What's new

What would you like to have in the JF-17

Since everyone's throwing whatever comes into their heads(regardless of the size, design, cost factors)..
I'd prefer a Harmon Kardon 825W ipod compatible system with 1080p playback on the MFDs.

You know what, it might not be a bad idea to hook up a small audio system in JF17 cockpit, and blast it with Dil Dil Pakistan, at an airshow.

'What does your F-15 have, sir?' -Desi

'Provisions for delivering democracy'-Yankee

'' Aese zameen, aur aasman.....'' blaring from the JF-17 in the background.
 
. .
IDEAS ABOUT THE JF-17 BLOCK-III’S IRST
jf.jpg

The JF-17 Block-III could incorporate an infrared search and track (IRST) system, but what IRST options are available?

By Bilal Khan

Alongside an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, helmet mounted display and sight (HMD/S), high off-boresight (HOBS) air-to-air missiles, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is also considering to equip the forthcoming JF-17 Block-III with an infrared search and track (IRST) system.

While the inclusion of an AESA radar would offer immense benefit, especially in terms of infusing the JF-17 with effective electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) capabilities (read here for how), IRST would be a great way to augment those capabilities. Our background brief on IRST summarizes it as the following:

At their core, IRST systems are heat-seeking sensors, just like forward looking infrared (FLIR) pods, but they go a few steps further by enabling users to search and track individual airborne targets.

Since IRST sensors are simply ‘receiving’ an emitting heat signal, they are “passive” sensors. In other words, they do not emit signals of their own (unlike radars, which transmit radio waves).

This enables the tracking fighter to avoid alerting the target’s RWR [radar warning receiver], which is designed to react to active radar signals.

In a within visual range dogfight, an IRST system can enable the user to possess an enhanced level of situational awareness of the combat zone without having to switch-on the radar, thus avoiding the risk of being an “exposed” target to an enemy’s RWR.

Tyler Rogoway, a former writer on Foxtrot Alpha, has an excellent write-up discussing the advantages of IRST in modern aerial combat. To put it simply, IRST is basically an alternative to radar. If one’s fighter aircraft is up against foes with high-quality electronic warfare (EW) and electronic countermeasure (ECM) capabilities, one’s own use of radar may result in jamming and/or an increased probability of detection.

To nullify those risks, one could bring in IRST and try to engage an enemy based on the heat emitted by that enemy’s aircraft. This could be incredibly useful in close-quarters air combat; instead of using radar to detect a nearby object (and risk detection and/or jamming), one could use IRST.

When paired with other ‘passive’ sensors (i.e. sensors that do not emit their own signals), such as HMD/S, a comparatively low-end fighter could have a decent fighting chance against a much more capable foe, despite that foe’s advanced EW/ECM capabilities.

In any case, if you are interested in acquiring an in-depth understanding of the topic, it is highly advised that you consult the Foxtrot Alpha article linked above. For this article, we are going to take a look at some IRST options potentially available to the PAF for use on the JF-17.

At present, it is unclear if the JF-17 Block-III will incorporate an IRST system into the airframe, or if it will use it as an externally integrated pod. This image evidently shows a FC-1 test-unit sporting an externally-equipped IRST pod in China, but that does not necessarily mean that the final product will be confined to an external hardpoint. The PAF has not confirmed either arrangement, so it is possible that the system in question is simply be assessed on its own terms. That said, a pod would enable the PAF to readily integrate IRST onto existing Block-I and Block-II units, but that does not mean the Block-III will not have IRST integrated. Granted, making IRST available as a pod on the JF-17 Block-III would help in reducing development and acquisition costs.

It is likely that China will supply the IRST system, at least for the JF-17 Block-IIIs in use with the PAF. Having developed and integrated IRST for platforms such as the J-10B, China should be able to offer a fairly balanced cost-performance ratio.

An alternative vendor could be found in Finmeccanica, whose Selex ES division has developed the Skyward IRST. Originally designed for use on the Saab Gripen NG, Finmeccanica is marketing the Skyward as a “state-of-the-art” solution, one capable of meeting the “demanding requirements of 5th generation fighter aircraft.” The Skyward is available as an integrated and podded solution. Export clearances and cost will determine whether the PAF will procure the Skyward.

On the other hand, equipping an export variant of the JF-17 Block-III with the Skyward may not be a bad idea, especially if one is intending to market the JF-17 to users accustomed to Western equipment, such as Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, and Malaysia.

Whether the PAF procures the Finmeccanica Skyward or a Chinese alternative, the inclusion of IRST into the JF-17 Block-III will be a welcome event. As with HMD/S systems and AESA radars, IRST would offer the JF-17 a valuable qualitative jump, which will be an important gain considering that the Thunder is emerging as the PAF’s mainstay asset.
http://quwa.org/2016/04/25/ideas-jf-17-block-iiis-irst/
 
.
JF-17 Block-III will be Stealth Plane, wait and see ? That is Future.
 
. . .
Pakistan taking the Chinese method of step by step improvements. Good call.

Like Patton said "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

9 years of service is way more fruitful than 9 years of planning.
 
.
@Quwa

So---I think that my fears of the smaller size of JF17 are coming true.

Even though @Bilal Khan 777 would vehemently deny it----the JF17 was a bad design for future upgrades right from the begining.

Its size should have been slightly larger than that of the F16 right from the begining---they already had the example of the Japanese F2 in front of them---.

Aesa was already in production---and it was known that aesa needs more space for cooling system---frame mounted IRST was also operative at that time----as well as the pod.

The wheels---the low profile and short struts on the JF17 came as a big big surprise---that was a WTF moment----.

We already have 3 existing aircraft as an example that sit tall----why would we design one with such a low profile that you cannot hang a heavy weapon underneath the belly due to low clearance---a Q5 Fantan influence?

With a conventional setup---the JF17 is an excellent aircraft----but when you decide to take it a few notches higher for performance sake---it begins to start falling apart.

Like installing an aesa----the space is very tight----installing the IRST----hardly any space left on the body other than using an external mount----extremely low profile---you cannot hang a Hatf 8 under the belly---a flat tire can have serious repercussions---.

So---what does it come down to---the aircraft is about 10---20% smaller than its optimal size.

The myth has been circulated that there was no engine available that was powerful enough---that is why that design was discarded---.

Supposedly----paf was not too excited about the IRST from the begining---otherwise---there was no reason for a brand new 21 st century aircraft not to have IRST right from day one---.

It wasn't seriously thinking about aesa as well either---otherwise the nose cone would have been larger----and neither was it thinking about carrying a heavy weapon under the belly---otherwise the aircraft would be sitting taller---.

Basically bad planning from the gitgo for future weapons and avionics---but a wonderful small aircraft for current weapons.


That is what happens---when Very senior officer talk like---Jee Sir---Jee sir---yessir---yessir all the time---aap theek kehtay hein---in front of the chief---And when there is no outside independent oversight on the project---issues like this creep up.

I seriously think that if BLK3 need to give a serious challenge to other aircraft---it needs to be slightly larger in overall size---.

And this thing about thrust to weight ratio and 9 'gs----and forever hardons---they are a myth---6 and 7 G aircraft can do an excellent job with the right fire control radar and avionics and weapons package.

And by the way---which F16---fully loaded with BVRs and WVR's and fuel tanks can perform a 9 G turn---or even just with a full ensemble of missile.

Older F15's could only do 7G's in clean config and around 3 plus G's when loaded up.

A loaded F16 with its BVR and WVR missiles may hardly do 5G's at the most---.

So---basically having a larger JF17 with the RD93 was no big deal at all---if provisions would have been made in advance for a modular design for a future more powerful engine.

I believe that as you kids are learning you are going to find out---that a larger 6--7 G clean config aircraft would have been better that could have a 1000 T/R module aesa and frame mounted IRST installed on it---rather than an 8 + G aircraft with out these two---.

@Bilal Khan 777 --- sir---was there ever a Devil's advocate on this project.

Is the 10th man rule purely fictional, or is it based in fact?

Answer

" I don't know if there is such rule in Israel, but in the intelligence section of the IDF there is a unit called "Ipha mistabra". The purpose of this unit is to doubt everything and come out with alternative theories to every regular theory the intel section has. It was founded after the war at 1973 ".

Pakistan taking the Chinese method of step by step improvements. Good call.

Like Patton said "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

9 years of service is way more fruitful than 9 years of planning.

Hi,

Sir---china has no other choice----but to take it step by a step---otherwise---they are shitting ice cubes---. The SCS issue has found it in a very compromising position---just there technically but not all the way ready.
 
. .
Hi,

Sir---china has no other choice----but to take it step by a step---otherwise---they are shitting ice cubes---. The SCS issue has found it in a very compromising position---just there technically but not all the way ready.

I'm not sure I understand what does SCS has to do with a fighter?
 
. .
Thank you but i am not gay
@WebMaster @Irfan Baloch @Icarus
This is how you treat ex service men ?

@MastanKhan
be a man don't delete your post Sir.
Said it and stick to it.....
I am sure he didn't mean it and said it figuratively like what you intended when you compared him to Zarvan. Now of course, a comparison to Zarvan is in no way an insult, but he does support a peculiar repo on the forum. Now all things considered, this is Ramazan which is NOT only about "staying hungry" so i guess we should move past that and forgive and forget? BTW do you mind sharing your course batch number? My father was from second war course.
 
.
I am sure he didn't mean it and said it figuratively like what you intended when you compared him to Zarvan. Now of course, a comparison to Zarvan is in no way an insult, but he does support a peculiar repo on the forum. Now all things considered, this is Ramazan which is NOT only about "staying hungry" so i guess we should move past that and forgive and forget? BTW do you mind sharing your course batch number? My father was from second war course.
Dear Son (since your father is also served) check my profile.
 
.
Hi,

For retd military---your post lack information---maybe if you stepped up and put some efforts into your posts---and wrote something substantial---that would help.



Hi,

My post was in ref to your post of chinese step by step slow progression---.

That is where SCS came in---the chinese slow progression has found them between a rock and a hard place.
Sir your ID picture tells me a lot...no further discussions with you and I am sorry that I engage you in sane discussion
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom