Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[gambit]

I agree that with superior tactics any air force can beat the best. I guess you would be knowing that from the Veitnam war where a inferior air force totally " ran over " USA's air force, i dont need to give you the facts for that. I guess if you want to compare Russian and usa fighters you can go over the Vietnam war and see what happened there. What Russian mig-21's did to the usa air force is world known fact and i guess i dont need to stress more on the fact that you cannot just write off the Russian planes in front of usa tech.

If you had actually READ up on the Vietnam War instead of trying to pass the impression that you know anything about it, you would have known that the majority of USAF losses in Vietnam were because of ground anti-aircraft efforts, not from air-air combat. Even wiki has it...

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were a great many aircraft losses during the Vietnam War. Hundreds of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft were lost to ground fire of antiaircraft artillery (AAA), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and fighter interceptors (MiG)s. The great majority of U.S. combat losses in all areas of Southeast Asia were to AAA. The Royal Australian Air Force also flew combat and airlift missions in South Vietnam, as did the Republic of Vietnam. Among fixed-wing aircraft, more F-4 Phantoms were lost than any other type in service with any nation.

What the North Vietnamese did with what little air force they had was pure hit-and-run tactic due to the USAF's overwhelming numerical superiority, and even when the NVA had the formidable Mig-21 the targets were the less maneuverable fighter-bomber F-105, which was the workhorse of the USAF in Vietnam. It was widely believed that without Chinese or even Soviet pilots the North Vietnamese would have nearly nothing to boast about regarding air combat.

Here are a couple of items for your further education...

Robin Olds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of the 16 MiG-21s known to be in the VPAF inventory, 11 to 14 had been engaged (depending on the source), with 7 destroyed and two others probably shot down (by Combies and Maj. Herman L. Knapp, Rambler 03).

For the North Vietnamese (and their Soviet allies who supplied the MiG-21 aircraft and helped set up the integrated air defense network), the two reverses forced them to husband their assets by grounding the MiGs for several months for retraining and devising of new tactics.

The Vietnam War at large and Operation Bolo in particular are instructive that despite the factor of numerical superiority, the nature of aerial combat consistently encourages one-on-one engagement and this is where superior airmanship and creative tactics are proven to be apolitical, meaning the side that has an abundance of superior airmanship and creative tactics will win, not necessarily through superior numbers. The Mig-21 has superior maneuverability over the F-4 but the American pilots possessed superior airmanship with their training, which forced the Mig-21 pilots to either engage the heavier F-4 but with superior speed advantage, or to break off the fight and run. Operation Bolo was a harsh lesson for the North Vietnamese, Chinese and Soviets. I suggest you cast aside personal biases and start being more objective before making these comments that contradict history.

Again i am not saying that USA tech is not gud but the f-22 and jsf are still very much unproven and by my opinion highly over-rated, They have yet to face a "real enemy" and only then we can see what they are capable off.

The difference between a bullet and a radar pulse is that no one die with a radar pulse. In Electronic Warfare, we consider a radar pulse to be as 'lethal' to the body as a bullet, with the benefit that no human die in our battles. In that, we EWarriors take our crafts no less serious than other branches of the military. Because no one dies in our battles, EW is constantly fought in any part of the world by any military, usually without the public's knowledge. The outcomes are always 'classified' super-duper ultra secret. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts, as the old saying goes. Opinions should be based upon facts, not as replacements for facts. The fact is that the B-2 and F-22 have faced more 'real' enemies than you think, even before their first flights...

The above is called a 'radar range'. The facility itself is often mistaken for a small airport from the air. Full size models are mounted in various angles and they are bombarded with radar pulses from many positions. Baseline RCS figures are established, predictions are made as to how the models should fare in flight and finally correlate against actual 'real world' data. The B-2 and F-22 flies with radar transponders to mask their true RCS and to assist air traffic controllers regarding their locations in the sky. This was done worldwide with all types of equipments, civilian and military. It cannot get any more 'real' than this. The only thing left are real missiles and bullets and we leave them to others to worry about. American 'stealth' aircrafts have elevated EW to a new level and for now we are winning. Your fellow Indians should be glad that India's generals are not as shortsighted as you have shown here so far.

I think we are loosing sight of this thread, this is about jf-17 vs the MKI. And on that aspect when you said that superior tactics can win then you are using variable to compare aircrafts. We should only compare the MKI with the jf-17 one on one not using awacs or military planning or w.e. because it makes no sense. I have been saying this again and again dont using scenarios and variables to compare them. Im sure that you have enough knowledge of jets to say clearly that when comparing the jf-17 to the MKI "one on one " without any variables, the MKI wins hands on, just like how if we compare a j-7 to a f22, there is no comparison there also. I hope you agree with me but again i really enjoyed your post.

Going back to Operation Bolo above...In combat, not just in the air, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by you obeying his. Advantages are rules and the Su-30 does not possess all the rules. Even so...The extremes of air combat does not allow the pilot much time seize the moment when his opponent fell into disadvantage. If you actually read any honest pilot accounts from past wars, you will find no shortage of instances where advantages were gained and equally rapidly lost. So it is intellectually dishonest to demand a blanket dismissal of variables that could force a flight of Indian Su-30s into fighting under Pakistani JF-17s' rules. The Americans in Operation Bolo did not have airborne radars or much of the modern day assistance. They had only their training and cunning. This is not an auto race where everyone get together for a party after the contest. This is a fight to the death, cheating is allowed and the loser die a spectacular death.

 

[Storm Force]

No matter how we dress this up No Russian built fighter has ever stirred up so much debate/ argument/ analysis has the Flankers.

Be it The Austrialian studies of the chinease Flanker threat ,
Pakistanis threat perception with the su30 mki pogramme or the Americans and british in their insistence to engage the su30mki in redflag and cope india excercises.

Whislt the su30 mki is not the best in the world it is nevertheless a high end mid 4th generation fighter. The reasons are

Only plane in the world to depoly TVC engine accept F22 Raptor
First Russian plane to intergrate avdanced French/ Israeli jammers electronic suites.
First russian plane to carry a PESA bars radar
First russian built fighter with a IRST system.

The reason this thread is 66 pages long is a testimoney to this fighter and long may we continue to debate how PAF will tackle this adversary in a war

The su30mki GAVE birth to new soon to be induced super flanker the SU35B

 

[desiman]

If you had actually READ up on the Vietnam War instead of trying to pass the impression that you know anything about it, you would have known that the majority of USAF losses in Vietnam were because of ground anti-aircraft efforts, not from air-air combat. Even wiki has it...

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the North Vietnamese did with what little air force they had was pure hit-and-run tactic due to the USAF's overwhelming numerical superiority, and even when the NVA had the formidable Mig-21 the targets were the less maneuverable fighter-bomber F-105, which was the workhorse of the USAF in Vietnam. It was widely believed that without Chinese or even Soviet pilots the North Vietnamese would have nearly nothing to boast about regarding air combat.

Here are a couple of items for your further education...

Robin Olds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Vietnam War at large and Operation Bolo in particular are instructive that despite the factor of numerical superiority, the nature of aerial combat consistently encourages one-on-one engagement and this is where superior airmanship and creative tactics are proven to be apolitical, meaning the side that has an abundance of superior airmanship and creative tactics will win, not necessarily through superior numbers. The Mig-21 has superior maneuverability over the F-4 but the American pilots possessed superior airmanship with their training, which forced the Mig-21 pilots to either engage the heavier F-4 but with superior speed advantage, or to break off the fight and run. Operation Bolo was a harsh lesson for the North Vietnamese, Chinese and Soviets. I suggest you cast aside personal biases and start being more objective before making these comments that contradict history.

The difference between a bullet and a radar pulse is that no one die with a radar pulse. In Electronic Warfare, we consider a radar pulse to be as 'lethal' to the body as a bullet, with the benefit that no human die in our battles. In that, we EWarriors take our crafts no less serious than other branches of the military. Because no one dies in our battles, EW is constantly fought in any part of the world by any military, usually without the public's knowledge. The outcomes are always 'classified' super-duper ultra secret. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts, as the old saying goes. Opinions should be based upon facts, not as replacements for facts. The fact is that the B-2 and F-22 have faced more 'real' enemies than you think, even before their first flights...

The above is called a 'radar range'. The facility itself is often mistaken for a small airport from the air. Full size models are mounted in various angles and they are bombarded with radar pulses from many positions. Baseline RCS figures are established, predictions are made as to how the models should fare in flight and finally correlate against actual 'real world' data. The B-2 and F-22 flies with radar transponders to mask their true RCS and to assist air traffic controllers regarding their locations in the sky. This was done worldwide with all types of equipments, civilian and military. It cannot get any more 'real' than this. The only thing left are real missiles and bullets and we leave them to others to worry about. American 'stealth' aircrafts have elevated EW to a new level and for now we are winning. Your fellow Indians should be glad that India's generals are not as shortsighted as you have shown here so far.

Going back to Operation Bolo above...In combat, not just in the air, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by you obeying his. Advantages are rules and the Su-30 does not possess all the rules. Even so...The extremes of air combat does not allow the pilot much time seize the moment when his opponent fell into disadvantage. If you actually read any honest pilot accounts from past wars, you will find no shortage of instances where advantages were gained and equally rapidly lost. So it is intellectually dishonest to demand a blanket dismissal of variables that could force a flight of Indian Su-30s into fighting under Pakistani JF-17s' rules. The Americans in Operation Bolo did not have airborne radars or much of the modern day assistance. They had only their training and cunning. This is not an auto race where everyone get together for a party after the contest. This is a fight to the death, cheating is allowed and the loser die a spectacular death.

I really dont know what you are trying to prove gambit with all your technical post, i can give you much more technical details if you want but that does not make any any sense as it is not a thread for that. Im not sure but it looks like your trying to prove that only Americans have done the right research in aviation and only Americans are right. I dont want to make this an anti-american post but history is history and the Vietnam war is the only war that the american's lost and i dont think even you can deny that. All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft, 1,737 because of hostile action and 514 for operational reasons. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II. North Vietnam lost MiG-17Fresco 100 (110 claimed), MiG-19 Farmer 10 claimed (more destroyed on ground) , MiG-21 Fishbed 86 (90 claimed). Again i can also give you technical details in regards to who was better and why they lost etc etc but that does not make any sense as this is not a thread for that. Please stick to the topic, and the topic here is jf17vs MKI. Please give inputs on that and not stress on the "superiority" of American aviation. And on that, dont worry gambit, apart from the technical details, the rest of the world is not far behind, many upcoming jets will not only be supirior in every way to the latest amercian jets but will also cost many times less. I dont want to stress more on this so please stick to the topic and argue about that.

 

[hack]

stop digging yourself further into a hole desidog.....gambit has probably forgotten a lot more than you will ever learn.

 

[desiman]

stop digging yourself further into a hole desidog.....gambit has probably forgotten a lot more than you will ever learn.

LOL its not me who is digging a hole but its gambit that is coming up with topics that dont make any any in this thread so im just replying to those. Lol im sure that gambit knows a lot and i can see that, but be careful before you make any assumptions about someone else because you may be very wrong lol

 

[r0ck]

It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it? Would it be doomed as per the assumptions of, a few, of our fellow members?

Let me elaborate, and this is not off-topic. Consider the Su-30Mki as a car with a very powerful engine, big in size and, therefore, harder to maneuver. The JF-17 is a relatively smaller car, with a smaller engine and, henceforth, easier to maneuver. Question arises, which track would the race take place on? Naturally, the bigger car would go for a straight track with less corners to maneuver. Whilst the smaller car would go for a congested track with many corners to maneuver. Now the bigger car can take its chances on the congested track because of its big engine and can still outrun the smaller car. Whilst the smaller car has got slim chances on the straight-ish track but can cut a few corners, slide into shortcuts and can, possibly, come out victorious on the congested track!

Now please don't be naive enough to consider this as a benchmark. This is just an example of how an inferior vehicle has got 'SOME' chance of outrunning the superior vehicle. Further to the discussion of 'playing by the rules'. Saying it is not possible 'AT ALL' for JF-17 to go up against the SU-30Mki is ill-advised. No doubt, there would be chances and situations favoring the Su-30Mki but, would'nt there be any for the JF-17?

 

[hack]

Any modern aircraft can potentially take down another modern aircraft ...even the F22 can be taken down under the right circumstances. I think that is what gambit was trying to explain here.These X versus Y threads are pretty useless.

 

[hj786]

You Su-30 fanboys can sit there posting constantly about the Su-30's Israeli radar jammers being far superior to the JF-17's systems WITHOUT PROOF. The TVC engines making it impossible to shoot down, WITHOUT PROOF. The Russian R-77 missile being superior to the Chinese SD-10 missile WITHOUT PROOF. The list of ridiculous arguments and their very simple counter-arguments goes on. Doesn't make a tiny bit of difference to reality, the PAF has enough confidence in the design and its armament to double the ordered number... BEFORE the thing even officially enters service, and they know a few things about the aeroplane that you guys don't.

It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it?

At the end of the day, the only real test of the counter-measures you mentioned is combat. Yet even here, certain posters deny that the comparison should include AWACS aircraft and other force multipliers which, in reality, would indeed be present. Its obvious why; the Su-30 would no longer look so "unbeatable" on paper.

This guy "desidog" compares the Su-30 to the F-22, despite the fact that the former has been beaten in combat many many times by legacy fighters (which were much less capable than the JF-17 in some respects), while the latter has yet to be beaten properly by any other combat aircraft in existence today. He actually thinks the Su-30 is invincible despite an ex-USAF engineer telling him he's talking crap (bear in mind, the same engineer firmly believes the JF-17 is Chinese junk compared to Western aircraft anyway). Expecting many of the Su-30 fanboys here to "be honest" is a lost cause.

 

[zagahaga]

go to youtube and type future dog fights then u will know the SU family complete jarbage u indians think ur su-30 is soooo good? LOOOOL u cant detect a stealth fighter !!! on ur russian radars

 

[gambit]

It is unwise to think that the JF-17 has got 'NO' chance 'WHATSOEVER' against the Su-30MKi. Let's be honest, nobody's questioning the feature-pack of the Su-30Mki, it is a very capable fighter. But wouldn't the JF-17 have any counter-measures against it? Would it be doomed as per the assumptions of, a few, of our fellow members?

Let me elaborate, and this is not off-topic. Consider the Su-30Mki as a car with a very powerful engine, big in size and, therefore, harder to maneuver. The JF-17 is a relatively smaller car, with a smaller engine and, henceforth, easier to maneuver. Question arises, which track would the race take place on? Naturally, the bigger car would go for a straight track with less corners to maneuver. Whilst the smaller car would go for a congested track with many corners to maneuver. Now the bigger car can take its chances on the congested track because of its big engine and can still outrun the smaller car. Whilst the smaller car has got slim chances on the straight-ish track but can cut a few corners, slide into shortcuts and can, possibly, come out victorious on the congested track!

Now please don't be naive enough to consider this as a benchmark. This is just an example of how an inferior vehicle has got 'SOME' chance of outrunning the superior vehicle. Further to the discussion of 'playing by the rules'. Saying it is not possible 'AT ALL' for JF-17 to go up against the SU-30Mki is ill-advised. No doubt, there would be chances and situations favoring the Su-30Mki but, would'nt there be any for the JF-17?

That is an analogy often used in classes in that the analogy impose an environmental factor -- the medium -- on everyone. This medium is land and it is two-dimensional. This is largely a mental exercise and this medium restrict everyone's freedom of movement and demand the designer to chose what kind of vehicle he is going to create and for what purpose. Tires meeting ground has a set of restrictions. So do aerodynamic forces on surfaces. Granted, in the sky, there are three dimensions for the design team to consider but there are still environmental factors, such as friction heat, metallurgy, air flows, etc...etc...That will still force the design to either compromise to create a jack-of-all-trades like the F-16 or a dedicated speed demon like the SR-71.

The point here is that currently there are no design that can fly at speed like the SR-71, maneuver like the F-16, and is as electronically silent like the F-22. Only wealthy countries like the US or the once USSR can afford such specialized platforms and even we admit our limits. The trend today is versatility, aka being a jack-off-all-trades -- BUT -- with increasing potency for each trade. In other words, if the previous jack-off-all-trades design could carry 4 missiles and 12 bombs, then the new jack-off-all-trades design should carry 6 missiles and 18 bombs. That is the trend but not everyone will make the same degrees of compromises. Some designers, for whatever reasons such as technical feasibility or political, will create a jack-off-all-trades that leans slightly towards more missiles than bombs, or vice versa, for example. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to create an SR-71 equivalent, for example, so both could do what we did, create a dedicated variant from an existing platform -- the RF-4 -- a heavily biased variant off a proven platform.

For a large body like the F-15 or the Su-series it is possible to raise the bar for all trades to the same degree. For smaller bodies like the F-16, then more investigative work is necessary to determine how to modify the airframe to raise these bars and to lean to which direction, air defense or being a bomber, for example. Want longer range, then develope a better engine. Cannot develop a better engine? Then add more fuel at the expense of ordnance. But with improved guidance technology, then each bomb (or missile) can be made smaller but still retain its lethality so now it is possible to go back to the original amount of bombs or even increase that amount. A couple of performance criterias were raised. This philosophy applies to new designs as well and perhaps it is even more important that the designers should pay extra attention to demands from the military establishment, technical feasibility, human resources, and potential threats.

The last item -- potential threats -- often influence the design as to which direction the new aircraft will lean if it is not possible to create a dedicated response. For example...The US Navy had a dedicated response to the potential threat to its aircraft carriers, the F-14. India has a potential threat to Pakistan -- the Su series. If the JF-17 is all that Pakistan can afford, what can Pakistan do in terms of modifying the aircraft to developing new air combat tactics, to create a response to this threat? Remember that the JF-17 was originally designed to be a relatively 'low tech' and low cost jack-off-all-trades platform. Since then, thanks to progress in technology, the JF-17 had raised the bars in all trades. How close are the new performance levels of the new JF-17 to those of the Su-series? If they are not at least within %10 to the Su, then what can Pakistan do to modify certain items on the JF-17, in other words to lean the aircraft, to create a credibly potent response to the threat?

This is why it is deceptive to just make a comparison between the two aircrafts based upon items like hardpoints or which has a 'glass' cockpit. The comparison is valid only if no modifications are possible, but if the JF-17 can be modified to carry more missiles and have an avionics package comparable to the Su-30, then such a variant is a credible and potent response to the threat and even more potent a defense if the Pakistani Air Force has superior airmanship, this subject I will leave to the Pakistanis here. The point of being a jack-off-all-trades platform is to allow the customer flexibility as he consider HIS needs, not yours, and to create variants to meet each need. That is why the F-16 is such a success, despite being a 30yr old platform. The F-4 has two engines and a higher top speed than the F-16, but any pilot who has flown both, and there are plenty of them, will most likely prefer the F-16. Why? Pakistani JF-17s can be a credible and potent response to India's Su-30 -- IF -- Pakistan is willing to be generous in allocating resources to the program. Who is the more immediate threat to Pakistan, US or South Africa or Timbuktu or Marvin the Martian or -- India?

 

[desiman]

You Su-30 fanboys can sit there posting constantly about the Su-30's Israeli radar jammers being far superior to the JF-17's systems WITHOUT PROOF. The TVC engines making it impossible to shoot down, WITHOUT PROOF. The Russian R-77 missile being superior to the Chinese SD-10 missile WITHOUT PROOF. The list of ridiculous arguments and their very simple counter-arguments goes on. Doesn't make a tiny bit of difference to reality, the PAF has enough confidence in the design and its armament to double the ordered number... BEFORE the thing even officially enters service, and they know a few things about the aeroplane that you guys don't.


At the end of the day, the only real test of the counter-measures you mentioned is combat. Yet even here, certain posters deny that the comparison should include AWACS aircraft and other force multipliers which, in reality, would indeed be present. Its obvious why; the Su-30 would no longer look so "unbeatable" on paper.

This guy "desidog" compares the Su-30 to the F-22, despite the fact that the former has been beaten in combat many many times by legacy fighters (which were much less capable than the JF-17 in some respects), while the latter has yet to be beaten properly by any other combat aircraft in existence today. He actually thinks the Su-30 is invincible despite an ex-USAF engineer telling him he's talking crap (bear in mind, the same engineer firmly believes the JF-17 is Chinese junk compared to Western aircraft anyway). Expecting many of the Su-30 fanboys here to "be honest" is a lost cause.

LOL if your calling me a fanboy then i can say that ur antifanboy for the MKI. I never said that the MKI is comparable to a f-22, you can look at my previous post. when did someone best the su-30 im combat ? dont even quote red flag because that has become every jf-17 fanboys talking point. i dont want to elaborate on red flag again, but all i am saying is that gambit is right that we cannot compare 2 aircraft like this because there are soo many variables involved. I dont want to reveal my profession but if gambits is an ex-usaf engineer i have worked a feild very similar to his, thats why i know what he is saying makes sense. you cannot compare 2 aircraft but rather 2 air forces and see how they will assist their aircrafts and the war plan they follow. If you realy want to compare them then use technical details and the specs of each aircraft and going by that i can say that the MKI far superior to the jf-17. It does not mean that the MKI is "invincible" or cannot be shot down by a jf-17 but for that to happen the jf-17 would have to have many circumstances in its favor. If i was a fanboy i would totally ridicule this thread for even comparing these two aircraft but i am trying to give you guys as much details as possible to make sense of things, please read my previous post for more details. If someone still wants to continue, ill truly enjoy that lol have enough time at work to counter any argument lol

 

[desiman]

That is an analogy often used in classes in that the analogy impose an environmental factor -- the medium -- on everyone. This medium is land and it is two-dimensional. This is largely a mental exercise and this medium restrict everyone's freedom of movement and demand the designer to chose what kind of vehicle he is going to create and for what purpose. Tires meeting ground has a set of restrictions. So do aerodynamic forces on surfaces. Granted, in the sky, there are three dimensions for the design team to consider but there are still environmental factors, such as friction heat, metallurgy, air flows, etc...etc...That will still force the design to either compromise to create a jack-of-all-trades like the F-16 or a dedicated speed demon like the SR-71.

The point here is that currently there are no design that can fly at speed like the SR-71, maneuver like the F-16, and is as electronically silent like the F-22. Only wealthy countries like the US or the once USSR can afford such specialized platforms and even we admit our limits. The trend today is versatility, aka being a jack-off-all-trades -- BUT -- with increasing potency for each trade. In other words, if the previous jack-off-all-trades design could carry 4 missiles and 12 bombs, then the new jack-off-all-trades design should carry 6 missiles and 18 bombs. That is the trend but not everyone will make the same degrees of compromises. Some designers, for whatever reasons such as technical feasibility or political, will create a jack-off-all-trades that leans slightly towards more missiles than bombs, or vice versa, for example. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to create an SR-71 equivalent, for example, so both could do what we did, create a dedicated variant from an existing platform -- the RF-4 -- a heavily biased variant off a proven platform.

For a large body like the F-15 or the Su-series it is possible to raise the bar for all trades to the same degree. For smaller bodies like the F-16, then more investigative work is necessary to determine how to modify the airframe to raise these bars and to lean to which direction, air defense or being a bomber, for example. Want longer range, then develope a better engine. Cannot develop a better engine? Then add more fuel at the expense of ordnance. But with improved guidance technology, then each bomb (or missile) can be made smaller but still retain its lethality so now it is possible to go back to the original amount of bombs or even increase that amount. A couple of performance criterias were raised. This philosophy applies to new designs as well and perhaps it is even more important that the designers should pay extra attention to demands from the military establishment, technical feasibility, human resources, and potential threats.

The last item -- potential threats -- often influence the design as to which direction the new aircraft will lean if it is not possible to create a dedicated response. For example...The US Navy had a dedicated response to the potential threat to its aircraft carriers, the F-14. India has a potential threat to Pakistan -- the Su series. If the JF-17 is all that Pakistan can afford, what can Pakistan do in terms of modifying the aircraft to developing new air combat tactics, to create a response to this threat? Remember that the JF-17 was originally designed to be a relatively 'low tech' and low cost jack-off-all-trades platform. Since then, thanks to progress in technology, the JF-17 had raised the bars in all trades. How close are the new performance levels of the new JF-17 to those of the Su-series? If they are not at least within %10 to the Su, then what can Pakistan do to modify certain items on the JF-17, in other words to lean the aircraft, to create a credibly potent response to the threat?

This is why it is deceptive to just make a comparison between the two aircrafts based upon items like hardpoints or which has a 'glass' cockpit. The comparison is valid only if no modifications are possible, but if the JF-17 can be modified to carry more missiles and have an avionics package comparable to the Su-30, then such a variant is a credible and potent response to the threat and even more potent a defense if the Pakistani Air Force has superior airmanship, this subject I will leave to the Pakistanis here. The point of being a jack-off-all-trades platform is to allow the customer flexibility as he consider HIS needs, not yours, and to create variants to meet each need. That is why the F-16 is such a success, despite being a 30yr old platform. The F-4 has two engines and a higher top speed than the F-16, but any pilot who has flown both, and there are plenty of them, will most likely prefer the F-16. Why? Pakistani JF-17s can be a credible and potent response to India's Su-30 -- IF -- Pakistan is willing to be generous in allocating resources to the program. Who is the more immediate threat to Pakistan, US or South Africa or Timbuktu or Marvin the Martian or -- India?

Good post gambit, i disagree on some parts but overall a gud post

 

[nightrider_saulat]

i think with FC-1 block II things would be quite different

 

[Sapper]

i think with FC-1 block II things would be quite different

Only two things need improvement allowing FC-1 to be a potent threat to MKI in Indo-Pak scenario.

1. AESA Low Probability of Intercept Radar with good enough range (150km for 5m2).
2. Advanced AMRAAM with range comparable to R77-M1 / AIM120D with AESA sensor (for avoiding warhead jamming)

(i am purposely ignoring better engine and more hardpoint upgrades since Su30 is so far ahead in these that we cannot compete at all)

And thats it. IFF we manage to get these items, FC-1 will lock Su30 target before it is even detected (thanks to low RCS of FC-1 and huge RCS of Su30). It will also be able to fire from same range as Su30, and will be at advantage since its lock will be earlier than Su30's.

It will still lag in ECM tactics, since Su30 will use bigger more sophisticated jammer.
It will still be vulnerable in WVR because of excellent maneuvering of Su30.
It will also be running short on missiles very early in the fight.


Under current conditions, there are only a few scenarios (probably 5 out of 100) during which FC-1 can give tough time to Su30, and surely Su30 pilots will do their best to avoid those scenarios. On the other hand PAF pilots will have to produce miracles to drive Su30s into disadvantageous position.

If we get the above mentioned upgrades, the tough fight scenarios will increase drastically from 5/100 to almost 50/100, giving PAF pilots an even battle to jump into.

Do remember that the above two upgrades are ONLY money and sanction dependent since China doesn't have these techs. It is also possible that China can produce a miracle out of its hat and produce these upgrades at a cheap and affordable price ... in which case PAF management will start jumping like crazy

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Haanzo]

It will still lag in ECM tactics, since Su30 will use bigger more sophisticated jammer.
It will still be vulnerable in WVR because of excellent maneuvering of Su30.
It will also be running short on missiles very early in the fight.

you forgot to add one more point ...it will also run short on fuel ...so less time to play cat and mouse games