The logic behind JF-17s ?

[paritosh]

Be careful about this kind of general statement/claim.

NTIA Special Publication 00-40 - Chapter 3

Missile seekers and targeting radars are usually in ghz bands. This is for high target data update. The closer one gets to the target, the more important it is to have this high target data update. If the target make a sudden move, as in evasive maneuvers, only the ghz bands is capable of providing that sudden movement update information.

That mean frequency agility is limited in scope. Everyone know this. So everyone need to pay attention to the paragraphs above, particularly about the physical antenna size and beamwidth relationship. Target data update also improve as the main beam narrows. But antenna dimension inversely affect beamwidth. All the more reasons why frequency agility is limited in scope -- At higher frequencies, small antennas will suffice. So since missile radar seekers have small nosecones, therefore very small antennas, they will have to resort to using the ghz bands IF they want to have that high target data update just in case the victim make a sudden move to evade the missile. Once again -- frequency agility is limited in scope.

But since everyone know this fact, the only thing left for the designer is that frequency agility ability itself, as in how fast can the system move between one freq to another, in transmit, receive and processing of the data. All three items must be ideally balanced. The better this 'jumping' around, the more difficult it will be for the opponent ECM to keep up. The better ECM systems will be able to anticipate, but not with %100 certainty, as to where the next 'jump' will be and saturate that freq as well as the current one. It is very difficult to envision the whole thing since this is happening at practically light speed.

So to sum it up...

Narrow beamwidth is desirable for rapid target data update. Overriding consideration. Utmost importance. No other discussions necessary.

- The lower the freq employed, the larger the antenna.

- The higher the freq employed, large or small antenna will do, but with small missile radomes, it will be small antennas.

thanks for the informative post...there are some points i'd like you to opine on..
i thought we dealt with the limitations posed by the antenna sizes of (limited by 1/4*f) decades back through modulation?
Don't we modulate the em radiation from seekers/radars to make up for the size differences?
i am aware that even if we do...it only helps to an extent the size would be the bigger factor...
but as far as I know...most BVR missiles have different stages of guidance..
in the first stage they are guided by the more powerful radar onboard their mother aircraft...in the second stage they turn on their own seeker which might be passive....seeking em radiation or active....giving out radiation to see the target..
there are different antenna beams for different purposes...a fan beam might be used for searching a target....a pencil beam for tracking...
the forward gain of a fanbeam will be lower to a comparable pencil beam...and would require more power...hence the missile seeker might utilize a pencil beam to track the target in the final moments....
and wouldn't target resolution depend more on prf?
RCs on the other hand would depend on the frequency of the m/w beam...isn't that right?so getting a high prf in the later stages when closing-in on the target shouldn't be much of a problem with a good dsp equipment...right?
don't some of the missiles utilize 2 frequencies to home in?
which they shuttle between...to avoid getting jammed?

 

[beckham]

agreed we lack in numbers and quite impossible to match it.

from wat i see, by the end of 2015 we will only have 36 (FC 20) plus 18 (F 16 blk 50/52) capable fighters against indian MKIs and MMRCA.

comin to second tier jets we will have around 36 F 16 A/B (upgraded) plus X amount of JF 17s plus Mirrages and others against indian MIGs plus LCA.

So, what about these ?

62 – Mig-29 SMT (upgraded)
51 – Mirage 2000-5 (upgraded)
100 – Jaguar IS (upgraded)
40 (?)- mig-27 (upgraded)

According to reports by 2015 these would have been upgraded !

question is how will it work for PAF. answer to this is technology. there are things lik jammers etc which can be installed on almost all fighters which increases their effectiveness against more advanced fighters. most of our F 16s have jammers on them which make MKIs BVR less effective allowin F 16 A/B to challenge MKI. This will be the main strategy of PAF over comin decade atleast.
in short PAF will be acquiring anti-tech to counter indian tech.

hope this makes u feel more secured.

Sorry, but in case of R-77 if the seeker is jammed, it switches automatically to a passive mode and homes on the source of jamming.(Isn't that wonderful ? )

And Novator KS-172's development was concentrated especially on the seeker head, autopilot, resistance to jamming and a steering system with 3D thrust vector control (TVC). (Means, once its fired you are fried.)

 

[Rain]

Can any one tell(authentic sources) whether JF 17 will be able to be used in netcentric air warfare. Further more how many data links are there onboard to share realtime data sharing?

thanks in advance

 

[Rain]

For the Supporter of Su30mki, and its critics, here is a feature i read and like to share with you (no offence IAF, SU 30 is good AC).
December 8, 2009: For the second time this year, India has grounded its Su-30 fighters because one of the aircraft crashed. This time, the grounding of the 98 Su-30s in service is expected to last only a few days. Earlier this year, in May, its Su-30 fighters were grounded for a month after one of them appeared to develop engine problems and crashed. One of the pilots survived, but the parachute of the other failed to open. Four days before the Indian Su-30 went down, a Russian Su-35 also crashed because of engine problems. The Su-35 is an advanced version of the Su-30, and uses a similar engine. Earlier this year, Russia grounded all its MiG-29 fighters to check for structural problems, after one of them came apart in flight. All this is particularly upsetting to Indians, who had been assured by the Russians that the Su-30 was a modern (built to Western standards of reliability) aircraft. Such assurances were necessary because of earlier Indian experience with the MiG-21, and Russian aircraft in general. So far this year, India has lost twelve military aircraft, most of them of Russian design.
India lost 250 MiG-21s to accidents between 1991 and 2003. When consulted, Russia pointed out that India had insisted on manufacturing many of the spare parts needed to keep MiG-21s operational, and many of these parts were not manufactured to Russian specifications. While Russia does not have a reputation for making the highest quality equipment, their standards are often higher than Indias. It's no secret that much of the military equipment made in India is pretty shabby by world standards.

Most of the 110 pilots lost in these MiG-21 accidents were new pilots, which pointed out another problem. India has long put off buying jet trainers. New pilots go straight from propeller driven trainer aircraft, to high performance jets like the MiG-21. This is made worse by the fact that the MiG-21 has always been known as a tricky aircraft to fly. That, in addition to it being an aircraft dependent on one, low quality, engine, makes it more understandable why so many MiGs were lost.

The MiG-21 problems were overcome by 2006, a year in which no MiG-21s were lost. One of the main causes of many crashes was finally traced to bad fuel pumps. India improved maintenance, spare parts quality and pilot training to the point that the aircraft was no longer considered the most dangerous fighter to fly.

But India was not the only one, besides the Russians, who had problems with Russian made warplanes. During the Cold War, the U.S. had several dozen Russian aircraft they used for training their fighter pilots. Despite energetic efforts to keep these aircraft flying, their accident rate was 100 per 100,000 flying hours. That's very high by U.S. standards. The F-22 has an accident rate is about 6 per 100,000 hours, mainly because it's new. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces.) The Indian rate had been over ten for many years, and it is still that high, and often higher, with other nations (including Russia and China), that use Russian aircraft designs.

New aircraft always have higher accident rates, which is how many hidden (from the design engineers and test pilots) flaws and technical problems are discovered. The F-22 is expected to eventually have an accident rate of 2-3 per 100,000 flight hours. This is part of a trend.

Combat aircraft have, for decades, been getting more reliable, even as they became more complex. For example, in the early 1950s, the F-89 fighter had 383 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. A decade later, the rate was in the 20s for a new generation of aircraft. At the time, the F-4, which served into the 1990s, had a rate of under 5 per 100,000 hours. Combat aircraft have gotten more reliable and easier to maintain, despite growing complexity, for the same reason automobiles have. Better engineering, and more sensors built into equipment, makes it easier for the user and maintenance personnel to detect potential problems. Aircraft used the computerized maintenance systems, currently common on new aircraft, long before automobiles got them. Unless you have a much older car that still runs, or a real good memory, you don't notice the enormous increase in automobile reliability. But older pilots remember, because such changes are a matter of life and death if you make your living driving an aircraft. And commanders know that safer aircraft give them more aircraft to use in combat, and more aircraft that can survive combat damage and keep fighting.

Unmanned aircraft have a much higher rate, which is largely the result of not having a pilot on board. The RQ-1 Predator has an accident rate of about 30 per 100,000 hours. Older model UAVs had much higher rates (up to 363 for the RQ-2A).

 

[normalindiancitizen]

So, what about these ?

62 – Mig-29 SMT (upgraded)
51 – Mirage 2000-5 (upgraded)
100 – Jaguar IS (upgraded)
40 (?)- mig-27 (upgraded)

According to reports by 2015 these would have been upgraded !



Sorry, but in case of R-77 if the seeker is jammed, it switches automatically to a passive mode and homes on the source of jamming.(Isn't that wonderful ? )

And Novator KS-172's development was concentrated especially on the seeker head, autopilot, resistance to jamming and a steering system with 3D thrust vector control (TVC). (Means, once its fired you are fried.)

And BTW the jammer on the F-16 A/B cannot jam the r-77, no question of passive/active , it may, just may be able to jam the MKI AI radar, (cant say really coz we dont know the ECCM features of the radar).
Also about jammers.....Israelis are known to be among the best in Electronic warfare and India is buying a lot of Israeli eqpt, so there too we may have an edge

 

[TaimiKhan]

The thread was opened to discuss the logic behind acquiring JF-17 by PAF, it would be nice if the discussion is kept to the domain for which the thread was opened and is not made into another JF-17 Vs Su-30 boxing match. I

f anyone wishes to discuss Su-30 and its capabilities or other capabilities of other aircraft, BVRs, Radars, ECMs, ECCMs then we do have other threads discussing all the scenarios.

Hopefully the thread is kept to the logic behind JF-17.

 

[abbasniazi]

Brother Creder,

You are the second person who has raised such questions against JF-17, I was the first one who has done that in the past.

But most of our brothers don't like criticism against JF-17 and it annoyed me in the begining, however, i realised a few things with the passage of time and now feel comfortable with JF-17.

Lets Analyse the role, strengths and weaknesses of JF-17.

Role of JF-17 in PAF;
Though Brother Nihat has already made a very wise and realistic analysis in this context(for which i must thank him), however, i can give my 2 cents on it too.

1) Replacement of PAF Ageing Fleet of;
(a)F-7s as interceptor==> JF-17 is much more capable and agile then F-7
in addition to this it has BVR capability which F-7s lack. so in my opinion
Jf-17 Wins against F-7s, so it justifies its existance against F-7s.
(b)A-5 as Strike Fighter==> JF-17 is superior to A5 in almost all repects
forexample its speed is more then A5, Its range is almost 33% more then
A5, It can carry 3.6 Tons of Ammunition as compared to 2 Tons capacity
of A5, it has latest technology as compared to A5 (J-6) which is atleast 40
years old technology plane, so JF-17 Beats A5 in the Strike Fighter Role
and justifies its existance against A5.
(c)Mirage III "& V ==> Mirages III are meant for interception role in PAF and
they can utilize BVR but their BVR capability range is not as much as JF-17s,
same is the case with Mirage V, which is meant for Strike missions, on top
of it, these are old platforms and have high maintenance cost, less
survivability and almost no lifespan left for service, infact we are forcing
these platforms to be airbourne, so JF-17 wins in this context too.
2)A Multirole Fighter/Bomber;
Jf-17 has all the potentials of a successfull Fighter/bomber, instead of
having different platforms for different roles its better to have same
airframe for multiple purposes and JF-17 serves the purpose.
3) A Sanction Free Solution;
PAF has always been terrorised by the west with sanctions in almost all the
times of need in the past, friends are supposed to support when u need
them, supplies are expected to be ensured when needed, however, the west
has proven that they are not reliable supporters or suppliers instead they
are blackmailers, and blood sucking pests. so its better to have a less
capable aircraft with ensured supplies then to have a slightly better aircraft
with no guarantee of the supplies of spares or new planes as and when
needed. therefore, the best supplier to anyforce in the world is its domestic
aerospace industry, and pakistan is lucky that its first step towards
indiginization turned out to be successfull and according to the requirements
of PAF.
4) Cost Effective Solution;
Lets have a Comparative analysis of JF-17 with other state of the art
Fighters of the world and see how many JF-17s we can buy in the price
tags of other fighters of the world.
JF-17 will cost around 13 Million Dollars a piece.

Comparitive cost analysis;

(a) Eurofighter Typhoon 100 Million a piece approx= 7 JF-17s.
(b) Rafael 83 Million a piece approx= 6 JF-17s.
(c) JAS 39 Gripen 61 Million a piece approx= 5 JF-17s.
(d) SU 30 MKI 40 Million a piece approx= 3 JF-17s and we can't have
these birds for sure.
(e) J10 B 43 Million a piece approx(With after sale service and spares)= 3
JF-17s.

Comparison to SU30 MKI;

Lets see where SU30 MKI can come across JF17 and what are the chances of JF17 against this beast.

