Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[desiman]

Keep proving how little you know about that aeroplane.

Mikoyan joins Chengdu on fighter-21/06/1995-Flight International

Mikoyan is providing design support and has seconded a team of engineers to CAC. The aircraft resembles an earlier Mikoyan design given the internal designation MiG-33. The design, developed in the early 1980s, was intended as a light dogfight aircraft.

Your answering your own question, mikoyan will only provide design support not a new design. And it only resembles an ealier design not 100% like one, i will get you the link where it talks about the resemblance of the jf-17 to the tigershark and some other similar designs so that i can prove my point also

 

[SEAL]

True. What a absolute 3rd grade aircraft this stupid Sukhoi-30 MKI is.

The fact that it has consistently performed alongside the best air-forces in the world means absolutely bull****. It's based on the SU-27 series which has sold more than 700 aircraft and the SU-30 itself has sold around 400 aircraft. Which mentally challenged person runs these Air-forces. The Chinese PLAAF are also morons to use this aircraft. The J-11b, which is on the wishlist of the PAF is also a copy of this aircraft. So they also have no brains.

When an MKI meets the enemy in battle, it should immediately disengage and the pilot should eject because the plane requires 32 hours of maintenance, which clearly the IAF can't manage therefore he should save his life before his powerful radar, suberb engines, western avionics and 20,000 kgs of weapons all explode in one big fireball.

Seriously, someone is living is his own decadent world. Mods please don't delete this post. A stupid statement deserves a stupid reply like this.

Don't tell us what Chinese have lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki, its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot, it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2 etc etc.

 

[hj786]

Don't tell us what Chinese have lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki, its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot, it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2 etc etc.

I remember reading that its FBW didn't fail, the pilot accidentally switched it off because of a badly re-designed cockpit.

 

[hj786]

And it only resembles an ealier design not 100% like one, i will get you the link where it talks about the resemblance of the jf-17 to the tigershark and some other similar designs so that i can prove my point also

So you prove your points with "similar designs" while calling me a fanboy for proving my points with articles written by professionals.

 

[IceCold]

LOL ya get personal now that makes so much sense, buddy try to keep it professional and please keep away from personal comments. Jis shool ke tum bache ho beta us school ke hum principal hai lol stay cool mate

aisa principal hona laga to phir schoolon ka to khud he hafiz. Lakin then again aisa school be to India main he hota hain na.

On a more serious note stop trolling it gets irritating after the first time.

 

[paritosh]

Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI. The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces.

fair enough you have everybody's attention now...
and everybody wants a cheap alternative bro...don't you?
"JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces."
tell me which country would refuse to equip it's forces with a cheap yet competitive a/c that can take on modern airforces with 4.5 gen fighters?If I'd been a marketing exec at Chengdu....I'd be mighty pleased reading that coming from you...

The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go and compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now.

I couldn't have agreed more....but now what you are doing is just what they did that got you all piped up....don't ridicule the Jf-17 that much...it is a good platform...
and it has it's avionics based on open architecture which is going to be a rave in the future...it's microprocessors won't suffer from the prospect of getting outdated as there is a provision for their being updated...and hence all the future talk...(plaens get updated all the time...but it is very costly as you must have read...the mirage 2000 update costing around 40 million dollars a piece! that is because they are branded to be flown without much modifications....that is the "closed-architecture" for you)
it is BVR capable...has a good sized nose-cone that can house BVR radars...without much todd-fodd required....
and it is said that it is as maneuverable as the F-16....having a FBW(duplex redundant I guess?)

The fact is that right now in its current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.

which mig-29 the indian one or the BD one?
as you see the even in the same plane i.e the mig here...there is so much difference...
The Jf-17 is not as good as the Mki...most Pakistanis agree...but it is actually a good plane to form the backbone of your airforce...right now it is a very basic plane but that is not what the Pakistanis who signed up for it had in mind...it's easy to fit the Griffo and convert it to full BVR...it is custom made for that...

 

[raveolution]

Don't tell us what Chinese have

Unfortunately what the Chinese have, they have. And it is even older than the MKI. No-one says their SU-30's are crap.

lets face some facts Su-30mki is facing real problems in engine once india refused to purchased further Mki,

These problems were found in 2004 and rectified immediately. Do you know what the 'failure' was? Search and figure it out. They were 'nicks' in the engine blades. The production sequence was never delayed because of these problems and neither was the fleet grounded.

its fly-by wire is third class last crash was due to its failure of fly by wire problems in ejection seats killed one pilot,

The answer is given by your own Countryman. He seems to have something called "grey matter" in his head.

it is maintenance nightmare 32 hours of maintenance require for 1 hour of flying and just look at its rcs 10M2 etc etc.

Apart from that article, do you have any other links from official sources confirming this? And even if it is true, it means that the average is 32 hours for an hour of flying time. In times of war, it does not mean that after every hour of flying, it has to return to base for 32 hours.

And first learn how the RCS is measured. Please go to the Pune AFB with a measuring tape and then come up with the figure. Official figures reg RCS are never released as it is of a sensitive nature.

Moreover, please go through the entire thread and get educated, listen to senior members from Pakistan reg the MKI and then post some meaningful comments.

 

[paritosh]

how can people here post the aircraft's RCS????
what people know is that the Su-mki has a big RCS..waht they don't know is that given the Bars's Tx power....the Mki would still see any Jf-17 or F-16 first than being seen itself...!
and that is what matters.

 

[PakShaheen79]

how can people here post the aircraft's RCS????
what people know is that the Su-mki has a big RCS..waht they don't know is that given the Bars's Tx power....the Mki would still see any Jf-17 or F-16 first than being seen itself...!
and that is what matters.

But don't you think range of APG-68(V9) will also increase with increase in RCS of MKI when it comes vs F-16C\D? If APG-68 has 300 KM range against (say 5M^2 target) IMO, it will increase if target has RCS of 10M^2.

 

[PakShaheen79]

And first learn how the RCS is measured. Please go to the Pune AFB with a measuring tape and then come up with the figure. Official figures reg RCS are never released as it is of a sensitive nature.

This might help.....No need to go Pune AFB
RCS

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

• B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1
• F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5
• B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19
• Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12
• Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1
• MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88
• F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7
• F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62
• Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62
• Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38
• JSF (‘golf ball sized’) 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18
• F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07
• F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, ‘marble sized’ or fighter x 0.12-0.21

F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).

As can be seen ‘stealthy’ aircraft aim to reduce opposition situation awareness by decreasing detection range.

Situation Awareness

 

[paritosh]

But don't you think range of APG-68(V9) will also increase with increase in RCS of MKI when it comes vs F-16C\D? If APG-68 has 300 KM range against (say 5M^2 target) IMO, it will increase if target has RCS of 10M^2.

see if a radar is not powerful enough it discards all the echoes that come to it after the prt..or the pulse repetition time...as clutter(assuming that a large reflector like the mki is present at a distance>the unambiguous radar range)...based on the value of the clutter threshold set(mostly predefined now based on the mode of radar operation)
but yes the RCS is a factor in the radar range eqn...and the range is indeed directly proportional to the RCS...as it is to the Gtx or the transmission gain...and the beam width or the beam type..
but RCS is the most uncertain and ambiguous of all the other parameters...I know you'd agree...for example a plane flying towards the f-16 would have it's RCS(smaller) based on the circumference of it's fuselage...or the area of X-section of it's body....while if it is banking towards a side...it's underbelly might give a larger RCS value...or might even reflect the incident microwaves in different directions...giving a much smaller RCS...
if the aircraft is flying below or above the f-16...the RCS would depend on the look-down/look-up ability of the radar...

so to have a sure-shot longer ranged radar...we use the promising parameters of Gtx and the beam width and wavelength...though RCS is absolutely important...but is dealt with probability more than with raw statistics.
and besides the aid of AWACS would kill the argument...
but the other more important thing is BVR engagement...in the end it will all come to which plane carries what and how many BVR missiles.

 

[raveolution]

This might help.....No need to go Pune AFB
RCS

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

• B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1
• F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5
• B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19
• Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12
• Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1
• MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88
• F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7
• F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62
• Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62
• Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38
• JSF (‘golf ball sized&#8217 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18
• F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07
• F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, ‘marble sized’ or fighter x 0.12-0.21

F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).

As can be seen ‘stealthy’ aircraft aim to reduce opposition situation awareness by decreasing detection range.

Situation Awareness

Thanks for the info PakShaheen. Great post. Just wanted to know like if we take the standard fighter RCS as 5m2, how have we arrived at 1.2m2 for the F-16? Is there a formula to calculate this and if yes, does it involve specialised access to the aircraft for measuring purposes or basic specs like length, width, etc are enough?

Edit: Also, so does it mean that a JF-17 with a KLJ-7 radar with a detection range of 105 kms would be able to detect a Typhoon at only around 50 kms?

 

[PAFAce]

Man this thread is getting really stupid now, no matter what you tell people they wont agree, this is a totally stupid comparison and is basically demeaning the MKI. The JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative for countries that cannot afford actual 4.5 generation aircrafts and also incorporates some modern features to at least make it competitive enough against modern air forces. The MKI on the other hand is custom made, air dominance beast fitted with the latest Russian, western, Israeli and Indian tech. Constantly rated among the best in the world, The MKI is by far the best jet in this region. I dont have any blind love for the MKI but the way it be being ridiculed here is totally absurd, please read some facts about it before you start comparing. As a fellow member pointed out before also the JF-17 is an out dated design originally derived from the tiger shark as we all know how good the Chinese are in reverse engineering and copying others. The MKI is derived from the very successful su-27 series and builds on that. Just because it has thunder attached to its name does not mean it will go and compete with an MKI which is miles ahead. And please dont tell me that the JF-17 will get this or get that, nothing is confirmed as of yet and its all speculation till now. The fact is that right now in its current state the jf-17 is best compared to the mig-29 (maybe) but comparing it to the MKI is nothing but a joke and a fanboys dream.

