crobatoWell, they’ve allowed the AMRAAM to be integrated on the Gripen (Ericsson radar, i.e. a Swedish firm – not even a NATO country), Tornado, Sea Harrier & Typhoon. The Company Formerly Known as FIAR is now known as Galileo Avionica, & is part of Selex. The UK part of Selex, Selex S&AS, is the lead firm for the consortium making the Captor radar for the Typhoon, & under another name made the Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier, & IIRC the Foxhunter radar for Tornado.
Also, a version of the Grifo was offered as an upgrade for F-16s, including AMRAAM-equipped ones.
So there’s no doubt whatsoever that the company is allowed access to the AMRAAM launch codes. But I think it would need a permit for each integration, & that permission wouldn’t be automatic. It would depend on the customer, & whether a US company was bidding for the business & succeeded in lobbying for its Italian competitor to be shut out.
It’s not very convincing really. I have not found an authoritative source confirming that both F-5S and F-5T actually operational with AMRAAMs.
Not all F-16 upgrades are capable of AMRAAM, for example, ELTA offered an upgrade for the F-16 as well.
Furthermore, Northrop Grumman itself is offering its own ‘official’ upgrade for the F-5E, and there is no mention of support for AMRAAM.
http://www.seistl.com/pdf/F5_159_v1v4.pdf
NG has the contract to upgrade Norway’s F-5’s and no info ever that the upgraded Norwagian F-5s are AMRAAM compatible.
It is hard to imagine or see why NG’s own official upgrade got no AMRAAM capability while a third party unofficial upgrade got the capability, especially when both companies are competiting on the same market space.
Turkey, which has already been approved for the latest and most version of the AMRAAM for its F-16 upgrades, is not going for the FIAR upgrade of the F-5E but rather ELBIT’s. Which is strange decision if the FIAR upgrade is actually capable of using AMRAAM; the F-5S style upgrade would have made the Turkish F-5s compatible with the Turkish F-16s. The decision of use ELBIT swings the BVR usage to the Derby.
Even then, looking at the PDF given above, the locking range of the F-5 radar is so small that it is even smaller than the terminal seeker range of the missile!
Why even bother with the process of search and lock with your radar when you might as well turn the missile seeker on and let it find the target itself! In theory, you can fit any nonradar or small radar jet to do exactly just that with an ARH missile.
crobatoActually Singapore’s F-5’s do have an AIM-120 capability because it was part of the upgrade.
I’m not sure if the missiles are actually in country right now or not though.
I saw one mention in a webpage for that, but I have serious doubts on this. The upgrades are done by FIAR of Italy and uses a Grifo radar similar to the ones used on the F-7s. I have doubts that the US has permitted FIAR access to the launch codes and the software of the AMRAAM needed to do the integration process.
crobatoGuys you’re looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint.
First off some small nit picks I have. The top speed of the J-7 is not Mach 2.2, but rather about Mach 2.0.
F-5 tops out at about Mach 1.64 or so.
So about 1,350 mph compared to 1,085 mph. Not that either will go that fast for very long so top speed isn’t as big of an issue.
But acceleration and vertical maneuver does, and it favors the plane with more power.
Range wise I’m finding through various sources that the F-5 is the longer legged aircraft. I’ve found that combat radius for the J-7MG on a hi-hi-hi air-to-air mission is just over 500 statute miles. This is full internal fuel, three tanks, and two AAM’s.
With the F-5 loaded with full fuel and two AIM-9’s is 650 miles……same mission profile. (i.e. hi-hi-hi).
I never heard of an F-5 that actually does that.
Of course range isn’t the only performance factor. There’s also the multi-role capability that’s inherent in the F-5 and lacking in the F-7. The F-7 can carry a few unguided bombs and rockets and that’s it. The F-5 can carry bombs of various types (guided and unguided) plus missiles like the Maverick, and in a few cases the Shrike anti-radar missile.
However, suffers a tremendous reduction of combat radius as a result.
A small air force needs a multi-purpose jet because they can’t afford another type. The F-5 is clearly the better multi-role airplane.
I don’t doubt the F-7 has better dogfight performance, but that’s not the only thing you have to look at.
The F-5 is certainly no slouch in an air-to-air fight, and the F-7’s advantages in that area shouldn’t warrant a purchase over the F-5 when you need a tactical fighter for all missions.
No you are better off buying an F-16. F-5’s performance radius suffers dramatically once it starts carrying things. It’s called not having enough power.
The BVR thing? Are you kidding me? The Derby gives the F-5 a nice punch well outside the range of the PL-8 or PL-9 in the F-7’s case, and the Python IV gives the F-5 a weapon that’s better than the PL-8 and PL-9 which are based on the Python-III airframe. Not saying they are bad missiles, but the Python IV is one of the best out there by far for close-in off boresite dogfights. Then of course the F-7 doesn’t have a weapon that compares to Derby. Then there is the AIM-120 capability that Singapore’s F-5S and F-5T fleet has. Some BVR capability is better than none at all and none is what the F-7 has…..how can you ignore that?
If you want the J-7 to carry Python 4/5 and Derby, that has already been seriously offered by IAI’s ELTA, who has offered an upgrade package of such, using the ELTA M 2032, for existing J-7 customers.
Singapore’s F-5 does not have AMRAAM capability. The radars of these aircraft are from FIAR Grifo, siblings to the ones used on the PAF F-7s. FIAR isn’t licensed to provide the upgrades. If FIAR GRIFO can do it for the F-5E, it can do it for the J-7 as well.
The F-7 is just too limited an airplane in my opinion unless you only want a short-range point defense fighter. If you want a fighter that can perform that mission as well as have a limited BVR capability and be able to perform a wide variety of A/G missions, then an upgraded F-5 is a better bet.
Nonsense. The F-5 is just another point defense fighter. The radar is too small to provide a significant BVR capability, no better than the J-7 in size, and the combat radius is too short once it starts carrying more payload than two AAMs.
crobatoPhantom II, you forgot that the F7 is very ugly compared to the F5, especially any two seat variant or the Talon.
I mean… those planes are pretty useless as of now, so they need looks as a redeeming quality, and the F5 has plenty of those 😀
Nic
I actually find the J-7/MiG-21F body style to be quite nice and clean, unpretentious and businesslike, rakish at certain angles in flight. This is not to say that I also like the way the F-5 looks.
The old J-7 handles quite well too. A quote from another AFM’er
“By the way. CAC test pilot, Mr. Chiquing (I hope I spell it correctly) flying a F-7M won five of ten simulated combat against a Paquistani F-16A flew by a experienced pilot. The Paquistani pilot won three combats and two were inconclusive. After that Paquistani Air Force bought its F-7P.
Cheers
Pepe Rezende”
crobatoFirst off, it doesn’t have the range of the F-5, and obviously range is a good thing for any airplane to have. Secondly, it has a rather poor equipment fit in terms of radar, which is very short-ranged. It has a very limited air-to-ground capability, with no precision weapons unlike the F-5 which can carry an array of air-to-ground stores. This makes the F-5 much more versatile and therefore more cost effective.
The F-5 does not offer any range advantage over the J-7 when both are tanked. Don’t compare it with the MiG-21FL which does not a strengthened wing and wing wet points for tanks. Add to that the double delta winged J-7 has more space to put fuel (30 to 40% more) than the previous delta wing.
In terms of radar the F-5 does not offer any benefit either. The F-5 radar is extremely small and putting guns on the nose was a big mistake since it reduces the amount of space you can reserve for the radar. For that reason, the so called BVR capabilities is quite questionable when it comes to range.
The greater power and agility of the J-7 might be the only two significant things it has over the F-5, but these happen to be the two most crucial elements in ACM.
crobatoSeems like a flight sim to me. Some game perhaps. Nice HUD detail for a game.
crobatoAt least we know the J10 is real…. 😀
Good. You passed the test.
crobatoCrob,
What’s the latest on the J-8F and H programs? Have any D’s been converted to H’s or to the newer F standard?Also, if the aircraft can now carry a pair of Kh-31 anti-radar missiles (I assume in place of where the PL-11 would normally be carried), does it have any other air-to-ground weapons besides bombs and rockets. I realize with the Q-5, JH-7, and Su-30MKK there’s probably not a huge reason to have the Finback pounding the ground, but I was just wondering.
Do you have any idea how many J-8H or the more capable J-8F will be produced?
Like the Q-5, I find this little discussed airplane very interesting (if not for the least of reasons to its similarity in overall air-to-air performance to my favorite jet the F-4 Phantom).
To answer an old question which I failed to spot before—
Currently there are at least two regiments with J-8H but these are also mixed with -D models. some of which may have been upgraded to the H level of electronics but who can really tell.
There is one regiment with the J-8F model so far, but again so far, no other have been spotted.
J-8s of the 9th Division have been spotted (actually televised in CCTV) and they appeared to be getting an upgrade, suggesting that -D models are being upgraded to the -F model. It is very likely -H models will also be upgraded to the -F. No clues as to the numbers, but upgraded planes get a new black radome with electrostatic strips as part of the process so you can tell the upgrade visually. The old radome has a greenish tint and lack the strips.
The J-8H and allegedly the J-8F is said to be able to use the YJ-91, which is the Chinese copy of the Kh-31P (not the Kh-31P directly). The main distinguishing feature of the -H over the -D is the twin wing fences and the so called ARM capability, and the -F over the -H being the PL-12 capable radar. Dunno much about the engines but I presume they are using the newer WP-13Bs or BIIs (over 7000kg afterburning) or even the WP-14 Kunlun (7500kg).
crobatoHere is an interesting pic.
crobatoAerial pictures of the J-10 posted by OverLordUSA at CMF.
I won’t give it much credit. This is an old picture of the J-10 that has been rehashed, resized, reangled and rebackgrounded to look new, but it really is not.
Given the flight patterns, the canard and aileron deflection angles are all wrong, because they are in take off position. Which is what the original old picture was.
crobatoIs there anywhere you can buy that? Put me in line.
crobatoI would suspect that this adjective was added simply to make a distinction between the PRC (which is still led by the Communist Party, aka the reds) and Taiwan. In this context, it does not seem to be a derogatory terms to me !! At least that is the way I took it when reading the text.
The old terms used to be ChiComs and ChiNats.
Besides the UH-60s still operating is somewhat older news.
crobatoThe Gripen?
And Lavi too? Where did the Israeli input on the J-10 go? Why the Lavi has wing tip missiles but the J-10 doesn’t?
One of those things you got to ask the J-10 design team. Much of the team also designed the FC-1 and it got wing tip missiles.
crobatoYou can do things like running coolant (fuel or refrigeration) or circulate air under the skin.
What you can’t hide is the thermal signature of the exhaust, which is going to be thermally visible against the cold air of the sky as a line.
crobatook…as i have said i have seen a movie of F-7s in Pakistan when they were under evaluation. Would it not be easy for PAF to fly the F-16 against F-7 in Pakistan than to take an F-16 to China and risk US displeasure? Especially when the whole episode is not discreet (i mean if a brazilian air force sees a PAF F-16 in China then things are not discreet). Remember 1988 was the time when PAF had another 71 F-16s on order. Would not be very intelligent to send an F-16 over all the way to China when F-7s are coming to Pakistan for flight trials.
I repeat what i said fly offs between Pakistani and Chinese pilots were not part of F-7 evals. And PAF decision to get F-7s was not driven by any F-7 win over F-16s. The two aircraft are a class apart, given the choice any air force will swap its F-7s for F-16s (even the earliest blocks). Before the crux of my earlier post gets lost in this exchange i will just repeat the main points,
1. F-16s were not sent to China for a fly off
2. Any F-7 win against F-16 did not lead to a decision to buy F-7s
3. Above does not mean that F-7 cannot win in a DACT against China or Chinese pilots are not good.
Pre Tianammen, the attitude of the US to China is very different. China in fact was being pursued as a potential F-16 buyer but cannot afford so. Even then the J-8II Peace Pearl upgrade was to fit the APG-66 (the F-16A’s radar) into the J-8IIs.
I don’t think however that China has any F-16 post Tianammen.
Sign In