SU30 MKI is no doubt a beast in the air and a true air superiority fighter, SU 30 MKI's big advantage is its radar it can detect a 5m2 target at upto 350 Kms, JF17 doesn't stand a chance against this beast Radar to Radar but this advantage of SU30 will be nuteralized when JF17 will be linked to Saab 2000 AEW&C which has AESA radar with 400 Kms range at all altitudes, so JF17 can counter SU 30 MKI within pakistani airspace.

when it comes to the manouverability, again SU 30 is the ultra manouverable aircraft however as i mentioned above in the cost comparison 3 JF17s against one SU30 then JF17 stands a good chance in the defensive role because SU30 MKI in pakistani airspace will not only be threatened by JF17s but SAMs too, so there'd be rare chance for it to show its cobra manouvers etc.

when it comes to strike role against SU30 MKI i think JF17 will not be thrown in for deep strike missions because pakistan has very robust missile force for the job, furthermore, most of the prospective strike targets of JF17 are very close to pakistani border and for such closeby missions JF17 will be provided with the escorts of F16 C,D and J10B, which'd surely give very hard time to SU30 MKI.

so overall JF17 may not be a dream fighter/bomber but is something good to start with for PAF.

 

[beckham]

^^ A neutral logical post, would hopefully light some bulbs !

 

[ajpirzada]

clever BVR missiles utilize frequency hopping seekers...they give them jammers a bad time...and a jammer has a limit to all that it can jam at a given point...
you compare the BVR capabilites...onboard radars...availability of missiles...and number of BVR missile pylons aboard each a/c...not a good picture for a full scale air-war with us.

well to be honest i dont know much about jammin tech.
but thanks to gambit, he has provided gud enough info in this regard.

 

[ajpirzada]

So, what about these ?

62 – Mig-29 SMT (upgraded)
51 – Mirage 2000-5 (upgraded)
100 – Jaguar IS (upgraded)
40 (?)- mig-27 (upgraded)

According to reports by 2015 these would have been upgraded !

and when did i deny this? i guess i dont really have to mention each and every fighter in a thread which is for discussin something different.

Sorry, but in case of R-77 if the seeker is jammed, it switches automatically to a passive mode and homes on the source of jamming.(Isn't that wonderful ? )

And Novator KS-172's development was concentrated especially on the seeker head, autopilot, resistance to jamming and a steering system with 3D thrust vector control (TVC). (Means, once its fired you are fried.)

i cant respond to this with my limited knowledge in this regard. sorry

 

[Storm Force]

The logic was created in PAF thinking and requirements back in 1999-2000.

F16/C/D comparable fighter at least 80% equivalent low cost and available to build in pakistan sanction free.

Later the requirements where enhanced to keep in mind developing IAF threat esp. SU30MKI

The result i believe a low cost light fighter equal/better to any fighter in IAF bar su30mki .

A fighter with open modular design for better radar avionics and engine from any source in future upgrades.

Probably the only solution to replacing 180 mirages quicky and cost efectively.

NOT THE ANSWER TO MKI OR MMRCA if IAF ever orders these.

 

[Quwa]

The logic was created in PAF thinking and requirements back in 1999-2000.

F16/C/D comparable fighter at least 80% equivalent low cost and available to build in pakistan sanction free.

Later the requirements where enhanced to keep in mind developing IAF threat esp. SU30MKI

The result i believe a low cost light fighter equal/better to any fighter in IAF bar su30mki .

A fighter with open modular design for better radar avionics and engine from any source in future upgrades.

Probably the only solution to replacing 180 mirages quicky and cost efectively.

NOT THE ANSWER TO MKI OR MMRCA if IAF ever orders these.

Agreed, but the reality is that JF-17 will have to face up to MKI and MMRCA, thus it is capable of engaging them at some reasonable level. The same applies to LCA and the Block-52+ and FC-20.

 

[Storm Force]

In reply to Marks comment

Agreed, but the reality is that JF-17 will have to face up to MKI and MMRCA, thus it is capable of engaging them at some reasonable level. The same applies to LCA and the Block-52+ and FC-20.

The JF17 Thunder will have TO tackle a twin engined Aesa equipped MMRCA like F18SH armed with AMRAAMD5
or
A SU30MKI AESA IBRIS radar equipped flanker carrying 6 KH172 ramjet missles.

This will not be a fair contest.

LCA is a non entity. AS YET

 

[МиГ-29]

Eurofighter Typhoon 100 Million a piece approx= 7 JF-17s.
Rafael 83 Million a piece approx= 6 JF-17s.

Rafale costs 64 million euros($93.57 million) and Eurofighter 63 ($92.1 million).

 

[rubyjackass]

I think JF17 is meant for countering LCA which is being inducted in comparable numbers by IAF. So you should not compare it against an aircraft that transcends JF's generation.