Sir, I've posted here before that the JF-17 "resembles" the Tigershark, both in planform and in ideology, but that is about it. There are many structural differences, and technologically, the JF-17 is far advanced even today. If anything, the JF-17 compares much more with Russian designs (as hj786 has proven), as the original Super 7 was an upgrade of the trusted MiG-19. All said, the way you have spoken about the JF-17 is simply disrespectful. As an employee in the Aerospace industry, I expect better of you. Also, if there is one guy on this forum I would trust for proper research, it is hj786, so it's futile to get into a research war with him.

As for the MKI, agreed, it most likely is near the top of all jets in the region. However, the way you are speaking of the MKI very much points to "blind love" for it. It is not invincible, in fact, there are many problems that are well known and documented with this design. Sensitivity to FOD, maintenance issues, high cost of maintenance, an engine that can't take much punishment, size, and on and on. BVR, 1 vs 1, no AWACs, no RADAR, level flight, I'd surely give the nod to Su-30MKI any day, but when will that scenario ever occur? Under an AWACs/RADAR blanket, with full battle tactics, things change drastically. WVR, well, PAF pilots claim the JF-17 to be as capable as the F-16, which is a huge compliment. So WVR, I'd say the JF-17 is more than just a match for the TVC Su-30MKI.

There is no need to take every single post on this thread to heart, in fact, most should simply be ignored. Nobody is saying the JF-17 is superior to the Su-30MKI in every way. However, if you think there is no way the JF-17 can counter the MKI, well, history might serve a good lesson.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Thanks for the info PakShaheen. Great post. Just wanted to know like if we take the standard fighter RCS as 5m2, how have we arrived at 1.2m2 for the F-16? Is there a formula to calculate this and if yes, does it involve specialised access to the aircraft for measuring purposes or basic specs like length, width, etc are enough?

Well dear please don't get confuse with the formula given in my abpve post it is to get an idea at what distance one radar can detect a fighter compared to another one.

Now coming towards you question, Yes there is a formula and it is
The conceptual definition of RCS includes the fact that not all of
the radiated energy falls on the target. A target’s RCS (F) is
most easily visualized as the product of three factors:
RCS = Projected cross section x Reflectivity x Directivity .

Reflectivity: The percent of intercepted power reradiated
(scattered) by the target.
Directivity: The ratio of the power scattered back in the radar's direction to the power that would have been backscattered
had the scattering been uniform in all directions (i.e. isotropically).
Sphere shape is one which is used in this equation to get a reference value of ideal RCS value which finish around 1 M^2. Values of all other objects are compared against this figure to get an idea if RCS is large one or small one.

Reflectivity and Directivity also depends on geometry of target that is reason why stealth fighter have very unique geometry.

Now I am giving you a very informative link to study. It is small PDF file but mark my words it is very informative in understanding RCS and its calculations.
http://www.tscm.com/rcs.pdf

Edit: Also, so does it mean that a JF-17 with a KLJ-7 radar with a detection range of 105 kms would be able to detect a Typhoon at only around 50 kms?

Yes that is quite possible; Range of KLJ-7 against 3 M^2 (Mig-21) is 75 KM. Now it is evident that against EF-2000 it will decrease further.

 

[PakShaheen79]

see if a radar is not powerful enough it discards all the echoes that come to it after the prt..or the pulse repetition time...as clutter(assuming that a large reflector like the mki is present at a distance>the unambiguous radar range)...based on the value of the clutter threshold set(mostly predefined now based on the mode of radar operation)
but yes the RCS is a factor in the radar range eqn...and the range is indeed directly proportional to the RCS...as it is to the Gtx or the transmission gain...and the beam width or the beam type..
but RCS is the most uncertain and ambiguous of all the other parameters...I know you'd agree...for example a plane flying towards the f-16 would have it's RCS(smaller) based on the circumference of it's fuselage...or the area of X-section of it's body....while if it is banking towards a side...it's underbelly might give a larger RCS value...or might even reflect the incident microwaves in different directions...giving a much smaller RCS...
if the aircraft is flying below or above the f-16...the RCS would depend on the look-down/look-up ability of the radar...

so to have a sure-shot longer ranged radar...we use the promising parameters of Gtx and the beam width and wavelength...though RCS is absolutely important...but is dealt with probability more than with raw statistics.
and besides the aid of AWACS would kill the argument...
but the other more important thing is BVR engagement...in the end it will all come to which plane carries what and how many BVR missiles.

I agree with you on almost all points in your post regarding sensitivity of TX modules and its relation to RCS. Just wanted to add that Reflectivity is something where MKI will always proved to be a big target compared to JF-17. If fully loaded its reflectivity will further increase towards Thunder's radar when facing each other in head on engagement. So, superior Gain by Tx module of MKI radar has to do more work than JF-17 or F-16 radar's Tx module will have to. Keeping RCS equation in mind (RCS= reflectivity x Directivity x Projected Cross section)... IMO, still Thunder will have a chance to detect MKI before it enter in a range where it can lock on Thunder while latter totally unaware of fact what is about to come to its way... I am sure PAF will always keep this in mind that's why it is not satisfied with KLJ and is looking some Western radar. More range + more sensitivity (Gain by Tx modules).