JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

[RAMPAGE]

I think its just the TR array, not the complete radar.

I was referring to the small size of the TR array.

 

[Akh1112]

I was referring to the small size of the TR array.

The jf-17 is a small fighter.

 

[Tempest II]

I have had a go at an estimate count the modules. The exposed has 110 modules. There is also 12 columns and 10 raws.

The whole antenna will fit 4 of these quarter segments with 440 modules subtotal. There are 5 squares of same dimensions as the sectors. The squares have 12 x 10 = 120 modules each with a subtotal of 600 modules. The whole antenna has approximately 1040 modules.

 

[Dreamer.]

I have had a go at an estimate count the modules. The exposed has 110 modules. There is also 12 columns and 10 raws.

View attachment 781955

The whole antenna will fit 4 of these quarter segments with 440 modules subtotal. There are 5 squares of same dimensions as the sectors. The squares have 12 x 10 = 120 modules each with a subtotal of 600 modules. The whole antenna has approximately 1040 modules.

View attachment 781956

View attachment 781957

Where is no. 11?

 

[Tempest II]

Where is no. 11?

I feared this was going to happen. ... ... yes it missing. ,,, count is an estimate/approximation anyway. So the 1,040 estimate would still be many answer.

Thanks for double checking and pointing it out.

 

[The Eagle]

I feared this was going to happen. ... ... yes it missing. ,,, count is an estimate/approximation anyway. So the 1,040 estimate would still be many answer.

Thanks for double checking and pointing it out.

11th be an equalizer of mid area with tall couple of columns but more rows to all the way bottom of plate.

 

[serenity]

I actually provided everything you needed to understand this, but you have got this messed up in your mind. No Escape Zone is the range from which target cannot escape with close to 100% probability, even if the target utilizes escape maneuvers. This happens because the missile is much more faster, and much more maneuverable. But, the missile is also an aircraft and subject to the lift/drag/thrust/weight relationship. Every time the missile is not producing thrust, drag is slowing it down and weight is drawing it down.

Actually you did not. I understand the principles. Now we should prove that ramjet has higher NEZ than rocket in every case. I'm sure Meteor has better NEZ than PL-12 but with PL-15 it is not so easy to determine. The PL-15 will receive a second boost and increase its speed to mach 4 again and can perform this boost as it closes the distance to target to some determined and desired range. It is mathematically impossible for us to determine the exact curves and relationship between NEZ and distance between missile and target.

Only person who agrees with you is an Indian who probably cannot even do basic calculus and to expect him to understand how NEZ is calculated? Come on. We need to know specific impulse, thrust to weight, engine thrust, burn time, potential energy, missile aerodynamics, and with assuming ramjet and rocket cases are both with totally identical settings of launch, optimum travel, and target movement.

I'll say again, it is impossible to determine which has higher NEZ with available information (1) and it is impossible to say ramjet is always got better NEZ than rocket (2). If Ramjet powered air to air missiles is definitely always better NEZ than rocket only, then China would only be using ramjet air to air BVR missile and the USA and Russia also would only use ramjet air to air BVR missile. Our ramjet technologies and available development resources are far greater than France. Yet none of these three countries prefer ramjet for many reasons only partly to do with performance not being much better than single pulse and against dual pulse who knows.

Given this, the standard escape maneuver against dual-pulse is to retain altitude superiority. The missile needs a terminal altitude gain to reach the target. In order to do this with near 100% probability, it must be near the target, otherwise it will have lost too much altitude. This reduces the No Escape Zone. The target can make this even worse for the missile by initially lowering altitude, making the missile follow suit and then quickly increasing altitude. The missile needs to be very close to the target so the target has no room for playing around with altitude. The No Escape Zone has been reduced. Also, without thrust, the missile cannot make any high G maneuvers.

Dual pulse patterns we don't know. Maybe second pulse kicks in after 30 seconds of non accelerated flight. Maybe after 3 mins, maybe the burn time is 2 seconds or maybe 10 seconds. It could all be dynamic and depend on how missile's software calculates best intercept probability and does trajectory update and second burn in non-intuitive ways.

The standard escape maneuver is the same for all against all missiles. It is to turn away from and basically keep making missile turn and lose energy with updated intercept points. Maybe aircraft would reduce altitude and then climb due to climbing being hardest so you want missile to try and climb up to you so you must first reduce altitude so that it has to later climb towards you and this is much more energy costly than lateral movement.

NEZ for ramjet would not change. The only difference between ramjet and dual pulse is that ramjet sustains missile speed at around mach 3. Dual pulse missile will reduce to maybe below mach 2 while the aircraft is performing this. Then the dual pulse second burn will accelerate missile again to around mach 4. That's better speed than the ramjet powered one. Think about it like this. The missile is launched at around initial velocity of mach 1 from the fighter (let's assume) and first burn usually accelerate missiles to around mach 4 at mach 1 launch speed. For second burn, maybe the burn is just as long or longer who knows this is what I'm saying. And this second burn should accelerate to mach 4 again or around that. This is more final energy than the ramjet missile.

The dual pulse method uses 100% of available missile potential energy while the ramjet always uses <100% potential energy unless we are talking about ramjet missile out of fuel. If the ramjet missile is out of fuel, it is heavier and slightly less aerodynamic in comparison.

No matter how you calculate ramjet vs dual pulse, ramjet is less efficient in use of available energy. The question is how much each has in available energy. The answer is unknown since we don't know specific details.

I have done these sorts of calculations but not for NEZ type of scenario. We need data to have simulation.

But I can say the above and the above is correct and indisputed fact. Ramjet is less aerodynamic and would be heavier so when both missile types run out of fuel then the ramjet missile is disdvantaged if it needs to turn... if it needs to travel straight only then it has momentum advantage but this is not the case since the fighter will turn a lot. If neither missiles run out of fuel then the pulsed missile gets to use up 100% of available energy while the ramjet one still has some fuel remaining. Again in this respect it is a disadvantage.

The problem like I said already but will have to say again is that we don't know the specific details on how much potential energy the fuel and rocket or fuel and ramjet gives PL-15 and Meteor.

Now for the last question of NEZ. Proof that Meteor type ramjet style doesn't have significantly better NEZ is that USA, China, and Russia all prefer rocket powered missiles for BVR and even long range BVR missiles. We have all played with ramjet BVR missiles. I mean we all have any types of ramjet weapons. China even has many types of scramjet and sodramjet weapons and aircraft in testing and flying and landing too. I think if ramjet is distinctly superior, we would all be using such things since 1980s.

Maybe ramjet does in certain circumstance engagements offer clearly better NEZ but maybe those circumstances are rare and does not justify increased cost and time to build. Maybe ramjet only offer very slightly better NEZ and definitely doesn't justify increased cost.

To calcualte NEZ, it is again super complicated and even if we make some assumptions for the dual pulse rocket one, it can potentially still have better NEZ since it gets to accelerate to much faster speed than the ramjet missile and all at the end phase of flight where this speed is most important.

So end of flight the missiles will be at mach 3 for ramjet and mach 3.5 or so for dual pulse if both are just run out of fuel as they intercept target or if there is a tiny bit of fuel left.

OR end of flight the missiles will be at mach 2 or lower for ramjet and mach 3 or so for dual pulse if both already exhausted fuel for 20 seconds. The thing is that dual pulse would not allow itself to fire second burn that early and as long as is within its range, will fire second stage so that it has maximum speed upon interception.

When the PLAAF tested PL-12 based ramjet BVR missile, they would have determine it is just not worth extra cost. How much extra improvement over how much cost and then they never publicly pursued this. Ground up ramjet missile probably exists in PLAAF inventory since it's been leaked for nearly 10 years now. It might be a more long ranged missile and purposed for against large and slow aircraft. Smaller inventory for special mission cases.

For typical case, you need a lot of missiles rather than smaller number of slightly better missiles. Better is just better electronics and sensors and better fighter or stealth fighter.

One thing to remember is that a rocket powered small missile will climb much easier and faster than even a empty F-15 on full afterburner. So if the strategy of climbing at end is employed, the missile climbs much better when the rocket is kicking. That's the whole point of dual pulse. The rocket is back at the very end of interception flight.

 

[ziaulislam]

Actually you did not. I understand the principles. Now we should prove that ramjet has higher NEZ than rocket in every case. I'm sure Meteor has better NEZ than PL-12 but with PL-15 it is not so easy to determine. The PL-15 will receive a second boost and increase its speed to mach 4 again and can perform this boost as it closes the distance to target to some determined and desired range. It is mathematically impossible for us to determine the exact curves and relationship between NEZ and distance between missile and target.

Only person who agrees with you is an Indian who probably cannot even do basic calculus and to expect him to understand how NEZ is calculated? Come on. We need to know specific impulse, thrust to weight, engine thrust, burn time, potential energy, missile aerodynamics, and with assuming ramjet and rocket cases are both with totally identical settings of launch, optimum travel, and target movement.

I'll say again, it is impossible to determine which has higher NEZ with available information (1) and it is impossible to say ramjet is always got better NEZ than rocket (2). If Ramjet powered air to air missiles is definitely always better NEZ than rocket only, then China would only be using ramjet air to air BVR missile and the USA and Russia also would only use ramjet air to air BVR missile. Our ramjet technologies and available development resources are far greater than France. Yet none of these three countries prefer ramjet for many reasons only partly to do with performance not being much better than single pulse and against dual pulse who knows.




Dual pulse patterns we don't know. Maybe second pulse kicks in after 30 seconds of non accelerated flight. Maybe after 3 mins, maybe the burn time is 2 seconds or maybe 10 seconds. It could all be dynamic and depend on how missile's software calculates best intercept probability and does trajectory update and second burn in non-intuitive ways.

The standard escape maneuver is the same for all against all missiles. It is to turn away from and basically keep making missile turn and lose energy with updated intercept points. Maybe aircraft would reduce altitude and then climb due to climbing being hardest so you want missile to try and climb up to you so you must first reduce altitude so that it has to later climb towards you and this is much more energy costly than lateral movement.

NEZ for ramjet would not change. The only difference between ramjet and dual pulse is that ramjet sustains missile speed at around mach 3. Dual pulse missile will reduce to maybe below mach 2 while the aircraft is performing this. Then the dual pulse second burn will accelerate missile again to around mach 4. That's better speed than the ramjet powered one. Think about it like this. The missile is launched at around initial velocity of mach 1 from the fighter (let's assume) and first burn usually accelerate missiles to around mach 4 at mach 1 launch speed. For second burn, maybe the burn is just as long or longer who knows this is what I'm saying. And this second burn should accelerate to mach 4 again or around that. This is more final energy than the ramjet missile.

The dual pulse method uses 100% of available missile potential energy while the ramjet always uses <100% potential energy unless we are talking about ramjet missile out of fuel. If the ramjet missile is out of fuel, it is heavier and slightly less aerodynamic in comparison.

No matter how you calculate ramjet vs dual pulse, ramjet is less efficient in use of available energy. The question is how much each has in available energy. The answer is unknown since we don't know specific details.

I have done these sorts of calculations but not for NEZ type of scenario. We need data to have simulation.

But I can say the above and the above is correct and indisputed fact. Ramjet is less aerodynamic and would be heavier so when both missile types run out of fuel then the ramjet missile is disdvantaged if it needs to turn... if it needs to travel straight only then it has momentum advantage but this is not the case since the fighter will turn a lot. If neither missiles run out of fuel then the pulsed missile gets to use up 100% of available energy while the ramjet one still has some fuel remaining. Again in this respect it is a disadvantage.

The problem like I said already but will have to say again is that we don't know the specific details on how much potential energy the fuel and rocket or fuel and ramjet gives PL-15 and Meteor.

Now for the last question of NEZ. Proof that Meteor type ramjet style doesn't have significantly better NEZ is that USA, China, and Russia all prefer rocket powered missiles for BVR and even long range BVR missiles. We have all played with ramjet BVR missiles. I mean we all have any types of ramjet weapons. China even has many types of scramjet and sodramjet weapons and aircraft in testing and flying and landing too. I think if ramjet is distinctly superior, we would all be using such things since 1980s.

Maybe ramjet does in certain circumstance engagements offer clearly better NEZ but maybe those circumstances are rare and does not justify increased cost and time to build. Maybe ramjet only offer very slightly better NEZ and definitely doesn't justify increased cost.

To calcualte NEZ, it is again super complicated and even if we make some assumptions for the dual pulse rocket one, it can potentially still have better NEZ since it gets to accelerate to much faster speed than the ramjet missile and all at the end phase of flight where this speed is most important.

So end of flight the missiles will be at mach 3 for ramjet and mach 3.5 or so for dual pulse if both are just run out of fuel as they intercept target or if there is a tiny bit of fuel left.

OR end of flight the missiles will be at mach 2 or lower for ramjet and mach 3 or so for dual pulse if both already exhausted fuel for 20 seconds. The thing is that dual pulse would not allow itself to fire second burn that early and as long as is within its range, will fire second stage so that it has maximum speed upon interception.

When the PLAAF tested PL-12 based ramjet BVR missile, they would have determine it is just not worth extra cost. How much extra improvement over how much cost and then they never publicly pursued this. Ground up ramjet missile probably exists in PLAAF inventory since it's been leaked for nearly 10 years now. It might be a more long ranged missile and purposed for against large and slow aircraft. Smaller inventory for special mission cases.

For typical case, you need a lot of missiles rather than smaller number of slightly better missiles. Better is just better electronics and sensors and better fighter or stealth fighter.

One thing to remember is that a rocket powered small missile will climb much easier and faster than even a empty F-15 on full afterburner. So if the strategy of climbing at end is employed, the missile climbs much better when the rocket is kicking. That's the whole point of dual pulse. The rocket is back at the very end of interception flight.

Thats a moot point
In short range conflict PL-10 will be fired
In longe range conflict PL-15 will be fired

So does NEZ in abolsute terms even matter since by the time the missile of each system interact it will already be 40+ miles(long range firing)

What i m trying to say that abolsute superiority of RAMJET is not established otherwise you would be seeing new gen being ramjet engines not the otherway around

Even for their bulky nature they would have been preferred

 

[khanasifm]

 

[Deino]

View attachment 781841

Here better ...

 

[Chak Bamu]

I actually provided everything you needed to understand this, but you have got this messed up in your mind. No Escape Zone is the range from which target cannot escape with close to 100% probability, even if the target utilizes escape maneuvers. This happens because the missile is much more faster, and much more maneuverable. But, the missile is also an aircraft and subject to the lift/drag/thrust/weight relationship. Every time the missile is not producing thrust, drag is slowing it down and weight is drawing it down.

Given this, the standard escape maneuver against dual-pulse is to retain altitude superiority. The missile needs a terminal altitude gain to reach the target. In order to do this with near 100% probability, it must be near the target, otherwise it will have lost too much altitude. This reduces the No Escape Zone. The target can make this even worse for the missile by initially lowering altitude, making the missile follow suit and then quickly increasing altitude. The missile needs to be very close to the target so the target has no room for playing around with altitude. The No Escape Zone has been reduced. Also, without thrust, the missile cannot make any high G maneuvers.

The ramjet by definition works in the high supersonic/near hypersonic regime and achieves a thrust by managing the supersonic flow for combustion. Its boost phase is meant to push it into supersonic speed from where the ramjet engine ensures thrust. The ramjet engine cannot achieve supersonic speed on its own, rather, it is designed to retain supersonic speed. Thus, by definition, it will retain a high speed throughout flight path, which will provide it with enough lift and will overcome drag, thus the standard maneuver of retaining altitude is ineffective (within the altitude range where air density make ramjet feasible). This automatically increases its No Escape Zone. If the aircraft lowers its altitude, the missile can use gravity to retain speed and reduce fuel burn. If the aircraft increases altitude the missile will burn slightly more fuel. But there will be a range within which no amount of maneuvering will knock the missile off the tail. Because the missile has the luxury of continuously burning fuel, it will retain its energy superiority for a longer range. This increases the NEZ.

If you want something more concrete than this, you should go and write your own simulation, where you simulate the missile's control algorithm and the aircraft's maneuvers.

If I get the basis of your argument right, then you are talking about two things: 1. Speed of the missile (average, whether RAM Jet or Dual Pulse), 2. The thrust profile.

There is no telling which missile, in which scenario would have a higher average speed. A missile that achieves Mach 4 & then decreases to Mach 2 only to accelerate again to Mach 4 might actually have a higher average speed.

The thrust profile in both cases is dependent upon the inherent characteristic of RAM & DP, but also on altitude. There must be another factor: mid-course correction. I would guess that DP would be better in both the regards. DP would have gravity in its favor; & a mid-course correction in the slower phase of the flight might be more desirable due to being less energy consuming.

This is too complicated an affair for amateurs to discuss. We can infer indirectly as to which is better over-all based on the direction of development. If other players shun RAM Jet and concentrate on DP, then we can guess that they have done their simulations & concluded to develop the superior option.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Only person who agrees with you is an Indian who probably cannot even do basic calculus and to expect him to understand how NEZ is calculated?

Good post, but I wish you had not written this.

 

[CriticalThought]

There is no telling which missile, in which scenario would have a higher average speed. A missile that achieves Mach 4 & then decreases to Mach 2 only to accelerate again to Mach 4 might actually have a higher average speed.

This is where you are wrong. Because it is not just a matter of distance, but height as well. The loss of altitude due to drag and weight is what reduces the NEZ.

The thrust profile in both cases is dependent upon the inherent characteristic of RAM & DP, but also on altitude. There must be another factor: mid-course correction. I would guess that DP would be better in both the regards. DP would have gravity in its favor; & a mid-course correction in the slower phase of the flight might be more desirable due to being less energy consuming.

This analysis is based on half information. If mid-course correction is needed, the meteor can take both high-G turns, and its variable burn rate can decrease thrust and make gentler corrections as well.

