JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

[rvjpheonix]

Actually, we didnt have much of a military industry to be honest, till late 60s, since F-6 rebuild factory, MRF, HIT, KAMRA complex, KSEW and many other organizations, we have learned to develop it through joint collaborations and partnerships and in doing so we now have an industry that is serving us well and looks on track for the future. I believe it is important to understand one's limitations be it in budget or technologcal expertise or both. Even the most technologically advanced nations do not have all the expertise on their own. In short, every contry has its strengths and limitations.

Inspite of your collaborations you mil industry is still at the basics as far as aerospace is concerned. We have been collaborating for quite some time now and have realized that nobody will provide you with cutting edge stuff. Pakistan has a long way to go. India is miles ahead as far as R&D is concerned.I am not saying you are less capable just that you have not pumped in enough money and then it will take time. Just for comparison we today have knowledge in composites have a basic MMR radar (minus the air to ground processor which we will develop in due time), an engine which has already showcased 72 kN of thrust.We are also moving ahead on the passive sensors front with MAWs,RWRs and all. Beacuse of those 30 years ( its actually 20 the rest was for setting up the facilities) we have reached contemprory tech and can aim higher like 5th gen and stealth UCAVs. We are also getting our own weapons. So all in all after another 20 years we will be the people to compete with.As far as JF 17 is concerned I feel it is a great aircraft for its value. But I feel pakistan's role in it as much as India's in FGFA if not less no offence.
By the way I want to know what kind of development facilities do you have and are you pursuing any program on your own?

 

[rvjpheonix]

@Dazzler do post about jf 17 achieving favourable results agains PLAAF su 27. Any links?

 

[Dazzler]

@Dazzler do post about jf 17 achieving favourable results agains PLAAF su 27. Any links?

some tit bits from feb issue


AFM feb 14 issue article with Air Commodore Mahmood is a jem !

* blk 1 has KLJ-7V2 radar already, impressive performance.

* KG-300G is a powerful jammer

* E-Scan radar being developed for further batches, didnt say if it was blk 2 included though

* achieved favourable kills against SU-27s/30s during recent joint exercise.

* CM-400 is in active service and integrated wih JFT

* weapon integration and source code is all done at PAC KAMRA, be it of any origin, so flexibility for customers.

 

[ersakthivel]

16 deg AoA i read in a recent article cant exactly recall the source, 22 degrees and 6Gs as per Shukla.

Broadsword: Testing times ahead for HAL: ARDC prepares for dangerous Tejas and IJT flight tests




No official word on JT AoA but since 26degree AoA is from the squadron leader who knows the thing inside out, it would be stupid not to believe him. Also, it is not difficult to analyse that it has a high AoA from recent dubai airshow footage.

I can give you plenty of sortcomings in Tejas but the thread is on jf-17, not on tejas or abc xyz comparisons so please abide by it.

Thanks

Go back and clearly read what your squadron commander said on JF-17,

he clearly says , he has to stop ,"either " at 26 deg AOA or 6gs in sustained turn,

Even Mirage-2000 in the seventies pulled 28 deg AOA,Now Jf-17 can't pull 26 deg AOA if it reaches 6Gs first,

That is the acute problem of older generation high wing loading fighters, they can not sustain high AOA along with high Gs,

So if the JF-17 pilot reaches 26 deg AOA first he can not pull more Gs and if he reached 6gs first he can not pull 26 deg AOA is the real meaning of the statement,

if you can't pull max gs at max AOA you will have shallower turns with higer time taken to complete it, it will be interesting to know how many gs JF-17 pulls in its peak 26 deg AOA , if it is far lower than the 6Gs as said by the pilot then it is an obsolete mig-21 era design is my opinion.

because you need higher lift force from large wing area to pull max Gs at max AOAs with minimum speed loss which is clearly explained in the link I provided below,

the problem is the high wing loading which deprives the lift force to allow it to pull max gs at max AOAs, it is clearly explained in the F-16 Xl vs f-16 A/B analogy i posted below,



In low wing loading deltas of newer gen can pull high gs with a faster G on set rate at high AOA,

that s why they have both the higher instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn rate than the high wingloading slower G pulling fighters of old gen like Jf-17,

if you still have any doubts you can read the following link,(jf-17 is a high wing loading cropped delta with lrex like the older model f-16 A/B and tejas is the later gen model like F-16 Xl. it is clearly said in the article that the F-16 Xl (tejas type Relaxed static stability low wing loading fly by wire fighter ) trumps the older version of F-16 in all counts,

The Revolutionary Evolution of the F-16XL

Hillaker said that the objective of the F-16XL program was to achieve a logical evolution from the basic F-16 that would provide significant improvements in all mission performance elements. At the same time, it would retain the fundamental F-16 advantage of low procurement and operating costs.

To say that Hillaker's design team achieved its objectives is an understatement. Example: For an air-to-surface mission, the F-16XL can carry twice the payload of the F-16A up to forty-four percent farther, and do it without external fuel tanks while carrying four AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles) and two Sidewinder AIM-9 infrared missiles.

With equal payload/weapons and external fuel, the mission radius can be nearly doubled. When configured for a pure air-to-air mission, an F-6XL with four AMRAAMs and two AIM-9s can go forty-five percent farther than an F-16A and can do so while conducting a combat action that is equal to thirty percent of its internal fuel.

As for penetration and survivability, the F-16XL can dash supersonically with a load of bombs at either high or low altitude. It can climb at high rates with the bombs aboard. And it has a speed advantage of up to eighty-three knots over the F-16A at sea level at military power setting and 311 knots on afterburner at altitude while carrying a bomb load.

Two additional capabilities of the F-16XL contribute to survivability. First is improved instantaneous maneuver ability coupled with greatly expanded flight operating limits (with bombs), and second is reduced radar signature resulting from the configuration shaping.

Importance of High Turn Rate

For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.

With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.

All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.

The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage. The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section. It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.

Although the wing area is more than double that of the standard F-16 (633square feet vs. 300 square feet), the drag is actually reduced. The skin friction drag that is a function of the increased wetted (skin surface) area is increased, but the other components of drag (wave, interference, and trim) that are a function of the configuration shape and arrangement are lower so that the "clean airplane" drag is slightly lower during level flight, and forty percent lower when bombs and missiles are added. And although the thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is lower due to the increased weight, the excess thrust is greater because the drag is lower – and excess thrust is what counts.

The larger yet more efficient wing provides a larger area for external stores carriage. At the same time, the wing's internal volume and the lengthened fuselage enable the XL to carry more than eighty percent more fuel internally. That permits an advantageous tradeoff between weapons carried and external fuel tanks.

Through cooperation with NASA, more than 3,600 hours of wind-tunnel testing refined the shapes that Harry Hillaker and his designers conceived. More than 150 shapes were tried, with the optimum design now flying on the two aircraft at Edwards.

As an additional technology, the XL's wing skins are composed of an advanced graphite composite material that has a better strength-to-weight ratio than aluminum, is easier to form to the compound wing contours, and has higher stiffness to reduce undesirable flexibility effects.

jf-17 is a fourth gen fighter, replacing third gen mirages and F-7s. Bias bias...

trust me, you will not migrate to 5th Gen before 2025, ask the Russians.

If it is so 4th gen why is it unable to pull even 26 deg AOA at 6gs/ the mirage-2000 did 28 deg in paris airshow in 1980s itself,

 

[Dazzler]

Go back and clearly read what your squadron commander said on JF-17,

he clearly says , he has to stop ,"either " at 26 deg AOA or 6gs in sustained turn,

Even Mirage-2000 in the seventies pulled 28 deg AOA,Now Jf-17 can't pull 26 deg AOA if it reaches 6Gs first,

That is the acute problem of older generation high wing loading fighters, they can not sustain high AOA along with high Gs,

So if the JF-17 pilot reaches 26 deg AOA first he can not pull more Gs and if he reached 6gs first he can not pull 26 deg AOA is the real meaning of the statement,

if you can't pull max gs at max AOA you will have shallower turns with higer time taken to complete it, it will be interesting to know how many gs JF-17 pulls in its peak 26 deg AOA , if it is far lower than the 6Gs as said by the pilot then it is an obsolete mig-21 era design is my opinion.

because you need higher lift force from large wing area to pull max Gs at max AOAs with minimum speed loss which is clearly explained in the link I provided below,

the problem is the high wing loading which deprives the lift force to allow it to pull max gs at max AOAs, it is clearly explained in the F-16 Xl vs f-16 A/B analogy i posted below,



In low wing loading deltas of newer gen can pull high gs with a faster G on set rate at high AOA,

that s why they have both the higher instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn rate than the high wingloading slower G pulling fighters of old gen like Jf-17,

if you still have any doubts you can read the following link,(jf-17 is a high wing loading cropped delta with lrex like the older model f-16 A/B and tejas is the later gen model like F-16 Xl. it is clearly said in the article that the F-16 Xl (tejas type Relaxed static stability low wing loading fly by wire fighter ) trumps the older version of F-16 in all counts,

The Revolutionary Evolution of the F-16XL

If it is so 4th gen why is it unable to pull even 26 deg AOA at 6gs/ the mirage-2000 did 28 deg in paris airshow in 1980s itself,

it is what it is and in service as we speak, doing what it was meant to do, it seems like you have ego and comprehansion issues. dont have time to waste on your rhetorics mate


read it again, and again, i hope you will understand the simple english and not make fantasy stories out of it like a journalist.

clearly says the FBW computer will NOT allow him to go beyond 26 deg AOA or 8Gs, which ever comes first, Now, where on earth did you see 6Gs???

 

[The Last Stand]

it is what it is and in service as we speak, doing what it was meant to do, it seems like you have ego and comprehansion issues. dont have time to waste on your rhetorics mate


read it again, and again, i hope you will understand the simple english and not make fantasy stories out of it like a journalist.

clearly says the FBW computer will NOT allow him to go beyond 26 deg AOA or 8Gs, which ever comes first, Now, where on earth did you see 6Gs???

What book (or magazine, whatever) is this?

I wouldn't mind reading the whole article, and others if possible.

 

[shiphone]

I thought Recently there were two articles about the JF17 project's situation in Pakistan from the same or similar sources....

1.AIR International Nov(?) issue of year 2013...click the links for the full size image.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-MF0clS_TNiE/UttHlehHd0I/AAAAAAAADI8/L34YVoIhXaY/s0/1111.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qGGZl-rHEWI/UttHqfB41mI/AAAAAAAADJI/qV7U3mpzcIs/s0/2222.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wc8Nj0CwYE8/UttHqyPMTVI/AAAAAAAADJM/4x7akTctwsE/s0/3333.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NvDr6j4Gln8/UttHtYy_yJI/AAAAAAAADJU/LaeI_Y2sbmc/s0/4444.jpg

2. the british AFM---Air Force Monthly...I would like to provide the links from BR forum here...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6389&start=760

http://i.imgur.com/xO1ZRgw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xTW8Qun.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jSMKcAH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/obwAn9I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/y0DSfOx.png

 

[sayareakd]

http://i.imgur.com/obwAn9I.jpg

guy who has given this interview must be high, here is the relevant para

he says high value target like AC can be take out by this gem of missile, he forget that they need to test it against AC and both China and Pak dont have AC to test on it.

 

[Dazzler]

What book (or magazine, whatever) is this?

I wouldn't mind reading the whole article, and others if possible.

Hey Keshav, where have you been mate

its in November 13 issue of Air International, you will find complete article on a Pakistani forum (take a hint)

 

[ersakthivel]

Hey Keshav, where have you been mate

its in November 13 issue of Air International, you will find complete article on a Pakistani forum (take a hint)

8Gs okay , not 6G, mistake on my part,

The Tejas AOA of 24 for IOC-2 is given by the manufacturer in the release to service document,


And it is slated to go over 26 deg in FOC,

And AOA increase beyond 26 deg may continue even after FOC as per the test pilot statement ,

So it is authentic,

For JF-17 your are asking us to accept a newspaper article as proof for JF-17 AOA,

It is not a standard practice .

Anyway JF-17 has a high wing loading(meaning lesser lift per KG ) and even lower TWR than tejas, which will have 26 deg plus AOA in FOC so its STR performance will be far worse than tejas without any doubt,

Even Mirage-2000 did 28 deg AOA in paris airshow 4 decades back. tejas is superior to updated Mirage-2000 as per test pilot statements and ajai Ahukla's blog.

 

[Dazzler]

8Gs okay , not 6G, mistake on my part,

The Tejas AOA of 24 for IOC-2 is given by the manufacturer in the release to service document,


And it is slated to go over 26 deg in FOC,

And AOA increase beyond 26 deg may continue even after FOC as per the test pilot statement ,

So it is authentic,

For JF-17 your are asking us to accept a newspaper article as proof for JF-17 AOA,

It is not a standard practice .

Anyway JF-17 has a high wing loading(meaning lesser lift per KG ) and even lower TWR than tejas, which will have 26 deg plus AOA in FOC so its STR performance will be far worse than tejas without any doubt,

Even Mirage-2000 did 28 deg AOA in paris airshow 4 decades back. tejas is superior to updated Mirage-2000 as per test pilot statements and ajai Ahukla's blog.

so you take Shukla's blog seriously but not a word of a personnel attached to the jft program and a pilot himself

 

[The Last Stand]

Hey Keshav, where have you been mate

its in November 13 issue of Air International, you will find complete article on a Pakistani forum (take a hint)

I've ......... been busy with studies.



Thanks. I'll read up on it the end of the week.

 

[ersakthivel]

so you take Shukla's blog seriously but not a word of a personnel attached to the jft program and a pilot himself

That was not Shukla's word. Shukla quoted the test pilot of tejas who said that tejas mk-1 atleast equals upgraded mirage-2000 in performance.
And AOA figures of tejas mk-1 are from certified agencies. Not some pilot quote as the JF-17 AOA you quote.

 

[ersakthivel]

guy who has given this interview must be high, here is the relevant para

he says high value target like AC can be take out by this gem of missile, he forget that they need to test it against AC and both China and Pak dont have AC to test on it.

And no JF-17 is ever going to penetrate the ECM measures on any indian AC to get into firing range

and stands a chance against Naval tejas mk-2 and Mig-29 fighters on borad as jf-17 is markedly inferior to both of them on all counts,

In a recent exercise no russian fighter was able to penetrate through the Electronic counter measure suit of INS Vikramadhithya to get a target co ordinate.

And an AC is escorted by numerous escort vessles with dedicated long range Air to air missiles .

So even if PAF sends its entire fleet of JF-17, there may not be of much use , since JF-17 will be targeted and shot down well before it locks naval tejas mk-2 on its inferior radar , and it has no electronic counter measure suit worth the name to get through the escort vessels of IN ACs.

The all metal upgraded mig-21 airframe of JF-17 is the most obsolete airframe with the worst TWR

and worst avionic suit in south asia which will always be the first to be shot down in a BVR, since it can be tracked from a very long distance by the carrier group radars and intercepted with ample time as it is neither stealth nor cutting edge..

So it is only a wet dream.

 

[rvjpheonix]

And no JF-17 is ever going to penetrate the ECM measures on any indian AC to get into firing range

and stands a chance against Naval tejas mk-2 and Mig-29 fighters on borad as jf-17 is markedly inferior to both of them on all counts,

In a recent exercise no russian fighter was able to penetrate through the Electronic counter measure suit of INS Vikramadhithya to get a target co ordinate.

And an AC is escorted by numerous escort vessles with dedicated long range Air to air missiles .

So even if PAF sends its entire fleet of JF-17, there may not be of much use , since JF-17 will be targeted and shot down well before it locks naval tejas mk-2 on its inferior radar , and it has no electronic counter measure suit worth the name to get through the escort vessels of IN ACs.

The all metal upgraded mig-21 airframe of JF-17 is the most obsolete airframe with the worst TWR

and worst avionic suit in south asia which will always be the first to be shot down in a BVR, since it can be tracked from a very long distance by the carrier group radars and intercepted with ample time as it is neither stealth nor cutting edge..

So it is only a wet dream.

No offence but you just cant dismiss the jf 17's ECM abilities without knowing about it. Though it does not have internal suite it can definitely use a powerful jammer. It too is a small plane though LCA is smaller and has the same advantage if coupled with a big jammer. We should not dismiss it outright. I hope we upgrade the tejas with solid state AESA based ECM suite to bee on the safer side.

 

[ersakthivel]

No offence but you just cant dismiss the jf 17's ECM abilities without knowing about it. Though it does not have internal suite it can definitely use a powerful jammer. It too is a small plane though LCA is smaller and has the same advantage if coupled with a big jammer. We should not dismiss it outright. I hope we upgrade the tejas with solid state AESA based ECM suite to bee on the safer side.

I was making the comparison of JF-17's ECM suite to the more than hundred times powerful ECM suit of INS Vikrmadhithya and its sister ships. because it was reported that during trials even Su-30 could not target the ship piercing through the powerful ECM suit.

It will be upgraded to much higher level during fitments in india.

it is never so easy for 70s era JF-17 to get through to get a hit on IN AC as it was simply explained in the brochure .

 

[Dazzler]

I was making the comparison of JF-17's ECM suite to the more than hundred times powerful ECM suit of INS Vikrmadhithya and its sister ships. because it was reported that during trials even Su-30 could not target the ship piercing through the powerful ECM suit.

It will be upgraded to much higher level during fitments in india.




it is never so easy for 70s era JF-17 to get through to get a hit on IN AC as it was simply explained in the brochure .

First, back your claims with evidence, not hypothesis, as is your habit.


* jf-17 does not have a chinese ECM suite

* its RWR is american, read ALR-400 with LPI radar detection capability,


* KG-300G jammer has a DRFM capability, not easy to counter for missiles/ radars when a jammer can replicate their signals for a false reading.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id...CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=KG-300G jammer&f=false


Also, good luck to IN in intercepting a hypersonic missile

 

[ersakthivel]

First, back your claims with evidence, not hypothesis, as is your habit.


* jf-17 does not have a chinese ECM suite

* its RWR is american, read ALR-400 with LPI radar detection capability,


* KG-300G jammer has a DRFM capability, not easy to counter for missiles/ radars when a jammer can replicate their signals for a false reading.

Strategic Asia 2012-13: China's Military Challenge - Google Books


Also, good luck to IN in intercepting a hypersonic missile

Systems on board IN AC Vikramadhitya can put out a blanket ECM for around 400 Km blinding the many times powerful ECM suits on Su -35 fighters.This capacity was tested in trials before the AC was handed over to india.

And In is going to beef it up several times before putting it into service. Do you think people building AC are such a fools that they will let their billion dollar asset to be taken out by a hypersonic missile from JF-17?

crazy , if it is the case AC would have been decommissioned all over the world by now.

the pony RWR and jammer in Jf-17 won't be able to inform the pilot where the In AC is from a distance of 400 Kms!!!

So how will he fire the hypersonic missiles on a target whose existence and co ordinates he doesn't know. he would have been swatted like a firefly by escort ships and fighters protecting the carrier group which are twice superior to the upgraded Jf-17 that is called JF-17.

Knowing a few specs on JF-17 is one thing , but trying to cook up a story based on those facts without even knowing the Supreme ECM protection of a AC is another thing.

The DFRM based jammers of JF-17 and the pony seeker of the so called hypersonic missile is like a pig in front of an elephant called the ECM suit of an AC along with its escort ships and fighters.

may be JF-17 can score a hit on fishing trawler or commercial ships with those missiles while trying to enforce the naval blockade.

But if this blockade is challenged by a full fledged AC group, the safest place for the fighter and pilot on board JF-17 is his hanger.

 

[bennedose]

But if this blockade is challenged by a full fledged AC group, the safest place for the fighter and pilot on board JF-17 is his hanger.

This is a well known, and extremely effective PAF tactic in avoiding combat losses. It was followed towards the latter half of the 1971 war, and throughout the Kargil campaign in 1999.

 

[Dazzler]

Systems on board IN AC Vikramadhitya can put out a blanket ECM for around 400 Km blinding the many times powerful ECM suits on Su -35 fighters.This capacity was tested in trials before the AC was handed over to india.

And In is going to beef it up several times before putting it into service. Do you think people building AC are such a fools that they will let their billion dollar asset to be taken out by a hypersonic missile from JF-17?

crazy , if it is the case AC would have been decommissioned all over the world by now.

the pony RWR and jammer in Jf-17 won't be able to inform the pilot where the In AC is from a distance of 400 Kms!!!

So how will he fire the hypersonic missiles on a target whose existence and co ordinates he doesn't know. he would have been swatted like a firefly by escort ships and fighters protecting the carrier group which are twice superior to the upgraded Jf-17 that is called JF-17.

Knowing a few specs on JF-17 is one thing , but trying to cook up a story based on those facts without even knowing the Supreme ECM protection of a AC is another thing.

The DFRM based jammers of JF-17 and the pony seeker of the so called hypersonic missile is like a pig in front of an elephant called the ECM suit of an AC along with its escort ships and fighters.

may be JF-17 can score a hit on fishing trawler or commercial ships with those missiles while trying to enforce the naval blockade.

But if this blockade is challenged by a full fledged AC group, the safest place for the fighter and pilot on board JF-17 is his hanger.

prove your scenario with evidence mate, its all fantasy rhetoric, IN is NOT USN you know