JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Dazzler]

weightless assumption, many things to consider in a radar than just range, klj series has been discussed in great detail in previous threads so no point in repeating this.

 

[Silk]

I think the ZDk03 and Erieye has aesa that is beyond any fighterjet will posses. Since that is linked with other planes I think the radar is not an extremely big issue for PAF. Add to that ground based AESA radars in Pakistan. So even if they add a cheap short range AESA for JF17 (which is probably not true) it will function perfectly in the newly created warfare of Pakistan. To be more direct. You do not need a MKI nose to get a good picture of the battlefield. Neither do you need the plane. Share size and calculation power the Erieye is not something that is outdated...

 

[MastanKhan]

Actually AESA is not God sent my man. An AESA with LPI i great. But right now there are only 4 countries who make it and one is not even fully operational. A great PESA radar is more than enough for the JF 17. An AN/APG 80 onboard the JSF costs you around 6-7 million dollars. Just think the JF will lose it's main advantage of low cost and it would shoot up to a costlier aircraft.

And yes the AN/APG 68 V9 is a better radar and has better resolution than the KLJ 7. So the KLJ 10 that is on PAF JF 17 is an inferior radar.

Hi,

You are right in a way---but then if you look at the F 16 A/ B---they can still play a role in a war---they are cheap---but when you take the F 16 BLK 52 version--much more expensive---it takes the capability to a much higher level. Also---it may not be the cost factor which determines the need all the time.

You have to look at what the multiplier effect of force the higher technology brings to the skies.

If the force multiplier is substantial---then inadvertantly you have reached your ultimate target / goal---a high tech aircraft of your own with the bells and whistles that you wanted from gitgo.

So, now you have killed two birds with one stone---you can have your mid range inexpensive aircraft as well as a high tech version as well.

 

[MastanKhan]

I think the ZDk03 and Erieye has aesa that is beyond any fighterjet will posses. Since that is linked with other planes I think the radar is not an extremely big issue for PAF. Add to that ground based AESA radars in Pakistan. So even if they add a cheap short range AESA for JF17 (which is probably not true) it will function perfectly in the newly created warfare of Pakistan. To be more direct. You do not need a MKI nose to get a good picture of the battlefield. Neither do you need the plane. Share size and calculation power the Erieye is not something that is outdated...

Hi,

In a war, the awacs will be one of the primary targets of the enemy air force---so we ought to have something else in place that can carry us beyond the loss of some of the air sentries.

So, you ought to have your aircraft well equipped as well---that is the force multiplier.

Size matters---the MKI can carry a minimal load of 8 BVR's plus other paraphernalia with a massive radar that can see and act farther than anything that pak has in its coffers.

 

[Storm Force]

Radars on their own will not tip the scales.

How about RCS
Engine power/efficency
TVC
jAMMERS
2 ENGINES VRSIS ONE ENGINE
8 bvrss v 2 or only 4
TYPE OF BVR
Is ramjet

The list is endless

 

[SBD-3]

Hi,

In a war, the awacs will be one of the primary targets of the enemy air force---so we ought to have something else in place that can carry us beyond the loss of some of the air sentries.

So, you ought to have your aircraft well equipped as well---that is the force multiplier.

Size matters---the MKI can carry a minimal load of 8 BVR's plus other paraphernalia with a massive radar that can see and act farther than anything that pak has in its coffers.

so are you assuming that AWACS wont be able to pick an inbound bogie which has 15 M2 RCS at 350KM?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hasnain,

It will---but the problem is that the enemy will sacrifice a few of its planes to take out the awacs---so regardless if the awacs sees it coming or not---the awacs maynot last through the war---I will give pak awacs the first 48 at the most 72 hours of the war---if the indian air force is any good.

If the indian air force cannot take them out by that time---they would have lost the edge of air superiority by that time.

 

[MastanKhan]

Radars on their own will not tip the scales.

