Just based on the specs, videos, and design etc.
How would you rate JF-17 Thunder? How would rate it in comparison to earlier F-16 models?
Just from public information alone, I would rate the JF-17 to be comparable to the F-16A/B series/blocs. But as post 111 pointed out, it is all about avionics to either extend the usable range of an aircraft's weapons or to enable the pilot the information he needs to place himself into a tactically advantageous position. If the avionics are good enough, there would be both improvements. So just from public information alone, the collaboration between Pakistan and China produced an excellent all-around fighter.
Now...To the popular and controversial subject of the radar cross section (RCS) value, this subject have been discussed before regarding the JF-17.
The F-111 was my first aircraft during my time in the USAF. Back in the 1980s, RCS was not a very well known topic, even inside the avionics community, let alone at the flightline level, and for the radar people who know the subject, it was relegated to the back burner on low heat, but more like no heat, on the priority stove. It was only with Lockheed with the super-duper secret F-117 program where RCS was always on high heat setting, does the RCS value of any aircraft, from the F-117 to the Goodyear blimp, was under study, and according to my sources back then, the RCS value for the Goodyear blimp was indeed a military secret for a while for the subject of study and controlling the RCS value of any aircraft.
Yes...The radar cross section (RCS) of this thing...
Goodyear Blimp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...Once served as a 'Top Secret' reference doc for the F-117 and later generation of US 'stealth' fighters. It was once secret in the sense that if anyone found out why the USAF and Lockheed was studying the radar behaviors off the fat body of the blimp, suspicion could and would lead to other investigations. Today, Goodyear would be glad to tell anyone of the blimp's RCS as a trivia, and people would be surprised.
MILITARY- AIRSHIPS (no blimps): WHY ARE AIRSHIPS LARGELY IMMUNE TO MISSILE ATTACK?
Airships can be constructed entirely out of materials that do not reflect radar, not just portions of the airframe like airplanes. The size of the airship allows these same materials to be shaped into planes and reflecting surfaces that are many times more effective than can be employed in an airplanes' small wing or fuselage area. Thus, the airship has even greater ability to avoid reflecting radar back to emitter, despite the increased size of the airship.
The physics do support the arguments that the blimp can have a lower RCS than the F-22 -- in all aspects.
Anyway...When I got reassigned to the F-16, I researched the RCS subject as a matter of personal interest than professional. The F-117 and F-16 were designed at roughly the same time frame, but the F-16 had a difference mission philosophy than the F-117. The F-16 was designed to be a pure 'knife fighter', simple as that, as in 'phone booth knife fighter'. Originally, the 'fighter mafia' in the Pentagon intended the F-16 to have no radar at all and that the F-16 pilot had to be shepherded by a larger companion, like an AWACS, to the fight and to fight in guns only. That is why General Dynamics designed the F-16 to have that outsize engine and vertical stabilator, two items that always get the first attention from anyone. The engine itself was nothing extraordinary but in a small airframe like the F-16, that combination became extraordinary. The large vertical stabilator was for high AoA situations.
The F-16's small size naturally gave it a lower RCS value than its companions in the US air forces. The reason why the one meter square value is accepted as the official unofficial threshold for 'stealth' is because for most radars in operation in the world, civilian and military, anything lower and that body is often lost in clutter, ground and air. In radar detection,
NOTHING is invisible. The US never said so and the physics does not support that 'invisible' claim.
A clean F-16 is a borderline 'stealth' body and it was
INCIDENTAL -- never intentional -- to its original design philosophy.
The F-117 is a 'stealth' body and it was intentional
BECAUSE of its design philosophy.
Is 1m2 the true RCS value of a clean F-16 ? No, it is not, and neither the USAF nor I are going to say what it is, and we do not care if no one believes that public figure anyway. But base on personal experience, in the cockpit and in front of a radar scope looking for an F-16, I would advise people to use that 1m2 threshold for 'stealth'. If our competitors -- Russia and China -- accepts it, it should be good enough for the general public.
Dimensions and shaping wise, the JF-17 is very close to the F-16. So I would have no problems placing a clean JF-17 in the same borderline 'stealth' threshold region as a clean F-16. Can Pakistan devote resources to lower a clean JF-17 into the 'stealth' region ? Absolutely, but it will require so much work that Pakistan might as well embark on a true 'stealth' fighter program.
Modifications to an existing airframe are limited to the original design philosophy of that airframe. Hanging 'stealth' weapons pods off the wings are not modifications to the airframe but modifications to the ordnance themselves. You will dramatically reduce the ordnance's contributions to the fighter's total RCS, but the 'stealth' pod itself is still a contributor as long as it is exposed to radar bombardment. A lower contributor, yes, but still a contributor. Expand the fuselage to increase internal volume to carry weapons ? Then you will affect assorted aerodynamics effects that may require longer and stronger wings, larger rear horizontal stabilators, reprogramming the FLCS, and who knows what else. Might as well design a whole new fighter with low radar observability as high priority, like how the F-22 was originally designed.
In many ways, looking strictly from a sensor specialist perspective, I see the F-15 Silent Eagle as a gimmick. Am sure Boeing can make a lot of money off that project, but unless I see hard data from that body, which will never happen, am not sure if I am would be willing to spend my tax dollars on it. I am confident that the SE version will have a lower RCS value, but tactically speaking, if the reduction in detection range by the seeking radar, which is desirable for the attacker, does not give the attacker at least a 30-sec advantage, time for a pilot to reposition himself, then the RCS reduction is not worth it.
Thirty seconds are critical enough between a moving attacker and a fixed (ground) defense, but if the defense is another high speed mover in closing, I want every micro seconds of that 30-sec. Closing speed is combined approaching speed of both fighters, so a closing speed between me and my opponent will be Mach. If all I have is a 30-sec radar advantage, at Mach closing speed, I may have only a few seconds to reposition myself for a shot before he detects me and reposition himself for his shot.
Can Pakistan modify the JF-17 into a 'stealth' fighter to give its pilot that 30-sec radar advantage ? That is not a million dollars question but more like a few bils.
![MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n](/data/avatars/s/32/32258.jpg?1370382459){kind=avatar}
