JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[Arsalan]

---

---

well for maevrick, it was really nice to have a bit unbiased posts from you. although they were hit back hard because the previous image they carry but i feel sorry for the response the received.
anyway one thing that you still seem to miss by the time that AIF gets 400 Su30+MMRCA, PAF wont be sleeping. it is rather strange for me to compare IAF with 400 su, MMRCAs with PAFz JF17????
bro the number you mentioned wont be comming up before 2020 by anymeasn. by 2010 PAF would have gone far ahead from where it currently stands, we wil be into next blocks of JF, bound to be on par wiht F16 blk52z by all means. mark these words bro, by 2020 (at most) the JF will be standing in the next league, shoulder to shoulder with the F16 blk52 gripens and that stuff!!
moreover, one must also not forget some 100 odd FC20z, why do you always forget them when quoting IAF numbers as 300 Su30 and 120 MMRCAzz???
i hope you will get the point friend!!

regards!

[Tempest II]

I have searched high and low and I could not find the article (I believe it was a poster at a show) saying the SD-10 can do more than 100km. I am sooo confident I have seen it - I could be wrong.

Anywhere here is what I have found posted by crobato: Login

According to the designer of the SD-10, the Russians got their figures for the R-77 by firing it from a launching aircraft traveling at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 10,000 meters. For the SD-10 it's 70km launched from an aircraft at Mach 1.1 at 5,000 meters.

Here is the max launch altitude = 21,000m


If we assume the same speed, and launch at altitude of 15,000 (i.e. not pushing the limit of 21km), I believe we should get AT LEAST 50% more range from the 70km.

As said earlier, the 70km range is from 2003, which is 6 years ago: see the yellow rectangles I have inserted in the image below:


One final comment is that from 2003 the missile has changed in length from 3.85m to 3.934m as can me seen on the first image above.

[PakShaheen79]

i also comfirms that the range of sd10 is now 100km or more.
i have seen this on different websites along with Wikipedia.

but im confused that after having a missile of 100km why we r running for MICA.

Any idea about sharing them with us here. I am talking about those links which u have in this regard.

[PakShaheen79]

I have searched high and low and I could not find the article (I believe it was a poster at a show) saying the SD-10 can do more than 100km. I am sooo confident I have seen it - I could be wrong.

Anywhere here is what I have found posted by crobato: Login


Here is the max launch altitude = 21,000m


If we assume the same speed, and launch at altitude of 15,000 (i.e. not pushing the limit of 21km), I believe we should get AT LEAST 50% more range from the 70km.

As said earlier, the 70km range is from 2003, which is 6 years ago: see the yellow rectangles I have inserted in the image below:


One final comment is that from 2003 the missile has changed in length from 3.85m to 3.934m as can me seen on the first image above.

I have not understand this if China has upgraded SD-10 (Which I doubt) why she is developing PL-13 and PL-21 like missiles. I think talking about more than 100KM should mean something known as "Ramjet" propulsion...to get 100 KM away before target can move away.

[nollvllad]

hey can we compare jf 17 thunder with su 30 mk

[TaimiKhan]

hey can we compare jf 17 thunder with su 30 mk

No way. Except for RCS, Su-30MKI is superior in everything.

[Owais]

hey can we compare jf 17 thunder with su 30 mk

already discussed to death!
read the topic

http://www.defence.pk/forums/militar...air-fight.html

[PakShaheen79]

hey can we compare jf 17 thunder with su 30 mk

brother, while on forum develop a habit of checking at least first page of any forum to see if there is a threat with a title you might interested in. This will really help you.

No offense was intended.

[Tempest II]

I have not understand this if China has upgraded SD-10 (Which I doubt) why she is developing PL-13 and PL-21 like missiles. I think talking about more than 100KM should mean something known as "Ramjet" propulsion...to get 100 KM away before target can move away.

Some reasons i see for China working on other missiles.

1. SD-10 is for export.
2. SD-10/PL-12 has Russian technology. At some point China needs to work on indigenious technology.
3. At some point, China needs a Next Generation missile. Be they Short range, medium or long. They will need better smokeless motors, better seekers, intelligent flight profiles, longer ranges, higher Gs, etc. They can continue upgrading existing platforms, e.g. SD-10A, SD-10B, etc but at some point, they will start on a clean sheet and look at a new approach and give the missile another designation, e.g. PL-2010.

