crobatoOriginally posted by vikasrehman
crobatoWhat’s ur opinion regarding rumours about FC-1A…with increased wing area and increased number of hardpoints etc.?
Bear in mind that AFM reported sometime last year that first batch of pakistani FC-1 (60-80 units) will be air superiority oriented. This was later confirmed by a high level official from PAF, which indicated that further modification may indeed b made to later batches.
BTW Pakdef put pl-9 (AAM) in PAF inventory???
I’m not confident about the rumors of the increased wing area. That’s going to require a redesign of the airframe and more testing. This does not fit into the schedule of deployment I’ve seen. The additional time and cost of development means it will be just be cheaper to sell the J-10 to the PAF.
To have the first batches or so to be mainly air superiority based is only natural. It fits pretty much follows all the deployment patterns of new fighter types around the world since it takes a longer time to successfully integrate air to ground weapons. This does not mean however that the aircraft cannot use unguided air to ground munitions.
But with precision bombing, you don’t really need a high payload. High payload is only for carpet bombers. You can extract similar effectiveness with guided missiles and LGBs; a TV guided missile of the Maverick class is only about 300kg, and when you carry about four of them that amounts to 1200kg. You’re not even halfway the FC-1’s total payload of 3800kg. LGBs are usually of the 250kg and 500kg class.
The AGM integration will have to be sorted out in the Pakistani side with Grifo, as the Chinese will have their own seperate integration issues using their own ingrown radar or a foreign radar of their choice.
crobatoThe SU-27SM upgrade only requires the addition of new electronics. It retains the old antenna as well as much of the old electronics too. That’s why it’s also called a hack. That also make the upgrade cheap and easy to perform.
The MiG-29 upgrade however, requires changing the entire antenna and radar system. The changes are more radical, and therefore, more expensive as well.
The interesting thing however is that the Zhuk on the MiG-29SMT may outperform the N001VE of the SU-27SM upgrade in terms of multiple target tracking and engagement, and the ability to resolve targets on the ground.
1 million bucks for the Zhuk? Maybe that’s a reason why the J-8IIs and the J-10 didn’t to go for the Zhuk as well.
crobatoR-73 weighs about 85kg, same as the AIM-9 series.
Yes, the J-8II can carry up to tix PL-8s under the wing if needed, although the innermost pylons are usually reserved for fuel tanks or the PL-11.
Oh the JH-7, the wingtip can carry the PL-5E, but not anything else, and the next pylon after that can carry the PL-8.
PL-8s are not allowed for export but PL-9s are. Pakistan already has the SAM based version of the PL-9.
For the FC-1, the wing tip pylon should be able to carry either PL-5s or PL-7s, which is the clone of the Matra Magic.
The next pylon after that should be able to carry the PL-8, PL-9 or SD-10.
the innermost pylon should be able to carry all PL-11 and fuel tanks. I think if they ever decide to use YJ-91 (Kh-31) and YJ-83 (C-803) on this plane, these missiles would go into these pylons.
crobatoOriginally posted by PhantomII
Thanks for answering some of my questions GD.I must say I have doubts as to whether the PL-8 and PL-9C will be light enough to be carried on the wingtips.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Israeli F-16 with Python-3’s on the wingtips.
Anyone care to clarify?
And when you look at that photo of the mock-up JH-7 the PL-8 it has on the “new” hardpoints isn’t present on the wingtip, but rather a PL-5 is there.
Munir,
You’re kidding me right?? FC-1 as stealthy or better than the JSF? That’s such a stupid question because you know the answer, and it is no. The FC-1 won’t be nearly as stealthy as the JSF. The JSF has that in its design. The FC-1 may exhibit a few LO (Low Observable) features, but it will be by no means a stealth airplane in the light of the F-35.
PL-8s and PL-9s are heavy missiles for a short range IR type. They nearly weigh as much as some of the smaller BVRAAMs. At 115kg they weigh considerably more than the 85kg that is standard on missiles like the R-73, the AIM-9, and also the PL-5E.
Even on the J-7s, the PL-8s cannot be carried on the outboard wing pylon. Only in the inner wing pylons. Only the J-8II is tough enough to carryt he PL-8 on the outboard pylon.
The FC-1 should have lower observability than a J-7 or a J-10, the other two CAC products.
crobatoThe J-11 in this CFTE pic is probably the same one testing the WS-10 engine.
crobatoIn the water front, DDG 168 finally got its AshMs—C-803s in 16 launchers.
crobatoOriginally posted by GoldenDragon
The quoted range is surprisingly low though. Most estimates of the PL-11 I’ve seen were around 30-50 miles or 50-80km which is comparable to the Aspide.
This is a classic case of numbers being fussed up and figures that were not fully understood.
The 20 to 25km quoted for the LY-60 SAM is Slant Range. It’s only appropriate for use with SAMs because it means the range of the missile from the ground to its target in the air, with a trajectory shaped like a slant.
That of course requires far more energy that if the missile is fired air to air.
If it’s air to air, the ranges should at least double to triple, depending if it’s ballistic, pursuit or head on.
IR missiles, perhaps fired on a head on aspect, can be as much as 25km. But from the pursuit aspect, it should be as short as only 5 to 10km.
crobatoBlue Vixen seems to be like an APG-66 derivative.
Thales appears to be a downsized derivative of the RDY radar on the Mirage 2000-5, just as the ELM 2032 is the downsized variant of the 2035 originally meant for the Lavi, and the Kopyo is for the Zhuk.
As for personal choice I don’t have enough specifications or testing data to provide a good answer.
If it’s just for export, the burden of the marketing actually falls upon the radar makers themselves to convince the platform buyer that their systems are the best. It’s really a whole new ballgame.
Pakistan has already pretty much made its choice on the Grifo, so no need to go even more.
For the PLA choice that’s even more complex. Ideally, the PLA should choose their own country’s product as part of their patriotism and support for the home market. By keeping purchases in country, they can control the architecture and the technology, and this is better in the long run for security.
I see two possible alternatives.
1.) A more compact radar based on the NRIET Type 1471 used on the J-8II Block 2. The Type 1471 radar may be the first to be certified for SD-10 (J-8IIs equipped with this radar are the ones testing the SD-10.)
2.) A more advanced version of the JL-7 radar by LETRI (aka Institute 607). LETRI supplied the original JL-7 radar for the J-7III, the JL-7A radar for the J-7D, J-7E and the J-8E, and a new planar array radar (JL-7B?) for the J-7G. LETRI has supplied the multimode JL-10A radar for the JH-7s also.
However, I have not detected any concrete signs that such radars are being or has been developed. because the FC-1 was a dark sheep in the PLA’s eye for a long time, it may not have generated enough interest or initiative for the Chinese radar makers to develop a whole new set for it, given that these radar makers are also busy (maybe too busy) with so many other projects, and thus may only have limited intellectual resources to spare.
Its only likely that the Chinese radar makers will devote their resources in making a domestic radar if there are clear signs for a firm order by the PLA for a plane and in significant volume to make the project worth it. In such a case, the PLA would have ordered initiation of such a project and even fund it.
I think this is the reason why CAC (Chengdu AC) is looking at foreign sources. The ELTA 2032 is a mature and developed set, which is good for prototype testing use since you don’t mix two new unknowns together in one package. I suspect CAC has used these radars for testing on J-10 prototypes and are simply reusing what they already got, as the J-10 project have moved to the next phase.
But it is the final selection that is even more complex. The PLAAF interest on the FC-1 is conditional if it can be made into a flexible multi mode multirole aircraft. Since the decision may have be made as soon as next year, that rules out indigenous products for a while.
Because of the Phalcon incident, use of the ELM 2032 on the PLAAF can be ruled out. This leaves you with the Thales and the Grifo, the latter with its Pakistan connection and encouragement. The Thales is interesting since the PLA is no stranger to French products, given the French influence on the Chinese Navy, on helos like the Z-9 (Dauphin) and on SAMs like the HQ-7 (Croatale).
But I suspect CAC may go Russian due to MiG’s influence or advicement. The SD-10 appears to be have a Chinese seeker as leaked to Dr. Fisher of the neocon think tank, but I suspect its datalink is Russian or has Russian help. The primary motive of using a Russian link is to help make the missile compatible with Russian fire control systems also, such as with the Russian made aircraft with the PLAAF. In this case, the Phazotron Kopyo has the heads up in integrating the SD-10 and can support the R-77, and the R-73. As the radar is also multirole, it can also support missiles like the Kh-31 and Kh-29 already with the PLAAF and used on the MKKs. The particular radar being pushed for the FC-1 is the Kopyo-F, which uses a small phase array, also known as Super Komar. In one air show, brochures of this radar has the mockup picture of the FC-1 plastered all over it.
crobatoPII,
Once again, where is the evidence? That page you shown, which is a fan page by the way—only mentions compatibility with AMRAAM. Since this is but a fan page, you can also consider this wishful thinking.
Stick to the facts, not the wishes.
* The US has not authorized or certified the use of AMRAAMs on the F-5Es.
* The US and LM has not authorized nor released the launch and software codes for the AMRAAM for use on the Grifo.
* As far as I know, most foreign radars are incompatible to AMRAAM, the one exception being the Marconi Blue Vixen, which is based on the APG-66 anyway. The software code running the AMRAAM support mode is a highly guarded top secret which not even close US allies are privy of.
You might as well say that the FC-1 may also be AMRAAM compatible since the same Grifo (and a far more advanced one as such) is going to the FC-1. The Grifo on the FC-1 has 24 modes while the one on the F-5S only has 10.
What makes you think with the very small radar, that you can use the AIM-120 to its fullest potential?
You keep refering to websites. Where? Another fan website? Don’t you know how to look into professional defense journals and publications? Find me an actual press release such as from Lockheed Martin. Give me something with factual authority, not presupposition and wishful thinking.
crobatoThe Blue Vixen is also among the radars evaluated for export FC-1s. This is mainly due to GEC-Marconi’s strong relationships in China, as they had supplied AEW radar to Y-8s and had worked the Super Skyranger radar for the F-7MG. However, the latter project didn’t seem to succeed.
The other competiting radars are the Thales RC-400, the Grifo S-7, the ELTA 2032, and the Kopyo-F Super Komar. It seems that the Blue Vixen quickly fell off the list, while the Thales went to the top.
crobatoOnce again, over and over—and I have mentioned this months ago, as early as 2002, when you see pictures like this—its only the AL-31FN with different power settings.
Repeat after me, the vanes can open and close, open and close.
crobatoWrong, PII. The Singapore F-5s are not authorized to fire AIM-120. As far as I know, the authorization codes and the software has not been authorized by the US State Department to be given to Grifo, or any foreign radar contractor for that matter. (Especially to a company like Grifo that has links to Pakistan and China.) I ask if you have a direct and formal announcement or press release to back up what you said. Potential does not cut it.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6547/f5s_changes.htm I don’t see any changes in the armament.
And what is the point of using the AIM-120 anyway on the F-5? The missile can fly much farther than the radar range.
In addition to that, having the guns in the nose is truly a lousy place to put radar, where gun vibrations are uncomfortably close to the radar.
Even with AIM-120s, there would still be aerodynamic effects. The F-5 isn’t one of those light fighters that was designed to carry a BVR missile, like the LCA, the Gripen, the F-CK-1 and the FC-1 is, or host a sufficiently large radar to make use of it. At least the FC-1 can still carry a 600mm to 650mm diameter antenna, good for a radar like the Kopyo-F Super Komar that can engage targets 75km distant.
What is illogical is your crusade to make it look like dressing up an F-5 should make it viable for today’s modern combat. It isn’t. It’s a nice plane but like J-7s, all planes with smallish radar got no place in modern BVR combat. Not even with AWACS as there is no assurance that the AWACS would be there when you need it or its scanning attempts would be thwarted by ECM. In other words, your plane must be able to operate autonomously when the situation calls for it.
Taiwan is the country that has the most interest and potential in upgrading their F-5s. They got the money, and they have the technical resources to do so with the GD-53 radar and the TC-2 missile. 90 of their planes have the enlarged nose capable of a larger radar. And they certainly have the threat motivation.
But they didn’t. When all the decisions were made, it came down to a single decision that said it wasn’t worth it.
crobatoOriginally posted by A-29
Yes crobato i agree with you, only in close combat the original F5 is capable.
Two years ago, we have exercised with the French Mirage 2000 and in bvr combat we lost all fights but in close ones, we gave them a hard time.
You know that we are currently upgrade our F5s giving them BVR capability, so this will be no longer a problem, as we will have the possibility to “fight” in real conditions with a good survival rate.
Regards
Your F-5 BVR capability won’t get very far because you have a small antenna. It is not about having or not having BVR capability but how good is that capability. If you’re BVR is only good for engaging 40 to 50km while the other guy can engage you at 100km, you still are the loser.
Counting that you will get close to take a shot at your opponent (which will only give you 50 to 50 chance as he will shoot at you too) is wishful thinking and wishful thinking has no place with serious military planners.
Add to this is that the F-5 isn’t aerodynamically designed or optimized for BVRAAMs because it wasn’t in its original mission statement. There is a picture in this forum of the LCA in a very early wind tunnel form with Super 530s—this is an excellent example of a light fighter that was designed from the onset to carry larger BVRAAMs. The FC-1 is like that too, intended to carry a missile like the SD-10 from the onset. But not the F-5 in relation to US BVR missiles like the Sparrow. The F-5 is a barndoor if it tries to carry things like a Sparrow—larger missiles tend to have stronger aerodynamic effects relative against small airframes which is why the development of new small fighters should spend a great deal of time testing missiles and external loads.
crobatoMaking a mountain out of molehill again.
The vanes in the outlet can close or open, close or open. There are pictures of Flankers with the nozzles both open and closed, including those in the PLAAF, and it does not mean that the engine has been changed.
There is a ring around the nozzles if you notice, and the earlier edition of the AL-31FN appears to have a wider silver band compared to the later planes. You can see this in the picture you provided. But it does not mean its WS-10A but more like variations between the production AL-31FN vs. the prototype AL-31FN that equips J-10 1003.
crobatoYou are a liar.
You claim that the CAC website has no mention of FBW when it is a straight fact that it does.
You are deliberately misquoting an article—which is really a summary—distorting that an omission of statement is an omission of feature. Read that particular article you quoted—it said ‘index’ on the address. It was only a short summary, not intended to be a complete one, intended only as an index.
Then I showed you CAC’s formal statements about the FC-1’s first flight. It is right in the same website and just as easy to find.
Sign In
