The JF-17 is a truly remarkable plane

[asq]

Why should I be? It's just a JF-17, not a F-22.

Now stick to the topic please, yes its a low cost solution for a cash-starved country wanting to replace its old 3rd gen fighters with something more capable, and JF-17 fits the bill. It is not a world-beater, neither you can afford a world-beater.

Talking about World beater, MM Alim in 1965 war flew a sabre in response to Indian pnats,mysteres and hunters. so it is not the jet but the man behind the controls and his courage and conviction

 

[dray]

Talking about World beater, MM Alim in 1965 war flew a sabre in response to Indian pnats,mysteres and hunters. so it is not the jet but the man behind the controls and his courage and conviction

And Sabre was a very reputed plane of its time designed for A2A, and your F-104 was a technological marvel among the air-forces of the Indian subcontinent, back then our best plane Hunter was night-blind, incapable to fight at night.

But that's off-topic.

 

[aliyusuf]

@DRAY
Sabre was "night-blind" (as you put it) too.
Hunters were more modern than the Sabres.
As for the F-104 ... it was only good for straight line speed and climb albeit had air to air missile capability ... but very limited maneuverability wise. Furthermore, only 14 or so received.
But the IAF had MiG-21s since 1963 maybe earlier ... what stopped the IAF from putting them to effective use?
The IAF lost 2 of the initial batch of 12 in mid air collision in 1963 and lost another one due to accident in march 1965 and then just let 3 of these (state of the art) fighters get destroyed on the ground by the PAF during the 1965 war.

 

[temporary handle]

for those who think AWACS can't guide BVR its all going to change soon just google what new E-2D Hawk Eye can do, NCW is revolutionizing warfare.

A wise airforce would not go down that path.In Theory any radar could guide a Radar homing missile but AWACS don't do it for practical purposes.

1. Datalink between AWACS and Missiles would be problematic. This is minor problem that could be solved by technological advance and i am mentioning it just for information.

2. Radar homing missiles do not carry poweful seekers due to size limitations. They are incapable of picking up targets in background radiation. In order to help a Radar seeking missile to home in on it's target, a plane narrows down it's beam and paints a target with intense radio energy which a seeker could pick up. This is called locking on a plane.

If an AWACS is used to guide a radar guided missile, it would have to narrow down it's beam which would mean that AWACS would temporarily drop areal coverage to concentrate on one target. It would give chance to enemy airforce to target other Aircrafts which are blind atm, including that AWACS itself.It is much wiser to let AWACS do the work they are supposed to do, ie provide situational awareness.

 

[asq]

And Sabre was a very reputed plane of its time designed for A2A, and your F-104 was a technological marvel among the air-forces of the Indian subcontinent, back then our best plane Hunter was night-blind, incapable to fight at night.

But that's off-topic.

Again as an Indian you continue to spin. Spin masters, Indians.

 

[dray]

@DRAY
Sabre was "night-blind" (as you put it) too.
Hunters were more modern than the Sabres.
As for the F-104 ... it was only good for straight line speed and climb albeit had air to air missile capability ... but very limited maneuverability wise. Furthermore, only 14 or so received.
But the IAF had MiG-21s since 1963 maybe earlier ... what stopped the IAF from putting them to effective use?
The IAF lost 2 of the initial batch of 12 in mid air collision in 1963 and lost another one due to accident in march 1965 and then just let 3 of these (state of the art) fighters get destroyed on the ground by the PAF during the 1965 war.

Sabre was a purely A2A fighter, Hunter was more of a bomber, or you can say multi-role at best, and Gnat was not even considered as a fighter by its country of origin, RAF used it as a trainer, but we used it as a fighter against the Korean war famed mighty Sabre.

F-104 was the only truly supersonic fighter in that war with a top speed which was more than TWICE of all the planes mentioned above, with that kind of advantage, it didn't really need to do a lot of twists and turns.

MiG 21 achieved its FOC after the war, sometime in 1966, it was not ready to participate in 1965 war.

But the topic is JF-17.

 

[aliyusuf]

@DRAY
I can post counter points in quite detail.
But in the interest of not going off topic ... let me conclude this exchange by stating ... "Lets agree to disagree!"

 

[SQ8]

Sabre was a purely A2A fighter, Hunter was more of a bomber, or you can say multi-role at best, and Gnat was not even considered as a fighter by its country of origin, RAF used it as a trainer, but we used it as a fighter against the Korean war famed mighty Sabre.

F-104 was the only truly supersonic fighter in that war with a top speed which was more than TWICE of all the planes mentioned above, with that kind of advantage, it didn't really need to do a lot of twists and turns.

MiG 21 achieved its FOC after the war, sometime in 1966, it was not ready to participate in 1965 war.

But the topic is JF-17.

To say that this was a stupid premise is an understatement. When making such statements to try and somehow make your point that the PAF had superior equipment, is there intelligence involved or simply a wish that somehow I cannot be proven wrong against a Pakistani?

This was the development process for the Hawker Hunter which was a superior fighter to the Sabre ANY DAY of the week. Its focus was air defence and then ground attack.. not the other way around. It had superior acceleration and handling to the Sabre at transonic regimes and was outturned only at lower speeds(which means the pilot was stupid enough to get it there)..there too it could out accelerate the Sabre to get away.

Here excerpts from an account by a RAF pilot who flew against the PAF in an exercise after the 65 war. It shoudl end this stupid "PAF had superior equipment with the Sabre" debate.

My No. 1 was one of the JPs by the name of Dave Stanley and I briefed him that we would not, under any conceivable circumstances, play the Sabre's game, but rather use the Hunters relative advantages, namely high Mach number performance. The Sabre could undoubtedly out-turn a Hunter, but above Mach 0.9 it would be at a considerable disadvantage in terms of climb ability and turn performance. So although we were briefed to CAP at Mach 0.8 (another advantage to the home side!) as soon as we had them in visual, the game was on and we would accelerate to M 0.9 and maintain at least that speed and not below. Off to the CAP. .........

The Hunter turns quite well, particularly with a notch or two of flap out, but these late model Canadair-built Sabres could, as predicted, more than match it. Fairly soon I ended up with one particular Sabre latched on to my tail and there was no way I could shake him off or out turn him. What next - sit here and watch myself die, even if it was only on film? Not likely.

Sydney Camm endowed the Hunter with superb handling, particularly after extended leading edges were fitted, and magic flaps like barn doors, which could be chucked out at any speed. This, plus the carefree handling of the 200 series Avon, meant there was a further trick to be tried - stopping. Though in the same league as the Harrier, the Hunter could generate fairly high rates of deceleration by slam closing the throttle, applying full airbrake and full flap, and pulling the hard turn right into deep and very heavy airframe buffet. The aircraft remained fully controllable, but lost speed at an incredible rate.

 

[osama zafar]

Its a good jet.

 

[aliyusuf]

If an AWACS is used to guide a radar guided missile, it would have to narrow down it's beam which would mean that AWACS would temporarily drop areal coverage to concentrate on one target. It would give chance to enemy airforce to target other Aircrafts which are blind atm, including that AWACS itself.It is much wiser to let AWACS do the work they are supposed to do, ie provide situational awareness.

Most modern AWACS have AESA radars. AESA have hundreds of TR Modules. Each capable of transmitting and receiving its own beams. So each TR Module can have its own role assigned to it. So an AESA can therefore perform multiple tasks simultaneously.

In this way it is quite possible for AESA based AWACS to provide target illumination./ tracking for BVR-AAMs without having to compromise on it's primary function of providing "situational awareness" as enough TR Modules will still be available.

 

[The SC]

Why AESA for the JF-17?


The revolutionary radar…AESA
Radar has moved on in leaps and bounds since it was first established as an integral
part of military communications. Today, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar is the
most flexible and advanced available.

