Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[sancho]

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.

This was his statement:

i haven't seen any news reports about new engine so stop talking about one.

This was my question related to him:

Didn't he asked for a source that JF 17 will get a new engine?

Better read the question carefully next time and you'll understand that there is no trolling and you don't have to be offended!

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.

Really? I got another impression from your last post:

From Russia with love - the same people who provide your over-rated MKI.

and now you are offended because I used your own words?
As you self explained, they could end up with a chinese made TVC, but it's doubtful that it will be Russian. If it was on offer in 2007 as the contract was signed, China would take and use it already in their aircrafts right?

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.

Once again I request you to read carefully, I said

They will be more capable than JF 17, because of better radar and BVR missiles.

So as I learned from this thread and Pakistani members, JF 17 won't get AMRAAM, but the upgraded and new F16 block 52 will right? It was also posted several times here, that AMRAAM and R77 has ranges of 100 Km and more at latest versions, but SD 10 only 70 Km. To me that means, just as I said before, that these F16s will be the main threat for Mki in near future, because of better radar and BVR missiles!

 

[gambit]

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

They may not have any choice, depending on structural limitations.

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.

Dubious at best, depending on the degree off vertical.

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.

Air refueling probes and hard points are radar reflectors. If there is any reduction in RCS these additional reflectors will gain them back, may be not all but there will be a gain.

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.

The Iranians did it with their modifications of their F-5s.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Here are couple of links denying the same(including Pakistani media):

=> geo.tv/12-14-2008/30640.htm

=> thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=62394

=> ibnlive.in.com/news/pakistan-cries-foul-india-says-no-airspace-violation/80526-3.html

=> hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=8ff72d7f-ede9-4b44-abfe-74127634fb85&ParentID=59336712-3ebc-42ed-90ae-57f436a98056&Headline=Flip-flop+Pakistan+cries+airspace+violation+again

So, your case in point???

Whether this incident happened or not, whether it was a technical incursion or a mistake and indeed a intended violation, what's the point??

The two countries were not at war. IF indian pilots did violate, it only made sense to retrieve back(regardless of, if F-16/F-7 were locked on) in order to de-escalate the situation unless india is looking to strike.

So, does this incident make PAF braver or IAF weaker??

Let's just stick to the topic and make your post count! (No offence meant)

Read the last paragraph of following article

F-16/ F-7 locked SU-30 (BBC.COM)

پاکستانی فوج کے سربراہ جنرل اشفاق پرویز کیانی نے، باخبر عسکری ذرائع کے مطابق، پیر کی شب گئے ایڈمرل مولن کو بتایا تھا کہ پاکستان کے پاس ایسی مصدقہ اطلاعات موجود ہیں کہ بھارتی فضائیہ پاکستان کے اندر بعض مقامات پر حملوں کی تیاریاں مکمل کر چکی ہے۔

بعض ذرائع کا یہ بھی کہنا ہے کہ ایڈمرل مولن کو اس بھارتی ایس۔یو تیس جہاز کی تصاویر بھی دکھائی گئیں جو تمام اسلحے سے لیس پاکستان کے صوبے پنجاب کے مرکز میں واقع فوجی چھاؤنی کھاریاں کے اوپر سے پرواز کر رہا تھا۔

عسکری ذرائع کے مطابق جس جہاز نے بارہ دسمبر کے روز لاہور سیکٹر میں پاکستان کی فضائی حدود کی خلاف ورزی کی تھی اسے پہلے سے منتظر پاکستانی لڑاکا طیاروں نے اپنی ’فائرنگ رینج’ میں لے لیا تھا لیکن مار گرانے سے پہلے دی جانے والی تنبیہ پر اس طیارے نے واپسی کا راستہ اختیار کر لیا تھا۔ اس بھارتی طیارے کو مگ انتیس جہازوں کی ایک ٹکڑی کی پشت پناہی یا بیک اپ سپورٹ بھی حاصل تھی جو بھارتی فضائی حدود سے یہ منظر دیکھ رہے تھے۔

 

[mean_bird]

They may not have any choice, depending on structural limitations.

Dubious at best, depending on the degree off vertical.

Air refueling probes and hard points are radar reflectors. If there is any reduction in RCS these additional reflectors will gain them back, may be not all but there will be a gain.

The Iranians did it with their modifications of their F-5s.

Thats absurd. Its not like someone has taken a pledge to bring on twin-tails come what may. Its obvious that such a move will only happen if it brings about some improvement for whatever reason it is being planned for. Only if its advantages outweighs its potential disadvantages will you see them and that too not any time soon.

Twin-tails "might" appear. Nobody is sure of when, but we know there are thoughts along those areas an that's about it for now.

In-flight refueling is there to come for sure and so is the extra hardpoint and that has been stated by senior officials in interviews. The benefits outweighs the increase in weight or increase in RCS.

 

[gambit]

Thats absurd. Its not like someone has taken a pledge to bring on twin-tails come what may. Its obvious that such a move will only happen if it brings about some improvement for whatever reason it is being planned for. Only if its advantages outweighs its potential disadvantages will you see them and that too not any time soon.

Twin-tails "might" appear. Nobody is sure of when, but we know there are thoughts along those areas an that's about it for now.

In-flight refueling is there to come for sure and so is the extra hardpoint and that has been stated by senior officials in interviews. The benefits outweighs the increase in weight or increase in RCS.

What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...

stealthy features such as twin tail fins,

Without providing a shred of technical support for such a claim. Now THAT argument is absurd. Whereas I provided basic radar principles to support my arguments on why such a claim if monumentally flawed. Even if the vertical stabs are canted, there is no guarantee that such a feature will lower an aircraft's RCS value without taking into consideration other factors such as fuselage dimensions and shapings. The claimant clearly does not know what he is talking about. This is not about supposedly improved aerodynamics at take-offs and landings but about basic radar principles.

 

[hj786]

This was his statement:
This was my question related to him:
Better read the question carefully next time and you'll understand that there is no trolling and you don't have to be offended!

Really? I got another impression from your last post: and now you are offended because I used your own words?
As you self explained, they could end up with a chinese made TVC, but it's doubtful that it will be Russian. If it was on offer in 2007 as the contract was signed, China would take and use it already in their aircrafts right?

Once again I request you to read carefully, I said
So as I learned from this thread and Pakistani members, JF 17 won't get AMRAAM, but the upgraded and new F16 block 52 will right? It was also posted several times here, that AMRAAM and R77 has ranges of 100 Km and more at latest versions, but SD 10 only 70 Km. To me that means, just as I said before, that these F16s will be the main threat for Mki in near future, because of better radar and BVR missiles!

I'm not playing semantics games with you. He doubted claims that M88 could be fitted and told everybody to stop talking about it, I give a news report stating that it was considered.

No China would not want Russian TVC engines in their aircraft, that is why they are developing their own engines. According to one interview with the ex PAF Air Chief Marshal, their version of J-10 will use Russian TVC engine technology. I don't believe that, but then again I don't want to believe it considering the reputation of Russian engines. I'm not offended if you use my own words, but I'll still defend myself if you take them out of context. I don't care who the Russians love more, the point is they are offering TVC engines to China and possibly Pakistan.

About those BVR missiles. Some sources say the latest SD-10's range is just over 100 km. Either way, the most important thing is their no escape zone and ability to deal with jamming. If these are good enough, SD-10 can compete with the R-77 and 250 upgraded JF will be a greater threat than ~70 F-16.

What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...

Without providing a shred of technical support for such a claim. Now THAT argument is absurd. Whereas I provided basic radar principles to support my arguments on why such a claim if monumentally flawed. Even if the vertical stabs are canted, there is no guarantee that such a feature will lower an aircraft's RCS value without taking into consideration other factors such as fuselage dimensions and shapings. The claimant clearly does not know what he is talking about. This is not about supposedly improved aerodynamics at take-offs and landings but about basic radar principles.

Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill? You're right, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I never claimed to.
Basic signature reduction principles, if you angle the surface away from the radar beam in one axis, the RCS goes down. If you angle it away in two axis, RCS goes down dramatically (I think it said exponentially, can't remember) according to one source I read. If that's true, then canted tail fins from a side-on perspective would have a reduced signature. Obviously there's a big *** fuselage and other bits to take into account too, but that's besides the point. I'm not saying it will be made into a stealth fighter, I'm talking about small signature reductions, minor modifications to the airframe like panel gaps, different materials in key areas, etc. None of this will happen unless they get some export orders anyway.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "stealthy" at all, perhaps reduced signature would be more appropriate, my bad.

The only reason I mentioned canted tail fins is because according to a respected inside source, they are a likely prospect. That's all I'm going on, you take into account as many factors as you like.
About refuelling probe increasing RCS, the JF's refuelling probe seems to be an extendable one that folds away:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=97696

What is so 'absurd' about my response? The claim here is that a twin tails constitute a 'stealthy' structural feature...

Would "a slightly smaller radar signature from certain angles" structural feature be better?

 

[Munir]

The longer the BVR range the more time to react for the target (ecm/path). The longer the range the easier to get the shooter in the pic cause that one has to use the radar to track target... As predicted by some highly respected scientist the problem is not the range but electronics that can get countered. So in the end a decent canon with optical sight will do the trick. Hence the J10B with a huge IRIST... Same will be developed for JF17. (According my knowledge)

 

[mean_bird]

Sukhois resume flying, nearly a month after crash


NEW DELHI: The frontline Sukhoi Su-30 MKI combat jets of the Indian Air Force have resumed flying nearly a month after the entire fleet was grounded following the crash of one of the aircraft that broke a 12-year accident-free record, an official said.

The aircraft are again being flown even as a 20-member team of Russian experts have been conducting checkups on them. "The aircraft conducted a sortie last weekend," a senior Indian Air Force official said, but did not elaborate.

He, however, confirmed that the Russian team summoned to inspect the fleet is carrying on with the checks, inspecting the aircrafts' airframe and systems.

The IAF grounded its fleet of approximately 55 Russian-origin Su-30s after one of the aircraft crashed last week. Generally, an entire fleet is not grounded if an aircraft of a particular type crashes. In the case of the Su-30, however, there have been "recurring complaints" by pilots about problems with the jet.

The grounding of the Su-30 fleet has given rise to the alarming possibility of "structural faults" with the aircraft.

In a blot on its otherwise unblemished record, a Su-30 MKI crashed in Jaisalmer April 30, killing the co-pilot. The pilot, Wing Commander S.V. Munje, and the co-pilot, Wing Commander P.S. Narah, managed to bail out in time but Narah was killed after he was apparently hit by the falling debris of the aircraft.

Ironically, Narah belonged to the IAF's Directorate General of Inspections and Safety and was putting the aircraft through its annual safety checks.

The aircraft had taken off from the Lohegaon air base in Pune on a routine sortie and crashed at 10.30 a.m. while returning to its base.

The IAF operates three squadrons of the jet, some of which were bought in a fly-away condition from its Russian manufacturer while the others were manufactured under licence by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

It was not immediately clear to which of these categories the crashed jet belonged.

The Su-30 has won universal acclaim from the air forces of the US (O really?), Britain and France whenever it has been fielded against them in war games. Eight Su-30s had participated in the prestigious Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, last year and had more than held their own against the US' F/A-18 and F-16 combat jets.

 

[Munir]

It must be an indian report. The plane was for air to ground work and not doing any air 2 air training during the war games...

 

[paritosh]

It must be an indian report. The plane was for air to ground work and not doing any air 2 air training during the war games...

which war game are you talking about ?

 

[Keysersoze]

which war game are you talking about ?

Red Flag this year. The mKI's were pretty much bomb trucks

 

[paritosh]

and why were they bomb trucks?
because they coudn't get a visua link to the american awacs in a BVR combat scenario where they were not allowed to use their radars?

 

[hj786]

and why were they bomb trucks?
because they coudn't get a visua link to the american awacs in a BVR combat scenario where they were not allowed to use their radars?

Because they realised that when its a fair fight (unlike Cope India), they aren't so superior to the latest F-15 and F-16 as some people wish they were.

 

[paritosh]

how..?
i am not interested in defending them...why do you think they are not?
apart from their causing friendlies because of no tv target link...and their suppressing the radar...they were praised...

 

[Munir]

Patriosh doesn't know basics and keeps asking stupid qestions... Waste of time.

Anyway... Talking about a versus b...

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment

Saab-led Gripen International has revived its war of words linked to the Norwegian defence ministry's selection of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and rejection of its Gripen NG offering last November.

The move comes as the next-generation version of the Swedish fighter is in the final phase of competitions in Brazil and Switzerland, and as Saab attempts to revive stalled procurement efforts in three eastern European states.

Oslo prompted a furious response from Saab chief executive Åke Svensson last year after eliminating the Gripen from its fighter contest on the grounds that the design "does not satisfy Norwegian requirements".

Branding the evaluation process "incomplete, or even faulty", Svensson challenged a decision by evaluators to more than treble his company's guaranteed bid price from NKr55 billion ($8.9 billion) to NKr195 billion: NKr30 billion higher than a JSF figure recently confirmed as only an estimate.



Saab was also angered by Norway's conduct of three secret simulations, which evaluators say favoured the F-35. The company subsequently launched its own series of 50 simulations involving the Gripen NG, JSF and a threat force represented by Sukhoi Su-35s, using all available data on the aircraft, countermeasures equipment and missile performance, it says.

Peter Nilsson, vice-president operational capabilities for Gripen International, says the results quash Lockheed's marketing claims that the JSF is over six times more capable than current-generation fighters in air-to-air combat.

Noting that a four-versus-four scenario between F-35s and Su-35s would pit eight Raytheon AIM-120D Amraam missiles and eight AIM-9X Sidewinders against 48 Vympel R-77s and eight R-73s, he comments: "They'd better be invincible. Because if you can't get past the 'Flankers' you'll never get to a ground target."

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson.

Meanwhile, Gripen International's senior vice-president sales and marketing, Bob Kemp, says the company is taking a new approach in its bid to secure pending fighter deals in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, potentially covering a combined total of 42 aircraft.

"We have been looking at our strategy for that region, recognising that there is a real, genuine financial problem," says Kemp. "We're working closely with the Swedish government to try to come up with some innovative financing arrangements to find a way so that they can get the capability now and pay for it later."

Sweden has already leased 14 Gripen C/Ds each to Czech Republic and Hungary.