Vayu Calls JF17- A Game Changer.

[Qasibr]

Oh, and the aircraft only looks more advanced to you. Russian manufacturing methods haven't progressed alot since the Union got... de-unionized. When setting up local manufacturing, we even went for Swedish-origin aeronautics heavy machinery and not Chinese machinery. To me, the JF-17 looks more modern than the SU-27 family which was designed in the late 70's before modern CAD/CAM was invented. After India's visit to Red Flag, US officials noticed how the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky(loose altitude) when engaging thrust-vectoring. That is due to thrust-vectoring only being added as an after-thought much later, original aircraft's airframe and shape wasn't designed keeping this in mind.

Even the J-10 out-manouvers the SU-30 in Chinese demonstrations, because the J-10 was developed much later and had the advantage of being able to examine SU-30's design and benefit from that.

 

[INDTAM]

the only reason jf17 is better than MKI is because its rcs is small.
Doesn't AWACS really negate the advantage!!

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

Guys i ll be a bit blunt to both sides i dont know y indians r always looking at JF as a master aircraft of pakistan in my openion the aircraft in sot even fully inducted yet we have no record of BVR engagement no Jamming performance all we know is from wiki and some very shady sources. yes the AC is new its small and costs less than SU30 but is it even fair to compair it with su30 when both r from very different class and both have never seen each other face to face. Jf is a good AC and its not finished to evolve yet. do any of u know that to this date there &) different system improvements made after the Faranbrough show. and a total of 25 compleat system changes have occured tell me any matuer AC that is doing the same.will it get AESA And other goodies we talk about yes very soon but first it have to pass tests in its basic export form. it took decades for both F16 And SU 30 to get as mature as they r today JF had only a few yers on it and already is considered more agile than the F16. it getting there give it time. in my op we should stick to su vs F16 for a little more time.

 

[Qasibr]

QASBIR.

Forget the RCS

Think radar size of aperture, processing speed of PESA versis thunders MSA
Think one jammer v 3 jammers
Think TVC and agility
think EW suites
Think BVRs with differrent seekers
Think brute power of 2 engines #
Think FUEL

If RCS was the be all and end all then IAF might as well fly mig21 bisons with ram coating as thery have the lowest RCS in the IAF

There is a reason even western sources wrote that the JF-17 "stole the show" at Farnborrough. Because the aircraft is a joint project with Pakistan, it is the only aircraft development program China has, that is relatively public. Many western sources use the JF-17 project to analyze what the Chinese aeronautics industry is capable of and what level of sub-component performance it has attained. And at Farnborrough, western sources were pretty surprised - China has been manufacturing upgraded F-7s(MiG-21 bisons) for decades, the JF-17 is orders of magnitude above that.

The MiG-21 aircraft was designed a decade before the SU-27 aircraft took shape(MiG-21 in the late 50s early 60s, SU-27 in the 70's), and regardless of what modernization you implement, the aircraft would still have poor flight dynamics at sub-sonic speeds. The delta wing on the -21(and also on the Mirage 2000, Tejas) offers an increased payload, but it reduces sub-sonic manouverability.

 

[INDTAM]

Guys i ll be a bit blunt to both sides i dont know y indians r always looking at JF as a master aircraft of pakistan in my openion the aircraft in sot even fully inducted yet we have no record of BVR engagement no Jamming performance all we know is from wiki and some very shady sources. yes the AC is new its small and costs less than SU30 but is it even fair to compair it with su30 when both r from very different class and both have never seen each other face to face. Jf is a good AC and its not finished to evolve yet. do any of u know that to this date there &) different system improvements made after the Faranbrough show. and a total of 25 compleat system changes have occured tell me any matuer AC that is doing the same.will it get AESA And other goodies we talk about yes very soon but first it have to pass tests in its basic export form. it took decades for both F16 And SU 30 to get as mature as they r today JF had only a few yers on it and already is considered more agile than the F16. it getting there give it time. in my op we should stick to su vs F16 for a little more time.

y indians r always looking at JF as a master aircraft of pakistan
sorry we have no issues with jf17 but pakistan nationalist and others were comparing it with MKI hence we were educating them about the truth.

 

[IndianTiger]

I agree with Vayu JF 17 is a real game changer, in war between Pakistan and Bhutan.

 

[abhishekgoel80]

on indian perspective jf -17 is bad because
1. it costs 23 million a piece.
2. It carries less load than MKI
3,Its chinese
4. its made in pakistan.

regarding first point any home made aircraft in a low cost country will cost the same do you now that f-16s made in high labour , high earning country with much more material and size cost 50 million(flyover before taxes etc) or gripen merely cost 35 million or the planned LCA was suppposedly to cost 20 million before it inducted the expensive engine and expensive foreign radar.

This is a faulty argument. I would point to Indian manufacturing of SU-30MKI (Critics are free to say that anything ...). It does not come out cheaper, the objective is to gain the expertise in manufacturing. The labour cost in high technology items is less than 5%. Most of the work is done by machines.

second issue about size is that seeing the shape and size of ou country jf-17 is really a best aircraft. gripen was considered a best aircraft but ti lost in MRCA merely due to its size..i think all indians think the same

No, There were 124 parameter to consider. Size was not the one. The problem is if you increase the range (it translate into fuel load, heavier engine) larger load and thus size.

lastly china is the third country in world that has gone over to make 5th gen aircraft. it has the brain and the money for decades with enough catch up material from the soviets. it would be highly un realistic to think that they dont have the capabilites.especially when indian claim they have specail experties in so many fields

About Jf-17 China is not inducting it. I saw a vedio will post it soon where they compare there J-10 with Mirage 2000 and F-16.

My take is JF-17 is a light aircraft with limited range but suitable for smaller countries.

I would like to point out that every hardware system adds to weight and space so its difficult to pack everything on a small machine.

If Pakistan and China have done that hats off to them, but since China is not focussing on it and Pakistan with its limited experience and scientific capability its unlikely.

To compare it with long range aircraft is like comapring a small car for city driving to SUV for interstate travel.

The current machine has given a very cost effective model to Pakistan, considering the area of operation and the limited targets to defend. They can field it in large number and can inflict a credible damage to much costlier Indian aircraft.

To consider having them upperhand will be childish.

 

[Manticore]

research & development cost split between partners + labor cost + material cost + imported material cost + weapons integration+ company profit margin + middle man profit / kickback + pilot/airmen training

20 million / piece is factoring in the
government servants' labor cost + material cost + imported material cost

20 million / piece is not factoring in the
research & development cost split between partners + weapons integration+ company profit margin + middle man profit / kickback+ pilot/airmen training

 

[Manticore]

jf-17 is a game changer because



1]jf17 is the first aircraft made by 2airforces considering their requirements rather than supplier companies specs

2]proven technologies from different jets taken into consideration to reduce time of production, increase reliability aswell as to gain primary experience [ability to absorb the technology ]

3]gain market edge for countries wanting an f-7 replacement

4]ability to mass produce it to address the quantitative issue

5]exporting indirectly translates to gaining money and experience for upgrading further blocks

6]fly-by-wire,HUD,HOTAS,MFD,dsi,look down/shoot down,bvr,GPS/precision
weapons,hms,datalink,maws,dual redundant mission computers-- etc-- in baseline model

7]higher sortie rate

8]easy maintenence

9]minimum dependence on West

10] later blocks of jf-17 would have higher composites and the design would've been already tested and refined and up and flying years before!

11] jf17 and j10 combo would be like f16 and f15 for the US

12]like isreal, jf-17 will maintain pilots' flying hours, while at the same time conserving fuel and airframe of j-10 for wartime

13]jf-17 is never going to fight alone , it will be integrated and datalinked with other fighters, awacs aswell as out defence command

14]a massive 1.5 generation uplift of paf's baseline fleet with a fighter which is superior in both menouvering and countermeasures and has beaten f16 blk15ocu in dogfighting repeatedly

15]paf jft blk2 probably will have the final design of jft [particularly re-designed frontal fuselage]
it will have ifr probe [fixed] , irst, better avionics, better countermeasures, aesa [from the start , or later in the form of mlu] , dual seeter version, sd10b,more composits, more hardpoints, new engine [still unconfirmed] --- thus removing most of the reservations people have with it

16]the most important 2prong effect for me is a bit different--

firstly- jf17 co-development has allowed us to get one leg into the chinese r&d industry-- so we are not only able to learn about j10b, but also help in designing it to suite for paf needs - this fact coupled to low cost and zero embargo chance is extremely effective not only numerically but also in forging a constructive, trusting,working , professional relationship between pac and catic

secondly- the generation gap produced by pakfa induction would be a greater problem than single engine/double engine debate--- now who can/will offer paf a fifth gen fighter in the same time frame at considerably low cost with a recent history of working relationships on 2 of its fighters?



JF-17 and SU-30 are totally different aircrafts with different price tag,induction plans and role.

 

[INDTAM]

jf-17 is a game changer because



1]jf17 is the first aircraft made by 2airforces considering their requirements rather than supplier companies specs

2]proven technologies from different jets taken into consideration to reduce time of production, increase reliability aswell as to gain primary experience

3]gain market edge for countries wanting an f-7 replacement

4]ability to mass produce it to address the quantitative issue

5]exporting indirectly translates to gaining money and experience for upgrading further blocks

6]fly-by-wire,HUD,HOTAS,MFD,dsi,look down/shoot down,bvr,GPS/precision
weapons,hms,datalink,maws,dual redundant mission computers-- etc-- in baseline model

7]higher sortie rate

8]easy maintenence

9]minimum dependence on West

10] later blocks of jf-17 would have higher composites and the design would've been already tested and refined and up and flying years before!

11] jf17 and j10 combo would be like f16 and f15 for the US

12]like isreal, jf-17 will maintain pilots' flying hours, while at the same time conserving fuel and airframe of j-10 for wartime

13]jf-17 is never going to fight alone , it will be integrated and datalinked with other fighters, awacs aswell as out defence command

14]paf jft blk2 probably will have the final design of jft [particularly re-designed frontal fuselage]
it will have ifr probe [fixed] , irst, better avionics, better countermeasures, aesa [from the start , or later in the form of mlu] , dual seeter version, sd10b,more composits, more hardpoints, new engine [still unconfirmed] --- thus removing most of the reservations people have with it

15]the most important 2prong effect for me is a bit different--

firstly- jf17 co-development has allowed us to get one leg into the chinese r&d industry-- so we are not only able to learn about j10b, but also help in designing it to suite for paf needs - this fact coupled to low cost and zero embargo chance is extremely effective not only numerically but also in forging a constructive, trusting,working , professional relationship between pac and catic

secondly- the generation gap produced by pakfa induction would be a greater problem than single engine/double engine debate--- now who can/will offer a fifth gen fighter in the same time frame at considerably low cost with a recent history of working relationships on 2 of its fighters?

now who can/will offer a fifth gen fighter in the same time frame at considerably low cost with a recent history of working relationships on 2 of its fighters?

Russia with PAKFA to India!
SU 30-MKI is built or tailored for IAF with Israel and western equipments
Mig29 for aircraft carrier again built or tailored for IAF
Mig 21 bison

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

y indians r always looking at JF as a master aircraft of pakistan
sorry we have no issues with jf17 but pakistan nationalist and others were comparing it with MKI hence we were educating them about the truth.

well the fact that you guys r constantly pitting SU 30 in all and every senarios not u mabe but others do that.

 

[INDTAM]

well the fact that you guys r constantly pitting SU 30 in all and every senarios not u mabe but others do that.

honestly if you read many threads or posts about JF17 by pakistani they place it in highest pedestal ( we have no issues with that) and demean MKI (for this we do).

 

[abdulbarijan]

Im no expert heck im not even an beginner compared to the people here but there are some points that bug me especially in the SU-30 MKI and JFT debate going on..
The low RCS advantage of JF-17 was being constantly dismissed using the AWACS operating environment point but some how even then some people were considering that SU-30's radar advantage would be there over JFT..not to mention one of the rumored reasons going around of why the chinese rejected the bars radar
"Many claimed that the reason for the rejection was that Chinese discovered the same problem India had during the evaluation of the radar: although the N-011M Bars passive electronically scanned array radar offered longer range and better resistance to jamming, it had problem of accurately and correct identifying targets at long range."
(This was also said by the briefing guy at red flag 08 who said that our AESA's are more precise than the PESA MKI uses)
So my first question is

1.How is the low RCS advantage of thunder negated in an AWACS operating environment and the radar advantage of MKI isn't???

Now coming to the weapons package
lets take the SD-10 BVRAAM for instance,here is a post worth a read

One more post: I took this from acig.org. This is from April 2004 and apparently it was an interview with the SD-10 designer. The original SD-10 was superior to the R-77 and the AIM-120 A/B and was very close to the AIM-120C. So the fact that the SD-10A is superior to AIM-120C should be no suprise!!

Also note that for ALL THE MISSILES the the targets are approaching at greather than Mach 1.2. So for a missile with a max speed of Mach 4, the target will be hit at about 70% of the given max range. I say 70% because the missile does not travel at Mach 4, the average speed for it flight is a lot less.

Some translations and points discovered by Hyperwarp in the AFM concerning an magazine published article of an interview with the designer of the SD-10.

"Efective combat altitude 0-25Km.
Ability to engage target 10kms higher or lower than launch altitude.
Range at 10Km altitude at M1.2 target at same altitude =70Km.
No escape zone for F-16 type target = 35-45km
Max overload=38G, Speed =4M
Plans to be also used as SAM system."

"Designer was asked at end to rate BVR AAMs. He rated Meteor as best BVR AAM, then AIM-120C, then his SD-10, then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Skyflash at equal fourth, then Derby, and last of all, MICA."

"What the designer said is that they used the same way AIM-120 calculated its range. target and launch aircraft flying at each other at 1.2 mach and at 10000 metres. The range is 70 km under such circumstance.
Also interesting is the designer basically said the russians "cheated" with R-77, as they calculated the max range with target and launcher flying at each other at 1.5 mach and at 12000 metres altitude."

A more detailed translation by Dongdong posted in the AFM forums:

"I just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative. Add my points for translation:

Ahout the max shot range:
The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s.

About ranking MRAAM:
Designer : It’s not easy to rank …..Various persons have various standards…
First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.

Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.

SD-10’s milestones:
Designer: We started the pre-research work for advanced radar guidance air to air missile in mid of 1980….
Phase1:mid of 1980 to beginning of 1990, key technologies study
Phase2;Started from mid of 1990, sub-systems development
Phase3:Started from end of 1990, missile overall performance verification test
Phase4:After entering 21st century, demo verification test
Now, the development of SD-10 has been completed."

For me SD-10's with the likes of PL-5EII,PL-9C,Raad cruise missile,MAR-1 and C-802A is one hell of a weapons package and is obviously in accordance with what role PAF wants JF-17 to play...

As for the future add AESA radar,IRST,HOBS,HMS,composite airframe,lowered RCS,SD-10B,A darter,more payload,more hard points etc to the mix and you get one hell of a beast in a cost effective manner ....
Then take a look at it maintenance wise,It has got the smallest turn around times in PAF,while the SU-30MKI can fly only 12-15 hours in one month and one hour flying requires at least 32 maintenance hours of work by its ground crew.

Indian airforce interviews

and then you have to understand the nature of PAF is primarily defensive and with the likes of stand off weapons like RAAD it can also carry out offensive missions
But in the conition that IAF is the aggressor than an MKI will have to face a JFT with SAMS coverage,heavy EW environment etc along with force multipliers like AWACS,C4I etc..
so dismissing JFT as no threat at all is the biggest favour our friends from the east can do to us so please continue...

 

[INDTAM]

Im no expert heck im not even an beginner compared to the people here but there are some points that bug me especially in the SU-30 MKI and JFT debate going on..
The low RCS advantage of JF-17 was being constantly dismissed using the AWACS operating environment point but some how even then some people were considering that SU-30's radar advantage would be there over JFT..not to mention one of the rumored reasons going around of why the chinese rejected the bars radar
"Many claimed that the reason for the rejection was that Chinese discovered the same problem India had during the evaluation of the radar: although the N-011M Bars passive electronically scanned array radar offered longer range and better resistance to jamming, it had problem of accurately and correct identifying targets at long range."
(This was also said by the briefing guy at red flag 08 who said that our AESA's are more precise than the PESA MKI uses)
So my first question is

1.How is the low RCS advantage of thunder negated in an AWACS operating environment and the radar advantage of MKI isn't???

Now coming to the weapons package
lets take the SD-10 BVRAAM for instance,here is a post worth a read



For me SD-10's with the likes of PL-5EII,PL-9C,Raad cruise missile,MAR-1 and C-802A is one hell of a weapons package and is obviously in accordance with what role PAF wants JF-17 to play...

As for the future add AESA radar,IRST,HOBS,HMS,composite airframe,lowered RCS,SD-10B,A darter,more payload,more hard points etc to the mix and you get one hell of a beast in a cost effective manner ....
Then take a look at it maintenance wise,It has got the smallest turn around times in PAF,while the SU-30MKI can fly only 12-15 hours in one month and one hour flying requires at least 32 maintenance hours of work by its ground crew.
Indian airforce interviews
and then you have to understand the nature of PAF is primarily defensive and with the likes of stand off weapons like RAAD it can also carry out offensive missions
But in the conition that IAF is the aggressor than an MKI will have to face a JFT with SAMS coverage,heavy EW environment etc along with force multipliers like AWACS,C4I etc..
so dismissing JFT as no threat at all is the biggest favour our friends from the east can do to us so please continue...

so dismissing JFT as no threat at all is the biggest favour our friends from the east can do to us so please continue


thinking jf17 to be equal or superior than MKI by our western neighbours will be the biggest favour on us by them

 

[Windjammer]

Something worth noting for the records, PAF is inducting the JF-17 to replace it's A-5s (Done) Mirages and F-7S.
Where as India, even after having a large fleet of MKIs, not to mention, MiG-29s, Mirag-2000s and Jaguars with LCA in the pipeline still requires an MMCA .