How about RCS
Engine power/efficency
TVC
jAMMERS
2 ENGINES VRSIS ONE ENGINE
8 bvrss v 2 or only 4
TYPE OF BVR
Is ramjet

The list is endless

Hi,

Sir, it is a package deal as well---if you have better radar systems---the newer ones---chances are that you have the money to have the other items as well.

 

[BATMAN]

Hasnain,

It will---but the problem is that the enemy will sacrifice a few of its planes to take out the awacs---so regardless if the awacs sees it coming or not---the awacs maynot last through the war---I will give pak awacs the first 48 at the most 72 hours of the war---if the indian air force is any good.

If the indian air force cannot take them out by that time---they would have lost the edge of air superiority by that time.

Hi MK,

Do you mean kamikazi style or attempting close shots... from within our SAM range?
I hope our AWACS will be kept 150km away from Indian border.
Enemy a/c had to penetrate our defences to take close shots.
Consider, our side we'll have mobile SAMS. Same as we used in Kargil!
If InAF take distant shots than jaming and other CM shall work.

Seriously speaking........wouldn't, InAF AWACS will be facing same threats as PAF AWACS?

In your opinion......does any one will hold any advantage for any reason?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi MK,

Do you mean kamikazi style or attempting close shots... from within our SAM range?
I hope our AWACS will be kept 150km away from Indian border.
Enemy a/c had to penetrate our defences to take close shots.
Consider, our side we'll have mobile SAMS. Same as we used in Kargil!
If InAF take distant shots than jaming and other CM shall work.

Seriously speaking........wouldn't, InAF AWACS will be facing same threats as PAF AWACS?

In your opinion......does any one will hold any advantage for any reason?

Batman,

How are you my man? I want you to think like a soldier---imagine ---see what the flight path of the awacs look like---. The missiles at kargil were shoulder launch for short range and they don't fly high either---. Pakistan will have to have hundreds of sam sites with spada type sams to cover the area that the awacs would be flying and still that won't be enough---.

So---there is no sam cover for the awacs----secondly---a 150 miles inside our borders goes by a flash when the opponent can make a mach 2 run if need be from multiple airfields---.

The missions would be kamikaze style---the indian pilots knowing that it would be a one way trip---there would be close range dog fights with the pak air force---but the indians will make the break through----.

It is just a numbers game at this stage first of all---and secondly---the field depth---we don't have enough of that either.

If IAF is not afraid to take on losses at a higher number in the first 48---72 hours to take out our assets---we got some very serious problems---.

The air war will be decided in that very time frame and so will be the destiny of the nations involved.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Hi,

You are right in a way---but then if you look at the F 16 A/ B---they can still play a role in a war---they are cheap---but when you take the F 16 BLK 52 version--much more expensive---it takes the capability to a much higher level. Also---it may not be the cost factor which determines the need all the time.

You have to look at what the multiplier effect of force the higher technology brings to the skies.

If the force multiplier is substantial---then inadvertantly you have reached your ultimate target / goal---a high tech aircraft of your own with the bells and whistles that you wanted from gitgo.

So, now you have killed two birds with one stone---you can have your mid range inexpensive aircraft as well as a high tech version as well.

Sir PAF has plans to by the FC 20/J10B in numbers exceeding 50. And most of the sources say that it will be housing an AESA radar. You already have more than 50 F 16 MLUs and F 16 Blk 52+s. What I am asking is for people to wait as the AESA is now a very costly and maintainance intensive technology. Once the Radar becomes cheaper then JF 17 can be fitted with it. Any way the Resolution of the radar also matters as much as the range.

 

[houshanghai]

pakistain air force 2010 videos

 

[TaimiKhan]

Sir PAF has plans to by the FC 20/J10B in numbers exceeding 50. And most of the sources say that it will be housing an AESA radar. You already have more than 50 F 16 MLUs and F 16 Blk 52+s. What I am asking is for people to wait as the AESA is now a very costly and maintainance intensive technology. Once the Radar becomes cheaper then JF 17 can be fitted with it. Any way the Resolution of the radar also matters as much as the range.

AESA may be expensive solution for now, but they are not that much of maintenance intensive technology as far as operational needs go. AESA is composed of separate solid-state transmit/receive modules (TRMs), which work separately, even if some of the TRMs don't function or malfunction, the whole radar set does not malfunctions, rather the radar will keep working and no major problem will occur in its performance as other TRMs will be doing their work, in that way, the costs in the long run are saved while the fighter aircraft operational readiness is not compromised even if some of the TRMs go down, while previously aircraft had to be grounded if the radar set fails.

Here, below can give you an example from some practical

" On a practical level, the AESA radar "will register a 40 percent savings in life cycle costs over the legacy systems," said Patrick Geraghty, executive vice president radar systems, with Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems U.S. When you replace "the central traveling wave tube technology with a distributed multi-element array, you eliminate that single point of failure risk and get an inherent reliability increase," Geraghty said.

Also, the AESA antenna "has a gradual degradation," said Bill McHenry, Lockheed Martin F-16 business development director. There is no single antenna, but "hundreds of T/R modules, and if you lose one you still have (many) left." If you monitor the situation, "you can plan your maintenance and repairs (and) still fly the airplane and perform your missions."

Reliability was a key selling point for the U.S. Coast Guard when it tapped the Selex Seaspray 7500E AESA surveillance radar to replace the mechanically scanned Raytheon APS-137 on 16 of its HC-130Hs. The APS-137 has been "a very capable radar," but the system’s wave guides are "failing about every 80 hours," said Capt. Douglas Menders, aviation program manager, U.S. Coast Guard Aviation Acquisition.

The 7500E prototype has been deployed on an HC-130H for more than a year and "really has yet to fail," Menders said. In that time, the system has racked up more than 450 hours of operation.

The Coast Guard AESA radars have about 300 T/R modules, fewer than fire control radars on fighter aircraft, which can have more than 1,000 modules. It is "what we call a partially filled array," Geraghty said. "

Avionics Magazine :: AESA’s Advantages


The programs also tout lower prices. In fact, all of the manufacturers say prices have been on the decline, and there is evidence in the market to support this. "As it is being produced more and more and technology is maturing, the price is starting to go down, which is further increasing demand" for the systems, Ostrove said.

"We have been running the program since the early 1990s and have been able to over that time evolve the costs down to the point where we can readily compete with the traditional mechanical systems," said Geraghty.

It is "not exactly dollar for dollar; but when you compare the cost of acquisition compared with the life cycle cost savings, it is a very compelling argument."

Avionics Magazine :: AESA’s Advantages


Addition of 2-3Mln in the cost of JF-17 with AESA radar won't be that much of a difference for us, as JF-17 cost for us is already at the lowest since we are a partner in the program, and the cost saving in the product life cycle would be an added benefit to go for such option at the earliest.

 

[monitor]

Radars on their own will not tip the scales.

How about RCS
Engine power/efficency
TVC
jAMMERS
2 ENGINES VRSIS ONE ENGINE
8 bvrss v 2 or only 4
TYPE OF BVR
Is ramjet

The list is endless

jf-17 rcs is less then su-30mki
more powerful engine is under consideration chinese ws series
tvc is a module will not be any problem to implement in next block
its a light weight fighter
more weapons paylon are planed in next block
chinese ram jet power aam are coming

end notes: two are different class of fighter so no comparison is possible .

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi nTk,

Thanks for the detailed post about aesa.

When paf developed this aircraft and analyzed the cost factor----it was with aesa radar in mind---the current radar is a fill in the gap---. But the jf17 is not a fill in the gap aircraft---it is a replacement aircraft for those that would be retired in due time and those that have already been retired.

Jf 17 will see further upgrades faster than most other aircraft in the industry---the second and third batch of each 50 aircraft could be substantially upgraded than their previous batches.

The second and the third batch would set the standards that the jf 17 would be known by. That is my take on it, by looking at what is happening with the aircraft at this time.