JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,530
Likes
4,628
Country flag
But still M 2000 doesn't have a digital FBW LIKE the F16 block 52 has.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
M2000 FBW is analogic. That doesn't mean it's less efficient than a numerical one.
The agility of a plane is made of aerodynamic, wings arrangement, level of stability/instability, FBW skill...
From 1984 to now, M2000 is more agile than a F16 (F16 block 1 to 60) only in the first moment of a WVR fight, because it has a better instantaneous turn rate. After that it lacks too many energy (delta wings effect) and F16 take the lead. The digital FBW of F16 change nothing to that.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,530
Likes
4,628
Country flag
I add that MMRCA trials showed that F16 is not a so healthy platform, despite digital FBW...
 

kamaal

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
297
Likes
685
Country flag
I add that MMRCA trials showed that F16 is not a so healthy platform, despite digital FBW...
F-16 was rejected on different grounds. It failed in cold weather test in leh/ladakh region. M-2000 was not even sent for competition bcoz of rafale.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
When it comes to FBW between JF-17 and Tejas, then Tejas wins it hands down.
And that's it! Can you win an air combat without missiles and guns? NO
Does FBW give you superior flight performance and manuverability? NO

FBW only makes it easier to fly, compared to older gen fighters, but even a Mig 21 Bison today is better than LCA IOC as an air defence fighter, because it has the necessary flight performance and A2A capability!

A standard Benz has a good suspension, to make it easy and confortable to drive, but to drive it fast and be agile, you need a sports suspension. So when LCA pilots say that it's easy and better to fly than 3rd gen Mig 21s they are correct of course, but I highly doubt that they would claim it to be as manuverable as the Mig 29, M2K or MKI.

So the simple fact is, that JF 17 is an operational multi role light class fighter, with a very good cost/capability ratio.
While LCA IOC is a single role light class strike fighter so far and neither FBW or composites advantages can change that.

Our project had more potential surw, but we didn't succeed so far. Their project was more realistic and worked out fine, which made it a success today and that's simply not deniable!
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
If we really want to compare JF-17 with something in IAF arsenal, then lets compare it with MKI
But that's only how it works in forum comparisons. In real war scenarios, your radar doesn't show JF17, F16, or MKI in the display, but nothing but a dot. So you can't pick and choose which enemy you fight, just as modern air combat is not limited to 1 on 1 fighter combats anymore. Modern air forces like PAF and IAF, have modern force multipliers like AWACS or tankers, and capabilities like BVR and stand off missiles, which changes the game!

In Kargil, IAF was in clear advantage over PAF. Not only in numbers or individual fighter performance, but with more advanced radars and BVR missiles, could detect and target PAF fighters at distance.

Today things have turned, wit PAF having more AWACS aircrafts to provide better coverage of the Indo-Pak border areas. So when the first sight advantage is gone, the enemy has it easier to engage even an MKI, since it can put itself in the better position, stay out of the MKI radar sight and close in, without being detected. That's modern A2A combat and a small fighter like JF17, guided by AWACS can be more than a threat even to advanced fighters (see Cope India exercise Mig 21 + Su 30 Vs USAF F15).

For A2G the same evolving is the key! In Kargil PAF needed to cross into Indian air space to strike with dumb bombs at close distance.
JF 17 gives them the capability to use A2G weapons even from within their own airspace and hit targets at 50 to around 300Km distance. Modern strike capability keeps the fighter / launch platform in safer distances, because it's the weapon that got smarter and gained operational range. Their F16s might be able to carry more bombs, but JF17 offers more reach of the weapons.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,530
Likes
4,628
Country flag
Does FBW give you superior flight performance and manuverability? NO
I think finelly tuned FBW add aerodynamic performance (see for exemple the trainling edge of a Mirage 3 and those of a Rafale when landing. Those of Rafale contribute to the lift when those of Mirage 3 not).

About manoeuvrability also I think. Because the pilot can use the stick without restriction : the FBW avoid the plane to goes out its flight limits, when another one may go in flight departure because the pilot use it out its limit. same with the engine : a modern one can be used without any restriction from iddle to full PC (It was not the case of all) thanks to an electronic supervision.
A Jaguar or Mirage F1 pilot had to be very carrefull in hard turn because these planes were touchy...
 

darshan978

Darth Vader
Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
472
Likes
755
Country flag
And that's it! Can you win an air combat without missiles and guns? NO
Does FBW give you superior flight performance and manuverability? NO

FBW only makes it easier to fly, compared to older gen fighters, but even a Mig 21 Bison today is better than LCA IOC as an air defence fighter, because it has the necessary flight performance and A2A capability!

A standard Benz has a good suspension, to make it easy and confortable to drive, but to drive it fast and be agile, you need a sports suspension. So when LCA pilots say that it's easy and better to fly than 3rd gen Mig 21s they are correct of course, but I highly doubt that they would claim it to be as manuverable as the Mig 29, M2K or MKI.

So the simple fact is, that JF 17 is an operational multi role light class fighter, with a very good cost/capability ratio.
While LCA IOC is a single role light class strike fighter so far and neither FBW or composites advantages can change that.

Our project had more potential surw, but we didn't succeed so far. Their project was more realistic and worked out fine, which made it a success today and that's simply not deniable!
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK TEJAS CANT FIRE MISSILES? AND GUN?
GUN IS THERE ITS JUST NOT CERTIFIED ....
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,472
Likes
2,200
Country flag
Some one tell him about the IFF mode in Su30mki radar, now compulsory in every Indian aircraft including tejas and rafale. Those AWACS are mostly turboprop which can't fly higher than 15000 Fts. Mountain range will make them pay for that disadvantage.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,114
Likes
11,912
Country flag
But that's only how it works in forum comparisons. In real war scenarios, your radar doesn't show JF17, F16, or MKI in the display, but nothing but a dot. So you can't pick and choose which enemy you fight, just as modern air combat is not limited to 1 on 1 fighter combats anymore. Modern air forces like PAF and IAF, have modern force multipliers like AWACS or tankers, and capabilities like BVR and stand off missiles, which changes the game!

In Kargil, IAF was in clear advantage over PAF. Not only in numbers or individual fighter performance, but with more advanced radars and BVR missiles, could detect and target PAF fighters at distance.

Today things have turned, wit PAF having more AWACS aircrafts to provide better coverage of the Indo-Pak border areas. So when the first sight advantage is gone, the enemy has it easier to engage even an MKI, since it can put itself in the better position, stay out of the MKI radar sight and close in, without being detected. That's modern A2A combat and a small fighter like JF17, guided by AWACS can be more than a threat even to advanced fighters (see Cope India exercise Mig 21 + Su 30 Vs USAF F15).

For A2G the same evolving is the key! In Kargil PAF needed to cross into Indian air space to strike with dumb bombs at close distance.
JF 17 gives them the capability to use A2G weapons even from within their own airspace and hit targets at 50 to around 300Km distance. Modern strike capability keeps the fighter / launch platform in safer distances, because it's the weapon that got smarter and gained operational range. Their F16s might be able to carry more bombs, but JF17 offers more reach of the weapons.
Sorry to say, but seems you are living in some sort of parallel universe.

Its not the number of AWACS, but individual capability which matters. And when you said how to know which of the dot is friend, which is foe................. it seems like you a child in a soccer match wondering on the fact that how the players know who else is playing in their team. I hope you got my point.
 

Anathema

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
169
Likes
527
Country flag
. So when LCA pilots say that it's easy and better to fly than 3rd gen Mig 21s they are correct of course, but I highly doubt that they would claim it to be as manuverable as the Mig 29, M2K or MKI.
Air Cmde Muthana is on record stating that LCA in its current awatar is superior to unupgraded M2K..and i am not talking about Mk1A

So the simple fact is, that JF 17 is an operational multi role light class fighter, with a very good cost/capability ratio.
While LCA IOC is a single role light class strike fighter so far and neither FBW or composites advantages can change that.
Their project was more realistic and worked out fine, which made it a success today and that's simply not deniable!
Necessity is the mother of everything. PAF did not have access to other platforms - with a ageing fleet, they were forced to go all in on a Chinese platform. We on other hand - short sighted as it be, had no dearth of choices. However having said that - with the constant changes and a not pleasant customer in IAF has meant that LCA has come of age. Its a base - on which several capabilities can be added and built on.
JF17 on the other hand , PAK is in a screwgiri mode. They are just assemblers. JF17 will not build help PAK an ecosystem , which LCA will. That to me - is a sucess right there if it achieves that. Secondly , with the kind of feedback thats coming from Pilots and the attitude change in IAF means that there is lot more to the LCA platform than we all can speculate.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
Air Cmde Muthana is on record stating that LCA in its current awatar is superior to unupgraded M2K..and i am not talking about Mk1A
As I said before, Indian pilots are comparing the handling and not the capability of the fighter and even if you make a little effort to inform yourself about the performance, or weapon capability of the M2K, you would understand how silly this comparison is. Even MK1A will be inferior to the M2K-H, because a small AESA doesn't counter the lack of hardpoints, integrated EW, or weapon load capability, unless you belive that the Darin 3 with a small AESA is superior to M2K-H too. o_O

Necessity is the mother of everything. PAF did not have access to other platforms - with a ageing fleet, they were forced to go all in on a Chinese platform.
In reallity PAF considered off the shelf procurements like Gripen C/D, 2nd hand M2K-9s, just as J10s as well, but none of them would have given them the infustrial and operational advantages of the JF17 deal.
Just look at the difference between the 36 off the shelf Rafale deal and the 126 Rafale deal and add design, upgrade and export participation to it and you will understand how good this deal is for them, even if it's not the most advanced fighter.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
Sorry to say, but seems you are living in some sort of parallel universe.
Its not the number of AWACS, but individual capability which matters.
Or you simply don't understand how AWACS works.

Let's say you have a property with 4 sides. The front side is guarded by a well trained men, who makes a round to check on all sides once every hour.
But the problem is, he can't watch over all 4 sides of the at the same time, which is why you need more men, to either station them at all sides, or to increase the rotation shifts.

By the same logic, it doesn't matter how capable your AWACS is, if you don't have the numbers to cover all areas at the same time! Currently we don't even have the numbers to cover the western border alone 24/7, let alone covering the NE at the same time too in a 2 front war (why do you think IAF requires at least 15 AWACS?).

PAF only has 1 land border / airspace to cover, has higher number of aircrafts, to provide more rotations (and probably gets even more before we get the 2 more Phalcons) => which means they have better AWACS coverage!
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK TEJAS CANT FIRE MISSILES? AND GUN?
GUN IS THERE ITS JUST NOT CERTIFIED ....
Instead of making silly replies in bold letters, you only needed to take a minute to think about it and you would had found the answer on your own.

Some one tell him about the IFF mode in Su30mki radar, now compulsory in every Indian aircraft including tejas and rafale.
First of all, IFF is not a radar mode
Secondly, it only helps to keep track of your own aircrafts, it doesn't help you to distinguish a target on the radar, that doesn't give away other signals to ID it. Civil airliners have transponders, to ID themselves to air traffic controllers, if that transponder fails, you have an unidentified target and send out fighters to ID or engage it if necessary.

So as Dharshan, don't hurry to make an uniformed and emotional reply. Take at least the time to understand the issue first.
 

undeadmyrmidon

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
548
Likes
868
As I said before, Indian pilots are comparing the handling and not the capability of the fighter and even if you make a little effort to inform yourself about the performance, or weapon capability of the M2K, you would understand how silly this comparison is. Even MK1A will be inferior to the M2K-H, because a small AESA doesn't counter the lack of hardpoints, integrated EW, or weapon load capability, unless you belive that the Darin 3 with a small AESA is superior to M2K-H too. o_O



In reallity PAF considered off the shelf procurements like Gripen C/D, 2nd hand M2K-9s, just as J10s as well, but none of them would have given them the infustrial and operational advantages of the JF17 deal.
Just look at the difference between the 36 off the shelf Rafale deal and the 126 Rafale deal and add design, upgrade and export participation to it and you will understand how good this deal is for them, even if it's not the most advanced fighter.
A shit fighter with no capability next to even an old 1970s F 16 and you are shilling for this junk? What a load of horseshit.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,018
A shit fighter with no capability next to even an old 1970s F 16 and you are shilling for this junk? What a load of horseshit.
I am stating facts, that you can't properly counter and don't like, but that doesn't make it less true. And if you had properly read anything I wrote, then you would have understand, that the fighter as such is not advanced at all, but that it's more capable that restricted PAF F16s and that the combination of it's capabilities with force multipliers is the key! The same key that makes a 3rd gen Mig 21 Bision still deadly, when it can be linked to MKI or AWACS.

So don't let your bias lead you to poor judgements, because bias leads to underestimating your opponent.
 
Last edited:

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,472
Likes
2,200
Country flag
Instead of making silly replies in bold letters, you only needed to take a minute to think about it and you would had found the answer on your own.



First of all, IFF is not a radar mode
Secondly, it only helps to keep track of your own aircrafts, it doesn't help you to distinguish a target on the radar, that doesn't give away other signals to ID it. Civil airliners have transponders, to ID themselves to air traffic controllers, if that transponder fails, you have an unidentified target and send out fighters to ID or engage it if necessary.

So as Dharshan, don't hurry to make an uniformed and emotional reply. Take at least the time to understand the issue first.
IFF keep check bw friendlies.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Kalki_2018

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
720
Likes
1,243
Country flag
I am stating facts, that you can't properly counter and don't like, but that doesn't make it less true. And if you had properly read anything I wrote, then you would have understand, that the fighter as such is not advanced at all, but that it's more capable that restricted PAF F16s and that the combination of it's capabilities with force multipliers is the key! The same key that makes a 3rd gen Mig 21 Bision still deadly, when it can be linked to MKI or AWACS.

So don't let your bias lead you to poor judgements, because bias leads to underestimating your opponent.
Rubbish as usual. The JF-17 has provided nothing in terms of industrial capability to pakistan. Its a piece of garbage to replace the garbage that they can no longer find supplies for..Mirage-iii/V. Nothing more nothing less. The Jf-17 with its chinese radar cannot be data linked to the eyerie and requires the chinese awacs or ground relay. It simply lets paf have numbers so they can have a fly past.
 

patriots

Defense lover
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
4,525
Likes
15,206
Country flag
jf 17 is a good option for poor countries...
..Mann behlane keliye ki humare pass. fighter jets hay ....

..
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top