The AESA

Developments since the 1960s have now culminated in the development of the Active Electronically Scanned Array or AESA radar, which is a type of phased array radar system.
The AESA has much greater versatility and speed, greater range and resolution making it easier for applications such as
searching, mapping and targeting. AESAs are also used for other purposes such as communications, detection and jamming.
The AESA radars are being widely used in for airborne applications, and is especially well-suited for unmanned aerial
vehicles.
AESA antennas comprise hundreds or even thousands of transmit/receive modules and each of these modules acts
as an individual radar. It truly is a case of strength in numbers.
The AESA is solid state – there are no moving parts, and this increases the overall reliability of the system as there
are basically less things that can go wrong. An AESA radar can steer its beams electronically – nearly at the speed of
light – and can re-direct them instantly from one target to another making them extremely versatile and agile. The modules
can work together or in groups enabling them to perform multiple tasks at the same time.
The AESA’s composition and solid state means that it is easy to repair and upgrade, equalling lower lifecycle costs. In fact, AESA radars can boast up to twice the life expectancy of their counterpart PESA radar systems. The other major advantage
that AESA radar has over its rivals is that it can operate in different frequency bands and can switch in between them. This means that the radar is able to track more targets at any one time as the AESA can switch frequencies and produce beams in a variety of different frequencies simultaneously, giving excellent situational awareness.
The AESA can produce strong signals whilst still remaining stealthy.
The AESA is also a good deal more compact than their predecessors. Signals were previously produced in a TWT or Klystron device but the introduction of gallium arsenide has changed this, enabling manufacturers to shrink their devices.Today, the entire AESA system can be as small as a milk carton.
Another great benefit of the use of AESA radar systems is the fact that they are much more difficult to intercept due to the fact that the AESA can change its frequency with every pulse it sends out. There is also no fixed pulse repetition for the AESA and so therefore traditional Radar Warning Receivers are not useful against AESA radars.
Jamming is also difficult to achieve. Jammers usually work by establishing the operating frequency of the radar and then
broadcasting a signal over it which then confuses the receiver. As the AESA can change its frequency, they are extremely
difficult to jam. The AESA can also be switched to a receive only mode to enable jammers to be tracked.
AESAs are also a great deal more difficult to detect. They can also continually broadcast, meaning that a great deal more
data can be generated by them than by traditional radar systems, creating much greater situational awareness.

http://www.satellite-evolution.com/issues-2011/gmc-oct-2011/radar.pdf

Examples:

 

[Basel]

In this way it is quite possible for AESA based AWACS to provide target illumination./ tracking for BVR-AAMs without having to compromise on it's primary function of providing "situational awareness" as enough TR Modules will still be available.

Google capabilities of E-2D Hawkeye and you will know how 2 AESA radars together can create havoc with NCW tech.

 

[The SC]

RCS 1.2 m2

Diamand shaped nose!

The little beast with conformal fuel tank!

 

[The SC]

Klimov RD-33: Dry, 81.4 - 88.4 kN Afterburning
WS-13 (upgraded) - 100 kilonewtons (22,000 lbf) thrust with afterburner
Heard that WS-13 is being made in Pakistan too, with it the JF-17 speed will reach Mach 2!

 

[Mav3rick]

Like to interject here.

BVR's are never fired at more half their maximum range. All those fantastic range statistics on paper are just that, statistics on paper. While a BVR certainly has more range than a WVR, but hit probability of a BVR of any kind is less than that of WVR, and WVR's could be fired at close to their maximum range.

BVR may have changed Air-combat but not to the extent that you think. A superior plane would be victorious over an inferior plane in BVR combat ( provided training of pilots is same ), even if the inferior plane has small RCS, unless the RCS of targetting plane is so small that it could not be detected by aircraft that is targetting before Aircraft that comes within 90% Kill range; a feat that could be achieved only by full stealth Aircrafts.Also introduction of AWACS nullify much of small RCS advantage that JF-17 would have over Su-30's.With or Without AWACS, it would be detected before it could bring a Su-30 inside it's kill envelope but with AWACS, it could be detected a lot earlier.


Currently, a Su-30 could detect a JF-17 ( as per public literature for Radar ranges ) before that 30 enters kill envelope of 17. It would matter little as to how far away a Su-30 could be detected by 17, if it could not take any action against 30.


Your analysis suffer from the flaw of overestimating 17 because it ignores radar capabilities. SU-30 may have a large RCS but it also carries much bigger radar compared to 17. Indians would be truly fücked, if their plane had a large RCS and a small Radar. A large radar of 30 balance it's large RCS disadvantage.

If that was the case then all AWACS would be totally in 'GOD' mode because of the massive radars that they carry. Also, it is widely understood that the JF-17 would detect the massive RCS of an MKI at more or less the same range where the MKI would detect the JF-17. Big radar + big rcs is more or less equivalent in this case to small radar + small rcs.

In any real spectrum of threat, the JF-17's, F-16's etc would most likely be playing a defensive role whereas the IAF would be the aggressor in which case the PAF could fly with their radars turned off under cover and guidance of AWACS and with ECM and ECCM protection of both AWACS and ground units which would aid in hiding them even more......they could potentially even fire their AIM-120's in the general direction of IAF Jets from the maximum kill hit probability range where the missiles could be guided by AWACS in their terminal phase so as to give IAF least possible time to react.

PAF, although of no comparison head to head with IAF in regards to numbers, is no pushover when it enters the role that it has been assigned.