|
|
|
Poslao: 29 Apr 2012 23:34
|
offline
- ANTIBODY
- Ugledni građanin
- Pridružio: 06 Jun 2011
- Poruke: 421
|
jf17 will be a reply to indian mig29/mirage2000/lca etc
a southafrican member proved based on published stats that the jft will see su30mki first [even without help of paf awacs] .. the thread was on defence.pk
the radar dome size of jf-17 is comparable/bigger than the f16 .. which means it has the capabilty to fit a stronger radar ..granted it gets a stronger engine
edit
http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/95288-j.....ost2887578
jf17 will not take the high tier role in paf.. however it will relieve f16 and future j10 from low priority / defensive roles which will thus be free for offensive missions -- however the jft block with air refuelling capability will definitely give it an offensive punch particularly keeping in mind the various ongoing weapon integrations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 30 Apr 2012 01:30
|
offline
- mareCar
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 14 Jul 2008
- Poruke: 3427
|
Napisano: 29 Apr 2012 23:58
Kajzer Soze ::Pa mogao sam da pretpostavim,ali me cudi da su se odlucili za taj avion.Ne kazem da je los ali pored rafala ili nekog drugog aviona 4++ generacije izgleda slabo.Mozda planiraju da iskoriste cinjenicu da za manje para dobiju vise aviona.Ako je 126 rafala kostalo 10.1 mililjardu US $,Onda mogu da samo pretpostavim koliko se moze kupiti aviona tog tipa.I hvala drago mi je da sam tu.
Avion je razvijen po potpuno istom konceptu kao neke koje zamenjuje (mislim na Q-5) i dosta je bolji od svih koje zamenjuje (Q-5, J-7, Mirage III), tako da nema problema. Oni imaju F-16 Block 52+ i u buduce mozda J-10B za borbu za vazdusnu prevlast protiv drugih lovackih aviona i teze misije sa vise naoruzanja, ma da JF-17 sve to moze isto toliko dobro da uradi, samo sto mu treba dva aviona umesto jednog. Stvarno nista ovom avionu ne fali za Pakistanske potrebe.
svojcic ::Samo za ove pare (30 milki zelembaca) Blok II enema bolje masine.
O toj ceni za Blok II moze samo da se sanja, pogotovu ako nisi Pakistan.
Dopuna: 30 Apr 2012 1:30
ANTIBODY ::jf17 will be a reply to indian mig29/mirage2000/lca etc
a southafrican member proved based on published stats that the jft will see su30mki first [even without help of paf awacs] .. thus would be able to fire the bvr first .. the thread was on defence.pk
the radar dome size of jf-17 is comparable/bigger than the f16 .. which means it has the capabilty to fit a stronger radar ..granted it gets a stronger engine
(Izvinite sto pisem na engleskom, ali hocu da me razume bez da mu translator nesto pobrka.)
I have to disagree, for the sake of facts. There's four reasons, please read everything before replying, and try not to get me wrong  Also, I know that you probably know most of this already, but I still have to write it down when elaborating 
a) The radome and subsequently the antenna size of the JF-17 is being grossly overestimated on defence.pk. I understand where it comes from, but I will still point it out to you guys, for your own benefit (if you are really interested in the technical specifications of the airplane and not just do it for the good feeling of knowing yours is better than others) I've read claims of around 1 meter, which is, realistically, far from the truth (more on that later). They are based on pixel counting with unreliable numbers and unusable angles, which are only good for guesswork in the +/- several decimeter range, and often feature obvious errors in measurement which are overlooked, but even if they didn't, then:
b) The diameter of the radome at the point of attachment, or even of the antenna itself, doesn't necessarily give you any reliable information about the range of the radar unless you have a lot of other factors to factor in together, and even then there is no reliable calculations to be made, and until then it is pure guesswork and wishing.
c)The radar antenna is not necessarily located in the backmost position of the painted radome part. Here's a few pictures for illustration purposes:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAO-14Eq0hs/TbS1UYWf10I/.....e_open.jpg
Mig-29SMT
Rafale:
And finally, the JF-17 itself. Here's the point of attachement of the radome cover, the one which some on defence.pk "measure" (guess) as 1 meter and directly translate that into antenna diameter:
Here's what the mounted radar looks like:
 
This is it from the outside, compare it to the wheel or human head, doesn't look as huge now anymore, does it?:
Notice something? Before starting to argue back about the size or whatever with some paint-lines and pixel counting, just go back to point b).
d) The most important part. Here's the brochure for the Selex Grifo radars. It contains the antenna diameters for the planes that the radars are intended for, including JF-17 and F-16. I am sure you've seen it before, but why you wouldn't believe it is beyond me. Let's assume that all the diameters are the maximum, full antenna diameter available in each planes radome, and why wouldn't they be? They are made to fit, after all. Here's the PDF, if you want to check any of my further elaborations.
http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/GRIFO_FAMILY.pdf
The antenna diameter of the radar intended for the older Mirage fighters is 51cm's. AFAIK Pakistan has them and is replacing them with the JF-17. So far so good.
The antenna diameter of the radar intended for the JF-17 is 60cm's. It is larger than that of the old Mirage's, which is pretty much the way it should be when the plane is intented to replace them for the future, it should be better. And comparing it to the pictures above (starting from the last one from outside, then working up to the shots of the radar antenna and it's respective position inside the previously seen radome), it seems more than reasonable, it seems perfectly realistic to me. And I would be hard pressed to come up with a reason why it should be smaller than the antenna diameter of the KLJ-7, after all Selex Grifo radars are all about small space optimization, so there is no reason to not believe that they exploited the full and maximum available space.
Now, the radar antenna diameter given for the Grifo for the F-16 is the known 74cm x 48cm's. So that's correct.
If we now calculate the area of the 60cm radar antenna on the JF-17 and the 74x48 cm radar antenna on the F-16 we'll see that they are of pretty much the same size:
F-16= 2789cm^2
JF-17= 2827cm^2
A difference of 1,3%, which is nothing.
So I have to disagree on the point that it has a larger radar antenna. Also, refer to point b, that the radar antenna diameter alone doesn't determine the range of the radar. The F-16 Block52+'s radar is much more advanced by itself and delivers more range per watt and cm^2 than the KLJ-7 radar. Also, the (as you already pointed out yourself) engine power of the JF-17 is the limiting factor and not the antenna diameter, and since the F-16 has a more powerful engine (due to the larger size/diameter of the engine itself), it will also be able to power much more powerful radars than the JF-17 ever will, even when it gets a new radar or engine.
Don't get me wrong, I hope I don't step onto your pride or something like that, I just want to discuss the technical aspects.
Comparing the JF-17 with the F-16 is a mute point anyway, because one is simply a class above the other in engine power and MTOW, while the other one has other advantages, like price and therefore numbers, and operational costs, while proportionally (in proportion to the difference in engine and weight class) being good enough/just as good or even better (it's anyones own opinion). It would be much more correct to compare the J-10 to the F-16, due to the similar engine class and weight load, and the J-10 could in fact support a radar similar in characteristics to the F-16, while carrying (if they work on the construction) just as much load and having an engine in the same power range. Of course, there's the whole technology thing, and jamming and jamming resistance and other gizmos, but I'll stick to the measurable, simple stuff now.
So they are both excellent planes and good designs to improve upon. They offer a lot of bang for the buck, and are a great addition to Pakistan and many other Air Forces in the world, but one shouldn't overestimate their features. I mean I totally understand it, we guys are exited if our country builds a piston engined or turboprop plane, we would probably get together and celebrate the sht out of the weekend if our country would start producing an aircraft like the JF-17, even if with assistance from another country. The JF-17 is a perfect replacement for the Q-5 and older Mirage and Mig-21 fighters, while the J-10B will be a good replacement for the older F-16 versions. I am not trying to belittle them or anything, but I am just assessing their possibilities and characteristics realistically. They both will guarantee the future of the Pakistani Air Force for at the next 3-4 decades, until China comes up with a medium sized 5th gen aircraft, so you guys are very lucky there, that you have such a good partner that can provide you with very affordable and perfectly useful hardware tailored for your needs, and that you have no outside pressure on who you can buy from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 01 Maj 2012 11:42
|
offline
- jazbar
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 28 Dec 2009
- Poruke: 16142
- Gde živiš: Lublana
|
Molim dajte idite na podforum za engleski jezik, da nebi ja poćeo da pišem na slovenskom jeziku.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 01 Maj 2012 12:09
|
offline
- mean_machine
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 23 Dec 2006
- Poruke: 12605
|
Zbog korektne kritike ja cu moj odgovor da napisem i na srpskom.
ANTIBODY ::
a southafrican member proved based on published stats that the jft will see su30mki first [even without help of paf awacs] .. thus would be able to fire the bvr first .. the thread was on defence.pk
Ko ce prvi da puca zavisi od dometa raketa, zato sto oba aviona vide jedan drugog na znatno vecoj daljini od teorijskog dometa raketa koje nose.
Translation: Who is firing first depend on missile range, because both aircraft will see each other much before they can fire on each other.
Dopuna: 01 Maj 2012 10:53
Verovatnoca pogotka zavisi od daljine, broja ispaljenih raketa i kinematike rakete/mete (zanemario sam ometanje i druge bitne faktore da ne bi dodatno komplikovali)
Su-30MKI nosi znatno vise raketa, znatno vise goriva, aerodinamicki je napredniji i ima verktorski potisak.
Translation: Pk (Probability of kill) depend on distance, number of missile and kinetic capabilities of missile/target (we can add jamming and other stuff but that will be complicated).
Su-30MKI carries lot more missiles, lot more fuel, is aerodynamically more advanced and has TVC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 01 Maj 2012 16:51
|
offline
- mean_machine
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 23 Dec 2006
- Poruke: 12605
|
ANTIBODY ::
regarding sd10range --sd10a/b would offcourse have lomger range , sd10b would be having a dual seeker -- so in case of range sd10 is not far behind its competion
Nisi me razumeo. Ako SD-10 ima isti domet kao npr. R-77 kako onda JF-17 moze prvi da ispali raketu na Su-30? Su-30 ce JF-17 videti mnogo pre nego sto dodje u domet SD-10 rakete.
Translation: You didnt understand me. If SD-10 has same range as R-77, how can JF-17 first to launch? Su-30 will detect JF-17 from much longer distance then range of SD-10 missile.
ANTIBODY ::
jft is a small / light fighter as a result of which it carries lesser bvrs as compared to mki.. however jft has smaller rcs.... one of the smallest rcs in paf inventory , which helps in its late detection ,not to mention the dsi. -- the f15 pilot of def.pk [chogy] gave a general comment of jft rcs to be similar to the f16.. however the insiders comment that it is somewhat lesser than some f16 blks
Nagadjanja koja realno nisu ni bitna jer JF-17 nije stelt i sigurno ce biti otkriven na vecim razdaljinama.
Translation: Speculations which aren't important because JF-17 isnt stealth and will be detected on long distances.
Jos jedna stvar. Ako vec pominjes SD-10B koja nije operativna, zasto ne uzmis u razmatranje RVV-BD koja bi mogla da se nadje na Su-30MKI? Sa tom raketom Su-30MKI ima mogucnost da gadja ciljeve koji su udaljeni 100km ili vise.
Translation: One more thing. You are talking about SD-10B which isnt in service, why then we dont consider possibility of RVV-BD for SU-30MKI?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 01 Maj 2012 18:27
|
offline
- mareCar
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 14 Jul 2008
- Poruke: 3427
|
ANTIBODY ::Napisano: 01 May 2012 9:40
hi , i will post your post there and see what happens ... the point i am making is that the dome size is large enough to accomodate further , more powerful radars in the future
Well, the point I am making is that it really is not. Refer to point c and the pictures I attached, including the last one from outside. The radome size is overestimated.
Ja kazem da nije. Vidi pod tacku c i slike koje sam postavio, ukljucujuci onu spolja. Velicina poklopca radara je precenjena
ANTIBODY ::however jft has smaller rcs.... one of the smallest rcs in paf inventory , which helps in its late detection
Of course, it's the size of a Mig-21, which by itself already has a small RCS, the nose cone probably helps. Of course an aircraft MUCH larger and with two open engines will have a larger RCS.
Naravno, velicine je Mig-21, koji sam vec ima dosta mali radarski odraz, i poklopac radara ispred motora verovatno pomaze u tome. Naravno da ce mnogo veci avion, sa dve otvorena motora imati veci radarski odraz.
Citat:,not to mention the dsi.
Again, something you guys overestimate too much. The small bump has no considerable effect on RCS or anything except the weight and space it saves inside the aircraft, it's not a "stealth generating device", and no one except the guys on defence.pk sees it as such. It's basically the same as the nosecone on the Mig-21. While it does help to conceal parts of the untreated intake duct (the fan blades are already hidden due to the layout of the intake), it itself is riddled with little holes, which act as a large reflector, also the edges of the intake and the area around them are not treated, and neither is the inside of the intake, so that negates all of the imagined benefits, therefore any positive effects of the DSI intake on the RCS performance are pure wishthinking.
Opet nesto sta precenjujete. To nema isticajuci efekat na radarski odraz ili bilo sta drugo osim tezinu i mesto koje ustedi u unutrasnjosti aviona, nije "generator stelta", i niko osim vas momaka na defence.pk ga vidi kao takvog. Manje vise je ista stvar kao mesto radara na Mig-21. Dok jeste da krije delove tunela usisnika vazduha (lopatice motora su vec sakrivene smestanjem usisnika na strane), a ono samo je probuseno rupicama koji su veliki reflektor odraza, ivice usisnika i povrsina oko njih nije premazana ram premazom, niti je unutrasnjost usisnika koja se vidi, znaci to vec eliminira sve zamisljene prednosti, sta znaci da su svi pozitivni efekti DSI usisnika na radarski odraza samo zamisljene zelje
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 01 Maj 2012 20:23
|
offline
- ANTIBODY
- Ugledni građanin
- Pridružio: 06 Jun 2011
- Poruke: 421
|
Napisano: 01 May 2012 19:41
first aspect is which fighter will detect the other first [without help of awacs , which is ofcourse highly doubtful]
JFT radar has publicized detection range of 105 km against 5m2 target and Su-30 even if, has RCS of 10m2 with canards , will be detected at around 200-210 kms.
Can BARS detect a 3m2 target even at 150 kms ? and JFT is much less than 3m2 so MKI will have a hard time detecting the JFT at advertised range.
2nd aspect is which fighter can fire first.. depending on missile range.. pakistan has sd10a .. not sd10.. as paf rejected sd10 and gave input/specs to the chinese via its operational aim120 experience---- even if the range of the 2 missiles [chinese/russian] is same .. people ''speculate'' that the no escape zone at which sd10a can be comfortably fired onto an mki whould be greater due to the massive size of the mki ... however no missile is fired from its max range
We can only compare the most basic published data for this speculation. What is most important in both of these missiles is going to be classified. Actual minimum and maximum effective ranges, not figures from a brochure.
All the published ranges of sd10 [post2004/06] are around 100km. some of the specs of sd10 that ive seen show the range when fired vertically against gravity in the form of SAMs.... there are few specs available for sd10a used by paf --
the first jft prototype had a frontal rcs of 2.6 m2 -- the rcs of operational jft is atleast as less as the blks of f16 -- however internal sources say that frontal rcs might be lesser due to dsi.... whatever the case maybe, jft's rcs is very less as compared to the mki ... and jft will not primarily deal with the mki... intake is one of the three major forward scatters of an aircraft (30%-35% contribution to aircraft forward RCS) <-- this why people at defence.pk harp on the dsi card so much , as dsi has indirectly helped in rcs reduction
moreover most of the pak debates are between aim120c and sd10a... in which sd10 range is taken roughly as 100km -- the aim120 is taken as benchmark for sd10 development.. ofcourse paf pilots are trained on how to exploit the aim120 qualities
primitive SD10 [ 70km] was tested in 2007 on a Mirage. It was outright rejected not based on the range but due to its inferior seeker and the missile was easily jammed. PAF's engineers that are based in Chengdu had previously tested the AMRAAM and other European Options, they brought their experience and knowledge and worked along side with our Chinese partners and further improved the missile.Result: SD10A and than later S10B --via notorius eagle
SD-10= 70 km
SD-10A=90-100 km
SD-10B=130-150km
the PLA news article mentioning the >100km is quoted here: [url=http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/200812/1202_340_903055.shtml]??????-10??????????100??_??_???[/url] . While I don't see where it actiually says PL-12 or SD-10, I am assuming that is the only MRAAM for the J-10s unlike their Flankers which use Russian missiles.
 --via tempest
via nabil
By the way, sd-10a does have a range of 90-100 km as per my source in PAF and this variant was tested on JFT not too long ago. B variant is to have a more powerful motor with new seeker and range to be reached as per PLAAF and PAF is at least 140 km.
The missile sd10a is widely credited with superior range performance to the AIM-120A-C variants.
Above, below: Luoyang PL-12/SD-10A on JF-17 pylon launchers, exported to Pakistan (image © 2010 Air Power Australia, via Zhenguan Studio).
http://www.ausairpower.net/Zhuhai-2010/SD-10A-PL-12A-AAM-APA-1S.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/Zhuhai-2010/SD-10A-PL-12A-AAM-APA-2S.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html#mozTocId835567
acig.org. This is from April 2004 and apparently it was an interview with the SD-10 designer. The original SD-10 was superior to the R-77 and the AIM-120 A/B and was very close to the AIM-120C. So the fact that the SD-10A is superior to AIM-120C should be no suprise
[qoute]
Some translations and points discovered by Hyperwarp in the AFM concerning an magazine published article of an interview with the designer of the SD-10.
"Efective combat altitude 0-25Km.
Ability to engage target 10kms higher or lower than launch altitude.
Range at 10Km altitude at M1.2 target at same altitude =70Km.
No escape zone for F-16 type target = 35-45km
Max overload=38G, Speed =4M
Plans to be also used as SAM system."
"Designer was asked at end to rate BVR AAMs. He rated Meteor as best BVR AAM, then AIM-120C, then his SD-10, then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Skyflash at equal fourth, then Derby, and last of all, MICA."
"What the designer said is that they used the same way AIM-120 calculated its range. target and launch aircraft flying at each other at 1.2 mach and at 10000 metres. The range is 70 km under such circumstance.
Also interesting is the designer basically said the russians "cheated" with R-77, as they calculated the max range with target and launcher flying at each other at 1.5 mach and at 12000 metres altitude."
A more detailed translation by Dongdong posted in the AFM forums:
"I just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative. Add my points for translation:
Ahout the max shot range:
The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s.
About ranking MRAAM:
Designer : It’s not easy to rank …..Various persons have various standards…
First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.
Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.
SD-10’s milestones:
Designer: We started the pre-research work for advanced radar guidance air to air missile in mid of 1980….
Phase1:mid of 1980 to beginning of 1990, key technologies study
Phase2;Started from mid of 1990, sub-systems development
Phase3:Started from end of 1990, missile overall performance verification test
Phase4:After entering 21st century, demo verification test
Now, the development of SD-10 has been completed."
[/qoute]
Dopuna: 01 May 2012 19:49
i understand that the actual specs of bvrs are not published and range is only one factor in the effectiveness of the bvr -- i also understand that there is no published rcs of jft [and there wont be any published rcs for some time]
however my above post was basically for indians who used to say that the mki would detect jft first .. the second aspect e.g firing is purely a speculation as these stats are never openly published ... however paf is in the uniques place to test american missiles and the chinese are in the position to check russian tech... so sd10 which would ultimately be used by the jft wouldbe a very credible force in the near future... i forgot to mention the southafrican connection in the sd10 development aswell
''
e data revealed on January 4 indicated that development of the PL-10 started in 2004, which might track very well with the reported deepening of South African-PLA cooperation. The few clear images of the PL-ASR/PL-10 show a near 95 percent similarity with the Denel A-Darter AAM ''
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-strategic-fo.....d-air.html
Dopuna: 01 May 2012 20:18
the reason ive joined many different forums is to learn ... and i dont mind if i am wrong ... and i openly accept if i dont know a thing as i am not a professional of this field.. i just like to study about them... professionaly i am a medical doctor ;-)
Dopuna: 01 May 2012 20:23
a little more info regarding paf f16 pilots vs eurofighter.. which i reckon was also disclosed by alan warnes of AFM. via najam
''
Ok, for the last time. The 3-0 encounter with Typhoon is real, three pilots were involved two of them have moved onto JF-17 and bk52. This is no myth.''
|
|
|
|
|
|
