Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[PakShaheen79]

Marginally in favour of mki.

Who you kidding buddy..

The flankers are rated as awesome fighter planes one look at the flanker design you immediately know you are looking at a true 4th generation fighter.

The Austrillians and Americans are worried sick about the flanker threat from south East Asia thats why theres dozens of studies re Flanker threat.

----------------------------

Now the SU30MKI is the super flanker ie the most advanced flanker in the world almost comprable to the soon to be inducted su35B.

____________________________________________________

Can you people honestly say that a Thunder even looks like a fighter from the same generation (4th) let alone the tech gap/power/ which is huge in some areas.

Thunder doesnt even exist as a weapons system as yet whereas Flankers is Russia best export fighter ever with over 1500 in service worldwide.

Its a silly futile comparison.

MKI v F16/52/60 or indeed J10 wud have been a better topic

Actually this is where question about rationale of MMRCA arises. Why this thing is needed so badly by IAF if it has its hand on one of world's best fighter (as claimed by some Indian members here). Now except Gripen all MMRCA are heavy duty fighters of same class as MKI but inferior (going by the claim that MKI is best fighter or 2nd best).

It is strange IAF having best or 2nd best in the world under its grasp is going for something inferior. Lol.. tech transferred for MKI can make India bigger exporter for versions of Flankers with similar capabilities which MMRCA will have. So why going for MMRCA?

 

[Haanzo]

yo pakshaheen man ...did you ever account the numbers , aesa radar,diversity(dont put all your eggs in one basket)....if US fighters are selected ..unprecedented political leverage......hope you get the point

 

[PakShaheen79]

yo pakshaheen man ...did you ever account the numbers , aesa radar,diversity(dont put all your eggs in one basket)....if US fighters are selected ..unprecedented political leverage......hope you get the point

Yes man but u see info about MLU on MKI clearly says that it will have an AESA with a tracking range of 400 Km while new BVR will have a range of 200 km. Now i wounder if MKI will have all these features in say 2011-12 time really i wounder where MMRCA will fit in technically?

Diversity? I never liked this idea. Ever wounder why JSF came into being. US has F-14,F-15,F-16 and F-18. These all will be replaced by F-22 and JSF in future. JSF is a single platform for all three services to give some sort of uni-formation opposed to diversity. World is moving into that direction as well that's why so many countries joined JSF program.

 

[hj786]

To counter mki of iaf pakistan is looking at other options

According to what an Indian semi-professional analyst says, the JF-17 should be able to counter it.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5154280302945875495&postID=672660631593478223 Near the bottom, a reply to an anonymous commenter:

Prasun K Sengupta said...
To Anon@7:53PM:
...
Any fourth-geneation M-MRCA equipped with integrated EW defensive aids suite, helmet-mounted display and cueing system and BVRAAMs like the Meteor (which receive mid-course course-corrections via data-link from AEW & C platforms will ensure air dominance and tactical air superiority.
will win the air-war. Regarding the AIM-120D AMRAAMs, the answer is yes.
China is developing a new generation of ramjet-powered BVRAAMs like the PL-21, which bears a strong resemblance to the Meteor.
Friday, September 18, 2009 10:48:00 AM

JF-17 already has an integrated EW defensive aids suite and tactical data-link which can exchange data with other aircraft. Reference: The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
Its not much of a stretch to say a Chinese ramjet-powered missile would become available to Pakistan, and in any case, the MBDA Meteor is also "on the cards". Reference: http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf)


TRISHUL: F-16 Block 50/52 Explained
Scroll about half way down, in a reply to a commenter called "Nava":

Prasun K Sengupta said...
To Nava: In my humble view the need for manoeuvrable/super-manoeuvrable combat aircraft and its ability to carry 'appreciable warloads (of say 5 to 7 tonnes) has been diminished dramatically due to the greatly increased reliability and agility of within visual range AAMs (backed up by helmet-mounted displays), and the availability of PGMs reqd for carrying out effects-based air campaigns.

Again, the JF-17 will have (if not already) all the above capabilities and features. Helmet Mounted Display/Sights is mentioned at the manufacturer's website (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....) and the Usman Ansari article provided above (The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.), as are the modern highly agile short range air-to-air missiles such as the German IRIS-T and precision-guided munitions such as the H-4, a rocket-boosted glide bomb with range of 120 km and thermal imaging seeker.

