What's new

Twitter Q&A on JF-17 Thunder Program with Horus & Oscar

For the bold part...a fighter jet using microwaves to fry electronics in the enemy fighter jet? U mean an EMP attack? Last I checked the US is still trying to develop such a weapon.

Did u mean using microwaves for jamming things such as radar?


And as for u telling me to read ur post again...this is what u said

To which I replied this


Now tell me again how my post was uneducated.

Every morning, before breakfast, write my post with Saffron and Rose Water on a China plate, wash it with fresh morning dew and drink. At the same time, write your post on a brick and bang it against your head. Keep doing this, until you get it.

Now, for the second part of our discussion. A microwave oven generates microwaves day in and day out, without any fuss. Try placing a running mobile phone inside it to see what happens. (NOTE; You are solely responsible for any and all consequences). If a missile is sent your way, that upon getting near to you only generates offensive EM radiation instead of trying to bring you down explosively, it is still EW. This offensive radiation merely needs to resonate with ANYTHING onboard that acts as an RLC circuit. This is just an example to show how a non-stealth design can be exploited. By the way, the Rafale's EW suite is classified. You wont know what will hit you, until it actually hits you. We have to hypothesize how an enemy can use Electronic Warfare against us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project
 
Last edited:
.
Every morning, before breakfast, write my post with Saffron and Rose Water on a China plate, wash it with fresh morning dew and drink. At the same time, write your post on a brick and bang it against your head. Keep doing this, until you get it.

Now, for the second part of our discussion. A microwave oven generates microwaves day in and day out, without any fuss. Try placing a running mobile phone inside it to see what happens. (NOTE; You are solely responsible for any and all consequences). If a missile is sent your way, that upon getting near to you only generates offensive EM radiation instead of trying to bring you down explosively, it is still EW. This offensive radiation merely needs to resonate with ANYTHING onboard that acts as an RLC circuit. This is just an example to show how a non-stealth design can be exploited. By the way, the Rafale's EW suite is classified. You wont know what will hit you, until it actually hits you. We have to hypothesize how an enemy can use Electronic Warfare against us.
The lack of actual substance worth discussing in ur replies speaks volumes. Notice the amount of personal attacks in my posts and compare that with ur posts...that should give u an idea about ur upbringing and lack of manners. Do carry on with personal attacks instead of using facts to argue...and the world will see how smart u really r.

The link that u just provided...the status of that weapon is "experimental". It is not yet deployed.

"The CHAMP is superior to other electronic warfare weapons because it destroys electronics, rather than jamming which temporarily affects systems that come back online when it stops being applied."
"By the mid-2020s, HPM weapons are expected to be integrated onto a "JASSM-ER-type weapon," and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Jamming is still currently the only possibility(that's deployed on battlefield). The US is just barely going to have these EMP systems in the near future(on F35 and UAVs) and here u r making the case that French Rafales already have such a system.
 
Last edited:
.
Sir,

Then cut thru the chase---and write something meaningful---. Let us find out what you have to say---.

From your post---seems like you don't have much to talk about.

So---26 years old and still living at home---.
I will say something factual when i hear some facts from you, all u do here is deliver fatwas based on ur personal biased evaluation.....and here in Pakistan we remain with our parents instead of dumping them in care centres or have u become too american to remember.....and a word of advice, take it easy on the personal attacks as i can see right through ur frustration born out of old age and a lifetime of disapointments...nothing worse than an old grunt to whom the only lesson time taught was bitterness and a runing mouth...
 
.
The lack of actual substance worth discussing in ur replies speaks volumes. Notice the amount of personal attacks in my posts and compare that with ur posts...that should give u an idea about ur upbringing and lack of manners. Do carry on with personal attacks instead of using facts to argue...and the world will see how smart u really r.

The link that u just provided...the status of that weapon is "experimental". It is not yet deployed.

"The CHAMP is superior to other electronic warfare weapons because it destroys electronics, rather than jamming which temporarily affects systems that come back online when it stops being applied."
"By the mid-2020s, HPM weapons are expected to be integrated onto a "JASSM-ER-type weapon," and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Jamming is still currently the only possibility(that's deployed on battlefield). The US is just barely going to have these EMP systems in the near future(on F35 and UAVs) and here u r making the case that French Rafales already have such a system.

@WebMaster @Horus @Chak Bamu @HRK @Oscar

This person is actively spreading disinformation on the forum by cherry picking sentences from a webpage, and altering the ordering of the sentences to project his own agenda.

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

The full actual article is as follows.

@Cookie Monster I also did not say Rafale will field this weapon, I said its EW suite is classified, so we must hypothesize.

Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CHAMP
Type
counter-electronics directed energy weapon (experimental)
Place of origin United States
Production history
Manufacturer
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
The Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) is a joint concept technology demonstration led by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base to develop an air-launched directed-energy weapon capable of incapacitating or damaging electronic systems.[1]

On October 22, 2012, Boeing announced a successful test of the missile.[2] CHAMP took out seven different targets before self-destructing over empty desert.[3][4]

The U.S. Air Force expects to have technology for a steerable counter-electronics weapon “available” in 2016, when a multi-shot, multi-target, high-power microwave (HPM) package will be tested aboard an AGM-86 ALCM. By the mid-2020s, HPM weapons are expected to be integrated onto a "JASSM-ER-type weapon," and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles. HPM weapons are not yet a program of record, but they are desired in situations where one target building needs to be engaged and shut down, while not affecting the buildings around it. Other potential improvements could include increasing autonomy and putting it on hypersonic missiles.[5]

The CHAMP is superior to other electronic warfare weapons because it destroys electronics, rather than jamming which temporarily affects systems that come back online when it stops being applied. The Air Force has two separate "capability portfolios" for weapons and electronic warfare equipment which have been having trouble joining to produce an operational CHAMP system, so a cross-functional study is to be delivered in summer 2015. Congress has suggested repurposing excess cruise missiles demilitarized under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to turn them into CHAMP weapons without violating it.[6] On 14 May 2015, the Air Force nominated the Lockheed Martin JASSM-ER as the optimal air vehicle to carry the CHAMP payload.[7] CHAMP is capable of up to 100 shots per sortie.[8]

Ground-based
In 2013, Raytheon demonstrated a ground-based air defense high-powered microwave system derived from CHAMP technology, disabling electronics on small UAVs. The demonstrator resembles the active denial system non-lethal crowd control device, including its reflector and steering mirror. It is integrated with radar automated tracking. Services and agencies have expressed interest in the technology to disable small UAVs infringing on sensitive sites. Although the current prototype measures 6 m (19.7 ft), the company has designed a system half the size that can deliver the same capability.[9]
 
.
@WebMaster @Horus @Chak Bamu @HRK @Oscar

This person is actively spreading disinformation on the forum by cherry picking sentences from a webpage, and altering the ordering of the sentences to project his own agenda.

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

The full actual article is as follows.

@Cookie Monster I also did not say Rafale will field this weapon, I said its EW suite is classified, so we must hypothesize.
lol u mentioned frying the electronics of another jet...which is an EMP attack.
Refer to post 131...here it is in ur own words "Secondly, if you use microwaves to cause electronics to fry in a fighter jet, this is still EW. And proper EM shielding is one element of stealth design."

It is clear from ur posts that u seriously lack comprehension issues and logic completely escapes u. Hence u rely on personal attacks...and then go cry to mods...such childish behavior. I feel sorry for mods and @HRK that they have to put up with u.

Don't bother replying or quoting me again. U r going on my ignore list.
 
.
lol u mentioned frying the electronics of another jet...which is an EMP attack.
Refer to post 131...here it is in ur own words "Secondly, if you use microwaves to cause electronics to fry in a fighter jet, this is still EW. And proper EM shielding is one element of stealth design."

It is clear from ur posts that u seriously lack comprehension issues and logic completely escapes u. Hence u rely on personal attacks...and then go cry to mods...such childish behavior. I feel sorry for mods and @HRK that they have to put up with u.

Don't bother replying or quoting me again. U r going on my ignore list.

Except, if you keep raising idiotic objections to my posts, I will keep pointing out the stupidity. Yes. I said 'frying the electronics' which is exactly what 'Counter Electronics High Powered Advanced Missile Project' accomplishes. Comprehension issues indeed!
 
.
Except, if you keep raising idiotic objections to my posts, I will keep pointing out the stupidity. Yes. I said 'frying the electronics' which is exactly what 'Counter Electronics High Powered Advanced Missile Project' accomplishes. Comprehension issues indeed!
Check post 135 genius. This is before u posted ur article.
I responded to your "frying the electronics" comment with this "a fighter jet using microwaves to fry electronics in the enemy fighter jet? U mean an EMP attack? Last I checked the US is still trying to develop such a weapon."(post 135/1st paragraph)...and guess what the article u posted of such a weapon...it is experimental. Let that sink in. This means it is a proof of concept...still in development...and not yet deployed. So what u did is actually prove my point. I've never witnessed before such a low IQ as urs.
 
Last edited:
.
Check post 135 genius. This is before u posted ur article.
I responded your "frying the electronics" comment with this "a fighter jet using microwaves to fry electronics in the enemy fighter jet? U mean an EMP attack? Last I checked the US is still trying to develop such a weapon."(post 135/1st paragraph)...and guess what the article u posted of such a weapon...it is experimental. Let that sink in. This means it is a proof...still in development...and not yet deployed. So what u did is actually prove my point. I've never witnessed before such a low IQ as urs.

This is because you never cared to read the entire article. If it is to be believed, USAF has it since 2016 and further improvements and options will be rolled out in the next decade. You are suffering from Selective Bias.
 
.
This is because you never cared to read the entire article. If it is to be believed, USAF has it since 2016 and further improvements and options will be rolled out in the next decade. You are suffering from Selective Bias.
SMH...Do u know the difference between being an experimental/demonstrator/proof of concept weapon/technology and one that is in active service?

u r claiming that USAF has it since 2016...whereas I said that an EMP weapon is in development and is not in active service...now let me break it down for u...the same article u posted.

"The U.S. Air Force expects to have technology for a steerable counter-electronics weapon “available” in 2016, when a multi-shot, multi-target, high-power microwave (HPM) package will be tested aboard an AGM-86 ALCM."

I don't know if u got it yet bcuz clearly u have wasted a few posts on this after failing to read the article in the first place...so I enlarged the the important part for u...look again...do u see the word "tested" on there? Here are a few more parts of that article to shatter ur illusions.

"On 14 May 2015, the Air Force nominated the Lockheed Martin JASSM-ER as the optimal air vehicle to carry the CHAMP payload."
"By the mid-2020s, HPM[High Powered Microwave] weapons are expected to be integrated onto a "JASSM-ER-type weapon," and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Oh and this below is the most important part from that article u posted...I hope it's not too much for ur pea brain to grasp.

"HPM weapons are not yet a program of record, but they are desired in situations where one target building needs to be engaged and shut down, while not affecting the buildings around it."

Do u get what that means? Let me repeat it...High Powered Microwave weapons are not yet a Program of Record(POR). Let me break it down to u further.

The DoD has a procedure that it follows for weapons acquisition. Read below and enlighten urself

"Generally, the defense acquisition system uses “milestones” to oversee and manage acquisition programs (see Figure 2). The milestones serve as gates that must be passed through before the program can proceed to the next phase of the acquisition process. To pass a milestone, a program must meet specific statutory and regulatory requirements and be deemed ready to proceed to the next phase of the acquisition process. There are three milestones:

  • Milestone A—initiates technology maturation and risk reduction.
  • Milestone B—initiates engineering and manufacturing development.
  • Milestone C—initiates production and deployment."
"Most programs begin at Milestone B, the point at which a program becomes a program of record. A program must pass through Milestone B to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase"

Here is the link for this article explaining acquisition process of the DoD.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34026.pdf

If that was too much for u to comprehend...here look at this picture. It's less strain for ur tiny brain
noBtya

Here is a link if u can't see the image
https://ibb.co/noBtya
It is from that same article that u posted. Notice the word "experimental".

In conclusion...this EMP weapon is still in development and not yet operationalized. It is something of a demonstrator/proof of concept. I hope u know the difference. It is akin to SAC developing FC31. In this case FC31 is a demonstrator...and though China has had it for a while...it is not in active service with PLAAF.

I have never had to break down something to this extent for anyone...u take the crown of stupidity :hitwall:
 
Last edited:
.
SMH...Do u know the difference between being an experimental/demonstrator/proof of concept weapon/technology and one that is in active service?

u r claiming that USAF has it since 2016...whereas I said that an EMP weapon is in development and is not in active service...now let me break it down for u...the same article u posted.

"The U.S. Air Force expects to have technology for a steerable counter-electronics weapon “available” in 2016, when a multi-shot, multi-target, high-power microwave (HPM) package will be tested aboard an AGM-86 ALCM."

I don't know if u got it yet bcuz clearly u have wasted a few posts on this after failing to read the article in the first place...so I enlarged the the important part for u...look again...do u see the word "tested" on there? Here are a few more parts of that article to shatter ur illusions.

