Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[DESERT FIGHTER]

growler some @ssho.. morons cant see sstraight....leave em to bark.
I forgot to ask will our JF17 carry our indegenous H-4 BVR missile?

 

[notorious_eagle]

I agree, Growler dont bother replying. He's just a fanboy and that is exactly why i didnt bother replying, he's already been left red faced when he claimed that our Mirages were subsonic or an aircraft can outaccelerate a missile. Its best we dont indulge in arguments with fanboys, no matter what facts you present infront of them they are not willing to accept them because SU30MKI is an Aircraft created by God himself. Just my two cents .

 

[notorious_eagle]

growler some @ssho.. morons cant see sstraight....leave em to bark.
I forgot to ask will our JF17 carry our indegenous H-4 BVR missile?

H-4 is a glide bomb my friend, not a BVRAAM. For BVRAAM's our JF17's will carry either SD10 or Darters that we recieved from South Africa with TOT, Shamim Sahab has already disclosed its capabilities and range.

 

[All-Green]

PAF may choose to equip the darter which will enter service in 2011 with South Africa.

Yeah ok more fantasy I see

IAF may just buy 200 Typhoons with metore BVR missles

or 200 F18 SUPER HORNETS with Amraam C7s

IAF may even field 250 FGFA PAK FA.

" PLEASE DON,T GIVE MAYBE, WILL HAPPEN,, IS NEGOTIATING ,, IS EVALUATING,,,

Give some hard facts.

like

42 basic Thunders with chinease radar KLJ7 & SD10 missle on soft loans of 650m dollars by 2013.

18 F16/52 frm USA with grant aid money.

So does a JF-17 on soft loan or an F-16 on military funding from US under perform as opposed to ones bought on hard cash?
Once the birds are in the sky it does not matter how they were paid for...

With more than a 100 Su-30 MKIs in service, clearly it is a very mature platform and so a lot of data is available on it.
On the other hand JF-17 has just been inducted and roadmap is not finalized for next 5-10 years regarding the upgrades so we have to wait and see.

Certainly without AEW&C cover the MKI has an advantage of Radar Range over the current thunders in BVR engagement but the smaller RCS of JF-17 will offset this advantage a little (only a little though).
With induction of AEW&C platforms, this advantage will be mitigated.
I will not talk about close in dog fight since Su-30 is a highly agile and maneuverable aircraft but JF-17's actual Thrust and agility parameters are not yet fully declared.
However as per feedback Thunder has so far impressed many in an air force with highest standards and which operate the most agile version of F-16; i think JF-17 may be a real surprise package in a dog fight.

The advantages of JF-17 in being an easy to maintain and operate modern multirole platform will be a tremendous boost for PAF no matter what is on the other side of the border.
This profile cannot be compared to SU-30 which is not an easy to maintain small multirole fighter and is not capable of operating from highways and small low profile airfields.
Keeping in mind that Thunder will be the backbone of PAF, it is a tremendous leap forward in terms of capability. With an array of modern weapons and other upgrades planned, it will only be more and more dangerous.

In a battlefield scenario i frankly do not see one on one duels without radar cover and many other factors which take the simplicity away from the analysis, so i think the overall profile of JF-17 suits PAF really well when faced with an opponent like IAF.
It will be a major headache for IAF, just as Su-30 will be one for PAF.
However those who think that during a war, Su-30 will walk all over JF-17 are assuming too much too early and without seeing JF-17 in action.

Also with this past decade of extreme disparity in mind, this project will only reduce the disparity so its net impact will be extremely positive as far as PAF is concerned.
The underdog always has a surprise up its sleeve, i guess it is good to be the underdog.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

H-4 is a glide bomb my friend, not a BVRAAM. For BVRAAM's our JF17's will carry either SD10 or Darters that we recieved from South Africa with TOT, Shamim Sahab has already disclosed its capabilities and range.

H-4 is also called BVR missile on many web sites by indian officials and even pakisani officials.Though i know tht its a GB but it can also be fired as a BVR?

 

[Laughing Buddha]

Hi Sirji

Murari Lal ki Rangeen sapne dekhna band karo

If Indian Airforce has to attack there would be in force multiplier and combination of many aircraft back by SAM S-300, Advance Pine radar (Ground Base) and AESA Ballon Radar,UAV ,Satellite Guidance, and much more

Imagine small Comparison One mission

3 SU-30MKI
3 Mirage
5 MIG-21 Bison
3 MIG 29B
2 MIG 27
2 Tu-22M3 bomber
1 Battery of S-300 SAM (Range more than 180KM) and Support Radar or Spider SAM
1 AESA Ballon based Radar (Range more than 180 KM)
3 UAV's
Backed by ground based Advance Pine Radar (Range more than 300KM) and Satellite communication (forget about AWACS)

How would you Counter it...
As per cold start and latest strategy India need to Bomb Max 300KM inside PAK

How many F16, J10, JF17,F7 and Mirage andSAM and Other Radars will be brought in to counter India's attacks

 

[Tempest II]

H-4 is also called BVR missile on many web sites by indian officials and even pakisani officials.Though i know tht its a GB but it can also be fired as a BVR?

