CAT1Nice pics of the JF-17 in action at Izmir:)
CAT1This report sheds some more light on the SD-10’s operating modes……….
ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2010
Defence Weekly
China’s SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM.
Robert Hewson Air-Launched Weapons Editor – Zhuhai, China
China’s SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, understands.
Officials from the SD-10’s manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.
There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service.
The SD-10 – the current production version is the refined SD-10A – has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the Pakistan Air Force.
In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade.
What has remained unspoken until now is the missile’s claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile’s own active seeker modes.
A LOEC official told that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile’s primary targeting mode and cited the risks to friendly aircraft of relying on passive guidance alone. It is not clear if the SD-10A’s seeker can continually alternate between active and passive modes in flight or if it makes a less sophisticated ‘one time’ switch.
In the past, Russian sources have given a detailed account of the assistance supplied by Russian design bureaus in the development of the SD-10. A LOEC official hinted that this co-operation is continuing when he noted: “We [LOEC] have the capability to make the seeker ourselves, but obviously we want it to be the best it possibly can.” He confirmed that the missile still relied on some unidentified components that were sourced outside China.
Within Russia the AGAT Design Bureau has developed several dual-mode seeker designs which it only began discussing in public in 2009. Senior AGAT officials have remained vague when asked by about who paid for these development programmes, noting only that there is no Russian application and no Russian state support for them.
During the 1990s China also gained access to the 9B-1032 passive seeker developed by Avtomatika for the Vympel R-27P (AA-10 ‘Alamo’) AAM. A melding of these two design inputs might explain how China arrived at its SD-10 seeker design. According to a LOEC official, the dual-mode capability was designed into the SD-10 from its inception.
An SD-10A missile (underwing) is part of the weapons suite of a Pakistan Air Force JF-17 at November’s Airshow China.
CAT1A recent report on potential new SAMS……….
Pakistan Air Force to Purchase 4 Chinese SAM Systems
In an interview with the Global Times newspaper, Rao Qamar Suleman, air chief marshal of the Pakistan Air Force has confirmed the rumors that Pakistan Air Force will purchase up to four Chinese Surface-to-Air Missiles to meet its airdefence needs.
Air Chief Marshal Rao Suleman has said that Pakistan air force is evaluating, different Chinese surface-to-air missiles for the purchase of 3 to 4 SAM systems. One of the systems under evaluation is “HQ-18″surface-to-air missile system.
As per Jane’s Defence weekly Hong Qi-18 (HQ-18) surface to air missile system is Chinese version based on the S-300 that is also known as SA-12A “Gladiator”. HQ-18 system has a range of 100 km and it can be used against short-range ballistic and cruise missiles as well as against aircraft.
Another surface to air missile that may be under consideration is China’s indigenously developed HQ-12 / KS-1A SAM. These surface-to-air missiles are available with two engagement radars H-200 phased array radar and SJ-231 phased array radar.
The SJ-231 radar system for the KS-1A/HQ-12 SAM system is based on the on the HT-233 PESA engagement radar which is associated with the advance Chinese surface-to-air missile system HQ-9 / FD-2000. SJ-231 is a self propelled radar.
Cortesy:Global Times/PMR
CAT1So what you are saying is you selectively pick and choose what you believe. Thats what Black Archer pointed out & you seem to concur.
Ok, then do you agree with the final statement as well?
Err ….. no I don’t selectively pick and choose what to believe and how you reached the conclusion that I seem to ‘concur’ is beyond me. Perhaps you should just read the posts again.
I already said I agreed with the point about not catching up in a previous post …..ditto to reading those posts agian.
Now, lets see the actual details as they stand. Currently, the IAF’s BVR armed fleet is:
60+ MiG-29s (R-27), now being upgraded to R-77
50+ Mirage 2000 H’s (Super 530D) now in negotiations for Mica IR/IM
120+ Su-30 MKIs (R-27, R-77)
120+ MiG-21 Bisons (R-27, R-77)So, 350 aircraft in the IAF today, BVR capable.