"On 14 May 2015, the Air Force nominated the Lockheed Martin JASSM-ER as the optimal air vehicle to carry the CHAMP payload."
"By the mid-2020s, HPM[High Powered Microwave] weapons are expected to be integrated onto a "JASSM-ER-type weapon," and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Oh and this below is the most important part from that article u posted...I hope it's not too much for ur pea brain to grasp.

"HPM weapons are not yet a program of record, but they are desired in situations where one target building needs to be engaged and shut down, while not affecting the buildings around it."

Do u get what that means? Let me repeat it...High Powered Microwave weapons are not yet a Program of Record(POR). Let me break it down to u further.

The DoD has a procedure that it follows for weapons acquisition. Read below and enlighten urself

"Generally, the defense acquisition system uses “milestones” to oversee and manage acquisition programs (see Figure 2). The milestones serve as gates that must be passed through before the program can proceed to the next phase of the acquisition process. To pass a milestone, a program must meet specific statutory and regulatory requirements and be deemed ready to proceed to the next phase of the acquisition process. There are three milestones:

  • Milestone A—initiates technology maturation and risk reduction.
  • Milestone B—initiates engineering and manufacturing development.
  • Milestone C—initiates production and deployment."
"Most programs begin at Milestone B, the point at which a program becomes a program of record. A program must pass through Milestone B to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase"

Here is the link for this article explaining acquisition process of the DoD.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34026.pdf

If that was too much for u to comprehend...here look at this picture. It's less strain for ur tiny brain
noBtya

Here is a link if u can't see the image
https://ibb.co/noBtya
It is from that same article that u posted. Notice the word "experimental".

In conclusion...this EMP weapon is still in development and not yet operationalized. It is something of a demonstrator/proof of concept. I hope u know the difference. It is akin to SAC developing FC31. In this case FC31 is a demonstrator...and though China has had it for a while...it is not in active service with PLAAF.

I have never had to break down something to this extent for anyone...u take the crown of stupidity :hitwall:

It's a real pity that you are such a poor reflection upon your family, friends, and your teachers. Because you have now made it preeminently clear that you are unable to extract information from provided materials. Instead, in blind biasedness, you read what you want to read. You are a biased, hypocritical, two-faced, loathsome character, and I can inform you that it is a singular displeasure to converse with you. Now understand this, if you use one more pejorative word against me, I will handily inform you what kind of animals your family comes from. Read this paragraph, understand it, assimilate it, and don't reply to any of my posts until you have washed the cr*p inside your brain, your mouth, and on your fingers, with Carbolic Soap.

Now, when I refer you to something, I am giving you food for thought, and providing an avenue for you to go conduct some research to increase your learning. When reading any paragraph on Wikipedia, it is essential to also look at any references provided. As a matter of fact, since Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you should be wary of gleaning any information from it if references are not provided.

The paragraph that talks about CHAMP not being a Program of Record, refers to reference number 5, and dated 16 Sep, 2014.


Funnily enough, at least for me, clicking on the link leads to a page that is empty. Which means, we actually have no evidence backing up this claim.

But, if you think about it, the PoR discussion is irrelevant. We don't care if USAF wants it right now, or not. What is more important, is whether the technology exists. If from CHAMP not being a PoR you understand that the technology itself is not available, then you have reached the wrong conclusion already.

That same Wikipedia page also has reference number 9:


See the date? It says 21 June, 2016. Before you make the effort, let me summarize the available information for you.

Raytheon has the mature technology on hand. It is more of a budgetary constraint on the part of US government, rather than a technology limitation. The demonstrator was for air to ground attack, but it can be configured for use by any service.

Feel free to peruse the following at your own leisure, but let us come back to the discussion at hand.

What I have just shown is that the technology exists, and is mature. What we also know is that the Indian Rafales will receive extensive customizations, the nature of these being unknown. Hence, we need to put two and two together, and make hypotheses based on available technology. And here is the even more important thing. A fighter jet is designed, not only on current threats, but also for future threats. Which means you have been arguing a moot point. Even if we were to accept that the technology will be available in 2025, we should be paying attention today. Adding requirements in the design phase is easy, adding modifications later is costly.

And finally, in the interest of further research, typing 'Raytheon CHAMP' in google gives the following as well. Which further corroborates the understanding that the technology exists, is mature, and is constantly evolving. It is a serious threat to be considered.

http://www.janes.com/article/64267/raytheon-on-target-with-champ

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-pitches-champ-derivative-for-air-defence-426549/
Raytheon's high powered microwave demonstrator, which disabled electronics on small unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) during a 2013 demonstration, has sparked renewed interest among Department of Defense customers.

Observers at a 2013 ground-based air defence demonstration on an Army site have recently resurfaced and expressed their interest in the technology, Steve Downie, Ktech site director for Raytheon Missile Systems told reporters June 20. The company has not secured a customer, but expects a request for proposals will be released within 18 months.

While Raytheon has mature technology on hand, federal budget constraints and an uneasy fiscal environment have stymied fielding, according to Downie. Still, a joint urgent operational needs requirement that could rapidly field the technology is being examined, he said.

As an electronic attack system, the demonstrator is the ground-based cousin to Raytheon’s computer-frying missile, the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project or CHAMP. The demonstrator also resembles the active denial system’s configuration, including its reflector and steering mirror, but with a different mission set, Downie said.

The system is integrated with radar that tracks an unmanned vehicle and then determines whether it can pulse the target with its high-powered microwave source. Although there are decision points which require a command to fire, tracking could be automated, Downie said.

The company originally developed the HPM demonstrator for the Army, but its capability could be tailored for the U.S. Navy or Air Force, he said. Earlier this year, the Air Force and the US Department of Energy expressed interest in technology which could disable small UAVs infringing on nuclear sites.

“All the services can use the technology,” Downie said. “But the applications are sometimes drastically different, the mission determines the system capabilities.”

While the current prototype measures 6m (19.7ft), the company has also designed a system half the size with the same capability.

“When you build a system, you put it a lot of things you think you might need,” Downie said. “The 20ft [container] was almost a random choice and by the time we put everything in there we thought we needed, it was only 50 or 60% full.”

Raytheon plans to participate in upcoming range tests this year, which will demonstrate enhanced capabilities the company has developed since 2013.
 
.
It's a real pity that you are such a poor reflection upon your family, friends, and your teachers. Because you have now made it preeminently clear that you are unable to extract information from provided materials. Instead, in blind biasedness, you read what you want to read. You are a biased, hypocritical, two-faced, loathsome character, and I can inform you that it is a singular displeasure to converse with you. Now understand this, if you use one more pejorative word against me, I will handily inform you what kind of animals your family comes from. Read this paragraph, understand it, assimilate it, and don't reply to any of my posts until you have washed the cr*p inside your brain, your mouth, and on your fingers, with Carbolic Soap.
Oh look who is getting on his high horse...if u read the whole back and forth between us u will see I started a respectful discussion while u charged in with personal attacks. Two can play at that game. Why don't u go checkout my very first response to u in this thread and try to find any personal attacks against u...u won't find any. I only started responding to u in kind when u kept going with ur idiotic personal attacks. I've come across many ill mannered idiots on this forum and I respond to them accordingly, u r no exception.