Is it not that BVR = beyond visual range > 35km. I would there say BVR does not necessarily mean an A2A missile, but any munnition meeting a given (say 35km) launch range.

 

[sancho]

It will be a major headache for IAF, just as Su-30 will be one for PAF.
However those who think that during a war, Su-30 will walk all over JF-17 are assuming too much too early and without seeing JF-17 in action.

I disagree here, because although JF 17 will be a major boost of PAFs capabilities (1 squad JF and a few F16s with BVR capabilities now vs. over 250 IAF fighters with the same capability), it will still be PAFs least capable fighter in this decade!
All new and upgraded F16 and J10B if it arrives will be more capable, so this fact alone makes this comparison, against the most capable IAF fighter questionable.
The major headache of IAF will not be JF, but these more capable fighters and more over the arrival of AWACS in PAF.
Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR, but even an old Mig 21 Bison could down the F16 B52 in the same way, but I guess we agree that this doesn't make the Bison in anyway comparable to the F16 B52 right? Exactly like the JF is not comparable to MKI!

If you just compare the specs of MKI and JF in a 1 on 1, without any other support, or future capability, you can't do other than admit that he MKI is superior. As mentioned so often before in this thread, it has clearly more radar range and has long range missiles, so see first, shoot first in BVR. Also has more speed, better t/w ratio and additional improvements to increase maneuverability (canards and TVC) that even impresses EF pilots, although it won't be equal to EF maneuverability of course.
Even pakistani members should agree that these key facts simply can't be denied in a comparison, by saying MKI using alien tech...!
It has his disadvantages too and will have problems against more capable fighters, but JF is simply no in its league.

JF 17 instead will mainly compete upg Mig 29 SMT, upg Mirage 2000-5 and LCAs of IAF lower end in this decade and the fact that IAF placed all Mig 29 now to the western border, but inducting new MKIs mainly on the eastern borders increases the chances of combats against them. But the odds of JF against these fighters will be better, than against MKI.

 

[Tempest II]

Sorry to ask which one in current 5th Generation Missile in any Air Force, whats its name & range???? how many paf have it with them????

i thing 50G is too much of

I realy don't know about this, can you explain it plz

Here are the formulae for rotational motion:

If your fighter is going at a velocity of v (assuming about Mach 0.5)and can turn at say 5Gs, with missile doing Mach 4 and 40Gs.

The turning radius for the fighter is = (v^2)/(5G).

Note that the missile speed = 8v, therefore V^2 = 64v^2.
Turning radius for missile = (64v^2)/(40G) = (6.4v^2)/(5G)

Note that the missile will have a turn radius that is 6.4 times greater than the fighter. Even if you used 50Gs for the missile, the turn radius is still 5 times that of the fighter. With well executed moves, the fighter can out-turn the missile. The missile will bleed energy since the motor is likely to have burned out.

By going for lower speeds the fighter could do even tighter turns. It however become vulnerable to follow-up shots especially if the missiles are fired in salvos.

This is my thinking and welcome different views/logic!

 

[qsaark]

Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR…

Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?

 

[S.U.R.B.]

explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?

Lets keep the patriotism aside : i really think the current version of JF-17 doesn't stand a chance against MKI,The only chances of survival will be a PAF pilot in the cockpit:Once a missile is shot by MKI it's the brilliance & timely decisions required to tackle it.R77 is a highly maneuverable missile but you know maneuverability bleeds energy.The target of the defender is to make the missile bleed as much energy as possible.Maneuver to keep the missile directly on your 3/9 line, pull just enough g load to keep it there. The missile has a limited field of view, much like the beam of light emitted from a flashlight. The aim is to fly toward the edge of the beam, known as the gimbal limit moving as fast as possible across the missile’s field of view.In the best case, you might move out of its field of view; in the worst case, you make the missile bleed as much energy as possible. Keeping the missile directly on the 3/9 line also points your hot engine exhaust away from an IR missile’s seeker.And of course countermeasures (chaffs and flares) do help.

 

[qsaark]

Keeping the missile directly on the 3/9 line also points your hot engine exhaust away from an IR missile’s seeker.And of course countermeasures (chaffs and flares) do help.

There is a slight problem, the R-77 is an active radar-guided missile not IR homing.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Well my last statement was general statement if IR missile is on approach.

 

[qsaark]

Well my last statement was general statement if IR missile is on approach.

You said "The missile has a limited field of view, much like the beam of light emitted from a flashlight.", this is not how the active radar seekers work.

 

[sancho]

Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?

Correct, but at least it will increase JF chances in BVR to some extend. Too less is known about the Chinese EWS, but I also would prefer a French one on JF if possible.