What Chinese Sub-Systems are needed for the JF-17 to match the F-16 Block 70?

[CriticalThought]

The main problem is: You cannot compare a JF-17 Block XYZ to the Block 70 F-16C. Regardless what fancy avionics like AESA radar you fit, how much you modernise the comm, IFF and data-sharing capabilities it remains a different class of fighter. That's a fact and these endless wishfull-thinking ideas to enlarge the airframe, to put a WS-10 or whatever are either impossible or would result in a new aircraft.

It's in fact like trying to compare a decently pimped up Mazda MZ-5 with the true Porsche 911 in its latest edition.

Let us define the problem. What Chinese sub-systems are needed in Thunder so it is able to take on a Block 70 in a fair fight and have a greater than 50% chance of winning.

 

[Dante80]

It's in fact like trying to compare a decently pimped up Mazda MZ-5 with the true Porsche 911 in its latest edition.

A more apt comparison would be between the F-16A and the F-20 Tigershark. Back in the late 70's, the Carter Admin wanted to push this for the export market at aprox. half the cost, instead of sending F-16s over. This is rather close to the story of the JF-17, which is destined to become the PAF backbone, complementing the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon at - also - half the cost.

Let us define the problem. What Chinese sub-systems are needed in Thunder so it is able to take on a Block 70 in a fair fight and have a greater than 50% chance of winning.

You would first need to define what a "fair fight" is, to begin qualifying and quantifying the problem at hand. Are you talking about a dogfight? A BVR engagement? Are you trying to compare CAP endurance, interception or Air-to-Ground capabilities too?

 

[CriticalThought]

A more apt comparison would be between the F-16A and the F-20 Tigershark. Back in the late 70's, the Carter Admin wanted to push this for the export market at aprox. half the cost, instead of sending F-16s over. This is rather close to the story of the JF-17, which is destined to become the PAF backbone, complementing the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon at - also - half the cost.



You would first need to define what a "fair fight" is, to begin qualifying and quantifying the problem at hand. Are you talking about a dogfight? A BVR engagement? Are you trying to compare CAP endurance, interception or Air-to-Ground capabilities too?

A fight as in a battle to death (of the plane, the fighter ejects hopefully). 1 v 1.

 

[Deino]

A fight as in a battle to death (of the plane, the fighter ejects hopefully). 1 v 1.

Oh please ... aerial combat is not like playing quartets game, where I put one item against another one and the one with the better has won.

In fact that depends on so much but if you put a JF-17 armed with 2x PL-5 and 2x PL-12 against a Block 70 F-16C armed with 2x AIM-9X and 2x AIM-120C or even D I would say performance-wise the JF-17 will never ever reach that level if the Viper-pilot does not make a really stupid mistake.

 

[Dante80]

Yeah, the combination of SABR and C-5-->C-8 AMRAAM is pretty much lethal in a clean BVR environment scenario. Even something like the KLJ-7 and SD-10 combo would probably be no match for it (for objective reasons, having mainly to do with the radar - smaller radome to fit, less power available in the platform for emissions).

 

[LKJ86]

At the beginning, JF-17/FC-1 was planned to be developed to a low-cost lightweight fighter aircraft.
It won't be a more cost efficient solution to make JF-17 match the F-16 Block 70.

 

[Chimgathar]

JF-17 will remain JF-17, its sole purpose was to induct a local indigenous jet industry. JF-17 for the first time allowed PAF to field almost any air launched munition or technology on a fighter jet. Unless major changes are made in the air frame I doubt JF-17 may match or surpass F-16 Block 70. However will have to wait for JF-17 block 3.

 

[CriticalThought]

Oh please ... aerial combat is not like playing quartets game, where I put one item against another one and the one with the better has won.

In fact that depends on so much but if you put a JF-17 armed with 2x PL-5 and 2x PL-12 against a Block 70 F-16C armed with 2x AIM-9X and 2x AIM-120C or even D I would say performance-wise the JF-17 will never ever reach that level if the Viper-pilot does not make a really stupid mistake.

You mean all the air forces conducting 1v1 DACT are wasting their time?

