JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[gambit]

the question remains that how important is stealth?

Important enough that every country want it.

looking at the fact that stealth planes always sacrifice functionality for stealth.

Depends on what 'functionality' are you talking about.

also one of the best planes in the wotld the eurofighter tuphoon is not stealth..
so may be stealth is not that important afterall.

This is not very good logic. What is 'best' is a more a matter of opinion. No one set down to table on what is 'best'.

plus....doesnt the RCS change with aspect?

Yes.

PAKFA has rcs of 0.whatever meter square if seen from the front..from any other angle the rcs will be different..so a plane cannot be srealth from all angles

Never claimed that such is possible.

and the cost of stealth...jf-17 is around 20 million a piece while the "stealth" pakfa is 100 plus mlion a piece....so in that money PAF can have 5 jf-17s.
so which is better..one expensive stealth plane with complications or many simple costeffective nln stealth planes.

Losing a war against an opponent with 'stealth' cost much more.

 

[razgriz19]

the question remains that how important is stealth?
looking at the fact that stealth planes always sacrifice functionality for stealth.
also one of the best planes in the wotld the eurofighter tuphoon is not stealth..
so may be stealth is not that important afterall.
plus....doesnt the RCS change with aspect? PAKFA has rcs of 0.whatever meter square if seen from the front..from any other angle the rcs will be different..so a plane cannot be srealth from all angles

and the cost of stealth...jf-17 is around 20 million a piece while the "stealth" pakfa is 100 plus mlion a piece....so in that money PAF can have 5 jf-17s.
so which is better..one expensive stealth plane with complications or many simple costeffective nln stealth planes.

well if you dont wanna get shot down by enemy SAMs, then u better have STEALTH!
all these stealth aircrafts were made with only one purpose in mind, that is to SURVIVE over enemy territory.
every stealth aircraft is made for a different purpose. F-22 was made for air-supriority, it can carry 8 missiles which are more than enough. for bomber role you have B-2, again it does its job just fine.
and about sacrificing some "functionality", i think u mean muti-role. well almost all the stealth fighters have external hard points and they can carry bombs/missiles externally and internally, once you take out enemy defences, u can fly these birds with all the different load u want!

 

[MastanKhan]

The thing is that the worthiness of any existing stealth aircraft has necver been proven in an actual ballte field while facing an equally powerful enemy..
Using B-2 stealth over Afghanistan means nothing as they havent got even the basic radars.
Same goes for F-22 raptor or any other stealth...Never proven in actual combat.,...I read on another forum that F-22 when entering a friendly country's military exercise are out of bound for all ... and they cannot guage the plane's features during exercise...If anybody has any information to deny this,please fel free to post links and info..
So if we say F-22 has RCS of a Bumble bee or a head lice...this info may well be a marketing propaganda by the manufacturers...
If such tall claims cannot be proved independently,they are too good to be true.

Dear respected member,

When you go to buy a steak---you don't have to put our head into the bull's ar-se---you take the butcher's word for it.

America has never bragged about its capabilities ever before---and it is not going to do it now---its millitary equipment has always delieverd more than promised----.

The negative that you hear about the F 22 may just be a part of the deception and nothing more.

 

[Safriz]

i have to agree with Gambit's logic..If stealth was insignificant why all countries are after it.....

But too many contradicting logics flying around...one interesting article i found..

I dont know the auther and dont know how credible the article is but interesting.

"“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria,” Sprey said.

The stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,” Sprey said. That is because in order to locate the enemy beyond visual range, the Raptor (like every other fighter) must turn on its own radar, immediately betraying its location.

Nor is the aircraft design effective simply because its advocates insist so, Sprey said. The 1980s-era F-117 stealth fighter was supposed to be invisible too, but post-Gulf War studies showed that the aircraft had been spotted by Iraq’s ground-based radars, he said."

The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't

 

[untitled]

There are reports that F-22 (or any stealth aircraft for that matter) does not remain stealthy during rain

 

[Luftwaffe]

safriz, I click reply with quotes and thought about 15 minutes to reply to you then I closed the page you know why? your post has all the answers.

Air supremacy is not just for equally powerful enemy it is not a video game to use a less capable fighter against a less capable air force when you have the technology you use it to out class your enemy to never make them return back to not let them see they never know what hit them.

B2 - The bomber has a crew of two and can drop up to 80 500 lb (230 kg)-class JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs in a single pass (Does that sound awesome Yes it does in a single pass - it carry its significance)

If that is so that F-22 makers are doing a marketing propaganda then you can forget about JF-17-J-10-J-20-J-zardari.

 

[Luftwaffe]

There are reports that F-22 (or any stealth aircraft for that matter) does not remain stealthy during rain

Then it flies above the clouds.

 

[untitled]

Then it flies above the clouds.

That wont be possible in all scenarios

 

[Luftwaffe]

That wont be possible in all scenarios

That is a joke, so it is a joke that F-22 stealth has problems with rain.

Lets keep it JF-17 thread shall we.

 

[SQ8]

Look at it this way.. for an aircraft like the F-22 or B-2.. a small hailstone striking it.. even bird poop on some exposed area can effect its RCS. However.. by what degree.. is debatable.
And that article is sheer idiocy.. safriz.. the raptor's radar is a LPI(low probability of intercept) system. At hops hundreds of frequencies at low power in millisecond.. even if an extremely sensitive RWR that has been programmed to look for such patterns picks it up.. it wont track it for more than a few milliseconds.
Stealth is the way to go.. the one for radar has already been achieved.. visual is the next step.
In case of the JF however.. one cannot give it all aspect stealth.. but like the EF.. some sort of reduction in frontal RCS can be expected, even the EF has a single tail jutting out. But head on.. it might play less of a factor.

 

[Black Widow]

the final version of JF 17 willl not have Internal weapon bay. it is a too small singelengine fighter.
even the final version of J 10 will not have Internal weapon bay.

IF insist to build internal weapon bay then what kind of weapon it can carry?
and it will much more expensive than the original target price. JF17 is in fact a cost price oriented project to replace F 7/A5.
and we curenntly really dont have single engine stealth fighter project. even we together develop it later , it will be a long time. and at that time india has already T 50.

dont wast money on semi stealth fighter project like semistealth JF17. semi stealth is not effective.

the budget of Pakistan defence is much smaller than Indian.
and airforce based really a lot on money. it is the hardst way to balance the power of IAF. the sadly fact is that India AF is much richer than Pak AF.

the best way to balance Indian military thread is thousands missiles and guidingrocket + (submarine which is capble of launching longrange missile)
to develop a cruissemissil or balastic missiel is much more effective and cheaper than build a semi stealth fighter. and it can be stored for a long time
and you can build this all by your own that no one knows how many you really have. maybe only some parts need to be imported.
hiding missles in tunnel under mountains and seacoast.
+ system and satellite for guiding and spying.

So few things are pretty clear here, These are endorsed by "Senior" Chinese and Pakistani frnds as well..
1. There is nothing called Stealth JF17 program.
2. China is not concentrating now on Single engine stealth program
3. Single engine stealth fighter will start sometime in future.
4. Semistealth (LO fighter planes) is not effective.
5. RCS is insignificant factor in 4th gen fighter planes,No matter how much you reduce the RCS, While loaded (with Bombs and missiles), its RCS will 3-4 m2 minimum. Current generation radars can track and engage this RCS from 100-120 kms.

So I hope In future no one talk bout Stealth JF17 or stealth LCA,,,

 

[mourning sage]

stealth LCA,,,

 

[Mani2020]

So few things are pretty clear here, These are endorsed by "Senior" Chinese and Pakistani frnds as well..
1. There is nothing called Stealth JF17 program.
2. China is not concentrating now on Single engine stealth program
3. Single engine stealth fighter will start sometime in future.
4. Semistealth (LO fighter planes) is not effective.
5. RCS is insignificant factor in 4th gen fighter planes,No matter how much you reduce the RCS, While loaded (with Bombs and missiles), its RCS will 3-4 m2 minimum. Current generation radars can track and engage this RCS from 100-120 kms.

So I hope In future no one talk bout Stealth JF17 or stealth LCA,,,

This is not true , i m talking about the bolded part, It has been mentioned time and time again that China is also concentrating on a single engine stealth aircraft somewhat similar to F-35 to make a combo of a heavy weight twin engine costly stealth fighter and a light weight single engine relatively cheap stealth fighter, Not only they are concentrating on that for themselves but also for PAF , work is on the way and few designs have been presented to PAF to select from them .

Last bolded part is also bit fragile on your part and still you are not clear about that , RCS does play an important part no matter from which generation an aircraft belongs, Total RCS of an aircraft is the sum of RCS of clean body plus the RCS of weapons load its like

X+Y= Total RCS

where X is the RCS of clean body while Y is that of the loaded bombs, missiles etc

Total RCS is dependent on the value of X and y if X will decrease then the Total RCS will also decrease like in case of an aircraft having clean body RCS of 4 while with load its 6 so , 4+6=10

while if it has the clean body RCS of 1 while that of load is 6 so, 1+6=7

so it shows how significant an aircraft's clean body RCS matters as it has direct effect on total RCS .

Secondly the detection range ofr a radar depens upon its capability as well as the RCS of the targeted fighter , if a radar has a range of 120km for an aircraft having RCS 10m2 , then it will detect the first aircraft at 120km where as for second aircraft it will be less than 120km , and approx somewhere around 80km .

 

[gambit]

i have to agree with Gambit's logic..If stealth was insignificant why all countries are after it.....

But too many contradicting logics flying around...one interesting article i found..

I dont know the auther and dont know how credible the article is but interesting.

"“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria,” Sprey said.

The stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,” Sprey said. That is because in order to locate the enemy beyond visual range, the Raptor (like every other fighter) must turn on its own radar, immediately betraying its location.

Nor is the aircraft design effective simply because its advocates insist so, Sprey said. The 1980s-era F-117 stealth fighter was supposed to be invisible too, but post-Gulf War studies showed that the aircraft had been spotted by Iraq’s ground-based radars, he said."

The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't

With all due respect to Pierre Sprey, one of the fathers of my beloved F-16, every era has a beginning and an end. The F-16 as originally envisioned by Sprey was supposed to be a dedicated 'knife fighter'. It was supposed to have a radar just large enough to give the pilot a firing solution. Nothing more. The F-16 was supposed to be sent in waves against an enemy and directed in by a 'mother' aircraft, like an AWACS. All missiles and the gun. No bombs capability.

The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't

The stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,” Sprey said. That is because in order to locate the enemy beyond visual range, the Raptor (like every other fighter) must turn on its own radar, immediately betraying its location.

First...No one claimed the F-22 was supposed to be 'invisible'.

Second...This criticism by Sprey is a tacit admission by him that low observable body shaping works to the point that the only way to find the F-22 is to wait for it to reveal itself.

Third...Radar technology has progressed past what Sprey was used to. The F-22's AESA radar has Low Probability of Interception (LPI) mode where modern RHAWS are still struggling to cope with that capability. Further, if the F-16 was supposed to be vectored into a fight by a 'parent' aircraft, then why not the same for the F-22 with the advantage of being very low observable?

Sprey said his briefing focused on the time-tested factors that define an effective fighter plane: (1) See the enemy first; (2) outnumber the enemy; (3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire, and (4) kill the enemy quickly.

“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria,” Sprey said.

The F-22 is the fighter aircraft equivalent of the ground sniper who sees the enemy WITHOUT being seen. There is a difference between 'before' and 'without' with the latter the preferred. If I see my opponent before he sees me, the time span between the two events may not give me enough time position myself in an advantageous position. I would rather see him WITHOUT being seen in return. In doing so, there is less of a need for numerical superiority even though I would love for the USAF to have a 10-1 ratio of Raptors versus <whatever> anytime.

And in the 77-day aerial campaign against Serbia in 1999, the adversary’s “1950s-era radar” managed to locate and shoot down two F-117s, Stevenson pointed out in his presentation. The situation is actually worse today, he said, because many nations have acquired advanced missiles that can home in on radar emissions.

“Who do you want in a dark alley?” Stevenson asked. “The cop with the flashlight, or the crook with a gun that fires light-homing bullets?”

Out of about 38,000 sorties, NATO lost only two aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117. And the F-117 did not used radar. It does not have a radar. This is a pathetic air defense combat record. No wonder the Serbs made so much noise over the single F-117 shoot down. The North Vietnamese air defense fared much better.

Nor is the aircraft design effective simply because its advocates insist so, Sprey said. The 1980s-era F-117 stealth fighter was supposed to be invisible too, but post-Gulf War studies showed that the aircraft had been spotted by Iraq’s ground-based radars, he said.

So what? Did the Iraqis had any idea on what they were seeing? Was the F-117s ingress or egress? No one claimed the F-117 was supposed to be 'invisible'. That hyperbole was by the media. Being seen on radar is one thing, identification is another. For example: I see a ship versus I identified the Queen Mary.

“Hitler had 70 Me-262s in combat,” Sprey said. “They were crushed by the force of 2,000 inferior P-51s that the United States had in the air.”

The Me-262's main advantage was speed...

Messerschmitt Me 262 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luftwaffe pilots did however eventually learn how to handle the Me 262's higher speed, and the Me 262 soon proved a formidable air superiority fighter, with pilots such as Franz Schall managing to shoot down 12 enemy fighters in the Me 262, 10 of them American P-51 Mustangs. Other notable Me 262 aces included Georg-Peter Eder, also with 12 enemy fighters to his credit (including 9 P-51s), Walther Dahl with 11 (including three La-7s and six P-51s) and Heinz-Helmut Baudach with 6 (including 1 Spitfire and 2 P-51s) amongst many others.

If Sprey was trying to equate the F-22 with the Me-262 regarding comparing them against their respective opponents, then this is a terrible argument. Without the low radar observability feature, the F-22 is at least the equivalent of its opponent in every other aspects of what is a 'fighter aircraft', if not the superior. We cannot say the same for the Me-262 for its opponents.

The Me-262 was introduced far too late into a conflict to make any tactical difference, let alone strategic ones, while the F-22 is introduced in peace time when the US enjoys a clear superiority in technology over every enemy and potential enemy. New weapons always bring new tactics. It is only a matter of time and diligence that those new tactics are discovered, practiced, and refined. The Me-262 pilots had to learn the hard way about the Me-262 during war time but the US in peace time have plenty of opportunity to practice and refine the F-22 and the new tactics it brings because. Unlike the Me-262 whose main advantage was speed, the F-22 has advantages over its opponents in just about every other major components of what is a 'fighter aircraft' and it will enjoys those advantages for many years to come.

Sprey should be respected for what he has done for the US and for military aviation, but he is wrong on this one.

 

[gambit]

There are reports that F-22 (or any stealth aircraft for that matter) does not remain stealthy during rain

These 'reports' are only partially correct and this is because of the laws of physics. But if rain increases one aircraft's RCS, would it be reasonable to assume rain would increase another aircraft's RCS as well? The misleading tactic here is to focus in on the 'stealthh' aircraft without explaining why.