What's new

Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

The acquisition of J-10s kind of makes sense now. They have a more powerful radar. PL-15s on the Jeffs might use the input from the J-10s in targetting enemy jets???
Unknown but they will both be fully connected to Pakistani Net centric system. So if a target is picked up by a Tughril class it will be able to pass that data over link-17 to either JF-17s or J-10s and vice versa. A massive integrated battle picture of air and surface(naval) targets will emerge for not just AHQ but the Air Defense HQ i Faisalabad and NHQ as well. It may be probable that even the land targets might be added on.
Old radar or the new AESA radar?
New AESA - but , it is possible it may be the optimum range and not the actual range of the AESA. People can buy and read to give their own interpretation.
 
.
Unknown but they will both be fully connected to Pakistani Net centric system. So if a target is picked up by a Tughril class it will be able to pass that data over link-17 to either JF-17s or J-10s and vice versa. A massive integrated battle picture of air and surface(naval) targets will emerge for not just AHQ but the Air Defense HQ i Faisalabad and NHQ as well. It may be probable that even the land targets might be added on.

New AESA - but , it is possible it may be the optimum range and not the actual range of the AESA. People can buy and read to give their own interpretation.
And who knows maybe with a more powerful powerplant (eventual induction of RD-93MA), the performance of the KLJ 7A might even improve enough to be effectively dovetailed into PL-15s operational range.
 
. .
How can Thunder launch PL-15 beyond its radar range ? Are we practicing the launch using AWACs radars ?
But with less powerful radar JF17 won't be able to fully utilize PL15's range. 175km radar can only guide AAM upto 175kms or less...don't you think?
Or AWACS will take it from here?

Probably not. You guys might be overthinking this. I posted the below a while ago for the same question vis a vis the KLJ-7 V1 and the PL-15.

"It's not just about matching the max ranges of the missiles with those of the radars. Leaving aside the multiple guidance modes that modern missiles come with, we have to realize that the outcome of every missile launch will depend heavily on the kill probability (KP) of that missile at launch. The 'KP' itself is dependent on a great many factors, e.g. the altitude at launch, the altitude of the target at launch, the speed at launch, the speed of the target at launch, the relative angular aspect of the target, type of target, the size of the target, even the prevailing weather and wind currents at the scene of the battle. The most important of these is the distance between the launching aircraft and the target. For simplicity's sake we will assume all the factors except distance to remain constant at optimum throughout this discussion. For range, it's very simple; the closer you are to the target at launch the higher your KP, until you hit the No Escape Zone. The No Escape Zone, simply put, is a range of distance with certain given conditions where, theoretically, the target cannot escape the missile and hence the KP is 100%. At times there is a minimum launch distance as well but it is usually negligible, e.g. reported 2km for the AIM-120. The KP at max range of the missile will be the lowest of all, barring at beyond max and below minimum ranges where it would be zero. Hence the reason why no one really expects an A2A missile to be launched at max range.

Let's take the AIM-120D as our example. It's max range is stated to be >160km. It's No Escape Zone is estimated to be around 70km. This tells us that, under certain given conditions, at beyond 160km you will have no chance of getting the kill, at around 160km you might get the kill but the probability of that happening will not be very encouraging (How much exactly? We won't know that anytime soon). As you move closer to the target the KP will increase. When you are around 70km away your KP will theoretically max out at 100%; the target will be inside your No Escape Zone. When will you launch the missile? That will depend on the situation in the air and the desired outcome from the launch. If you are looking for a kill, you would want to launch them at the lowest possible distance that you would be able to. Launching within the No Escape Zone, more often than not, will not be possible. You could also launch it at max range just to make sure that the two bogies dispatched by the enemy to intercept your strike package are made busy before they can disrupt your strike. This is where the man behind the machine comes into play.

The PL-15's and the SD-10's estimated max ranges are 150km and 100km under certain given conditions, respectively. Their No Escape Zones are unknown but we can very roughly approximate them from the available estimates for the AIM-120C and AIM-120D. For argument's sake, let us assume that the No Escape Zones for the PL-15 and the SD-10 are 30km and 60km respectively. With the 100km approximate max detection range of the KLJ-7V1 radars on the JF-17 Block 1s and remembering everything that I have mentioned above, it is clear to see that from the first point of detection at 100km till the 30km mark the PL-15 will have a better chance of hitting the target than the SD-10. In fact, I am confident that the PL-15 will offer better KP at every possible launch distance than the SD-10, pretty sure that it will have a leg up the SD-10 in many aspects and not just the range.

In short, will the PL-15 be utilized to its max potential range on a Block1/2? No, but then most missiles seldom are. Will it be a better weapon to have than the SD-10 in an air battle when flying a block 1/2? Always."

 
Last edited:
. .
The new AFM issue has an article on the JF-17 which provides some key interesting details(if written in a bit nationalistic prose given the author is retired PAF).

Key takeaways:

1. Block-III has additional composites to increase load carrying capacity. You can read where by buying the AFM issue

2. Block-III might actually have that fuselage hardpoint for AAM(although I am still not convinced how that will look/work)

3. Range of PL-15 variant offerred to Pakistan exceeds range of JF-17 radar!

4. H2/H4 & Raad integration with Block-III

5. Airborne Simulated adversary trainer - apparently a adversary aircraft can be projected from into HUD to let pilots practice BVR(and WVR??) in flight without the risk of violating distance safety with a live opponent.. apparently the J-10C has a rudimentary version of this @Deino @Shotgunner51

6. Homegrown integrated EW system for JF called Panjnad

7. RD-93 baseline to speed up induction as RD-93MA still being evaluated.

8. Total losses are 3 single seaters and 1 dual
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @JamD @Windjammer

For anything else please read the article - will move the thread to JF-17 section soon.
9. Good info on the HMD/S. No word on the origin (likely China), but they're lighter and require custom-fit helmets. Interesting detail as it suggests that the PAF could be changing its standard-issue helmet from the HGU-55/P. Of the custom helmet makers I know of, they make carbon-fiber kits. So, I wonder, if the PAF will issue new custom helmets to everyone so that they're all set for the day they may need to add on the HMD/S from JF-17 or J-10CE. We've been seeing a bunch of MSA helmets as of late (especially with the Mirage III/5 crew), so I wonder...
 
. . .
But with less powerful radar JF17 won't be able to fully utilize PL15's range. 175km radar can only guide AAM upto 175kms or less...don't you think?
Or AWACS will take it from here?
Perhaps the missile’s own seeker is capable enough once its close enough to the enemy aircraft, and doesn’t have to be guided beyond a certain point.

This is where a future variant with a dual mode seeker (RF and IR) could come in handy.
 
Last edited:
.
And who knows maybe with a more powerful powerplant (eventual induction of RD-93MA), the performance of the KLJ 7A might even improve enough to be effectively dovetailed into PL-15s operational range.
Those are not related - enough power available already.
 
. .
I think it means the propellant is sufficient to take the missile a distance beyond the JF17 radar operational distance. So the reflected radar signal is too weak to be processed by the electronics on the plane.
Perhaps it means that the missile may not be able to be used to its full range on the Jf-17 put to its full range on the J-10.

Also, the PL-15 may not be guided to the full range, but its NEZ; No Escape Zone maybe half the max range, and with the right tactics the JF-17 maybe able to use that attribute to its full potential.
 
Last edited:
. . .
nope, no idea except that it is a capable as the apg80 radars of the latest usaf f16s.
APG-80 are exclusively on the Emirati Block 60 F-16s, better then any radar put on any F-16 in service with the USAF or any other export customer. If true, that the J-10CE’s radar matches the APG-80, the PAF has made a great acquisition.

On what basis do you say the J-10’s radar’s performance is just as good as the APG-80? T/R module count of the GaN modules?
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom