Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[Contrarian]

Yes, a souped up J-10 can compete with the Su-30MKI. But J-10 itself is a lo combination to the Chinese Su-30MKK.

 

[BATMAN]

Yes, but i think it was posted by adux that the MKI can track around 15 or 16 targets.

Yes but there are not that many BVR's on one MKI and if MKI did fire its BVR from 50KM than there is enough time for JF-17 to fire his own.
I remember seeing a video clip on another thread showing animated combat of various JF-17 with various SU30 in which JF-17 came as winner because both fire there BVR simultaneously, thats exactly my question is, if a jf-17 is equiped with a better radar and BVR it is possible to defeat SU30.
I think SD10 is not that bad either and it is also possible to arm JF-17 with AIM.

 

[Adux]

LondoMolari animated thing....Oh god...is that little idiotic yet brilliantly done piece still floating around.

Dude, JF-17 cant do jack against the MKI's. So just leave it and go buy some J-10's or j-XXXXX

 

[Contrarian]

But the thing is, Su-30MKI will ALWAYS fire its BVRAAM first. It will house a larger radar, and currently a longer distance AAM.

 

[EagleEyes]

I will disagree. JF-17 with AESA configuration and housed with Western/French missiles can fire missiles too. Not to forget that it can just turn off the radar and communicate with the AWACs which in return can not track 15 targets or so but around 300 targets. Plus, a bigger Su-30MKI RCS only gives more advantage.

Payload, Thurst Vectoring, and Range is not to be talked about anyways. So useless.

 

[Contrarian]

Yes, but the AWACS will not be guiding the missile it will have to be the fighters own radar
And IAF will also have AWACS coverage mate.

And JF-17 is yet to be inducted in PAF in sizeable numbers, it will take a LOONG time before AESA radars are fitted on JF-17.

 

[Awesome]

Currently India has longer ranged missile, but yet susceptible to simple ECMs. The Su-30 won't have such a simple task to avoid the Aim-120 once its fired.

 

[Adux]

Yes, IAF dont have AWACS or Data-linking it is an advantage, Heck Sukhoi's can data-link and fire missiles, While the JF-17 cant.....
, Sukhoi are far superior. By the time JF-17 are inducted, Sukhoi's will already undergo their MLU, that is already slated for 2010. Its a stupid comparison,

 

[Contrarian]

India has always catered for avionics and ECCM components very seriously Asim. The ECM, etc is developed with Israel, plus India is very good in this field. I doubt the AIm 120 would have a very easy task.

And when the Su's come, they will be in plenty, 230 are on order mate
And it remains to be seen, which a/c is chosen for the MRCA


At the end of the day, JF-17 is useless in face of the Su-30. a couped up J-10 would be a better match.

 

[Adux]

Currently India has longer ranged missile, but yet susceptible to simple ECMs. The Su-30 won't have such a simple task to avoid the Aim-120 once its fired.

Now that is youre refuge.
India has very good sets of BVR, And it already in negotiations for meteor, Python 5, home-grown astra, if they pick up MMRCA American, you can see the Amraam too. ITs a no contest

 

[EagleEyes]

Yes, but the AWACS will not be guiding the missile it will have to be the fighters own radar
And IAF will also have AWACS coverage mate.

I would like to know about that actually. As far as i know. The helmet mounted cuing system is the one which guides the missile, radar only detects the plane. Missile can be fired via data link with AEW&Cs.

Of course IAF will have AWACS coverage too, but again will it operate in the enemy's territory? Or does AWACS justify that it will be the Su-30MKI which will only have the first kill? It seems pretty ludicrous to deny such that.

And JF-17 is yet to be inducted in PAF in sizable numbers, it will take a LOONG time before AESA radars are fitted on JF-17.

Agreed, but in the scenario we are discussing. It has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Contrarian]

I would like to know about that actually. As far as i know. The helmet mounted cuing system is the one which guides the missile, radar only detects the plane. Missile can be fired via data link with AEW&Cs.

Theoretically, it can be done, however its not been done till now.
Even if it was, it is unlikely that SD-10 would be compatible with the Erieye. At max, only the AIM's would be able to use the Erieye.
So for all practical purposes, let us say that the AWACS cannot guide the missile.

HMCS, only locks on to the missile using the radar, it only helps save the pilots cruicial time by not having him turn the plane or whatever to lock on. The pilot can lock on, then say as soon as the plane turns, the misisle fires. It also gives increased situational awareness.

It alone cannot guide the missile. It only depends on teh data passed from the radar.

Of course IAF will have AWACS coverage too, but again will it operate in the enemy's territory? Or does AWACS justify that it will be the Su-30MKI which will only have the first kill? It seems pretty ludicrous to deny such that.

That is the reason that India has gone with the Phalcon, it comes under a different category of AWACS than the Erieye. Its like the weight difference between F-16's and Su-30's. One a heavy and one a medium.

India wanted VERY high detection ranges, thus they went for SUCH an expensive platform, because, India is a large country, and secondly, so that it can look VERY deep inside Pakistan, while the Phalcon itself remains in Indian border. Pakistans small width also helps in this case immensely.

Agreed, but in the scenario we are discussing. It has nothing to do with anything.

It has a lot to do with everything. We are not wishing that let this plane have this upgrade or that upgrade. We'r talking what is actually going to be bought or might be bought in the near future.

 

[BATMAN]

LondoMolari animated thing....Oh god...is that little idiotic yet brilliantly done piece still floating around.

Dude, JF-17 cant do jack against the MKI's. So just leave it and go buy some J-10's or j-XXXXX

J-17 has highly maneuvrable frame, and as explained above, ASEA and AIM can make it as leathal as any late 4th gen. aircraft.
J-10 I believe is a different horse, primarily for strike role and JF-17 is more of interceptor.
In a one choice senario JF-17 should be prefered because inherintly it is a multirole role, with conformal tanks or in-air fuel probes it can undertake strike role very effectively.

 

[Contrarian]

J-17 has highly maneuvrable frame, and as explained above, ASEA and AIM can make it as leathal as any late 4th gen. aircraft.
J-10 I believe is a different horse, primarily for strike role and JF-17 is more of interceptor.
In a one choice senario JF-17 should be prefered because inherintly it is a multirole role, with conformal tanks or in-air fuel probes it can undertake strike role very effectively.

J-10 is in a different LEAGUE than the JF-17. It can undertake every task better than the JF-17. The only thing is, that its more expesive than th JF-17, and the costs will only go up, should PAF modify the J-10 for good avionics. And even after all that, J-10 remains the low end companion to the hi of Su-30MKK.

No matter how manouverable JF-17 is, it is nearly not enough to match the inherent manouverability of the MiG 29, let alone planes with TVC.
J-10 is multirole as well, it will perform a2a as well as strike missions better than JF-17.

Jf-17 is a POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER, its like the role for MiG 21's. It is good when it will be used defensively, and dont expect AIM's to be used on the JF-17. It will be the chinese missiles only.

It is good ONLY when you flood the skies of the defending country with these planes. The lay of the land will be known to the pilots, the SAM's, radar network of the dending country will aid the fighters.
That is when the JF-17 will be very effective, else not. And that is just what PAF plans for them. Thus the reason for procuring them in good quantities. As a stand alone fighter, JF-17 is a non starter.

 

[Adux]

Good Post malay