JF-17(FC-1) Thunder

• 1Ovo se svidja korisniku: ANTIBODY
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Napisano: 02 May 2012 0:20

mareCar ::Napisano: 29 Apr 2012 23:58

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:
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.
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.

HI,

nicely compiled information but a few things needed to be added on my part. The original radar to compete the Grifo-S was Type 1471 developed around 2003 and tested on a J-8 platform, pulse Doppler, 660 mm antennae, look down shoot down and track on 8 targets simultaneously and engage 2 in SA mode. The 664 mm figure was given by me who has info from someone involved in the project but much info is hard to come by, however, PAF requirement was atleast 650 mm diameter, nothing less.

Selex offered two variants of Grifo-s, one was 600 mm antennae, another had a staggering 800 mm but the overall nose modification had to be redone to a great deal and consumed a lot of time. Grifo also had messy SA modes and no compatibility with SD-10, which was the prime need for JF-17. After a rework, they came up with better SA and SAR mode but still no compatibility with SD-10. While China had successfully developed a subset of the J-10 radar with bigger (664 mm vs 600 mm antenna for Grifo-s) radar and better digital signal processor allowing more processing and a more powerful transmitter allowing a peak output of 7-8 kw. This radar was still subjected to more testing on J-8 testbed and by 2006, was finally revealed in a brochure as the KLJ-7 variant. The radar antenna diameter is not a fantasy but an accepted reality. A member calculated some numbers by pixels which is his opinion and i respect it.

In general, comparison of jf-17 with f-16 is not justified due to different classifications for both in general performance, agreed. However, in terms of general capability, f-16 has a monster of an engine i.e. the PW 120-GE-110, 25000-29000 pounds thrust with afterburner allowing much higher payloads and overall range but the jf-17 has much powerful avionics and radar which is comparable to most modern fighters out there and which the f-16 (pre- block 52 models) lack such as a powerful mission computer with spare upgradability room for further upgrades, complete glass cockpit environment and ability to carry a complete set of Chinese Pakistani/ and most guided weapons in air to air, air to surface and air to sea modes.

Dopuna: 02 May 2012 1:03

China has bought rights to manufacture the Grifo-S radar under the designation of Falcon S7, more info can be read here....

catic.com.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?.....mp;ckw=AR#

Here is the short article that was published in Kanwa defense review, notice the two radar antennae size, which indicates that there is even room to accommodate 800 mm antenna with modifications and pushing some changes, but it is an option on jf-17.
kanwa.com (June 2004 issue).



June 2004;

The competition for the airborne radar system used on FC1/JF17 FC1 has entered a very critical stage.” Last summer, the company fitted a GRIFO-S7 multi-purpose radar on Sabliner aircraft for testing and invited Pakistani representatives to observe the testing process. Galileo Avionica indicated that if China wants to obtain this type of radar system for further testing, the company would be willing to provide the radar to China.
On August 25, 2003, FC1/JF17 had the first trial flight. Currently, Galileo Avionica is using GRIFO-S7 to compete with the Russian Phazotron Company’s KOPYO F radar. Galileo Avionica demonstrated to Kanwa more details of GRIFO-S7. The radar’s transmitter output power has been increased to 500W, and it uses two types of antenna, with diameters of 600mm and 800mm respectively. The 600mm antennae’s detect range is 80km, while the search range of the 800mm antennae is more than 100km. What is being promoted to Pakistan is the 600mm antenna whose weight is 110kg. Galileo Avionica has conducted a very in-depth study of FC1. Galileo Avionica claims that they can provide 800mm GRIFO-S7 radar for FC1, but this may mean the location of the radar on board will have to be moved 400mm backward. And as a consequence, the whole electronic system will also have to be moved 400mm backwards. Galileo Avionica is capable of conducting such upgrading, and yet the total cost will increase. The GRIFO-S7 fitted with these two types of antenna is capable of tracking 16 targets in the air and attack 6 of them simultaneously. It adopts two-channel receiver data processing system. The MTBF for GRIFO-S7 is 220 hours. Galileo Avionica stresses that GRIFO-S7 is compatible with the SD10 active radar guided AAM weapon control software. GRIFO-S7 has 25 different air-to-air and air-to-surface operation modes.

Kanwa was informed that the French THALES had stepped up their effort to bid for the radar system used on FC1. THALES introduced RC400 to the parties involved and had also invited Pakistan to conduct air test of the system on Falcon 20 this year. RC400 has a weight of 120kg, output power 400W. It adopts mechanical scanning. THALES says the radar is capable of tracking as many as 32 targets in the air simultaneously.




the third prototype of FC1 (JF17) fighter would have flying test in March 2004. The prototype FC1 is expected to conduct flying control experiments.

The fourth FC1 prototype will be fitted with domestic making KLJ10 fire control radar. Thus, whether the Chinese Air Force is going to order FC1 or not will very likely be determined after the flying tests of the fourth FC1 fighter are completed. It is not yet known the history of KLJ10 development. In 1999, China imported four sets of Kapyo radar systems from Russian Phazptron. Pakistan plans to have flying tests of the first batch 12 JF17 fighters from 2006. According to the memorandum signed by the two sides, Pakistan is expected to start the production of FC1 in January 2006. However, Kanwa has doubt about this production schedule, which will very likely be put off till later.

All technological tests of SD10 active radar guidance air-to-air missile have been completed. Small batch production of the missile can start in the middle of this year, the source said. SD10 was first tested on J8II fighters, with all five firing tests hitting the expected targets. A source says the missile will be installed on the fourth FC1 for some further and decisive testing. The source adds China hopes to export FC1 bundled with SD10. Thus, the combat performance of SD10 on FC1 is critical.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

ANTIBODY ::
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.

It cant be much less then 3m2 if it carry missiles (fuel tank maybe). BARS is upgraded, that something people dont consider. India will start replacing BARS with aesa radar very soon also.

Ne moze biti manje od 3m2 ako nosi rakete (cesto ce nositi i rezervoar). BARS je unapredjen, sto ljudi zaboravljaju. Indija planira zamenu BARS sa aesa radarom u skorijoj buducnosti.


ANTIBODY ::
SD-10= 70 km
SD-10A=90-100 km
SD-10B=130-150km


Ok this is teoretical range. RVV-AE is 80km thanks to draggy tail surfaces but it is much more agile in terminal phase because of tail surfaces. So we can say it has shorter maximum range but similar no escape zone. Then you add Su-30MKI capability of flying high and fast and you compensate shorter range of RVV-AE.

If you need more range you have RVV-SD (110km) and RVV-BD (200km). And those missiles are using Su-30MKI kinetic boost too

To je teorijski domet. RVV-AE je 80km zbog repnih povrsina koje povecavaju otpor, ali zbog istih tih povrsina raketa je mnogo agilnija u zavrsnoj fazi leta. Mozemo reci da je maksimalni domet manji ali je efikasni domet slican. Dodaj na to Su-30MKI koji leti visoko i brzo i kompenzovao si kraci domet RVV-AE.

Ako ti treba jos veci domet imas RVV-SD (110km) i RVV-BD (200km). Naravno i ove rakete koriste prednosti kinematike Su-30MKI)

• 1Ovo se svidja korisniku: Khaless
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Napisano: 02 May 2012 12:19

isnt su30's max speed around 2mach .. jft's speed is 1.8 .... sd10 would be using some kind of kinetic boost via jft aswell ---- i dont remember the individual speeds of the 2 missiles.. but i reckon sd10 has mach4 speed ---- you cant outrun any new generation missiles... countermeasures/jamming comee into play

moreover if you are considering loaded rcs , then mki with clean confi has an rcs of 10 , imagine how much rcs would it have when 8 bvrs are attatched to it

Dopuna: 02 May 2012 12:32

i will post a question by tempest in radar dome thread at defence.pk

''
600mm is a good size and combined with other subsystems being optimised, can give good perfomance. The Gripen radar is 600mm.

Yes, we are very aware performance is not just about the antenna, but antenna size is one of the MANY factors.

Pixel counting has got it errors and we acknowledge that but concerning the KLJ-7 specifically, it is the best info we have.

@ mareCar, can you please present better info? So far, you have presented Grifo data and ASSUMED that to be the same for the KLJ-7.


''

Dopuna: 02 May 2012 12:38

basically due to the stuctural / size parameters of jft , we dont compare jft vs su30 .... rather grippen / mirage09 etc is where we compare them..... however in terms of electronics , the jft has progressed atleast at blk40 f16 level ... which is understandable as f16 blk40 is a relatively old plane ... that is why you see a comparison of jft vs f16 in terms of general capability--- [minus range/payload/thrust]

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

ANTIBODY ::Napisano: 02 May 2012 12:19
isnt su30's max speed around 2mach .. jft's speed is 1.8 .... sd10 would be using some kind of kinetic boost via jft aswell

Only if you consider clean planes. If you arm then speed will drop because missiles and rails are draggy and have their own weight. Su-30 is in much better position because it is already draggy and heavy aircraft so adding missiles and rails will not be big penality. JF-17 is small and light, and same number of missiles and rails and speed penality will be much higher.

When talking about supersonic flight, fuel is most important. I dont need to explain why Su-30 is better in that segment? Or maybe I need?

Samo ako razmatras nenaoruzane avione. Ako ih naoruzas brzina opada. Su-30 kao teski lovac stoji bolje tu jer nekoliko raketa znatno manje uticu na njega nego na mali i lagani JF-17.

Kada pricamo o supersonicnom letu, gorivo je najbitnije. Valjda netreba da objasnjavam zasto tu Su-30 stoji bolje ili trebam?


ANTIBODY ::
you cant outrun any new generation missiles... countermeasures/jamming comee into play

I never wrote anything about outrunning. I am talking about first launch first kill. Su-30 has better speed when it carries many missiles so it provides starting advantage for its missiles.

As I said earlier jamming only complicate story. We now talks about kinematics. We dont talk about jammers or radar sets (because I am pretty sure it isnt easy to jam modern powerful pesa radar).

Nikada nisam ni govorio o bezanju. Govorio sam o tome ko ce prvi da ispali. Su-30 ima vecu brzinu kada nosi rakete dakle ima prednost.

Prica o ometanju samo komplikuje raspravu i zato bolje da ostanemo na kinematici.



ANTIBODY ::
moreover if you are considering loaded rcs , then mki with clean confi has an rcs of 10 , imagine how much rcs would it have when 8 bvrs are attatched to it

So what? You posted max range for your missiles and it is shorter then range of radar detection (clean Su-30) Adding missiles doesnt change nothing.

Pa sta? Sam si naveo podatke o dometima vasih raketa i isti su kraci nego sto je radarska detekcija nenaoruzanog Su-30. Rakete tu nista ne menjaju.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

jf17 will not be carrying the same number of bvrs , so the penalty cant be the same. First of all no where have i said that jft is in the same class of su30.. nor have i said its the front line fighter of paf , so please stop equating them in that fashion.. particularly for jft blk1 ---- jft blk1 will not be used for deep penetration attacks ... moreover the fuel requirement in indo-pak scenerio is not that a restricting factor as most of paf airbases are under 5minutes of the border.... keeping this in mind the specs of jft are not nonpractical


GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:
Takeoff distance 450m
Landing distance 750km
Max G >8
Max climb rate 250 m/s
Basic range 1800km
Extended range with drop tanks 3000km
Endurance 3.5 hours
Max load >4000kg
Thrust to weight ratio >1
Number of stations 07
Service ceiling 55,500ft
MAC 1.8
Max takeoff wt 27,300lb
Total load capacity 8000lb


specs mostly taken from the dubai airshow presentation

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ok I only want to point out why smaller plane doesnt automatically mean better bvr fighter.

Ok samo sam hteo da pokazem zasto manji avion ne znaci automatski da je bolji u borbi sa distance.

• 2Ovo se svidja korisnicima: sivisoko, djboj
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Antibody I think you don't understand him. You keep going on and on about theoretical figures and assumed figures, while his original premise was that all of that is unimportant since both planes will spot the other far outside of the maximum (and especially the practical) launch range, so there is no real advantage for the JF-17 because it is not a stealth aircraft. Also 3m2 when loaded is pretty much wishthinking, the aircraft has no RAM treatment at all, not inside the radome, not on the canopy, not on the leading edges of the wings and intake ducts, not inside the intakes, not outside on the body, not around the radome on the nose section... nothing, realistically it's easily around 5m2 when loaded. I doubt it would be below 3m2 when clean, and loaded it should easily be around 5m2. The BARS range against a target of the size of an F-16 (unspecified which version) is around 140-180km's...so a loaded JF-17 should fall in the 160km range. Also, the detection range of a radar and the size of the target are not proportional, just because the JF-17 spots a 5m2 target at 105km, doesn't mean it spots a 10m2 target at 210km. There's also a maximum range for every radar...I don't know about the KLJ-7, but what is its maximum range? It is said to spot a large ship at some 130 or 140 km...

They will probably detect each other at around the same distance, give or take, which is still far (2-3 times) outside the missile launch range.

@Antibody regarding more info...where should I get the official dimensions of the KLJ-7 radar? I doubt that Grifo would be offering a smaller antenna than at most possible, you can also compare the photos I gave you (from in and outside) with pictures of other fighters. I am just telling you what's obvious and realistic.
Also, if one wants to pixel count, it would be much better to use a pictures that is shot at complete 90° angle where the plane is in a perfectly horizontal position, and from there to count the pixels for something that is more realistic and known, such as the engine diameter, the wheel or helmet.

It's a small and light fighter, and has the according specifications, I don't get why you (not you personally) want to talk it into anything more than that.

Ne mogu da prevodim ovoliko, izvinjavam se

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

rcs is a point where lets agree to disagree as i am not going to accept it as a clean config to be 3 -- as i already pointed out prototype1 had a clean config lesser than3 --- a lot of these discussions are not on the net .. some are on the net but in hidden forums to keep privacy of the sources.. e.g the hidden subforums of researchers , professionals, thinktanks on def.pk --- so i cant and wont link the sources --- however in some cases these links are senior militery professional -- or young engineers where the tech was outsourced


this is the link of the original pictures from horizontal standpoint.. and the specs of certain features were dramatically correct based on the same pictures and pixel methods
http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-j.....ost2757125

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

mean_machine ::ANTIBODY ::
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.

It cant be much less then 3m2 if it carry missiles (fuel tank maybe). BARS is upgraded, that something people dont consider. India will start replacing BARS with aesa radar very soon also.

Ne moze biti manje od 3m2 ako nosi rakete (cesto ce nositi i rezervoar). BARS je unapredjen, sto ljudi zaboravljaju. Indija planira zamenu BARS sa aesa radarom u skorijoj buducnosti.


ANTIBODY ::
SD-10= 70 km
SD-10A=90-100 km
SD-10B=130-150km


Ok this is teoretical range. RVV-AE is 80km thanks to draggy tail surfaces but it is much more agile in terminal phase because of tail surfaces. So we can say it has shorter maximum range but similar no escape zone. Then you add Su-30MKI capability of flying high and fast and you compensate shorter range of RVV-AE.

If you need more range you have RVV-SD (110km) and RVV-BD (200km). And those missiles are using Su-30MKI kinetic boost too

To je teorijski domet. RVV-AE je 80km zbog repnih povrsina koje povecavaju otpor, ali zbog istih tih povrsina raketa je mnogo agilnija u zavrsnoj fazi leta. Mozemo reci da je maksimalni domet manji ali je efikasni domet slican. Dodaj na to Su-30MKI koji leti visoko i brzo i kompenzovao si kraci domet RVV-AE.

Ako ti treba jos veci domet imas RVV-SD (110km) i RVV-BD (200km). Naravno i ove rakete koriste prednosti kinematike Su-30MKI)



Now the argument seems to have sifted towards SU-30 BARS vs jf-17 KLJ-7 and R-77 vs SD-10, not expecting this from a Moderator though

Surprisingly, no one noticed the figures in my last post. Anyway, the SU-30, despite having a significant reduction in its RCS (MKI version) is arounf 10-15m2, this is according to Russian and Indian sources. Now, for the ske of argument, 10m2 is taken, KLJ-7 has a range of 105 km for 5m2, you can calculate at what distances will it detect the 10m2 target, at least around 140-150 km.

Secondly, BARS has a range of 70 NM for a fighter sized target (assume it is 5m2), this makes it close to around 130-140 km. In real world, both radars will detect eachother at around same range, this is the truth. MKI RCS is its worst enemy and flashes like a blimp on the radar screen.

Here is some info on BARS from Aussair power page.....

"The BARS is the most advanced radar developed by Russian industry during the 1990s. It is unusual in being designed with a hybrid array arrangement, the receive path using very similar technology to US and EU AESAs, with similar sensitivity and sidelobe performance, but using a Travelling Wave Tube and backplane waveguide feed for the transmit direction, a technology closest to the B-1B and early Rafale EA radars. As such the BARS is a transitional design sitting in between Passive ESAs (PESA) and contemporary AESAs. There is no doubt this design strategy reflected the unavailability to Russian designers of the Gallium Arsenide power transistors used in Western AESAs.

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. The antenna is constructed using phase shifter and receiver 'stick' modules, a similar technology to early US AESAs.

Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.

The BARS remains in production for the Indian and Malaysian Irkut built Su-30MKI/MKM variants. The radar is available with a range of TWT power ratings, this being the source of considerable confusion to observers who have not tracked this program since its inception. The result is a wide range of performance figures depending on the resulting Power Aperture Product. That the antenna has good power handling capability is evident in its adaptation for the Irbis E design.

Given the similarity between the Irbis E and BARS, existing BARS operators will over time effect block upgrades to convert their BARS inventories into the Irbis E configuration."


ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#mozTocId928438


Note: I have no intention to derail a fine thread but this is only in reply to the post that i have quoted.

Regarding the SD-10 (baseline model, not the extended A version which is in service with PAF as per Air Chief statement 2011). The article is from Janes, published in 2003....

"From Jane's Air Launched Weapons 2003
SD-10 (PL-12)

Type: Active-radar guided beyond-visual range air-to-air missile.

Development:

The SD-10 active-radar BVR air-to-air missile is now the highest priority air-to-air weapons programme for China's military industry, and has supplanted several previous developmental projects (such as the PL-10 and PL-11) in terms of effort and importance. When, and if, it enters service, it should provide the People's Liberation Army Air Force with a sophisticated, indigenous airborne weapon that will complement, to some degree the Russian-supplied R-27/R-77 missiles that equip the PLAAF's Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 force.
The SD-10 (perhaps known also as the PL-12) is evolving under aegis of the Beijing-based China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC), while work on various aspects of the programme is underway at a number of different technical centres around the country. The SD-10 is listed as part of CATIC's current 'Thunder-Lightning' family of air-to-air missiles, that includes the PL-5E, PL-9C and TY-90 systems (all developed by the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center). However, confusion surrounds the provenance, and even the designation, of the SD-10 programme. 'SD-10' is the export designation of a national programme that may, or may not be, the PL-12.
The PL-12 designation has also been associated with a notional air-to-air development of China's LY-60 surface-to-air missile, but the actual status of this development effort is unclear. The SD-10 on the other hand is a very real programme.
Prior to the emergence of the SD-10, China's active radar seeker AAM development programme was sometimes identified as the 'AMR-1'. During Air Show China 1996, held during November in Zhuhai, the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute/No 607 Research Institute exhibited a newly-developed active radar seeker, the AMR-1. This seeker was, in turn, believed to have been applied to a new air-to-air missile design, derived from the LY-60 surface-to-air missile, and dubbed the 'PL-12'. This active radar missile, and the earlier semi-active radar homing PL-11, seemed to have a common design heritage with the Italian Aspide missile, supplied to China during the late 1980s. The status of the PL-11 and 'LY-60/PL-12' development programmes is unclear, but sources within CATIC say these earlier programmes have all been abandoned in favour of the SD-10.
The existence of the SD-10 programme was acknowledged by Chinese officials for the first time in early 2002 (the first pictures of the new missile appeared from Chinese sources during 2001). According to CATIC sources the missile has a range of 80 km. Earlier speculation around the AMR-1/LY-60 programme suggested that a ramjet engine was being developed for it, and such a powerplant would allow a missile to be effective at such long ranges. All available models and artist's impressions of the SD-10 released to date clearly show a rocket-powered missile with a conventional airframe configuration. However, unidentified models of a notional ramjet-powered air-to-air missile have been shown in China and so an enhanced propulsion solution may be under consideration, or even under development, for the SD-10. According to a CATIC engineer, speaking in February 2002, several SD-10 test firings have already been undertaken, and most of the SD-10's subsystems testing had been completed (although the missile was not yet ready for service).

Description

The SD-10 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although with a length of 3.85m, a diameter of 20.3 cm and a weight of 180 kg the SD-10 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM. The SD-10 has four rear-mounted control fins that each have a very distinctive notch cut into their base. These fins are longer and more prominent than those of the AMRAAM and are cropped at an angle (rather than in line with the missile body). Four larger triangular fins are fixed to the mid-section of the missile. Internally, the leading edge of the centrebody fins is in line with the start of the missile's rocket motor. That motor is a variable-thrust sold rocket booster, that offers two levels of motive power for different sections of the flight envelope.
CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active radar seekers, which may be intended for the SD-10. However the latest reports confirm that China has been co-operating closely with Russia's AGAT Research Institute, based in Moscow, and that AGAT is the source of the SD-10's essential active seeker. This joint development effort (perhaps with the name 'Project 129') has reportedly seen the supply of AGAT's 9B-1348 active-radar seeker (developed for the Vympel R-77, AA-12 'Adder') to China for integration with a Chinese-developed missile, the SD-10. Alternatively, technology from AGAT's 9B-1103M seeker family may be offered to China. Russia is also the source for the missile's inertial navigation system and datalink.
The SD-10 has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the SD-10 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse.
The SD-10 is claimed to have an operational ceiling of 20 km, with a maximum effective range of 70 km and a minimum engagement range of 1,000 m. The missile has a 40 g manoeuvring limit and, according to CATIC, it has been tested for a 100-hour captive 'live flight' life.

Operational status

The SD-10 is not yet believed to be in PLAAF service, but is in an advanced stage of development and may have been released for operational test and evaluation with the air force. According to CATIC, the SD-10 can be carried by a range of aircraft including the J-7 (F-7), J-8 (F- and MiG-series fighters, or any Western aircraft that have been fitted with the missile's PF95 launcher and pylon. The obvious radar limitations of these aircraft make it clear that they will probably never be fitted with the SD-10, at least in Chinese service. While trials firings have probably been conducted using Shenyang J-8 testbeds, it is believed that the SD-10/PL-12 programme is intended, initially, to equip China's fleet of Su-27 (J-11) 'Flankers' as part of a wider nationally-sourced capability enhancement for the PLAAF's 'Flanker' force.
The other potential applications for the SD-10/PL-12 in Chinese service are on the Chengdu J-10 next-generation combat aircraft now under development, perhaps the upgraded Shenyang J-8M 'Finback' and the CATIC FC-1/Super 7 lightweight multirole combat aircraft being developed jointly by China and Pakistan. During 2001 officials at Pakistan's National Development Complex confirmed that the NDC was conducting study/development work on a new active-radar missile programme, a possible reference to the SD-10. Certainly the most prominent 'public appearance' of the SD-10 to date has been on the full-size mock-up of the FC-1/Super 7. Pakistan has established a national production line for the Italian Galileo Avionica (formerly FIAR) Grifo 7 multimode fire-control radar at its Kamra Avionics and Radar Facility. A version of the Grifo radar (Grifo S7) is being developed for the FC-1/Super 7, and the Grifo is already fitted to Pakistan's Chengdu F-7PGs. In July 2002 Galileo Avionica confirmed that it would be offering the latest development of the Grifo radar, the Grifo 2000/16, as a candidate radar for the J-10 once its entered the production phase. Galileo Avionics describes the Grifo 2000/16 (originally designed as a radar for F-16 upgrades) as a modern, modular, multimode radar with enhanced air-to-air capabilities that is compatible with modern BVR missiles.


Specifications

Length: 3.85 m
Body diameter: 203 mm
Wing span: n/k
Launch weight: 180 kg
Warhead: HE fragmentation
Fuze: Active proximity fuse
Guidance: Inertial mid-course and /or datalink updates, with active radar terminal homing
Propulsion: Solid dual-thrust rocket motor
Range: 70 km (in a head on engagement)


Contractor

China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corp (CATIC), Beijing."

centurychina.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/p.....V=1&p=

• 1Ovo se svidja korisniku: nabil05
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

regarding the actual detection of fighters -- the airbases are so close to each other that both countries already have the survellance on each others fighters on these bases due to the help of awacs --- detection time thus in practical sense is equal

the point that i continously make is how do you jump to so many negative conclusions regarding jft and its bvr without even knowing the actual specs of the radar , sd10, actual rcs of the fighter etc --- and i try to post some data which i find and its convenietly sidelined as i dont have an approval stamp on that info from janes

the specs of klj7 -- poster from the company , specs of paf site both are posted in the jft info pool thread ... will dig them out for you in some time--- however these published stats are easily available
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/94.....ost1900913

edit-- the above thread is a good thread to go through