This is too complicated an affair for amateurs to discuss. We can infer indirectly as to which is better over-all based on the direction of development. If other players shun RAM Jet and concentrate on DP, then we can guess that they have done their simulations & concluded to develop the superior option.

More wrong analysis by an amateur. The decision to go dual pulse is also based on available technology. If a player is unable to develop the relevant ramjet technology, or if someone holds key patents and theywould be forced to make further advancements, that would force them to seek the DP route. The meteor is actually officially claiming to be used on F-35:

Meteor integration on F-35 takes significant step forward | Press Release | MBDA

The United Kingdom (MOD) has today awarded MBDA a contract to pave the way for the integration of the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) on its new F-35 stealth fighters.

www.mbda-systems.com

That shows us how relevant it truly is.

You are also ignoring a key thing that I have already said. It seems like PL-XX seeks to increase the NEZ by increasing missile size so there is more fuel to burn. That is a different approach to solving the problem.

The trouble here is that people like you are rank amateurs who are unable to adequately process information and have an intelligent discussion on any topic. Seriously, it is a displeasure talking to the morons on this forum.

 

[Chak Bamu]

This is where you are wrong. Because it is not just a matter of distance, but height as well. The loss of altitude due to drag and weight is what reduces the NEZ.

Nothing you typed says anything about altitude. If anything, everyone has pointed out that RAM Jet would struggle at higher altitudes, unlike pulse motors. Also, missile may lose altitude (& of course it should) but if it has a second motor, then that hardly matters. Its not as though a RAM Jet would shine while facing higher drag at lower operating altitudes unlike the other option.

This analysis is based on half information. If mid-course correction is needed, the meteor can take both high-G turns, and its variable burn rate can decrease thrust and make gentler corrections as well.

....and DP can not do it better? What makes you think so?

More wrong analysis by an amateur. The decision to go dual pulse is also based on available technology. If a player is unable to develop the relevant ramjet technology, or if someone holds key patents and theywould be forced to make further advancements, that would force them to seek the DP route. The meteor is actually officially claiming to be used on F-35:

Meteor integration on F-35 takes significant step forward | Press Release | MBDA

The United Kingdom (MOD) has today awarded MBDA a contract to pave the way for the integration of the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) on its new F-35 stealth fighters.

www.mbda-systems.com

That shows us how relevant it truly is.

Good for Meteor & F-35. You are making it seem as though F-35 would carry exclusively Meteor & nothing else because all else is irrelevant since Meteor has ended the quest of making the better missile. Americans must be really stupid wasting resources on AIM-260, then.

You are also ignoring a key thing that I have already said. It seems like PL-XX seeks to increase the NEZ by increasing missile size so there is more fuel to burn. That is a different approach to solving the problem.

In other words, you are confirming my thesis. Thanks. Now before you come back to tell me something about patents, do note that I will ask you if that has ever been an issue for the Chinese.

The trouble here is that people like you are rank amateurs who are unable to adequately process information and have an intelligent discussion on any topic. Seriously, it is a displeasure talking to the morons on this forum.

Well my dear sir, please continue with your noble calling of designing, testing, & fielding Ram Jet missiles. Amateurs like me would only get in the way here.

This is complete hogwash and an elaborate rant from an amateur. You have ignored the information that I have clearly and painstakingly laid forth. Your main purpose is to support your fanboy-ism by trying to talk down an alternate technology that PLAAF doesn't have access to. If anything, THIS is what the Indians were guilty of pre Feb 27.

We have another fanboy in @kursed who simply cannot stomach a scenario where PAF fails. The quality of this forum is going down because of you morons.

Please fix your life before you make a complete fool of yourself with your tantrums.

 

[TNT]

This is complete hogwash and an elaborate rant from an amateur. You have ignored the information that I have clearly and painstakingly laid forth. Your main purpose is to support your fanboy-ism by trying to talk down an alternate technology that PLAAF doesn't have access to. If anything, THIS is what the Indians were guilty of pre Feb 27.

We have another fanboy in @kursed who simply cannot stomach a scenario where PAF fails. The quality of this forum is going down because of you morons.

I usually dont interfere but i follow all these threads and frankly dont mind but its you who is responsible for the bad quality of forum. You seem to have a disturbed view of the basics of physics. This happens when amateurs try to argue with those who actually have studied and have degrees in the area. And then u go on and call them morons? U must be one confident dumbo. Funny part is u call urself critical thought and u have zero tolerance to critical thought.

I would request u to keep ur pearls of wisom to urself and just comment abt the stuff and dont get personal. I usually dont read the whole page if i see u jumping in it.