Mastan Sb,
Thank you for your reply.
My post was more about why the JF-17 ended up the way it is, and how it was the pragmatic option 20 years ago (but not now). I was addressing why a 25% larger JF-17 airframe wasn't very feasible back then. I wasn't referring particularly to close combat performance. Close combat is a different topic, but the TWR and climb rate have a direct effect on BVR capability of the aircraft. During a scramble, unless a JF-17 can take off and rapidly climb and gain speed, it will be flying lower and slower than the intruding aircraft (Su-30MKI ). This will put it at a major disadvantage in BVR combat against the intruder. The SD-10 it launches will have drastically reduced range when fired from the low and slow flying thunder and will arrive at the target with lesser energy. The BVR missile fired by the intruder will attain close to its max range and will arrive at target with much higher energy as it will be diving from a higher altitude on the JF-17 when launched from a higher and faster plane. Thats why for BVR interception, a high rate of climb, fast acceleration and supercruise matter. these allow the plane to shoot missiles farther and the missiles retain more energy to pull high-G maneuves at the terminal phase.
All these would be affected negatively if the JF-17 were 25% and had the same engine. It would be in the size/weight range of the F-16 but with 30-40% lower thrust.
Your views on the sensor suite being behind our times are something I completely agree on. Which is why I pointed out that the Chinese industry was perfectly capable of producing a reasonably priced and capable IRST & ECM/ELINT suite by 2010.
Please do explain if I have missed something
Hi,
With the current engine---the time factor would have a minimal effect on the take off and BVR launch altitude with a 25% larger aircraft---.
That aircraft would have opened up new venues of advancements---.
Why did the japanese make the F2 25% larger than the F16---. Were the japanese stupid when they had a perfect aircraft the F16 availabe to them---.
No---they were not stupid---they knew---for them to inflict damage to the enemy---their single engine aircraft needed to carry 2 AShM (
MUST CARRY )---each weighing in a minimum of a 1000KG---because most of their decisive conflict would be over the ocean---they knew that one AShM per aircraft won't do the job---.
And who knows better than the Japanese about the failure of aircraft of not having AShM or bombs---( 2nd WW ).
The Paf never envisaged the role of the JF17 over the arabian seas---they never anticipated that the war over the arabian seas/indian ocean would be a decisive war and a better aircraft would give them a massive advantage over the enemy---.
Even to this day---Paf is still a dry land airforce---it has not seriously focused on strike on enemy lands from over water---.
War over water and access to enemy important assets can only be attained by a right aircraft and a change in mentality---.
The production of J-10 is said to stop soon.
Hi,
The J10D is coming up---so that might be a rumor---.
But then there might be truth to it as well---. China has filled in some of the hole that it was in---.
They have a good number of J10's---. What they are finding out is---that their GEOGRAPHY needs a twin engine twin tail heavy aircraft---heavy load---longer distance capabilities.
The J10 was a stepping stone---. A goal of getting to a higher technology was achieved---a weapon was designed to get them to a higher tier---they got to the higher tier---.
When they reached the higher tier---they found out---that it was not high enough---they acknowledged the issue---realized what the problem was---and possibly have found out---that they need to have a minimum twin engine aircraft for what they are facing and what they are going to face---.
So---what we see here is that the chinese air force needs are changing with what the enemy has on the other side---it also shows that the chinese air force is not living in a vaccuum like the Pakistan air force---.