplant---plus how about the time frame involved in integrating the FC 20 into the mainstream

Don't you think that it is high time that pakistani public should start questioning the promises made by PAF---and start looking beyond the statements of GRANDIOSE made by the PAF heirarchy and look closely and dissect the failure that the PAF has been in the past 20 years and take measures to correct those mistakes and bring about a change to the mindset of the PAF.

Yes, but how will buying Rafale or Typhoon help that? I agree with you that we must question the objectives and efficiency of our forces, afterall, we pay for them. However, no nation can allow their armed forces to be dictated to by the public. This is not the point I was trying to make earlier.

When I said "If the FC-20 turns out to be all that it is supposed to be", I meant to imply that I, personally, do not know too much about it, and that I am assuming that the PAF senior staff are probably capable of deciding that by themselves without my input. Similarly, for the "development of strategic assets", I am assuming that those who attend several courses in national and international military colleges to study exactly these subjects would be capable of making at least credible judgements, without my input. This was my point. To counter the Su-30MKI, surely, we have to select the best "value" platform (i.e., optimum cost vs function), and the people in the best position to decide the "value" would be those operating these machines.

what's the qualitative advantage that the fc-20/F-16 gives over the mki?

None, if you compare just the two platforms. I clearly stated that "if you consider PAF strategy... the FC-20 may be able to give us a slight qualitative advantage (theoretically)".

and dont forget the mirage 2000

Good question, but that is not the topic of discussion.

 

[PAFAce]

what's the strategy? ensure that the survival rate is over 50%? that's not a good strategy...

Sorry, Air Chief Marshall, I didn't know I was dealing with a Master Aerial Strategist. The mods really hate it when it turns into an "I am better than you" match, so I didn't want to spell it out, "aqalmand ko ishara kafi hota hai".

(Theoretical) Advantages of FC-20 over the Su-30MKI

Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).
Qualitative: We have been training to beat a Porsche with a Honda Civic. Imagine what we will do when we get ourselves a Nissan GTR.

You don't have to remind us of the advantages of the Su-30MKI over our platforms, we are well aware of that. Also, are you sure your country flags are correct?

 

[PAFAce]

mki and jf-17 are different fighters...
they also are well trained (especially against f-15, f-16, rafael, typhoon, and f-18)

I do not disagree with you on any of the above points.

also whats MTBF, LCC, and SGR

MTBF - Mean Time Between Failure
LCC - Life-Cycle Cost
SGR - Sortie Generation Rate

 

[saiko]

(Theoretical) Advantages of FC-20 over the Su-30MKI

Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).
Qualitative: We have been training to beat a Porsche with a Honda Civic. Imagine what we will do when we get ourselves a Nissan GTR.

That's rather like suggesting the T-72 is superior to the Abrams because it's cheaper, more reliable, lower operating cost, and training to counter the Abrams.

The only actual combat advantage you listed is a lower RCS.

 

[PAFAce]

That's rather like suggesting the T-72 is superior to the Abrams because it's cheaper, more reliable, lower operating cost, and training to counter the Abrams.

Never used that word. Ever.
Also, I admitted there is no comparison 1 to 1.

Seriously, does anybody ever read before replying these days?

 

[messenger]

Quantitative: Low MTBF, Low Capital Cost, Low LCC, Low RCS, High SGR, High Reliability etc. (I am sure I am missing a few).?

you mentioned only cost and rcs .

jf-17 is cheaper than mki . true . but jf-17 i think is the cheapest modern fighter .

jf-17 has less life cycle cost than mki . true . but look at the diff b/w them .

in the present scenario unfortunately jf-17 is no match to mki . we can discuss it for hours but we will still reach the same conclusion .!

 

[messenger]

But you just proved you don't know anything because there IS a discussion about it. It has been shown that JF has every chance of taking out the big bad sukhoi from beyond visual range, the sukhoi has no significant advantage at that range when the JF is supported by AEW/C aircraft.
Close-in it is a different story - in dogfights the sukhoi holds a significant advantage that can be decisive - thrust to weight ratio. Whether it is actually more agile/manoeuvrable than the JF we cannot be sure, but with thrust vector control it is likely to hold advantages in that department also. However, the JF is stated to be equipped with a helmet mounted cueing system which should, in theory, negate some of the sukhoi's close-in advantages.
..... Looks like a discussion to me.
The F-16 block 60 better beat the JF any day, it costs about 10 times more and is armed with the latest American AMRAAM missile, ECM and AESA radar technology. I bet you wouldn't admit it whoops your favourite sukhoi too.

dont you think that mki also has helmet mounted cueing system .

and dude you still not sure which aircraft has better manoeuvrablity .

how can you drag AWACS into the conversation . we are discussing jf-17 and mki not AWACS . we have got better AWACS than you . compare them on the basis on their own radars .