Now, when I refer you to something, I am giving you food for thought, and providing an avenue for you to go conduct some research to increase your learning. When reading any paragraph on Wikipedia, it is essential to also look at any references provided. As a matter of fact, since Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you should be wary of gleaning any information from it if references are not provided.

The paragraph that talks about CHAMP not being a Program of Record, refers to reference number 5, and dated 16 Sep, 2014.

Funnily enough, at least for me, clicking on the link leads to a page that is empty. Which means, we actually have no evidence backing up this claim.
U r the one who posted that Wikipedia link in order to prove ur point. By saying that it's not reliable enough...and pointing out the missing references of the Wikipedia article that u used to try and prove ur claim...u only insult urself.

But, if you think about it, the PoR discussion is irrelevant. We don't care if USAF wants it right now, or not. What is more important, is whether the technology exists. If from CHAMP not being a PoR you understand that the technology itself is not available, then you have reached the wrong conclusion already.

That same Wikipedia page also has reference number 9:

See the date? It says 21 June, 2016. Before you make the effort, let me summarize the available information for you.

Raytheon has the mature technology on hand. It is more of a budgetary constraint on the part of US government, rather than a technology limitation. The demonstrator was for air to ground attack, but it can be configured for use by any service.
Whether the technology exists or not was never the point of debate. I told u even before u posted this article in post 135 that the US is developing such a weapon. The point of contention was that it is not yet being fielded, which u just accepted in a round about manner. It will take quite a few years(somewhere around mid 2020s) for even the US(one of the most advanced countries) to field such a weapon for combat purposes. This means that other countries will take even longer to acquire it(through development or purchase). This leaves the current Rafales(French origin) with only one form of EW which is and has been jamming. This is already being addressed in block III by using AESA radar, which among other benefits is harder to jam. Other electronics components will probably also be upgraded in view of that.

As for u raising the point about diamond nose and other stealth aspects...those r not going to happen and will be useless. It will skyrocket the cost of JF17 unnecessarily and create unsatisfactory results bcuz JF17 was never built with stealth in mind. If stealth is needed it will require a whole new program where a jet is designed from scratch with the goal of making it stealthy.

And that part I highlighted in red...where u claim that US didn't acquire it yet bcuz of budget constraints is just laughable. U think that the only thing holding back a super power with the biggest military budget on earth from fielding this weapon is money constraint? That too under Trump's administration who cut all sorts of other government programs just to raise military budget even more?

Such a desperate excuse to use instead of just admitting that u were wrong.

Feel free to peruse the following at your own leisure, but let us come back to the discussion at hand.

What I have just shown is that the technology exists, and is mature. What we also know is that the Indian Rafales will receive extensive customizations, the nature of these being unknown. Hence, we need to put two and two together, and make hypotheses based on available technology. And here is the even more important thing. A fighter jet is designed, not only on current threats, but also for future threats. Which means you have been arguing a moot point. Even if we were to accept that the technology will be available in 2025, we should be paying attention today. Adding requirements in the design phase is easy, adding modifications later is costly.
I have not been arguing a moot point bcuz if US gets it in 2020s then India should get it by 2030s if not later...for which there is a new program(yes stealth fighter at least according to the news anyways). This new program(and not the JF17) is the one that should take into account potential capabilities the enemy would have from mid 2020s onwards and prepare accordingly.

Read the part I made bold in ur own post. This is what I was trying to tell u...this is how this whole thing started. "Adding requirements in the design phase is easy, adding modifications later is costly."...ur argument about adding stealth features to JF17(and that somehow it would help counter EW capabilities of Rafales? :what:) does exactly that...stealth was not set as a goal in the development of JF17 and trying to add it now makes it unnecessarily costly with very few gains.

And finally, in the interest of further research, typing 'Raytheon CHAMP' in google gives the following as well. Which further corroborates the understanding that the technology exists, is mature, and is constantly evolving. It is a serious threat to be considered.

http://www.janes.com/article/64267/raytheon-on-target-with-champ

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-pitches-champ-derivative-for-air-defence-426549/
Again I already told u in post 135 before u even posted that link, that the US has such a weapon in development...its existence was never in question. The argument was whether or not it is a threat on the battlefield(in active service/a threat from Indian Rafales potentially)...and now it is established that it is currently not. In the future it could be and that is something that can be taken into account in other programs like the next gen fighter program.
The purpose of the JF17 program was to replace legacy aircrafts like F7 and mirages with a reliable platform that is sanction proof/roughly matches the performance of F16/low cost. The upgrades in later blocks are welcome but trying to advocate turning JF17 into a stealth fighter is just foolish and a wet dream.

In any case it's a relief to see that u have come around to seeing the reality and agreed that EW still currently centers on jamming(and not EMP...referring to Indian Rafales here) and that adding a bunch of hodgepodge stealth features on JF17 will make it costly. I was beginning to worry that u had serious comprehension issues.
 
Last edited:
.
Oh look who is getting on his high horse...if u read the whole back and forth between us u will see I started a respectful discussion while u charged in with personal attacks. Two can play at that game. Why don't u go checkout my very first response to u in this thread and try to find any personal attacks against u...u won't find any. I only started responding to u in kind when u kept going with ur idiotic personal attacks. I've come across many ill mannered idiots on this forum and I respond to them accordingly, u r no exception.


U r the one who posted that Wikipedia link in order to prove ur point. By saying that it's not reliable enough...and pointing out the missing references of the Wikipedia article that u used to try and prove ur claim...u only insult urself.


Whether the technology exists or not was never the point of debate. I told u even before u posted this article in post 135 that the US is developing such a weapon. The point of contention was that it is not yet being fielded, which u just accepted in a round about manner. It will take quite a few years(somewhere around mid 2020s) for even the US(one of the most advanced countries) to field such a weapon for combat purposes. This means that other countries will take even longer to acquire it(through development or purchase). This leaves the current Rafales(French origin) with only one form of EW which is and has been jamming. This is already being addressed in block III by using AESA radar, which among other benefits is harder to jam. Other electronics components will probably also be upgraded in view of that.

As for u raising the point about diamond nose and other stealth aspects...those r not going to happen and will be useless. It will skyrocket the cost of JF17 unnecessarily and create unsatisfactory results bcuz JF17 was never built with stealth in mind. If stealth is needed it will require a whole new program where a jet is designed from scratch with the goal of making it stealthy.