Yeah, the combination of SABR and C-5-->C-8 AMRAAM is pretty much lethal in a clean BVR environment scenario. Even something like the KLJ-7 and SD-10 combo would probably be no match for it (for objective reasons, having mainly to do with the radar - smaller radome to fit, less power available in the platform for emissions).

How can you make that statement without knowing the full capabilities of KLJ-7A?

 

[Dante80]

How can you make that statement without knowing the full capabilities of KLJ-7A?

First of all I didn't make a statement (I am very careful with my words, re-read the "would probably" part).

But for justification, I already wrote it in the post. The theoretical performance of an AESA radar is throttled by two things. The amount of power that the aircraft can send to the sensor and the actual size of the aperture.

Assuming that said radars have the same TRL and theoretical performance capabilities (I'm inclined to disagree, mainly based on the pedigree SABR enjoys vs the 90's based Phasotron derivatives), then it is simply a matter of power and dimensions. An aircraft like the F-16 has a lot more juice to give to the radar (you can research the requirements for AN/APG-68 for example and extrapolate), and it also has a far bigger radome for it (which SABR fills). Lastly (and in contrast), one of the "advantages" touted for the KLJ-7A is that it is small enough to actually fit the aircraft.

I don't think you can get any more comparable info from public sources regarding the two systems really. And it is really impossible to be certain and definitive about classified capabilities. One can guess though, as long as he doesn't guess randomly but applies..CriticalThought

 

[CriticalThought]

First of all I didn't make a statement (I am very careful with my words, re-read the "would probably" part).

But for justification, I already wrote it in the post. The theoretical performance of an AESA radar is throttled by two things. The amount of power that the aircraft can send to the sensor and the actual size of the aperture.

Assuming that said radars have the same TRL and theoretical performance capabilities (I'm inclined to disagree, mainly based on the pedigree SABR enjoys vs the 90's based Phasotron derivatives), then it is a simply matter of power and dimensions. An aircraft like the F-16 has a lot more juice to give to the radar (you can research the requirements for AN/APG-68 for example and extrapolate), and it also has a far bigger radome for it (which SABR fills). Lastly (and in contrast), one of the "advantages" touted for the KLJ-7A is that it is small enough to actually fit the aircraft.

I don't think you can get any more comparable info from public sources regarding the two systems really.

But the Block 3 is slated to get a larger nose cone specifically to house cooling for the high powered KLJ-7A.

In a 1 v 1 scenario, the higher power doesn't matter that much. It is not enough to merely lock on and launch the missile. You need to be within the zone of assured kill. This means the aircrafts will need to get close and a merge is possible.

 

[Dante80]

But the Block 3 is slated to get a larger nose cone specifically to house cooling for the high powered KLJ-7A.

House cooling or/and a larger aperture? We simply don't know right now.

In a 1 v 1 scenario, the higher power doesn't matter that much. It is not enough to merely lock on and launch the missile. You need to be within the zone of assured kill. This means the aircrafts will need to get close and a merge is possible.

Not in BVR. You are talking about ACM scenarios.

 

[CriticalThought]

House cooling or/and house a larger aperture. We simply don't know right now.



Not in BVR. You are talking about ACM scenarios.

There is the max range of a BVR and there is the zone of assured kill. Two different things.

 

[Dante80]

There is the max range of a BVR and there is the zone of assured kill. Two different things.

Agreed, but you were speaking about getting close and/or merging. This is far, FAR inside the 75% kill envelope for a C-8 AMRAAM (for example). And still far enough that the radar-missile combo pays a lot of importance.

 

[Maxpane]

just wait few months to know about block 3

 

[CriticalThought]

Agreed, but you were speaking about getting close and/or merging. This is far, FAR inside the 75% kill envelope for a C-8 AMRAAM (for example). And still far enough that the radar-missile combo pays a lot of importance.

Read here to understan No Escape Zones better

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27373

At 50/60 km range and even transonic speeds there is approx. 3 min temporal distance between the two opponents. In actuality, they will try to launch at modest super-sonic speeds around 1.3 Mach. As soon as each launches, they at once start evasive maneuvers. These maneuvers are effectively a long range turning fight. At this point they have no choice but to merge.