JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[gambit]

With the IAF's numerical advantage, this time around, it won't be 2 or 4 IAF jets coming in. The numbers will be larger and each SU-30 can lock on and fire on about 6 targets. The JFT can lock on two and for a better kill ratio, both the missiles should be fired on one target. That means the JFT will take on just 1 SU-30 at a time. Now, if there was a better radar allowing 4 targets to be locked on simultaneously, and 4 BVR's were available, you can obviously target 4 incoming jets, or fire 2 BVR's on each incoming jet, raising the hit to kill ratio significantly and turning the JFT into a better force-multiplier than it is today. Just my two cents.
Regards,

This is an excellent point and an FYI for all air force enthusiasts...

Today, the USAF have 'Weapons School'...

Factsheets : United States Air Force Weapons School

It used to be much narrower in scope -- Fighter Weapons School.

Anyway...Without revealing too much details, our training will have tactics that will have an instructor or student at some technical disadvantages, such as simulating a radar that have fewer lock capability and the fighter is equipped with a certain type of missiles.

There are great differences between air combat maneuvers (ACM) vs air combat tactics (ACT).

ACM is about maneuverings, as in how to make a jet fighter aircraft performs a roll or some pitch movements.

Air combat tactics are much greater than learning how to fly and maneuver. Tactics are about situations, awareness of situations, and how to exploit many things into one's favor.

If a pilot is assigned (simulated) a fighter that have an inferior radar lock capability than his opponents (plural), what can he do to win ? What can he and wingman do to isolate one opponent among many ? That is tactics, not merely maneuvers.

Likewise for the instructor. For the day's flying, he may inform his student opponents that he is simulating an adversary that have inferior radar capability and it is up to the student opponents to use tactics that will place the instructor at a disadvantage.

There is an old saying in the martial arts: 'A good fighter hides his weaknesses, but a great fighter will uses them.'

Air combat tactics, which includes dissimilar platforms, are about recognizing one's weaknesses and how to use them to one's favor.

Now, as far as radar capability goes, AESA is THE way to go. Sometimes there are technical advantages so great that superior tactical skills cannot raise the odds of victory unless the guy with the AESA system is an absolute utter boob of a fighter pilot.

 

[Viper0011.]

This is an excellent point and an FYI for all air force enthusiasts...

Today, the USAF have 'Weapons School'...

Factsheets : United States Air Force Weapons School


There are great differences between air combat maneuvers (ACM) vs air combat tactics (ACT).

ACM is about maneuverings, as in how to make a jet fighter aircraft performs a roll or some pitch movements.

Air combat tactics are much greater than learning how to fly and maneuver. Tactics are about situations, awareness of situations, and how to exploit many things into one's favor.

Air combat tactics, which includes dissimilar platforms, are about recognizing one's weaknesses and how to use them to one's favor.

Yup, the Fighter Weapons Schools drills in DACT, DACT and more DACT inside our pilots heads so it becomes second nature to them in dealing with dissimilar combat and with different numerically disadvantaged situations with adversary having higher numbers at times. They can deal with different types of situations as these unfold thousands of feet above ground. The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in a war!!

And you are right about the AESA, the tech advantage is so high that pilot skills in certain cases become marginal. So the PAF has to consider it rather quickly for any foreseeable JFT modifications. In fact, the -16's , once upgraded to an AESA platform, can hold their own against the SU-30 and Rafale. An AESA added to the JFT with MERS will give it an edge in terms of carrying more BVR's and having the ability to use the AESA on a numerically superior formation, providing significant force multiplication capability also.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Yup, the Fighter Weapons Schools drills in DACT, DACT and more DACT inside our pilots heads so it becomes second nature to them in dealing with dissimilar combat and with different numerically disadvantaged situations with adversary having higher numbers at times. They can deal with different types of situations as these unfold thousands of feet above ground. The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in a war!!

And you are right about the AESA, the tech advantage is so high that pilot skills in certain cases become marginal. So the PAF has to consider it rather quickly for any foreseeable JFT modifications. In fact, the -16's , once upgraded to an AESA platform, can hold their own against the SU-30 and Rafale. An AESA added to the JFT with MERS will give it an edge in terms of carrying more BVR's and having the ability to use the AESA on a numerically superior formation, providing significant force multiplication capability also.

AESA is still a long-shot, since the available options are on EU platforms and they are not so willing to give them to Pakistan as yet. However, it seems like JFT will get an IRST way before an AESA, and it maybe a viable option for them prior to getting their hands on a capable AESA.

 

[Viper0011.]

AESA is still a long-shot, since the available options are on EU platforms and they are not so willing to give them to Pakistan as yet. However, it seems like JFT will get an IRST way before an AESA, and it maybe a viable option for them prior to getting their hands on a capable AESA.

The J-10 has an AESA. It doesn't take much to shorten the diameter of the plate and reduce the number of TR modules for the JFT. The JFT AESA with 800 TR modules is still an awesome platform for its size. Sure it won't reach out to 200 miles, but it will give you much advanced capability compared to the KLJ-7 radar you have, and it will still cover well over 100 miles, with multi-lock and target capability. It will cost money for R&D in terms of determining the best architecture for lower number of modules, but its not that difficult.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

@Viper0011, I can't say more than the cliche "If it was that easy"

Further, on this topic, we don't see much on JF17 capability for Close Air Support, such as Hellfire ATGM type capability. Is anyone aware if this is on the cards?

 

[sathya]

i remember OSCAR saying, adding IRST in a non twin seater is going to be a burden for the the pilot ..

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

i remember OSCAR saying, adding IRST in a non twin seater is going to be a burden for the the pilot ..

Oscar who?

Eurofighter, Gripen, and loads of other aircraft have IRST. Modern automated IRSTs are as much work load as a modern radar.

 

[aliyusuf]

The JFT AESA with 800 TR modules is still an awesome platform for its size

Provided there is enough space in the nose cone and enough power in the engine to make it operational on the JFT.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Provided there is enough space in the nose cone and enough power in the engine to make it operational on the JFT.

There is no viable option on the market, and the Chinese radars are not mature enough for PAF to consider them. PAF would prefer a european solution, but none exists.

 

[Viper0011.]

Provided there is enough space in the nose cone and enough power in the engine to make it operational on the JFT.

Reduced TR's can be powered by the current engine as 800 TR's would roughly require the same or slightly more wattage than the current radar.

Nose cone, with smaller plate would work too. Also, the nose cone expansion isn't a big deal. In the US or other modern countries, these small modifications are made all the time. There are times when I feel like Pakistan gets scared of opening up or modifying something small. The JFT platform is your own. You should be able to toy with it as much as you want or what makes sense, that's how you learn. Just assembly isn't always going to fly if you'd like to build jets from scratch one day.

 

[aliyusuf]

Reduced TR's can be powered by the current engine as 800 TR's would roughly require the same or slightly more wattage than the current radar.

Nose cone, with smaller plate would work too. Also, the nose cone expansion isn't a big deal. In the US or other modern countries, these small modifications are made all the time. There are times when I feel like Pakistan gets scared of opening up or modifying something small. The JFT platform is your own. You should be able to toy with it as much as you want or what makes sense, that's how you learn. Just assembly isn't always going to fly if you'd like to build jets from scratch one day.

I am not privy to any information that exactly correlates engine power to the number of TR-Modules supported as you are so positively suggesting. If you have any such information or link, kindly share it so that it broadens my understanding (and many like myself on this forum as well) on this issue.

Thanks.

 

[Viper0011.]

@Viper0011, I can't say more than the cliche "If it was that easy"

I am sorry, how much experience do you have with aircraft manufacturing? Ever dealt or seen the entire process of aircraft design and manufacturing?

The "easy" from my comment doesn't mean that it'll take two days. But it also doesn't mean that it should take 2 years worth of R&D for already built platforms like the J-10B's AESA. Also, nose cone related changes, etc are things considered "smaller" enhancements, and Pakistan should be able to do those. Isreal started this way from their times with the Mirages. Then eventually, they gave birth to Kfir and later, the Lavi!!

 

[zebra7]

There is no viable option on the market, and the Chinese radars are not mature enough for PAF to consider them. PAF would prefer a european solution, but none exists.

I think europe have such radar Aesa for your requirement, the one which is used in grippen

I am sorry, how much experience do you have with aircraft manufacturing? Ever dealt or seen the entire process of aircraft design and manufacturing?

The "easy" from my comment doesn't mean that it'll take two days. But it also doesn't mean that it should take 2 years worth of R&D for already built platforms like the J-10B's AESA. Also, nose cone related changes, etc are things considered "smaller" enhancements, and Pakistan should be able to do those. Isreal started this way from their times with the Mirages. Then eventually, they gave birth to Kfir and later, the Lavi!!

Is this managable in two years as per your and who will perform this task Pakistan or China by the way. Hopefully you knew that why would China do that for your sake if she won't get anything in return or the profit.

 

[MilSpec]

I am sorry, how much experience do you have with aircraft manufacturing? Ever dealt or seen the entire process of aircraft design and manufacturing?

The "easy" from my comment doesn't mean that it'll take two days. But it also doesn't mean that it should take 2 years worth of R&D for already built platforms like the J-10B's AESA. Also, nose cone related changes, etc are things considered "smaller" enhancements, and Pakistan should be able to do those. Isreal started this way from their times with the Mirages. Then eventually, they gave birth to Kfir and later, the Lavi!!

Interesting, how much experience do YOU have with aircraft manufacturing, Please do enlighten us with what process, or product development you have been part of. Not condescending but honest observation is your rhetoric is quite amateurish.

 

[MilSpec]

Reduced TR's can be powered by the current engine as 800 TR's would roughly require the same or slightly more wattage than the current radar.

Nose cone, with smaller plate would work too. Also, the nose cone expansion isn't a big deal. In the US or other modern countries, these small modifications are made all the time. There are times when I feel like Pakistan gets scared of opening up or modifying something small. The JFT platform is your own. You should be able to toy with it as much as you want or what makes sense, that's how you learn. Just assembly isn't always going to fly if you'd like to build jets from scratch one day.

really,
To make such claims , I am sure you must be aware of the peak power / module of T/r or the quad module set., Please do share with us what would be average and peak demand for a 800 tr module of the chinese radar, and estimate the dry power peak requirement for the radar to function.

Before making your usual claims remember though that a mig 29 with two of the same power plants as the Jf17 , offers an AC 3 phase power supply through a 2P alt at 115/200 V, 400Hz freq constant irrespective of engine rpm, max power output is at 30KVA, on the same shaft assm there is smaller brushless DC module, producing 1.5KVA, The ADC combine with Sine wave filter provides DC power for the system bus. 30KVA through the trfm, though is not available all to the radar, Low side DC bus powers all the llid's(low lev int devices), Servos, and relays, and the high side terminal strip powers the fuel pumps, Hydraulic pumps, Avionics through a distributed three phase supply.

Now provided JF17 has Half of the power available at the genset, how on earth will you power a AESA radar 800T/R channels ( which btw is 148 channels more than the Zhuk AE -FGA 29)

only bother to reply if you have any real content.
thanks