Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[spurdozer]

I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre.
Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

JF 17 air frame is not designed around an engine as the case used to be on older aircraft---rather it is a modular design---a modular design can accept similiar out put design engines of a different variety with comparative ease.

 

[Gucci Juice]

ok...

once in for all!!!

i haven't seen any news reports about new engine so stop talking about one. and i want to see some news reports about pac making 20 a year and china making 20 a year for a total of 40 a year.

also the jamming capabilities of the mki are VERY impressive, they are from IAI/Elta and i believe that they are quite proven since similar jammers must have been used to bomb syria(and in order to bomb them u must also fly over other unfriendly countries which requires a good jammer).

and since the biggest threat to the mki is the F-16 (not j-10b which i think is a concept that isn't real YET) i think the jammer will be optimized for an f-16 type radar (which is also used on the f-16I sufa), which will mean that it will be a good fight.

remember that in red flag the mki's didn't do well, but that was mainly because the radar was in training mode, no aewacs support, and also no jammers(i think).

 

[satishkumarcsc]

No jammers or ECM in Red Flag. Nor was the Radar in full mode.

 

[mean_bird]

No jammers or ECM in Red Flag.

That is incorrect. You can clearly hear the colonel say the MKI is jamming your missiles so you go vertically up and drill his brain.

 

[hj786]

ok...

once in for all!!!

i haven't seen any news reports about new engine so stop talking about one. and i want to see some news reports about pac making 20 a year and china making 20 a year for a total of 40 a year.

also the jamming capabilities of the mki are VERY impressive, they are from IAI/Elta and i believe that they are quite proven since similar jammers must have been used to bomb syria(and in order to bomb them u must also fly over other unfriendly countries which requires a good jammer).

and since the biggest threat to the mki is the F-16 (not j-10b which i think is a concept that isn't real YET) i think the jammer will be optimized for an f-16 type radar (which is also used on the f-16I sufa), which will mean that it will be a good fight.

remember that in red flag the mki's didn't do well, but that was mainly because the radar was in training mode, no aewacs support, and also no jammers(i think).

"Once in for all", stop talking about MKI's jammers unless you have news reports that they are "very impressive".

A news report stating China was interested in fitting Snecma M88 to the JF-17:
China considers Rafale/M88-02/04/1997-Flight International

A news report stating that Russia is interested in supplying thrust vectoring engines for the JF-17:
China and Russia in engine tie-up talks with Klimov looking at next-generation powerplants including improved version of RD-93 turbofan used on Chengdu FC-1 light fighter-07/11/2006-Zhuhai-Flight International
From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.

No, you're wrong as usual. The biggest threat to MKI is 250 upgraded JF-17.

I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre.
Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.

Lots of modifications will be made to the jet anyway. Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints, IRST, stealthy features such as twin tail fins, more carbon composites, possibly (I think very likely) AESA radar, etc. If enough planes are ordered then anything is viable, including engine changes. An example is K-8. The Chinese version uses a Ukrainian engine (which is now built in China under licence), whereas the export versions use a Honeywell engine from America - that's why it was planned that Pakistan would build the engine housing for the American engined version. I very much doubt PAF will get a European engine fitted when Russia and soon China are offering their own decent engines that are already integrated with the jet, but it depends on what PAF wants and what they can afford. When the JF is being built in Pakistan, they can do pretty much whatever they want if they have enough money.

 

[Gucci Juice]

^

thanks now i believe u

sry bout my arrogance but i always want proof...

maybe the jf-17 is a formidable fighter

oh and it'd be nice if u can provide some articles on jf-17 block 2 upgrades... u know about avionics and stuff

thanks

 

[gambit]

Lots of modifications will be made to the jet anyway. Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints, IRST, stealthy features such as twin tail fins, more carbon composites, possibly (I think very likely) AESA radar, etc.

A vertical stabilator is next to the wings in terms of being a major contributor to an aircraft's highest Radar Cross Section (RCS) value. Two of them will quadruple it, if both are at perpendicular to the fuselage.

Here is why...

If a planar surface is even slightly off perpendicular to the signal, the signal will deflect 90deg away from the original direction, or from source direction.

Where a vertical stab meet the fuselage the joint will create a 'corner reflector' or 'target corner reflector' and that will actually amplify the deflected signal, after it had lost much of its power in its travel. Such loss is called 'atmospheric absorption' or 'atmospheric attenuation' and a corner reflector will act like an electronic beacon with every radar sweep telling the transmitter 'Here I am, come and get me !!'

That is why the SR-71's twin vertical stabs are canted inward so their joints does not create corner reflectors. Same for the F-18, F-117, F-22, F-35 and the new F-15SE. The B-2 does not have any vertical stabs, it uses wing tips deflectors, but that is another issue.

But even if the vertical stabs are canted and composite materials are employed, what you ask for -- Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints -- will absolutely have counter effects on any RCS reduction measures. You might just go back to where you started. It took years of development and radar range testings for the F-18 Super Hornet to have a lower RCS than the original Hornet. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction on an EXISTING airframe is not as simple an endeavor as popular media and Russians and the Chinese propaganda would like people to believe. The popular media can be excused for ignorance. But the Russians and the Chinese are just plain deceitful because they are at least a couple generation behind the US.

 

[Arsalan]

I hear a lot of you guys saying JF-17 will undergo an engine change. And M88 is the contender. We must keep one thing in mind which is that changing an engine is not as easy as changing a tyre.
Changing an engine means a lot of structural modifications. So unless there is a substantial difference in the performances of the engines the engine-change option is not viable. Reducing aluminium alloys and increasing carbon composites is an option to increase TWR ratio.
Although my opinion is let the plane be inducted and all the weapons be integrated and then we can more easily and commandingly decide what changes be made in the JF-17.

the JF17 was designed on a modular design keeping in view the export market and option of varioues engines, avionics and radars as demanded by yhe customer!
so fitting a new engine wont be a lot difficult!

regards!

 

[mean_bird]

A vertical stabilator is next to the wings in terms of being a major contributor to an aircraft's highest Radar Cross Section (RCS) value. Two of them will quadruple it, if both are at perpendicular to the fuselage.

What makes you think they will go for tails that are perpendicular to the fuselage?

Surely if you are looking for reducing your RCS, you would go for canted twin-tails. It also have the additional benefit if reduction in height and relatively shorter take-off runs/landing because the horizontal projection of the tail provide additional lift.

But even if the vertical stabs are canted and composite materials are employed, what you ask for -- Aerial refuelling probes, extra hardpoints -- will absolutely have counter effects on any RCS reduction measures. You might just go back to where you started.

Nobody is making the JF-17 a stealth plane. But you may as well reduce whatever RCS you can.

Aerial refueling and extra-hardpoint are there to come irrespective of what the tail will look like. The twin-tails might infact help generate more lift thereby assisting the addition of extra hardpoint.

It took years of development and radar range testings for the F-18 Super Hornet to have a lower RCS than the original Hornet. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction on an EXISTING airframe is not as simple an endeavor as popular media and Russians and the Chinese propaganda would like people to believe. The popular media can be excused for ignorance. But the Russians and the Chinese are just plain deceitful because they are at least a couple generation behind the US.

I don't think anybody here is saying twin-tails will surface overnight or that you will remove the single tail from an already flying aircraft and replace it with two.

Sure its going to take time if it ever happens.

 

[sancho]

A news report stating China was interested in fitting Snecma M88 to the JF-17:
China considers Rafale/M88-02/04/1997-Flight International

A news report stating that Russia is interested in supplying thrust vectoring engines for the JF-17:
China and Russia in engine tie-up talks with Klimov looking at next-generation powerplants including improved version of RD-93 turbofan used on Chengdu FC-1 light fighter-07/11/2006-Zhuhai-Flight International
From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.

No, you're wrong as usual. The biggest threat to MKI is 250 upgraded JF-17.

Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a new engine? That M88 source is 12 years old!
Also the source for RD-93 with TVC is from 2006, but the deal with China was signed in 2007 and without TVC!
So the same people who provides us AL 31TVC engine, PESA radar, R77 BVR missile for our Mki, offered you a slightly improved version of the engine we use in our old Mig 29 and offer us now the latest version of that engine with 3D TVC. I think it's clear who Russia loves more!

The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?

 

[maverick2009]

250 JF17 is an astonshing High Figure.

Thus far PAF have 8 prototype flying and have purchased 42 more via a soft loan of $650m from China.

To upgrade the JF17 to the standards discuseed here if possible at all will require serious money and time..

i M NOT SAYING IT CAN,T HAPPEN it will just take time and money..AND WITH EACH UPGRADE the Thunder will become more and more expensive. esp for a country with limited resources..

 

[holysaturn]

the JF17 was designed on a modular design keeping in view the export market and option of varioues engines, avionics and radars as demanded by yhe customer!
so fitting a new engine wont be a lot difficult!

regards!

modular in the sense refers to avionics.they can be upgraded by just upgrading the software which is easy when compared to traditional ones,but changing an engine is different(hardware changes take time and money) the superhornet took time to rengine from the hornet ,gripen ng took time,lca will also take time so wat makes u think fitting m-88 will be easy.also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.

 

[Arsalan]

modular in the sense refers to avionics.they can be upgraded by just upgrading the software which is easy when compared to traditional ones,but changing an engine is different(hardware changes take time and money) the superhornet took time to rengine from the hornet ,gripen ng took time,lca will also take time so wat makes u think fitting m-88 will be easy.also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.

very true, my post may have miss led you!
the fact is that this point have been dissucussed many times at this very forum that JF17 is designed keeping in view that engine, avionics, radar and weapon system can be selected from a wide range of choice as demanded by the customers!
it can accomodate engines with different origins after slightest of modification!
as i said earlier that this point have been disscussd over and over again so i suggest that you must go through the thread for more information!

i wish it helps you

regards!

 

[hj786]

^
thanks now i believe u
sry bout my arrogance but i always want proof...
maybe the jf-17 is a formidable fighter
oh and it'd be nice if u can provide some articles on jf-17 block 2 upgrades... u know about avionics and stuff
thanks

Sorry if I sounded arrogant or cocky too. Use google search for interviews with the PAF Air Chief Marshal (they are on this forum somewhere). We don't know anything concrete about the JF-17's planned upgrades, just what has been offered, what PAF would like and info from inside sources.

Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a new engine? That M88 source is 12 years old!
Also the source for RD-93 with TVC is from 2006, but the deal with China was signed in 2007 and without TVC!
So the same people who provides us AL 31TVC engine, PESA radar, R77 BVR missile for our Mki, offered you a slightly improved version of the engine we use in our old Mig 29 and offer us now the latest version of that engine with 3D TVC. I think it's clear who Russia loves more!

The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?

He commanded everybody to stop talking about M88 being fitted to the JF-17. I provided solid evidence that it has been considered - not by the PAF, but by the Chinese themselves. Not only that, the French were willing to sell the engine for fitting to the JF - albeit with a Rafale sale to China as well. It doesn't matter how old the source is, I proved Mr Gucci wrong, all you're proving you have an agenda and don't care about facts. Now you provide me a source that says M88 cannot be fitted to the JF or quit trolling.

I don't care what deal was signed, for all I know the Chinese are developing a TVC nozzle for WS-13 Tianshan, some sources say they are developing/have developed one for their WS-10 Taihang. The source I provided states that TVC variants of the Russian engine are on offer for being fitted to the Sino-Pakistani jet - I never said they would be, nor did I say Russia would allow them to be fitted to Pakistan's own aeroplanes. If I did, my mistake, that's not what I meant.

Those Al-31 TVC engines can't help the big bad flanker dodge the latest missiles. Those PESA radars will still be detected by radar warning receivers, yes even the "crap" Chinese ones. That R-77 was used as the benchmark for the JF's SD-10. TVC engines have been offered to China too, but China is actually capable of designing their own. I think its clear I don't care who loves who more, because the fact is the FC-1 and possibly PAF's JF-17 could end up being fitted with Russian TVC engines - deal with it and again, quit trolling.

The biggest threat to Mki in near future will clearly be upg F16, new block 52 and J10. They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles. And by the time there will be 250 upgraded JF 17, there will be 230 also upgraded Mkis don't you think so?

LOL. Clearly you have no concern for facts. On the one hand you say upgraded F-16s would be a threat, but on the other hand the JF-17 won't be even though we know it will also be upgraded with similar systems as those F-16s. Keep trying. By the time there will be 250 upgraded JF-17, PAF will be perfectly capable of using them to hold off 230 MKI in a defensive role.

i M NOT SAYING IT CAN,T HAPPEN it will just take time and money..
If it can happen, why the hell do you keep saying that? We know MKI is a better aeroplane than the JF, we know Pakistan is a very poor country. Are you happy? Will you make some decent posts now? I doubt it.
AND WITH EACH UPGRADE the Thunder will become more and more expensive.
With each upgrade to the JF, those big scary flankers will become more and more likely to get blown apart.

also provide me proof that modular(havent heard abt it ,may be mistaken for open architecture) construction facilitates engine changes.and if it does do u think SH and gripen are less modular than jf-17.
They are just rumours based on stuff told by inside sources.