Can JF-17 be like Silent Eagle.

[chinapakistan]

luftawafe......i also remember the short interview of defence minister mukhtar...during the starting ceremony of assembly and manufacture of JF-17,
He talked about being in talks with chinese for TOT of some jet which the chinese had agreed too......i wonder which jet he was talking about J10B with TOT?
Thts my guess....also there are many internation defence sites saying the same thing tht PAF will certainly buy around 150 J10Bs with TOT....(Maybe to counter 125 indian jets?)
Though id like the opinion of Taimikhan,mastan or mark sien.
Thanks

I have read some posts in china's millitory forum, that is J10b possiblly.

 

[gambit]

After the Redflag exercises, there's a video of a USAF officer giving a briefing where he even states that the MKI has better radar, more thrust, vectored thrust, longer ranged weapons and is slightly better than F-15.

Assume this is true. What does it prove? That any pilot fresh out of flight school who plopped into an MKI will defeat an experienced F-15 pilot? The one thing we learned about Soviet/Russian aircrafts, from the Cold War to today, is that they have quite a ways to go in system integration and ergonomics. You can have all these fancy features but if the burden of using them is upon the pilot instead of the flight control computer, as much as possible, it will be soon into the fight that he will lose to the F-15. In any fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours. Rules are advantages such as superior radar or more powerful engines or off boresight queuing system. But if you have a difficult time using them then you will be fighting under your opponent's rules.

 

[gambit]

People,

There may not be a 'need' to have a radar low observable fighter, but there may be an 'urgency' to have one. The reason is simple: Threat proximity. In other words, how close is the threat, or potential threat? Remember, the US have never claimed our 'stealth' aircrafts are 'invisible' to radar. The word 'invisible' is more used by popular media. Nothing is invisible to radar. The goal of being low radar observable or low radar reflective is to get as close to the target as possible before being identified as a hostile by said target. So how close is Pakistan's potential threat? Next door, correct? So would it benefit Pakistan's attack aircrafts be as radar uncertain and as long as possible before facing said threat?

 

[AVIAN]

Ok guys i have wondering that the days of stealth have arrived and in a matter of decade handful of Countries will have it.

PAF will primarily rely on J-XX for stealth.But the fact is that we don't have any conformed date for J-XX.All is speculation at best.It could 2025 or 2030.By then almost every PAF size airfoce would have at least some sort of stealth fighter.So at that time we also need at least some sort of stealth fighter.

So i was wondering that when a 40 year old F-15 can be converted into semi stealth then why not JF-17.What will be the technological Problems,What will be the financial difficulties?and why doesn't PAF adopt this idea.

Converting JF-17 into stealth plane require huge amount of Technological and Industrial base in addition to Universities to do studies pertaining to shape and size of the same. Producing Stealth jet require way too amount of state of the art infrastructure which very few countries can adopt. For PAF, to achieve such a biggest ambition of its lifetime will need to work with many Aero Based industries as well as Companies.

This matter cannot be achieved by simply relying on China which will become huge liability in itself as PAF need to put a greater effort to undertake feasibility studies as well as need to create local capability to build stealth features on baseline JF-17. Pakistan certainly carry some good relations with European as well as US which it can cash in on to a greater extent. For this matter, they first need to throw away paranoia of getting sanctioned by US in case it collabrate with Western companies to achieve such an ambitious project.

Well, to really bring JF-17 to be known as a jet with stealth feature, Pakistan as a country need to bring not only technology effort at a certer point but also improve its Economic, Diplomatic as well as Strategic relationships to a largest extent.

 

[qsaark]

Assume this is true. What does it prove? That any pilot fresh out of flight school who plopped into an MKI will defeat an experienced F-15 pilot?

In an event of war why would any Air Force put its fresh-out-of-flight-School pilots into an MKI in the first place? Is it not more logical to assume that an experienced pilot in his MKI will go head on with his opponent and in that case, an MKI with an advance radar, more power and superior weapon load will prove lethal?

 

[araz]

In an event of war why would any Air Force put its fresh-out-of-flight-School pilots into an MKI in the first place? Is it not more logical to assume that an experienced pilot in his MKI will go head on with his opponent and in that case, an MKI with an advance radar, more power and superior weapon load will prove lethal?

Q
The point that gambit is making: and a very valid one at that is that experience or not, if your fighter and its avionics impose laborious tasks on you as against a fighter where most tasks are conducted by computer, you would lose to the less labour intensive fighter. However, we have seen hybrids of this plane where they have retained the frame with its advantages, yet changed that avionics suite with western ones, which might make the task easier for the fighter.I would like Gambit to comment on this aspect . In Short how would the US fighters fare against a Ruski/wesern hybrid ala MKI?
Araz

 

[qsaark]

Q
The point that gambit is making: and a very valid one at that is that experience or not, if your fighter and its avionics impose laborious tasks on you as against a fighter where most tasks are conducted by computer, you would lose to the less labour intensive fighter. However, we have seen hybrids of this plane where they have retained the frame with its advantages, yet changed that avionics suite with western ones, which might make the task easier for the fighter.I would like Gambit to comment on this aspect . In Short how would the US fighters fare against a Ruski/wesern hybrid ala MKI?
Araz

I understand what he is saying and he may very well be right for the most part but Su-30MKI is a different machine and Russians have put some serious effort in designing its cockpit as ergonomic as it could be as shown in the picture below. It would be naive to assume that most of the functions of the Su30MKI are not taken care by the flight computer. Another thing is, the Su-30MKI has a crew of two and in that case, the burden of chore is divided.

 

[SomeGuy]

Assume this is true. What does it prove? That any pilot fresh out of flight school who plopped into an MKI will defeat an experienced F-15 pilot?

In an event of war why would any Air Force put its fresh-out-of-flight-School pilots into an MKI in the first place? Is it not more logical to assume that an experienced pilot in his MKI will go head on with his opponent and in that case, an MKI with an advance radar, more power and superior weapon load will prove lethal?

I was just replying to the original comment someone made about the F-15 being "far superior" to any of its competitors, when clearly there are fighters out there that (on paper at least) can match or even exceed the F-15 in performance.

But your right about one thing, experience counts. Redflag showed that when experienced F-15 pilots beat out their relatively less experienced Indian counterparts in their MKI's.

 

[Contrarian]

In an event of war why would any Air Force put its fresh-out-of-flight-School pilots into an MKI in the first place? Is it not more logical to assume that an experienced pilot in his MKI will go head on with his opponent and in that case, an MKI with an advance radar, more power and superior weapon load will prove lethal?

IAF has indeed put some fresh pilots out of training in the MKI.

 

[gambit]

Q
The point that gambit is making: and a very valid one at that is that experience or not, if your fighter and its avionics impose laborious tasks on you as against a fighter where most tasks are conducted by computer, you would lose to the less labour intensive fighter. However, we have seen hybrids of this plane where they have retained the frame with its advantages, yet changed that avionics suite with western ones, which might make the task easier for the fighter.I would like Gambit to comment on this aspect . In Short how would the US fighters fare against a Ruski/wesern hybrid ala MKI?
Araz

In short, it would be a tough fight.

For the long answer...The more equal the hardware, the greater the burden upon the human to achieve victory. The only way to gauge the human is to remove as much non-human factors as possible. That mean it should be F-15 against F-15, for example. But since we know this can only happen in a tightly controlled environment, hardware parity usually implies that for matching features, such as thrust vs weight ratio or roll rate, there should not be a difference outside of an agreed upon percentage cut-off. But then again, it begs the question of who is going to determine that agreed upon cut-off? On the other hand, the F-15 pretty much set the standard when it established itself as the premier hardware that has a greater than 1:1 thrust vs weight ratio. No one told the manufacturer to make such an aircraft else there would be no contract. No one agreed to it but it happened anyway. Same for off boresight queuing system. No one agreed to it but the feature became a necessity if one is gain 'world class' stature. So if we have a fighter that has exceptional reserve engine power going up against a fighter whose targeting mechanism is limited by the pilot's neck muscles, there is no way to determine which hardware carries the greatest burden to achieve victory. It will come down to the humans themselves to pit their wits against each other in trying to force their opponents to fight under disadvantageous rules.

The greatest asset for Western avionics, from my experience at seeing US and Soviet/Russian avionics outside of the 'bench' environment, is that Western avionics are more dependent upon and more demanding of sensor inputs than Soviet/Russian avionics. For example, all aircrafts require three axis sensors: pitch, roll and yaw -- gyros. But US avionics would demand greater sensitivity from the gyros and accelerometers than what we have seen from examining Soviet/Russian avionics under the 'bench' testing environment. The field result is that even though the Soviet/Russian aircraft may have a higher roll rate, the American aircraft will have a QUICKER response to a pilot's roll command that increase his odds of forcing the Soviet/Russian aircraft into a disadvantageous position SOONER into a fight. And when we have missiles that can reach double digit Mach in less than two seconds, the sooner your opponent is in a disadvantaged position, the sooner you win.

There is a limit on how far we can adapt Western avionics into Soviet/Russian airframes and have no doubt we have tried when we bought and examine Soviet era fighters after the USSR collapsed. Airframe characteristics and flight behaviors are not consistent, else all aircrafts would look exactly alike. That higher roll rate could be the result of airframe characteristics rather than from flight control computer programming, therefore there would be negligible or even no advantage at all in the adaptation. If airframe characteristics and flight behavior do not matter, we would have seen the resurrection of the MIG-21, a formidable turning fighter, but with fly-by-wire FLCS and this would make the new MIG-21 practically unbeatable.

On the other hand, because we are more dependent upon sensor inputs, electrical and air data, our avionics are easier to modify and integrate into more diverse hardwares. That is why the F-117's avionics are from the F-16, whose avionics set the standards for fly-by-wire FLCS worldwide. To this day, people still underestimate that significance to aviation. Fly-by-wire FLCS are extremely sensor dependent and the greater the precision, .001 versus .0001, the QUICKER the response in any axis. The F-117's airframe characteristics and flight behaviors are more amenable than the MIG-21 to the built-in flexibility of the F-16's avionics. The F-16 and the F-117 airframes are inherently unstable. The MIG-21 is not. That mean its maneuverability is airframe limited, so installing an avionics system that can adapt extremely quickly to an inherently unstable airframe would not yield any performance gain and of course not cost effective at all.

The MKI is an excellent aircraft in terms of airframe and avionics. But it does have limitations and environments like Red Flag or the Cope exercises are supposed to reveals how those limitations can expand beyond the paper specs into the combat situations. The wise thing to do is to continuously expose as many MKI pilots as possible of those limitations. Of course the price is that others would know of them as well. Why do you think the US is always eager to play the 'bad guys' to the host countries anywhere in the world besides Red Flag?

 

[ptldM3]

IAF has indeed put some fresh pilots out of training in the MKI.

I thought MKI pilots came from other platforms? Either way if they have limited experience with the MKI they can still be considered novice MKI pilots, or in other words they are still learning to exploit its abilities.