 

[MZUBAIR]

According to Indian semi-professional analysts, they don't need other options to counter it.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5154280302945875495&postID=672660631593478223 Near the bottom, a reply to an anonymous commenter:

JF-17 already has an integrated EW defensive aids suite and tactical data-link which can exchange data with other aircraft. Reference: The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.
Its not much of a stretch to say a Chinese ramjet-powered missile would become available to Pakistan, and in any case, the MBDA Meteor is also "on the cards". Reference: http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf)


TRISHUL: F-16 Block 50/52 Explained
Scroll about half way down, in a reply to a commenter called "Nava":

Again, the JF-17 will have (if not already) all the above capabilities and features. Helmet Mounted Display/Sights is mentioned at the manufacturer's website (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....) and the Usman Ansari article provided above (The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price.), as are the modern highly agile short range air-to-air missiles such as the German IRIS-T and precision-guided munitions such as the H-4, a rocket-boosted glide bomb with range of 120 km and thermal imaging seeker.

We are only looking for a new radar.
If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.

 

[hj786]

We are only looking for a new radar.
If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.

It will always be a big deal because it can carry so many weapons while flying very far without in-flight refuelling.

 

[Storm Force]

Pak Shaheen

Su30mki is a great war plane and inducted nos will be some where between 230-280 by 2015-2017.

But its a heavy twin engined fighter. It is also geared to air superiority more so than long range strike. All Flanker where designed for air combat with agility and very lethal wvr combat capability.

The IAF needs mmrca for more strike options and stand off weapons capability. It is also very keen for new technology to help india.s aero industry obtain thru TOT new tech that can be fused into indian projects like LCAmk2/3/MCA/UCAV projects post 2020.

As good as mki is india is stil reliant on Russia too much they need diversification its far too dangerous to rely just on mki/migs/pakfa

 

[Storm Force]

Regarding HJ786

Comments re Thunder.

I agree whole heartdly with HJ on the rapid improvement of chinease Air to air weapons i have itimated as much in an earlier post i believe in 5 years time china,s bvr/wvr missles will be just has lethel as russia,s latest ramjet.wvr R37 and the euro/usa versions like amraam/meteore and python systems.

But a combat plane is more than just a good radar good missles and jammers.

Thunders weakness from wat i see is a dated structural design with a dated look. It has nil composites and no canards like the euro fighters and mki. It appears to be rugged looking machine rather than a sleek appearance like the
F16. But rugged can have its own strengths.

The big issue is the engine. No TVC no supercruise and limited range and speed being a single engine combat plane.

I know the response to this is going to be

We will add western engine with super cruise and we add composites but all of this will push the price to $30-$40 each plane and will take years to implement ..

 

[paritosh]

Yes man but u see info about MLU on MKI clearly says that it will have an AESA with a tracking range of 400 Km while new BVR will have a range of 200 km. Now i wounder if MKI will have all these features in say 2011-12 time really i wounder where MMRCA will fit in technically?

Diversity? I never liked this idea. Ever wounder why JSF came into being. US has F-14,F-15,F-16 and F-18. These all will be replaced by F-22 and JSF in future. JSF is a single platform for all three services to give some sort of uni-formation opposed to diversity. World is moving into that direction as well that's why so many countries joined JSF program.

there are so many reasons behind the need for the MRCA and the MRCA contract...
tell me which plane is better the f-16 or the f-18sh?why dint the USAF chose one of them to fly...?why does the navy operate the F-18SH chiefly?
is the J-10 better or the J-11?
Why don't the Chinese use the JF-17..their own creation?
why do countries operate different planes with different configurations?why do they operate single-engined and double engined planes?it is just because they have different configurations.
the MRCA contract is to replace the fleet of the migs we have...which have out lived their life span...
and besides the real implication of the contract is much deeper than just the acquisition of the 126 a/cs...

 

[desiman]

We are only looking for a new radar.
If we get AESA, nodoubt MKI wouldnt be a big deal.

Buddy you talk about AESA as its like some candy that you buy from a shop lol here watch these videos and then think before you compare the JF-17 with an MKI, man this thread is huge lol.

It is done by timesnow which is very respected in the media so its not from zaid hamid who im sure will be able to compare a the JF-17 to the f-22 also lol

 

[PakShaheen79]

Buddy you talk about AESA as its like some candy that you buy from a shop lol here watch these videos and then think before you compare the JF-17 with an MKI, man this thread is huge lol.

uyJzdFCnWbA[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 1

c1DmPm1gEIg[/media] - Su-30 MKI IAF In The Line Of Duty Part 2

YMSFNHOQFy0[/media] - SU-30 MKI In The Line Of Duty part 3

It is done by timesnow which is very respected in the media so its not from zaid hamid who im sure will be able to compare a the JF-17 to the f-22 also lol

Do have something new about MKI like this. Actually i have seen this show and it is some 2 years old, IIRC.

Respected in Media? what is gauge of that?... I think NY times and Washington Post are also very respected but not Accurate most of the time..Which is more important than to be respected. BTW, there is a lot of subjective commentary about MKI as it is something out of this world. Agreed that JF-17 thunder must NOT be compared with MKI as former was not designed to take on latter one but still it is a plane and has its limitations like any other fighter on Earth.

 

[PakShaheen79]

there are so many reasons behind the need for the MRCA and the MRCA contract...
tell me which plane is better the f-16 or the f-18sh?why dint the USAF chose one of them to fly...?why does the navy operate the F-18SH chiefly?
is the J-10 better or the J-11?
Why don't the Chinese use the JF-17..their own creation?
why do countries operate different planes with different configurations?why do they operate single-engined and double engined planes?it is just because they have different configurations.
the MRCA contract is to replace the fleet of the migs we have...which have out lived their life span...
and besides the real implication of the contract is much deeper than just the acquisition of the 126 a/cs...

Thanks for replying.

Well, that was exactly my point that USAF who always set trends in military aviation has learned that it is unified fighter design which can make job done with minimum of effort in design, manufacture, maintain, support, upgrade rather than having 2 or 3 different platform.

I am talking about FUTURE not PRESENT or PAST. So future lies with unified platform with multiple configuration (real fruit of true Mulitirole).. I believe MKI is complete multirole fighter which can easily configured with Air,Land and Sea op configurations. Now what MMRCA will server that MKI can't.

That's what i am asking because MKI is not a dedicated bomber nor it is a dedicated air dominance thing but it is a huge beast able to take on anyrole carrying all kind of weapons.

"real implication of the contract...." What are those?

 

[PakShaheen79]

Regarding HJ786

Comments re Thunder.

I agree whole heartdly with HJ on the rapid improvement of chinease Air to air weapons i have itimated as much in an earlier post i believe in 5 years time china,s bvr/wvr missles will be just has lethel as russia,s latest ramjet.wvr R37 and the euro/usa versions like amraam/meteore and python systems.

But a combat plane is more than just a good radar good missles and jammers.

Thunders weakness from wat i see is a dated structural design with a dated look. It has nil composites and no canards like the euro fighters and mki. It appears to be rugged looking machine rather than a sleek appearance like the
F16. But rugged can have its own strengths.

The big issue is the engine. No TVC no supercruise and limited range and speed being a single engine combat plane.

I know the response to this is going to be

We will add western engine with super cruise and we add composites but all of this will push the price to $30-$40 each plane and will take years to implement ..

Do you know how old Flanker design is? Comeon man it is war machine not something we will send to beauty peanut. Rest agreed what you said about engine and composites... these are areas which must be taken care of in next block.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Pak Shaheen

Su30mki is a great war plane and inducted nos will be some where between 230-280 by 2015-2017.

But its a heavy twin engined fighter. It is also geared to air superiority more so than long range strike. All Flanker where designed for air combat with agility and very lethal wvr combat capability.

The IAF needs mmrca for more strike options and stand off weapons capability. It is also very keen for new technology to help india.s aero industry obtain thru TOT new tech that can be fused into indian projects like LCAmk2/3/MCA/UCAV projects post 2020.

As good as mki is india is stil reliant on Russia too much they need diversification its far too dangerous to rely just on mki/migs/pakfa

OK! I agree on ToT thing (for sake of argument only)... now tell me how come it is dangerous to depended on Russian plateforms. This is exactly what Russian themselves are doing , USAF,USN and Marine are all dependent on USA etc.

Lastly, diversification in technology does make sense but in weapons it is difficult.

 

[Haanzo]

PAKSHAHEEN ..you got wrong info MKI WILL NOT HAVE AN AESA RADAR IN ITS FIRST MLU.....its operating frequencies will be beefed up with a new antenna or something .....AESA WILL NOT COME UNTIL 2017-2020.....the radar upgrade programme of the mki is in two stages
1 phase new antenna ,more operating frequencies ,original frequencies will be beefed up
2 phase ...aesa radar

and this upgrade path WAS PROPOSED BY THE RUSSIANS ...and IAF has not yet decided ...so we might get a new AESA RADAR --which defenitely is the more costly option or follow the 2 phase upgrade path which is the MORE SENSIBLE OPTION

and for your question why is the USAF not conmprised completely of f-15s ...using f-15s for all the operations will be an overkill its the same with the mki...paritosh has stolen words from my mouth ;-)

OK! I agree on ToT thing (for sake of argument only)... now tell me how come it is dangerous to depended on Russian plateforms. This is exactly what Russian themselves are doing , USAF,USN and Marine are all dependent on USA etc.come on man i didnt expect his from u ..its silly

Lastly, diversification in technology does make sense but in weapons it is difficult. i agree to this point but for security you have to go farther than you had ever gone in the present situation