And that part I highlighted in red...where u claim that US didn't acquire it yet bcuz of budget constraints is just laughable. U think that the only thing holding back a super power with the biggest military budget on earth from fielding this weapon is money constraint? That too under Trump's administration who cut all sorts of other government programs just to raise military budget even more?

Such a desperate excuse to use instead of just admitting that u were wrong.


I have not been arguing a moot point bcuz if US gets it in 2020s then India should get it by 2030s if not later...for which there is a new program(yes stealth fighter at least according to the news anyways). This new program(and not the JF17) is the one that should take into account potential capabilities the enemy would have from mid 2020s onwards and prepare accordingly.

Read the part I made bold in ur own post. This is what I was trying to tell u...this is how this whole thing started. "Adding requirements in the design phase is easy, adding modifications later is costly."*...ur argument about adding stealth features to JF17(and that somehow it would help counter EW capabilities of Rafales? :what:) does exactly that...stealth was not set as a goal in the development of JF17 and trying to add it now makes it unnecessarily costly with very few gains.


Again I already told u in post135 before u even posted that link, that the US has such a weapon in development...its existence was never in question. The argument was whether or not it is a threat on the battlefield(in active service/a threat from Indian Rafales potentially)...and now it is established that it is currently not. In the future it could be and that is something that can be taken into account in other programs like the next gen fighter program.
The purpose of the JF17 program was to replace legacy aircrafts like F7 and mirages with a reliable platform that is sanction proof/roughly matches the performance of F16/low cost. The upgrades in later blocks are welcome but trying to advocate turning JF17 into a stealth fighter is just a wet dream and foolish approach.

In any case it's a relief to see that u have come around to seeing the reality and agreed that EW still currently centers on jamming(and not EMP...referring to Indian Rafales) and that adding a bunch of hodgepodge stealth features on JF17 will make it costly. I was beginning to worry that u had serious comprehension issues.

You are still suffering selective bias.

Fact: Counter electronics technology is available today for procurement and deployment on fighter jets.

Your bias:

1. If America can't wield it, no one else can.
2. The French cannot produce this technology until it is fully operationalized in USAF.

Your misunderstanding:

1. "It is high cost to put stealth on Thunder." A new block provides time to sit back and rethink the design. Case in point, the lower wing loading on B version, and its swept back tail with increased height. These are major structural changes that would require extensive testing, yet the changes have been made.

2. "By stealth I somehow mean an F-35 level of stealth". Diamond nose and radar dispersive angular surfaces are a basic structural modification. We are not talking using advanced and costly materials. Combine this with EM shielding and you have a credible defence capability.
 
.
You are still suffering selective bias.

Fact: Counter electronics technology is available today for procurement and deployment on fighter jets.

Your bias:

1. If America can't wield it, no one else can.
2. The French cannot produce this technology until it is fully operationalized in USAF.
This is not bias...it is based on reality.
First of all...here u r going all over the place. By saying counter electronics tech is available r u again talking about EMP systems? Or jamming?

By using terms such as that u r referring to a broad spectrum. It basically revolves around incapacitating an enemy's electronic equipment either temporarily or permanently. Jamming being the temporary approach and EMP being the latter.

If u r referring to jamming...then that's not even an argument. It is used by every fighter jet(in some more than others). Rafales are expected to have some top notch jamming capabilities. In order to jam a radar...the enemy jet(let's say Rafale) listens in to the radio waves being emitted by a radar(assume JF17) and after determining the location(JF17) and the frequency at which the radar is operating...shoots bursts of radio waves(of that frequency) towards it(JF17) in order to confuse that radar...this is radar jamming simplified.

One of the best ways currently to minimize this is having an AESA radar bcuz it has a lot of TR(transmitter/receiver) modules, which allows it to radiate multiple beams of radio waves at multiple frequencies simultaneously in contrast to PESAs(in which all the antenna elements are connected to a single transmitter and/or receiver) that can only emit a single beam of radio waves at a single frequency at a time. This makes it a lot harder for the enemy to jam ur radar.

Another popular and effective approach is to incorporate an IRST sensor. This allows a jet to have the radar turned off while still being able to search/track/engage enemy jets based on their infrared signature.

As for the EMP part of counter electronics approach...it was already established that it is currently not operationalized...and no I never said that if US doesn't have it then no one else can. The French are indeed capable of developing it. But again let's come back to reality. In the real world a country/company must research/develop a technology in order to have it. It doesn't just spawn out of thin air. The reason I said that it will be even later for Indian Rafales to have such a thing is bcuz US is actively pursuing this...and even then the US will have it around 2020s...Dassault or its partners in the Rafale program do not have any such program(EMP) going on currently. Logically it follows that the country who made headway into it first is going to get it first. Do u see the difference between bias and reality now?

Your misunderstanding:

1. "It is high cost to put stealth on Thunder." A new block provides time to sit back and rethink the design. Case in point, the lower wing loading on B version, and its swept back tail with increased height. These are major structural changes that would require extensive testing, yet the changes have been made.
Indeed the changes can be made but this doesn't mean that the cost doesn't increase. The cost per jet increases as well. What is considered here is the costs/benefit analysis. The sweptback tail/enlarged wings/larger nose are not that big of a change and these have been made to incorporate subsystems such as AESA radar(and maybe an IRST pod in block III), more fuel, etc.
Those subsystems are necessary in order to gain modern capabilities making block III a 4th Gen plus jet from a 4th Gen...just by making a few minor tweaks to an existing design...it holds way more benefit at a relatively little cost.

2. "By stealth I somehow mean an F-35 level of stealth". Diamond nose and radar dispersive angular surfaces are a basic structural modification. We are not talking using advanced and costly materials. Combine this with EM shielding and you have a credible defence capability.
Diamond nose and radar dispersive angular surfaces changes the entire body of the plane...it is not something as simple as enlarging the wings or enlarging the nose. F35/F22/etc. were designed for this from the start...their whole body is designed to be low observable by shaping it to deflect most of the radar waves away from the source. JF17 was not shaped as such and therefore it would require a change to the entire airframe...moreover to create such a precise frame on PAC's production lines would probably require a major technological upgrade.

In addition to having a specially shaped airframe F22 and F35 rely on composite materials(baked in stealth) and RAM coatings. Even if the frame of JF17 was redesigned to give it that angular shape then it would still require the use of these composites and RAM coatings to achieve stealthiness...bcuz without this second step why bother with the first...no fighter jet exists in this world that is a half-assed effort at being stealthy. There is no fighter jet that relies on shaping alone and forgoes composites and RAM coatings to keep the cost low. Why would u even suggest such a proposal? It either is stealth(shape/composites/RAM coatings/etc[the whole package]) or it is not.

So in conclusion if going for stealth the JF17 would require a specially designed(redesigned) airframe(the whole airframe) which would probably require a major upgrade to the production lines at PAC(in order to make it extremely precise). Moreover it would require extensive use of composite materials and RAM coatings...all so it can somehow counter EW capabilities of Rafale?

This already sounds like a whole new project...and even if JF17 was for some odd reason converted into this stealth fighter then that will only help it in becoming harder to detect. Once detected though...the shaping of its airframe/composites/RAM coatings/diamond nose, none of that would help it counter the jamming of its systems. The only thing that would help is upgrading the subsystems(radar/communications/etc.) to make them less prone to jamming.
 
Last edited:
.
This is not bias...it is based on reality.
First of all...here u r going all over the place. By saying counter electronics tech is available r u again talking about EMP systems? Or jamming?

By using terms such as that u r referring to a broad spectrum. It basically revolves around incapacitating an enemy's electronic equipment either temporarily or permanently. Jamming being the temporary approach and EMP being the latter.

If u r referring to jamming...then that's not even an argument. It is used by every fighter jet(in some more than others). Rafales are expected to have some top notch jamming capabilities. In order to jam a radar...the enemy jet(let's say Rafale) listens in to the radio waves being emitted by a radar(assume JF17) and after determining the location(JF17) and the frequency at which the radar is operating...shoots bursts of microwaves(of that frequency) towards it(JF17) in order to confuse that radar...this is radar jamming simplified.

One of the best ways currently to minimize this is having an AESA radar bcuz it has a lot of TR(transmitter/receiver) modules, which allows it to radiate multiple beams of radio waves at multiple frequencies simultaneously in contrast to PESAs(in which all the antenna elements are connected to a single transmitter and/or receiver) that can only emit a single beam of radio waves at a single frequency at a time. This makes it a lot harder for the enemy to jam ur radar.

Another popular and effective approach is to incorporate an IRST sensor. This allows a jet to have the radar turned off while still being able to search/track/engage enemy jets based on their infrared signature.

As for the EMP part of counter electronics approach...it was already established that it is currently not operationalized...and no I never said that if US doesn't have it then no one else can. The French are indeed capable of developing it. But again let's come back to reality. In the real world a country/company must pursue a technology in order to have it. It doesn't just spawn out of thin air. The reason I said that it will be even later for Indian Rafales to have such a thing is bcuz US is actively pursuing this...and even then the US will have it around 2020s...Dassault or its partners in the Rafale program do not have any such program(EMP) going on currently. Logically it follows that the country who made headway into it first is going to get it first. Do u see the difference between bias and reality now?

Since we have been talking about CHAMP -> Counter Electronics High Power Advanced Microwave Project, I don't think 'counter-electronics' should cause any ambiguity.

Now, this is a sensitive technology, and details are pretty hard to come by. It's not like we are going to find a page on Raytheon's website, informing us what level of capability they have. So we need to follow the trail of information available to us. Let us bring together the available evidence.

First of all, the following Scientific American article, dated Sep 12, 2012, casts very serious doubts on HMP weapons in general, including CHAMP.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-power-microwave-weapons-start-to-look-like-dead-end/

Now, let us look at the history of technology development here. In 2009, Ktech is awarded a grant to develop an explosive power source for microwave systems. The aims are:

1. Minimize metal used.
2. Minimize kinetic energy.
3. Minimize quantity of explosives.
4. Minimize debris.

https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/212080
upload_2017-9-3_17-33-25.png


The same firm is awarded another grant in 2010. The aims:

1. Power an HPM source.
2. Compactness.
3. Low mass.
4. Little to no debris.

Notice the design aims have evolved within a year.

https://sbirsource.com/sbir/awards/60399-compact-high-power-microwave-payloads
upload_2017-9-3_17-37-5.png


On June 14, 2011, Raytheon announces the acquisition of Ktech. This is actual $$$ being spent by a major defence corporation. Notice the glowing words in which it notes KTech's achievements in microwave power.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1835

upload_2017-9-3_17-58-14.png


Meanwhile, on Sep 22, 2011, Boeing announces progress on the actual cruise missile that will carry the eventual payload

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-09-22-Boeing-CHAMP-Missile-Completes-1st-Flight-Test

On October 22, 2012 about a month after the SciAm article, Boeing announces a successful test of CHAMP
http://www.boeing.com/features/2012/10/bds-champ-10-22-12.page

On May 24, 2015, investment site The Motley Fool has the following to say. But first, this is extremely interesting
This article was updated on Dec. 14, 2016, and originally published May 24, 2015.

Now, note the part in bold
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/24/boeing-unveils-electromagnetic-pulse-weapon.aspx
To date, Military Embedded Systems notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory has contracted Boeing to build only five CHAMP devices. But the trend in Pentagon acquisitions projects suggests the Air Force could soon be building these weapons en masse. From MALD-J radar-jamming drones to Switchblade kamikaze guided rockets and now CHAMP mini-electromagnetic-pulse weapons, the Air Force seems intent on fighting its next war more or less entirely by remote control.

On 23 March, 2016
This article proves beyond a shadow of doubt that USAF has the capability today, albeit in limited numbers. Note again the part in bold.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...h-nabs-contract-for-counter-electroni-423454/
Raytheon's Ktech nabs contract for counter-electronics missile
  • 23 March, 2016
  • SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
  • BY: James Drew
  • Washington DC
Raytheon’s acquisition of directed energy firm Ktech in 2011 is paying dividends following the US Defense Department’s award of a $4.8 million contract to repackage two conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCM) as high-power microwave weapons.

Ktech produced the pulsing electronics kit that Boeing proved could knock out banks of computers in an October 2012 flight demonstration, overseen by the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL).

The award to Raytheon is the first significant movement on the so-called Counter-electronics High-power microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) since that 2012 demonstration.

The announcement is a blow to Boeing, which no longer leads the effort. Boeing, as the CALCM’s original manufacturer, will support Raytheon as a subcontractor, the company confirms. It could also offer up alternative missile or platform options to carry the payload, since CALCM is being removed from service because of its age and limited inventory.

In an interview with Flightglobal, Donald Sullivan and Peter Duselis of Raytheon Missile Systems Ktech explained that the counter-electronics system inside the refurbished conventional, subsonic AGM-86 air-launched missiles have been improved since the 2012 tests.

“There have been a number of components and subsystems within the payload that have had their performance parameters increased in terms of the output specifications of the system as well as its environmental capability,” says Sullivan, Ktech’s technical director. That translates to the latest version having improved operational effects and more stability across the missile’s flight envelope.

Raytheon “cannot confirm or deny” many aspects of the project, and directed specific questions to AFRL.

Laboratory officials have confirmed that the CHAMP system demonstrated in 2012 was capable of firing up to “100 shots per sortie” to fry military and commercial electronics in a very predictable way.

The US Air Force has been under pressure from Congress to make use of the technology and has even received extra funding to make a handful of missile available for operational use.

getasset.aspx


US Air Force/Boeing

The air force is moving slower than some wish, but it is pursuing integration with Lockheed Martin's extended-range AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and reusable unmanned aircraft – since CHAMP can keep pulsing as long it has enough power input.

Speaking to Flightglobal at the Air Warfare Symposium in Florida last month, Air Combat Command chief Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle confirmed that the operational force wants the counter-electronics capability and that some units are being kept as “weapons to use in a contingency”.

“Our real goal is to take what we learnt in CHAMP and apply it to the next weapon,” he says. “We have kept some, it’s a very small number, so we have some capability with it now. Our intent is to move that to the next weapon, a more advanced weapon, and continue to modernise it.”


A Boeing B-52 launched CHAMP in the 2012 demonstration at the Utah Test and Training Range, however, it's employment from a Northrop Grumman B-2 in an animated promotional video.

“We’re looking forward to and expecting that high-powered microwaves will be an inherent part of third offset strategy along with other forms of directed energy,” says Sullivan.

Update: This story has been updated to note that Boeing will support Raytheon on the project.

And finally, on 3rd October, 2016, Jane's 360 reports

http://www.janes.com/article/64267/raytheon-on-target-with-champ
upload_2017-9-3_18-17-41.png


At this point, you simply cannot deny the fact that this technology is available today. And we have no reason to believe that the French cannot get access to it. They aren't going to put this on a website. The Indians are spending big money on Rafale, to get access to the very best technology out there. It is a traitorous, ostrich like mentality to show optimism here and think the threat is too far away. This is negligence in National Security. When will we wake up and realize the threats that we face?

Indeed the changes can be made but this doesn't mean that the cost doesn't increase. The cost per jet increases as well. What is considered here is the costs/benefit analysis. The sweptback tail/enlarged wings/larger nose are not that big of a change and these have been made to incorporate subsystems such as AESA radar(and maybe an IRST pod in block III), more fuel, etc.
Those subsystems are necessary in order to gain modern capabilities making block III a 4th Gen plus jet from a 4th Gen...just by making a few minor tweaks to an existing design...it holds way more benefit at a relatively little cost.

These changes have nothing to do with AESA radar, or IRST. The AESA radar requires a bigger nose cone, and IRST fits into the front canopy. And to say that these a 'few minor tweaks to an existing design' shows total lack of aerodynamics knowledge.

The position and shape of the vertical stabilizer controls the aircraft's trim around the vertical axis. The swept back tail increases the moment arm, and completely changes the aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics. The longer moment arm also increases stresses on the airframe, and thus changes the mechanical characteristics as well. The result needs to be taken through rigorous tests from scratch to prove the aircraft's continued effectiveness. This was a major investment of time and money. Again, you want to ignore all this because it suits your purpose. Don't keep making this mistake over and over again.

Diamond nose and radar dispersive angular surfaces changes the entire body of the plane...it is not something as simple as enlarging the wings or enlarging the nose. F35/F22/etc. were designed for this from the start...their whole body is designed to be low observable by shaping it to deflect most of the radar waves away from the source. JF17 was not shaped as such and therefore it would require a change to the entire airframe...moreover to create such a precise frame on PAC's production lines would probably require a major technological upgrade.

Notice your own use of the word 'probably'. You, yourself aren't sure about this. And yet you keep arguing with me? The point is, if the need is high enough, it justifies the investment as well. The Rafale threat is extremely potent. The investment is certainly justified.

But there is another angle to it. PAF is planning for a fifth generation plane next. Here is the rub: you don't wake up one fine morning and make a fifth generation aircraft. You need to work consistently towards it. An stealth based airframe is a very good stepping stone for PAF to progress towards its ultimate goal. It makes very good long term sense.

In addition to having a specially shaped airframe F22 and F35 rely on composite materials(baked in stealth) and RAM coatings. Even if the frame of JF17 was redesigned to give it that angular shape then it would still require the use of these composites and RAM coatings to achieve stealthiness...bcuz without this second step why bother with the first...no fighter jet exists in this world that is a half-assed effort at being stealth. There is no fighter jet that relies on shaping alone and doesn't use composites and RAM coatings to keep the cost low. Why would u even suggest such a proposal? It either is stealth(shape/composites/RAM coatings/etc[the whole package]) or it is not.

So in conclusion if going for stealth the JF17 would require a specially designed(redesigned) airframe(the whole airframe) which would probably require a major upgrade to the production lines at PAC(in order to make it extremely precise). Moreover it would require extensive use of composite materials and RAM coatings...all so it can somehow counter EW capabilities of Rafale?

This already sounds like a whole new project...and even if JF17 was for some odd reason converted into this stealth fighter then that will only help it in becoming harder to detect. Once detected though...the shaping of its airframe/composites/RAM coatings/diamond nose, none of that would help it counter the jamming of its systems. The only thing that would help is upgrading the subsystems(radar/communications/etc.) to make them less prone to jamming.

Now let me enlighten you. If you follow the senior poster messiach, you will realize that already stealth based features have been implemented on the Thunder. An example is modified intake cowls that avoid increasing the temperature, thus increasing the jet's IR signature. This already helps in head to head BVR engagements. Yes, there is such a thing as partial stealth. It can be selectively applied to increase bang for buck.
 
.
Since we have been talking about CHAMP -> Counter Electronics High Power Advanced Microwave Project, I don't think 'counter-electronics' should cause any ambiguity.

Now, this is a sensitive technology, and details are pretty hard to come by. It's not like we are going to find a page on Raytheon's website, informing us what level of capability they have. So we need to follow the trail of information available to us. Let us bring together the available evidence.

First of all, the following Scientific American article, dated Sep 12, 2012, casts very serious doubts on HMP weapons in general, including CHAMP.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-power-microwave-weapons-start-to-look-like-dead-end/

Now, let us look at the history of technology development here. In 2009, Ktech is awarded a grant to develop an explosive power source for microwave systems. The aims are:

1. Minimize metal used.
2. Minimize kinetic energy.
3. Minimize quantity of explosives.
4. Minimize debris.

https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/212080
View attachment 422733

The same firm is awarded another grant in 2010. The aims:

1. Power an HPM source.
2. Compactness.
3. Low mass.
4. Little to no debris.

Notice the design aims have evolved within a year.

https://sbirsource.com/sbir/awards/60399-compact-high-power-microwave-payloads
View attachment 422734

On June 14, 2011, Raytheon announces the acquisition of Ktech. This is actual $$$ being spent by a major defence corporation. Notice the glowing words in which it notes KTech's achievements in microwave power.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1835

View attachment 422743

Meanwhile, on Sep 22, 2011, Boeing announces progress on the actual cruise missile that will carry the eventual payload

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-09-22-Boeing-CHAMP-Missile-Completes-1st-Flight-Test

On October 22, 2012 about a month after the SciAm article, Boeing announces a successful test of CHAMP
http://www.boeing.com/features/2012/10/bds-champ-10-22-12.page

On May 24, 2015, investment site The Motley Fool has the following to say. But first, this is extremely interesting


Now, note the part in bold
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/24/boeing-unveils-electromagnetic-pulse-weapon.aspx


On 23 March, 2016
This article proves beyond a shadow of doubt that USAF has the capability today, albeit in limited numbers. Note again the part in bold.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...h-nabs-contract-for-counter-electroni-423454/


And finally, on 3rd October, 2016, Jane's 360 reports

http://www.janes.com/article/64267/raytheon-on-target-with-champ
View attachment 422747

At this point, you simply cannot deny the fact that this technology is available today. And we have no reason to believe that the French cannot get access to it. They aren't going to put this on a website. The Indians are spending big money on Rafale, to get access to the very best technology out there. It is a traitorous, ostrich like mentality to show optimism here and think the threat is too far away. This is negligence in National Security. When will we wake up and realize the threats that we face?
Again I don't know why u keep saying that...I never denied this technology's existence. Read my post 135. I only said that USAF isn't going to acquire it(operationalized/acquired in large quantities on JASSM/UAVs) until mid 2020s.

So what u r saying here is that if the French do get it they r not going to advertise it on the website...meaning there is no proof that the French acquired this tech from Raytheon/Boeing...and yet u r adamant that the French Rafales have it?

It is not a traitorous mentality. It is called considering the facts...FACTS and basing judgement on reality. Pak isn't US/China/KSA with immense capital... to throw around just bcuz u can. Pak's enemy has a much bigger capital to spend on arms...and Pak has to carefully utilize its limited resources to effectively counter and deter the enemy.

The threat of Rafales is being considered but based on facts. All the facts currently point to Rafales having top notch JAMMING capabilities, which will be countered with the upgrading of subsystems to make them less prone to jamming.

The future threat isn't being ignored either. The next gen fighter program is based on the threats PAF would face within the time frame when it would be operationalized.

These changes have nothing to do with AESA radar, or IRST. The AESA radar requires a bigger nose cone, and IRST fits into the front canopy. And to say that these a 'few minor tweaks to an existing design' shows total lack of aerodynamics knowledge.
The JF17B already has a bigger nosecone...and so yes it has to do with AESA. This rather shows ur total lack of knowledge. These r indeed "minor tweaks" as compared to what u r arguing...which is to change the entire airframe to make it stealth.

The position and shape of the vertical stabilizer controls the aircraft's trim around the vertical axis. The swept back tail increases the moment arm, and completely changes the aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics. The longer moment arm also increases stresses on the airframe, and thus changes the mechanical characteristics as well. The result needs to be taken through rigorous tests from scratch to prove the aircraft's continued effectiveness. This was a major investment of time and money. Again, you want to ignore all this because it suits your purpose. Don't keep making this mistake over and over again.
This wasn't as big of an investment as it would be to change the entire airframe for stealth shaping. I have no purpose/agenda here for which I'm trying to ignore/change anything. Which Pakistani wouldn't like their country to have a stealth fighter? What I'm arguing is making smart use of resources. JF17 was conceptualized in the 1990s...it's purpose was to replace the aging platforms like F7s/Mirages, be sanction proof, built according to Pak needs, built indigenous capacity/industry. It is on track for all of that. Trying to modify something like that into a 5th gen is beyond retarded. Instead a new program from scratch should focus on that...and guess what it already is. No country on earth followed the approach u r suggesting. The Americans didn't take their F16 and tried to turn it into stealth. The Russians didn't take their Su27 variants and tried turning it into a stealth fighter. The Chinese didn't take their F7s and modify it into a stealth plane. The Japanese didn't take their F2 and modify it into stealth.

Notice your own use of the word 'probably'. You, yourself aren't sure about this. And yet you keep arguing with me? The point is, if the need is high enough, it justifies the investment as well. The Rafale threat is extremely potent. The investment is certainly justified.
Yes I did use the word "probably"...regarding ur comment about the stealth shaping of JF17 airframe...
"moreover to create such a precise frame on PAC's production lines would probably require a major technological upgrade."
Bcuz unlike u I don't claim to know something if I don't know it. I don't know the current capabilities of PAC in terms of precision manufacturing. Considering that PAC hasn't produced a stealth fighter before where the airframe requires extremely low levels of tolerances...I assume that it would require some upgrades in the manufacturing process.

But there is another angle to it. PAF is planning for a fifth generation plane next. Here is the rub: you don't wake up one fine morning and make a fifth generation aircraft. You need to work consistently towards it. An stealth based airframe is a very good stepping stone for PAF to progress towards its ultimate goal. It makes very good long term sense.
Yes PAC should acquire such capabilities over time as they will be needed for the next gen fighter jet program...and not the JF17. The JF17 program is working fine...accomplishing what it was intended for.

Now let me enlighten you. If you follow the senior poster messiach, you will realize that already stealth based features have been implemented on the Thunder. An example is modified intake cowls that avoid increasing the temperature, thus increasing the jet's IR signature. This already helps in head to head BVR engagements. Yes, there is such a thing as partial stealth. It can be selectively applied to increase bang for buck.
That's they keyword there...bang for the buck. The reduction in IR signature with the modified intake cowls would help evading a heat seaking missile increasing survivability...indeed a bang for the buck. Stealth shaping the airframe and not using increased amount of composites and ram coatings doesn't fully deliver the benefits of the stealth shaping and has a massive cost associated with it...hence it is not going to happen.

This discussion has become pointless. U can continue to believe what u want. Let's stop here and let time be the judge. Let's come back when block III is unveiled and see if it has diamond nose and the rest of the airframe stealth shaped. If it is I will admit right here in front of everyone that I was wrong...u were right...
but if block III comes out without that diamond nose/stealth shaping...and looks more or less like JF17 and JF17B...r u willing to do the same?

Let's just leave it up to the actual experts(ppl involved in the JF17 project) and time...and we will find out who was right.
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom