MiG-21s & F-7s Specifications & Capabilities

[Banned Member]

Honestly speaking then one to one replacement of all J-7s and Mirage-3/5s are not possible as then 300+ JF-17s would be needed but anyway 250 figure seems to be more practical but it will take a good 12-15 years from now if not more.

acc. to the PAF air commodore interview,he said PAF is planning to induct 150 jf-17(7-10 squadrons)

 

[Superboy]

Honestly speaking then one to one replacement of all J-7s and Mirage-3/5s are not possible as then 300+ JF-17s would be needed but anyway 250 figure seems to be more practical but it will take a good 12-15 years from now if not more.

Doubt it would take that long. The first batch always take the longest. The second batch of 50 is scheduled to end by 2016 or so. The first 150 could well be delivered by the end of 2018 or so.

 

[kaykay]

Doubt it would take that long. First batch always take the longest. The second batch of 50 is scheduled to end by 2016 or so. The first 150 could well be delivered by the end of 2018 or so.

If I am not wrong then first 150 aircrafts are set to be delivered by 2022 which seems to be more practical. 2018 figure is simply seems to be unrealistic for now(25 fighters/per year) may be later they can expand assembling facility but I didnt see any news for it now @Oscar

 

[alimobin memon]

Most of above is irrelevant to the question of the WVR fight. The PG also has MFD.. and a Helmet mounted sight paired to the MAA-1 system purchased in 2008. It also has a fairly good RWR.. so thats also no biggie. The only advantage I see is the BVR and the "tempest" self protection jammer which give it an advantage to get to the merge. In plain aerodynamics.. the Bison is outclassed.. but has the clear edge in avionics. As I mentioned before .. the WVR fight is where the PG variant has an advantage.

The rest of your post is just sucking on your own dongle for joy and I have no time to entertain that. So if you are not convinced of the WVR then I suggest you agree to disagree and NOT post ANY further on this topic with the same parrot or you'll have to deal with me.

AOA I have one question that Pakistani f7pg are all equipped with HMD and MAA1 ? Can u please show me some article for my clarification.

 

[Ping]

F-7PG's advantage is its double delta which gives it better low speed maneuverability compared to the razor thin delta wing of the Bison. Which translates to tighter turns in dogfights.

It will also perform in Bombing missions better, IF assuming it has the same Air-Ground guidance avionics like the Bison, which requires better low speed handling. It is inferior in everything else.

F-7PG doesn't have a Helmet Mounted Sight in-spite of what PAF fans and think tanks like to assume. So in WVR fights it will be Maneuverability vs HMS+Thrust-Weight-Ratio for the PG and Bison respectively, interesting combo.

In BVR its Bison all the way with a radar range of 75km for 5m2 on the Kopyo-M, along with the Israeli Jammers.

For interception missions, its Bison again. Pure Thrust to weight ratio(climb rate) and higher max speed.

Bison doesn't have ELTA radars and Derby and Pythons! Its just R-73, R-77 and R-27s. It can fire French and Israeli short range IR guided AA missiles but that would be a waste as foreign weapons can only be fireds in the Bore Sight Mode. In other words it cannot be slaved to the radar and the HMS. So it's just the above 3 mentioned Air-Air weapons for the Bison.

 

[SQ8]

F-7PG's advantage is its double delta which gives it better low speed maneuverability compared to the razor thin delta wing of the Bison. Which translates to tighter turns in dogfights.

It will also perform in Bombing missions better, IF assuming it has the same Air-Ground guidance avionics like the Bison, which requires better low speed handling. It is inferior in everything else.

F-7PG doesn't have a Helmet Mounted Sight in-spite of what PAF fans and think tanks like to assume. So in WVR fights it will be Maneuverability vs HMS+Thrust-Weight-Ratio for the PG and Bison respectively, interesting combo.

In BVR its Bison all the way with a radar range of 75km for 5m2 on the Kopyo-M, along with the Israeli Jammers.

For interception missions, its Bison again. Pure Thrust to weight ratio(climb rate) and higher max speed.

Bison doesn't have ELTA radars and Derby and Pythons! Its just R-73, R-77 and R-27s. It can fire French and Israeli short range IR guided AA missiles but that would be a waste as foreign weapons can only be fireds in the Bore Sight Mode. In other words it cannot be slaved to the radar and the HMS. So it's just the above 3 mentioned Air-Air weapons for the Bison.

DO you have proof for this? To disprove this claim?

 

[SQ8]

I couldn't find any difference between the wing geometry of of F7 and the Mig 21, especially from manticore's post's looks like the same length, same surface area for both delta wings, some disambiguation will be highly appreciated.

From Wiki which suggest's J7MG specs, which I assume would be the same airframe as the F7PG, the length of the airframe and wingspan is larger suggesting higher weight, with lesser dry and after burning thrust than the Bison, suggesting, bison will try and stay at 17000 to 23000 ft where it excels and is very agile, assuming F7PG's has marginally better wing loading, it might want to stat slightly above the Bison. If it is chasing a bison couple of thousand feet below, it will have tough time to track it in wvr, if it is being chased by a bison which is flying below, it wouldn't want to stay above giving better sight picture to the bison driver.

With high angle of attack in wvr at supersonic speed, lift coefficient will bleed for both platforms, and at 21's dont do critical angle of attack maneuvers a low speeds due to it's stall speed limitations, in wvr combat, you will not see any seasoned pilots pitching their nose upwards.

I highly doubt the TWR case in both thrust and weight parameters, as climb rate for Bison is better than the F7PG on same. I think Bison has a better service ceiling than the J7MG whose export version is F7PG suggesting similar service ceiling. Thus higher dry & afterburning thrust, better service ceiling, higher range, more afterburner time all pointing towards better bypass pressure in the engine.

The F-7 is the mig-21 F-13.. so essentially no difference in wing area. The MG has the larger wing. I would refer to the excellent analysis of the F-7MG by ACdre Tufail who was the evaluation pilot for the type.
Faisal Riaz's faisalness: A Dialogue with an Aviator Kaiser Tufail

For a layman, suffice to say that the MG/PG has better lift generating capability. As a result, the take-off and landing distances are shorter, turning performance is better and acceleration is faster.

The following article originally appeared in Air Forces Monthly.

Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info

The F-7MG airframe has essentially the same F-7P fuselage, inner wing portion, tail plane and fin. The outer wing section incorporates the major change, with a reduced 42° sweep and automatic manoeuvring flaps. The F-7MG is powered with an improved and more powerful WP-13 engine

Like the Su-15, the Draken J-35, as well as the more modern X-31 post-stall manoeuvring demonstrator, the F-7MG has a double-delta wing planform, which offers an excellent solution to a slender delta’s inherent low aspect ratio problem. The aspect ratio of conventional deltas is, at best, of the order of about 2.4, with the low end notched up, surprisingly, by India’s LCA; at 1.75 it stands behind the bat-winged double-delta Saab Draken, whose very low aspect ratio of 1.8 was considered to be a convenient remedy to the transonic CP shift, albeit at the expense of overall aerodynamic efficiency

Wingtip stalling has never been an issue on the F-7P, but the double delta wing brings with it an added bonus in this respect. The strong vortex of the inner wing re-energises the boundary layer of the outer wing, preventing span-wise flow towards the tips. This allows even more-carefree manoeuvring at ultra-low speeds.

On the first take-off, it was evident that the aircraft was impatient to get off the ground and had to be held down to prevent it getting airborne prematurely. Compared to the F-7P’s take-off speed of 310 kph, the MG lifted off at 280 kph with ease and the advertised 35% improvement in take-off distance was on the mark. The sight of the auto-manoeuvring flaps at work reminded the pilots of the F-16’s computer-controlled leading edge devices. Packaging the servo motors and actuators within the thin leading edge without the tell-tale bulges has certainly been a marvel of engineering at Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

The feel of the aircraft was smooth in all domains, none more so than in transonic flight. As expected, CP shift was minimal and both the test pilots were unanimous about the decrease in stick forces. Transonic being an important combat flight regime, this is a welcome improvement.

A good measure of a wing’s lifting efficiency is at high alpha, a regime that the PAF pilots have learnt to perform in almost as an art form. What better than to pace the MG through a slow speed loop? Normally, a safe entry speed for a loop would be between 800-900 kph (at 15,000 AMSL) on the F-7P. In the absence of any guidelines on a slower version of the manoeuvre, it was decided to try 700 kph at first. The MG went through smoothly without any hint of judder or slip at the top. With full faith in the leading edge flaps, the next loop was performed at 600 kph. Again, the same results were achieved and the aircraft went through a perfect loop without any jitter or judder. At lower altitudes it might do even slower and better, but airspace limitations at Chengdu did not permit low level aerobatics.

Several flights followed the first check of the aircraft’s aerodynamic efficiency. It was a most pleasant surprise to note that the turn rates were nearer to the F-16 at medium to high altitudes and, were exactly as advertised. A 33% improvement over the F-7P at 5,000’ AMSL, 50% at 10,000’ and 66% at 20,000 would certainly call for an end to the “supersonic sports plane” sobriquet that dogged its forerunners.

The results of the flight trials were so encouraging that the test pilots were tempted to simulate a flamed-out engine landing pattern, a not very ‘done’ thing on delta-winged fighters. While the Chinese manuals suggested a rectangular pattern that can put one’s judgement and nerves to test, the standard overhead spiral pattern was tried out initially from a high-key height of 15,000’ AGL. With engine idling and speed brakes out to simulate a dead engine, the aircraft glided much like the F-16, so after a few approaches, the high key height was lowered to12,000’ AGL. The sink rate was well under control and, in fact was so well manageable that all later sorties were terminated through practice dead-engine approaches. At 1:8.5, the glide ratio compares favourably with some of the modern Western fighters.

The WP-13 engine of the F-7MG produces 1,200 lbs of more thrust than the F-7P’s WP-7, giving it a thrust-to-weight ratio of about .9 compared to .8 of the latter in clean take-off configuration. A 50% improvement in spool-up time is a welcome feature, particularly on final approach and landing where a sudden gust of wind has resulted in many a tail scrape on the F-7P. Go-arounds are also prompt and a bad landing is actually a thing of the past on the MG. Use of titanium alloys in compressor blades and an increased TBO are indicators of improvements in Chinese jet-engine technology.

The thrust increase was evidenced by a 25% improvement in acceleration time from 500 kph to 1100 kph and an equally impressive time-to-climb to 36,000’ AMSL. All improvements were verified and were found to be as advertised or even better. Even more remarkable was the fact that these trials took place in hot and humid weather, well outside the 15°C, 1013 hP environments in which the specifications are usually engineered.

 

[Ping]

@Oscar
You are the who is claiming a capability exists in the first place. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. The default position what anyone would assume is there is no such a capability because a capability is something which is gets put into a plane. F-7s doesn't get born with HMS. Infact all(or almost all) operational F-7s around the world doesn't have any HMS, which also makes it an oddity if the PGs alone have this feature and a special case which requires even stronger proof.

The BGIs which the BAF got just a few months ago has no such HMS as well, and neither do their BGs.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar
You are the who is claiming a capability exists in the first place. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. The default position what anyone would assume is there is no such a capability because a capability is something which is gets put into a plane. F-7s doesn't get born with HMS. Infact all(or almost all) operational F-7s around the world doesn't have any HMS, which also makes it an oddity if the PGs alone have this feature and a special case which requires even stronger proof.

The BGIs which the BAF ordered just a few months ago has no such HMS as well, and neither do their BGs.

This is a Chinese Tk-14 helmet. with the monocle. Next are Chinese F-7G(gai) pilots with the same helmet on(albeit with the sight unit removed).

So it is NOT a question of the aircraft coming with the capability. It depends on the Customer. The F-7BGIs ordered by Bangladesh were made to their specifications. the PGs initially were paired with the 9L. So, the question comes then. Why no picture of the PAF with the system. Well, I really cant speak for the PAF.. I only speak for first hand knowledge. Hence, I do find it personally insulting when you insist I live in a dreamworld when I only stated what I know. I did not end up with this goddamned position on coming up with claims out of thin air. What I know, I state as honestly as possible. What I dont know, I dont bother about it. I dont want you to take my word for it.. agree to disagree.. but avoid trying to insult me or shovel me in with the rest of the fanboys.

This is not a claim of uncle this or tommy that.. this is from a guy who flies the type. I'm not making you eat my words.. put avoid calling me delusional. Agree to disagree.. not try to convert.

 

[Bratva]

That is true, but then the F-7PG has a different role in its warfighitng doctrine. Specifically to avoid the BVR fight. How that is possible is known only to the operator. More importantly.. none of these assets fight alone. Much like the Bison embedded within a strike formation.. the PG is designed to go embedded within a different interception force and engage WVR.



I have already stated on the aerodynamics. Please read up on the aircrafts and ask doubts. I have no need to be a school teacher to every new tom, daud and hari.

True indeed. A recent interception comes in mind, where PAF send 2 F-16 and 2 PG to intercept the SU-30 formation after 26/11

 

[Ping]

@Oscar
You are trying to connect the dots. Ok. Lets just agree to disagree then.

And apologies if my words were insulting. I normally write like that in debates, did not mean any disrespect. Apologies again.

 

[Superboy]

How does F-7PG's Grifo MG radar compare with MiG-21 Bison's Kopyo M radar? I suppose F-7 could be upgraded with BVR capability, but with JF-17 in full production, there is no need for such an upgrade.

 

[Ping]

http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/GRIFO_FAMILY.pdf
My bookmarks point to this link. But it seems they have taken it down. And I dont have a backup.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar
You are trying to connect the dots. Ok. Lets just agree to disagree then.

And apologies if my words were insulting. I normally write like that in debates, did not mean any disrespect. Apologies again.

Not the above post.. this specifically

in-spite of what PAF fans and think tanks like to assume

In certain cases.. I don't assume. I simply know a F-7PG pilot and he disclosed on a casual talk on helmet mounted sights that they use it too. I am not prone to pulling claims like that out of my hat. I was asked for an honest assessment.. and I gave it on exactly that basis.

How does F-7PG's Grifo MG radar compare with MiG-21 Bison's Kopyo M radar? I suppose F-7 could be upgraded with BVR capability, but with JF-17 in full production, there is no need for such an upgrade.

The Kopyo is a longer ranged radar.. bigger nose on the Bison ensures that.

 

[Superboy]

Russians tend to overstate the capabilities of their products. RD-93 is rated 19,000 lb in real world, but advertised as 98kN at airshow. The 80 km figure against 5m2 target for Kopyo M is likely overstated, with real world number should be about 65 km, half that of KLJ-7.