[PakShaheen79]

Some reasons i see for China working on other missiles.

1. SD-10 is for export.
2. SD-10/PL-12 has Russian technology. At some point China needs to work on indigenious technology.
3. At some point, China needs a Next Generation missile. Be they Short range, medium or long. They will need better smokeless motors, better seekers, intelligent flight profiles, longer ranges, higher Gs, etc. They can continue upgrading existing platforms, e.g. SD-10A, SD-10B, etc but at some point, they will start on a clean sheet and look at a new approach and give the missile another designation, e.g. PL-2010.

sir SD-10 was not developed over night. updating sub systems is something i totally agree with you but you must also see It is yey to be integrated with JF-17 Thunder then it will be evaluated in different war games, exercises and then pilots will tell about its performance in air. Updating a new missile which was entered service less than 5 years ago it kinda strange.

SD-10 is not totally for export as J-10 and J-8F both carries it and it is also under testing on j-11B as well next will be thunder.

[Tempest II]

sir SD-10 was not developed over night. updating sub systems is something i totally agree with you but you must also see It is yey to be integrated with JF-17 Thunder then it will be evaluated in different war games, exercises and then pilots will tell about its performance in air. Updating a new missile which was entered service less than 5 years ago it kinda strange.

SD-10 is not totally for export as J-10 and J-8F both carries it and it is also under testing on j-11B as well next will be thunder.

As you have said, "not developed over night", it takes years, therefore it could be 5-10 years before the PL-21 and PL-13 mature ... ... and the SD-10 needs be in service.

Concerning how frequently a missile is upgraded, read here: AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer

• Presently, there are three series of AMRAAM: AIM-120A, AIM-120B, and AIM-120C.
• AIM-120A. First production AIM-120A, delivered by Hughes in 1988 to the 33d TFW at Eglin AFB, Florida.
• AIM-120B and AIM-120C versions are currently in production, the latter with smaller control surfaces to permit increased internal carriage capability in the F-22. AIM-120B deliveries began in FY 94, and AIM-120C deliveries began in FY 96.

From 1988 when AIM-120As were delivered to 1996 when they received AIM-120C is 8 years and 3 SERIES. That is a SERIES every 2.7 years. The AIM-120D was launched on 5 August 2008 and from 1996 AIM-120C had reached AIM-120C-7.

I don't think it is odd for the Chinese to be jumping from one version to another that often ... ... especially considering how they are focusing on a technology enabled military, i.e. they are trying to keep pace with the West with a force that has high-tech, which means continous upgrading/improvement.

If you check there is AT LEAST 10 versions of the Sidewinder in 56 years. With sub version, I am sure there will be an upgrade every 5 years or less.

Please consider that the PL-12 too over 10 years to develop: http://cnair.top81.cn/missile.htm

PL-12 (K/AKK-12?) has been under development at LETRI/607 Institute since early 90s. ... ... PL-12 completed its development test in December 2004 and was certified in 2005.

[gambit]

But in visual range they won't be as stealthy (as you stated befor too), so radars will detect them and fighters like EF, Rafale, Su 35 should be way better in maneuverability and t/w ratios.

Visual range, in the sky, can be any distance from within a few meters to where the aircraft is barely discernable. Radar systems operate in three modes: Search, Track and Target.

The 'Target' mode is possible only when the other two modes have consistent acquistion of the target over a period of time. Against a very low observable target like the F-35, it is possible to target the aircraft but against maximum missile range the missile's own radar can be deceived thru ECM tactics and leave the missile with next to nothing fuel to maneuver.

The best way to increase the odds of success against a VLO target is to combine aircraft and missile radar information into a coherent electronic image for the missile.



In the illustration above, the 'semi-active' mode is when the launch aircraft continuously illuminate the target, the missile receive any echoes, process them and (hopefully) home in on the target. In the 'active' mode, the launch aircraft remove itself from the equation and the missile does all the work, minus the 'Search' mode.

Against a VLO target, instead of being in 'active' mode and leave the missile to its own fortunes, we maintain target acquired radar information on the target. Keep in mind that aircraft radar is more powerful than missile radar simply because of size. The missile is also using its own radar on the target. Here is where it gets tricky for the missile. Target information is also based upon target aspect angle with respect to the transmitting radar, in other words, the top and bottom view of any aircraft will yield the most powerful target echo. The head-on view the least. This VLO target will certainly maneuver violently and while the missile's own radar will, in this visual range scenario, detect the target, because the target is maneuvering, there is a condition called 'target scintillation', call it 'twinkling' if you like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_(radar)

Scintillation is a fluctuation in the amplitude of a target on a radar display. It is closely related to target glint, or wander, an apparent displacement of the target from its mean position. This effect can be caused by a shift of the effective reflection point on the target, but has other causes as well. The fluctuations can be slow (scan-to-scan) or rapid (pulse-to-pulse).

It appears especially at seaside level.

Scintillation and glint are actually two manifestations of the same phenomenon and are most properly linked to one another in target modeling.

The highlighted is especially problematic for the missile as the missile's own radar does sweep, or scan, and does transmit in pulses. The missile's nosecone is also limited in space, therefore limiting its sweep angles. Should this VLO target just happened to maneuver just right, it will escape the missile's radar assisted by this 'target scintillation' phenomenon. Now throw in active ECM and chaff.

This is why it is not good to believe in these 'fire-and-forget' missile against VLO targets. We joke that against VLO targets, you can 'forget' that your missile will be successful. Target glint and scintillation are not unknown and goes back as far as the Vietnam War. It had caused missiles to miss, admittedly those were less sophisticated missiles back then. But then again, VLO targets sort of recreated that gap between missile sophistication and target radar effects.

By combining both missile's and launch aircraft's radars, and they are at angles to each other, thereby creating the highly desirable bi-static effects, the odds of success against this VLO target increases. Not guaranteed, just better odds. The missile may receive a very low radar echo due to target maneuvers, but at the same time, the target may present a large surface area to the launch aircraft that equal to a large echo. Now have the launch aircraft and the missile in a secured data link. The downside to this operation is that you certainly have to restrict yourself to THIS target until he either escaped or destroyed.

This is why American VLO aircrafts are such threats to air defenses, ground or airborne -- resources.

No it is not! In the first hours, or days of war (where air superiority is not achieved), F35 have to do strike missions too and can only carry 2 a2g weapons internally. That means it don't depent only on the threat environment if they carry external loads, but also on the limitation the internal weapon stations offers.

Even if it require two of those precision guided munitions to destroy a ground radar, it is worth the created electronic gap. The mission does not have to be that nuclear facility. It cannot go anywhere. The mission could be against the air defenses around that nuclear facility. With precise timing, and keep in mind we did have such timing back in Desert Storm, a few F-35s each is armed with only two precision guided munitions, can destroy or seriously degrade the electronic coverage of a valuable ground target. Let the high altitude B-52s or the sneakier low altitude B-1s finish off that nuclear facility.

[Arsalan]

I have not understand this if China has upgraded SD-10 (Which I doubt) why she is developing PL-13 and PL-21 like missiles. I think talking about more than 100KM should mean something known as "Ramjet" propulsion...to get 100 KM away before target can move away.

100 Km range have nothing to do with Ramjet system, all it do is to give hogher thrust tus higher speed. the range is relevant to fuel that the missile carries and fuel consumption.
if you understand the basic principle it will help you. basically ramjet is a form of jet engine using the engine's forward motion to compress incoming air, without a rotary compressor. Ramjets cannot produce thrust at zero airspeed and thus cannot move an aircraft from a standstill. now as mentioned that it need to be moving at higher speed to attain maximum efficiency therefore at speeds as high as Mach 4 -5 the performance of ramjet engines is superior to turbojet but at lower speed it is out performed by the turbojets. speed is the basic identity of ramjet engine, , , not the range!!
i hope you get the point!

regards!

[nightrider_saulat]

can anyone define KLJ-7 radar for me.the one which we will be having in our first 50 jf-17 blockI

[Tempest II]

---

---

can anyone define KLJ-7 radar for me.the one which we will be having in our first 50 jf-17 blockI

This is the most comprensive document I have seen: