crobatoIn regards to the J-10 doing that maneuver everyone is questioning in that video… it might have come from this video of a guy who made a J-10 radio-controlled model.
That really floored me.
J-10 with Chuck Norris on the controls :).
Apparently the J-10 model with the 3D TVC engine was the rage of the Joe Nall RC plane meet 2007. The plane was brought in from Germany.
crobatoAgree. I just wanted to note that there are some devices on the F-15 that help. Its not like the F-15 is an aerodynamic dinosaur.
With high AoA a design priority now, what the F-15 has isn’t helping. A high AoA enables the aircraft to point its nose deeper inside the turning circle, even if the main body follows a different path. Although this results in a loss of energy, the pointability gives you the opportunity to make that shot.
(If you want to LERX an Eagle, basically you would be arriving to something like a Flanker).
Yes, the F-15 recieved upgrades of course. But not as extensive as the F-16 in the A/A arena. You say its because of the larger numbers, I say its because the original Viper was limited. 😉
How extensive was those changes by the way. Adding support for Sparrows and AMRAAM looks like small potatoes for the APG-66. The greater changes was the addition of the air to ground modes for PGMs, which the APG-63 did not have until it was extensively overhauled with the APG-63V1 or replaced by the APG-70 in the Strike Eagle.
A/G is another matter, it wasnt required because there were other options. Note the F-15A had the same A/G capability as the F-16A.
Yes, but the F-16A Block 20 or MLU using the APG-66V2 or V3 has support for things like Harpoons and Mavericks.
crobatoThen go ahead if they want to tangle with all the F-16s and Mirage 2000s of the world, because even there, I have yet to see a convincing picture of the F-15’s superiority over the F-16 or M2000.
crobatoAll this started because of the F-14 in Top Gun.
Then there is the F-18 in Independence Day.
The F-16 in Iron Eagle.
The Apache in some Nicholas Cage movie.
The F-22 in the Incredible Hulk.
I didn’t watch Stealth, I don’t know what they used there.
It would be interesting to see what they would use for the Transformers.
crobatoThe Kh-22 is intended as an air to ground missile. I would not call that ability to home in on other radars as HOJ.
With air to air its different.
you can use that missile to home on reflections of its own emissions but it should also be able to detect other emitting sources (ie ARM) and also detect jamming sources as well (HOJ).
Why would you? A missile is mainly designed around a single intent, and that is to kill the target. It has no purpose being diverted or distracted by other things. Part of ECCM design, with an important priority for missiles, is to be able to ignore and be resistant to extraneous sources.
If a missile doesn’t filter extraneous information, a lot of strange things can occur, including homing in on another missile’s emission (imagine two AMRAAMs jamming each other and colliding) or homing in to another target that is already targeted by another missile, allowing your original target to escape and subsequently kill you. Or homing in on a friendly someone’s own radar. Or chase after a TV station. There is a reason why missiles have seperate channels. If four R-77s are launched by four different aircraft, each R-77 has a seperate working channel.
Not necessarily by design but if you wanted to there is no reason why such capabilities could not be incorporated.
Why would you want it to, when you can offer and sell a seperate missile design expressedly designed for that task?
(they certainly weren’t incorporated in the AMRAAM design, but then they have no passive homing missiles or IR guided BVR missiles either so why would they incorporate such things into AMRAAM. The R-27 family includes passive homing missiles, which is a seperate type (ie R-27P/R-27EP) but there is no reason why they couldn’t add that capability to the R-77 IMHO.
They could create a passing homing version of the R-77, but that’s different and that’s not the same as using the main R-77 as some sort of pseudo ARM. That’s why there are ARMs and there are AAMs in the first place.
crobatoThe last pic looks like a rather well done professional PS, considering that particular prototype never flew in Pakistan.
crobatoThe F-15 doesnt like rolling, so the F-16 clearly beats it there. But both are 9g planes.
The F-15 doesnt have LERX but the huge engine intakes help and also the wing roots.
Vortices are a tricky subject. One cannot assume just because of wing roots, you will have proper vortices. Even these layers have to carefully designed in wind tunnels and simulations. There is a big difference in the way it is shaped, in its cohesion and lamination, versus to the way it degenerates into turbulence (bad). Proper vortice formation and the way it flows over an aircraft without breaking up into something bad is not a product of design accident.
I certainly wouldnt dismiss the F-15s WVR capability. Since the F-16 was designed to act as the F-15s little WVR partner, it isnt really surprising it has some advantages there.
On the other hand, the F-15 has only seen limited avionics upgrades, while the F-16 of today is a completely different animal. One could say the F-15s systems simply didnt need that much upgrades. 😀
I cannot agree that the F-15 systems didn’t need upgrades. They do. F-16s upgrade more frequently and that is partly because they have a much larger installed base around the world, hence they face more diverse national requirements. Today, the air superiority only F-15C isn’t that much useful either, considering that since the sixties, the greatest threat to aircraft has been SAMs, and SAMs have killed more combat aircraft in the last four decades than air to air combat. The great majority of missions being run by airpower is directed against the ground or surface. Molded by modern and export requirements, something like the Slam Eagle is also a very different animal from the F-15A.
crobatoThe F-15 has twice the fuel load and the same engines as the F-16. So it has the same energy losses per kg of fuel than the Viper.
But it hasnt twice the drag, esp. not when loaded.
Its not about drag. Its about thermodynamics. The great majority of energy generated by an engine is wasted on heat and friction. Only a small amount actually ends up being used to do something useful.
crobatoOf course, the bigger and more powerful engine, the more fuel it would require. The impact cascades into every facet of the design.
crobatoIts not the tamper proof thats what you should be concerned about. Its basically finding out the waveforms and frequencies and the range and all the other stuff related to SIGINT. That much you can already learn. But then the US might package something that won’t reveal anything new besides what the Chinese may already know (and may already have a counter for).
crobatoIn the first place. this Aboulafia should recheck his information, since I doubt the US lets export F-16s to have the full EW equipment, especially to Pakistan where the Chinese can potentially look at that. There is going to be some downgrading or feature omission for sure.
crobatoZare,
I like to see your photographic analysis of PLAAF R-27ER if they are the AE model. If proven it makes a significant impact on the combat capability. All I know is that they have the longer range E models based on the length of the airframes but I cannot judge on the head because I don’t know how the AE head looks like.
There has been rumors that China has imported 9B-1103M seeker in connection to the SD-10 development. However, this seeker is also assocated with the R-27AE, which makes this an interesting coincidence.
To Garry
The Adders already have a home on jam feature so a seperate passive homing model might not be necessary… perhaps just a software upgrade would do…
Home on jam is veryu different from a passive mode. HOJ doesn’t work at all just because you have an ECM source. The ECM source has to be successful in jamming the missile in the first place to turn the missile into HOJ mode. If the ECM source is not successful, its still business as usual for the missile.
All SARH missiles, at least from the eighties up, have a HOJ feature. But to activate the HOJ feature is quite difficult because CWI (continous wave illumination) isn’t easy to jam and requires a specific method to counter it, to begin with the emission has to be in CWI itself with the right frequency. If you’re spoofing PRF modes, or a waveform or frequency different from the missile, it ain’t going to work. ARH missiles can be working either in high PRF or CWI. In other words, HOJ will only seek against a jammer that is specifically working to jam the missile’s guidance systems and has succeeded in doing so, beating the missile’s other ECCM measures. HOJ will not seek against a jammer that is working against your volume search radar for example, or trying to jam your communications.
True passive mode is something that works against an ECM emitter unconditionally. It emits, it attracts. So long as it confirms to the signal library, just to be sure you don’t go chasing after extraneous radio sources like TV stations.
crobatoWith regards to the Grifo.
I have not seen the Grifo S-7 mentioned lately. Its hard to quantify what is better or not. The talk about the ELTA 2032 is long gone and so is the Thales RC-400.
Whether or not, who can claim to make the better radar does not matter. What matters is who can test, certify and validate it. IMO, Grifo showed a cardboard mockup of the S-7 radar in airshows does not mean the radar itself physically exists or is electronically working. The process of developing, testing, integrating, certifying the radar will take years, and simply has no place in the current schedule.
On the other hand, as soon as PT04 came out, the plane had a radar, likely to be the KLJ-7. CAC had a year to test this radar, and compared to the Grifo, at least this radar is real and is physically working, not some proposal in paper.
If Grifo-7PG (the one on the F-7PG) is compared to the Chinese Type 226 used on the J-7E, the Grifo-7PG should be better. Against the SY-80 or KLJ-6E used on the F-7BG or J-7G, probably I would have more doubts.
Grifo S7 against KLJ-7? I would pick the latter because the former is nothing more than a paper project, filled with specifications, based on remodifying the Grifo S2000. The Chinese probably got a hold of the specifications then simply designed a radar exceeding those specifications.
In the end, I find unlikely that any export JF-17 or J-10 will end up with a radar other than Chinese because of the time and task of integrating a foreign radar does not match the cost to benefit, especially when the radars are of the same generation in electronics and scanning method. Certainly if you are still thinking of a mechanically scanned one. You have to think ahead, if i have to consider a foreign radar integration, you have to think AESA.
crobatoI fully agree with you. PAF should not acquire these thoroughly used F-16. However, I’d like to add here that PAF should not go ahead for any major deal with US at all. US has never been reliable and will never be. Instead of wasting time and money on F-16 procurement, PAF should pay full attention on JF-17 and other realted projects. PAF is somehow surviving on whatever assets it already has. Nothing will happen if they dont acquire F-16s MLU or even C/D because even the induction of these aircrafts is not going to turn the tide (balance of power with IAF) in PAF favor. Anyway, there are already signs that Congress and Senate now having majority of Democrats are not pleased with Pakistan’s role on its so called ‘war on terrorism’. It is just the matter of time when they’ll pass some amendment and all the cooperation or aid will be suspended just as it has been happening in past 40 or so years. PAF has to leave its obssession of US made aircrafts (no matter they are good) behind if they want to make some serious progress.
I quite agree with the MLU issue. The electronics part of the MLU is the cheap part, changing the radar, cockpits, etc,. No big deal. This will probably be along a few million. Its the airframe MLU that will cost an arm and a leg, perhaps as much as half to two thirds of a brand new airframe in flyaway cost (20 million). Used F-16s tend to show serious wear because they have been used very aggressively, and the F-16 has known structural issues. It is possible that the airframe MLU alone can cost more than a JF-17 in flyaway cost (12 million vs. 8 million). Add the cost of the electronics MLU, maybe around 4 to 5 million, and you’re approaching the flyaway cost of a brand new J-10 (est. 20 million plus).
crobatoWill China allow integration of Western Avionics on J-10? or what is being suggsted is that Chinese Avionics tailored for PAF requirements?
Another point I can think of is, what many have already suggested, PAF more and more geared towards J-10. They are also increasing numbers of JF-17s..seems like PAF wants the design to be locked and go on with the mass production and start the replacements asap.
F-16s and J-10s will add up on the quality and if China has really allowed J-10s to be equipped with Western avionics, someone give me a better package and I will shoot myself …I think this would be be most productive way of dealing with IAF.
The USN have been using the F-16As as aggressors in exercises. Even though well maintained, I really think the PAF should not try to get these aircraft, as they have been throroughly used and strained.
The USAF on the other hand got tons of F-16A/Bs with the Guards and reserves, and probably wont’ be as pushed. Compared to the F-16Ns which what have become of the PAF F-16s that went to the USN, the Air National Guard F-16s should already have some updates like Sparrow integration.
As for the integration of Western avionics, it sounds to me that the PAF is trying its best to give some share of the business to FIAR/Selex Grifo. There isn’t a lot of third party radar sets around which is open to selling to Pakistan without being protested by India. I can understand the political motivation to help FIAR/Selex, after all they stood up and supplied to the PAF when others are not willing. But attempting to customize a foreign set of avionics can cause an inevitable delay in development.
Sign In