Now tell me how many aircraft in the PAF are BVR capable? 18 F-16s…the first four F-16 upgrades are to arrive in December. And even here, the PAF has reportedly (at least going by earlier pronouncements) signed up for around 20-30 MLU kits for the 46 F-16 A/B legacy fleet.
Now by which time, will the PAF get more BVR capable aircraft. AFAIK- even the first 30 JF-17s are not yet BVR capable.
By the time the PAF actually acquires significant BVR capability (beyond a couple of showpiece squadrons), the IAF will have added its remaining 150 Su-30 MKIs, completed its upgrades for its older aircraft, and begun inducting its next tranche of BVR capable fighters including the MMRCA, LCA etc and even begun with the Su-30 upgrades.
So tell us, how exactly is the PAF going to match or even field a proportional force equal to the IAFs, when, as the recent Wikileaks statements show, even paying for existing contracts has been delayed & the PAF leadership itself admits that affordability is a big issue (dont offer us equipment we cannot afford to the US). Second, Wikileaks notes the US professional evaluation that it will take 2-3 years for the PAF to even get some proficiency with BVR tactics. So its not just getting the equipment.
Financing these systems as I noted previously will continue to be a challenge. Pakistan, per Wikileaks, is behind on payments for the JF-17, Swedish AWACS and even the F-16s. So despite all the magazine articles about a 150-200-250-300 JF-17 force, where is the money, for rapid induction & operationalization.
In contrast, they note the IAF has been training and operating with the BVR for a long time. India acquired its BVR weaponry in the 80’s and has been updating and modernizing since then as well. Such institutional knowledge in depth, transferred across multiple squadrons and crew is missing in the PAF.
It was the IAF’s soon to be boss who said the PAF was closing the gap — is he not aware of the overwelming power of the IAF – as detailed above -he is about to command. O sorry – he must have said it in some ‘context’ ie not realy true — but everything PAF officials said in wikileaks can never have any ‘context’ and can be the gospel truth only. Is that about correct?
I would also suggest that you stop worrying about the PAF paying for its equipment. Despite everything you refer to from wikileaks have you seen ANY delay in supply of F-16’s, JF-17’s and Swedish AWACS since your precious cables were sent? Actualy they have also picked up some aerial refuelers along the way – also just agreed another 50 JF-17’s on ‘fast track’.
CAT1If you have the answers post them. Generally thats what most folk do on this webboard rather than just alluding to a text.
TERPROM is more than just a digital moving map with terrain feature overlay – if you google for the details, you’d note it is an entirely passive system which is cross referenced with GIS data & is proprietary to a particular company – and it has been licensed for use even by the EF & if memory serves me correct, even the Rafale team. So, having a digital moving map & terrain overlay is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the ability to conduct a high speed low altitude flight plan, in a passive manner without tripping opponent EWS & RF detectors. And re: your automatic terrain flying bit, it might interest you to know about a public briefing by a certain firm which had clips of F-16s flying about without any pods & relying purely on preloaded database, integrated into the aircraft’s nav attack system.
So a picture of a SD-10 being fired from a prototype, is equal to delivered and operational capability.
Are you aware that R-77s were fired from a certain IAF aircraft several years back and there were even pictures to that effect, but I deliberately did not include that capability as operational on series aircraft. Perhaps your standards of reference are different, but I would tend to rely more on exhaustive evidence rather than googled pictures etc as they’d be more certain.Weren’t those same sources saying the FC-1 could pull 9Gs though PAC says 8G? Be as it may, so you admit the 2ft resolution on the V9 is better. Ok, have you also considered other facets of performance as ECCM, operating modes, user friendliness & the like. Since you set a lot of store by anecdotal evidence, let me point out that this generally where US equipment, according to certain ME evaluators who have had exposure to various equipment, including PRC, continue to have an edge. Of course, upto you to consider it. Coming to KLJ-7 production, that is indeed a valid point, but then again – if that was the single discriminator, why was the PAF even considering the RDY3 and Mica combo..
My point is pretty simple. The PAF would like to put its best foot forward to go beyond the rather messy issue of the French refusing to sell stuff to Pakistan, especially after a French official made his comments in India. Of course the PAF statement makes sense in that context. But speaking dispassionately, the evidence is actually counter to those statements, I’m afraid.
So, just because a guy “in the know” tells you or I the moon is made of green cheese, should we believe it. They too can make mistakes or even toe the official line. Its up to us to sort the wheat from the chaff.
So whats your point here Teer?
So the BVR may not have been integrated at this moment in time along with a bunch of other items. We know that various weapons / pods are being integrated as we speak. We know that the PAF wanted to induct the type asap and do much of the integration after induction. The latest article by Alan Warnes confirms the PAF’s attitude of continuing the momentum of rapid induction on fast track — dealing with any shortfalls later with system development catching up — does that make this a bad fighter? Does that mean it is not going to have BVR capability?
Does the PAF considering / comparing and evaluating none Chinese weapons options make Chinese options automaticaly inferior?
With regard to the Chinese meeting the requirements – you have to love the logic — a senior PAF official says something you don’t like – so it must have been said with some ‘context’ ie not realy true.
You are more than keen to compare the capabilities of mature / modern western fighters against a developing type like the JF-17 — I wonder how your beloved LCA compares with these same western aircraft. The same western fighters that India is about to spend alot of hard cash on. Perhaps thats one for the IAF thread.
CAT1As things stand, it is the Tejas which has seen more upgrades & most importantly, unlike the reliance of the JF-17 project on external (from the Pakistani perspective) suppliers, like China and France (which backed out) and they are now looking to Italy, most of the critical avionic systems on the Tejas are designed and developed, locally.
The software, hardware integration rigs are inhouse. Hence, upgrades have already occurred and will continue to do so. The Tarang RWR on original Tejas gave way to the integrated EW suite with internal jammer. The 386 card based MC was upgraded to 486 and then replaced by the Open Architecture Computer, which combines the functions of MC, DMG and Video functions with a PPC processor. The aircraft did not have AP capability – one was added over the development. Most Tejas derived avionics are being used on other upgrades as well (EW and Mission computing etc), and even other systems including its Environmental and Cooling system (used for MiG-27 and Jag upgrades) apart from avionics.
The entire engineering design data is in India’s hands and control hence upgrades are more possible for India. Coming to a stable production line, there is already a line in India which is being expanded at HAL.
At the end of the day, this is an abinitio line, not a licensed assembly one which means it takes more time to set up, but the degree of control and customization that India can do is far more.
We know why Tejas has more upgrades – because the IAF keeps rejecting it. As for JF-17’s reliance on foriegn sources — current roadmap projected for 80% in country production share with possibility to go to 100% after initial 150 units – so I wouldn’t worry too much.
CAT1But how is it true. As noted previously, the avionics are not on par as the F-16 does have the edge across multiple criteria.
I quote my reply to redgriffin about where the JF-17 lags.
The weblinks are the in the original post Number 965 on previous page.
Don’t know what you’re going on about since I never said JF-17 is as good as F16block52.
CAT1what I find interesting is that you found it very interesting (and thereby brought his reference into this thread for the first time) when the same Air Marshal NAK Browne stated that PAF was achieving parity in some areas but would not catch up, as if that statement proved anything..
but when he stated that the LCA was superior because of the technology it uses, it suddenly seems like his opinion doesn’t really matter and it proves nothing..
😀 strange.
The only thing which is strange is your interpretation. As already posted twice — his comment about LCA being superior is countered by his opposite number in PAF claiming the Jf-17 is superior – so which is correct?
So because I post and believe one — undisputed — comment from NAK Brown — I am automaticaly obliged to believe everything he says for ever more – even where it is disputed?? Strange indeed:D
CAT1he thinks that the JF-17 is inferior not because of source codes, but due to the difference in technology on board. Read the article again.
Does he give access to codes as a reason for LCA’s superiority or not? Perhaps you should read the article again — I quote from your post–‘ The airplane is our design, uses our software, and is fully under our control. I’m not sure what in the JF-17 is under the PAF’s control. What do you do if you don’t have access to codes,’
— hence my comment on the issue.
With regard to the other ‘reasons’ he gives – I repeat – a PAF cheif has made comments in reverse – claiming the JF-17 to be superior – it proves nothing. Unless of course someone can post truely independant sources giving views one way or the other.
CAT1oh and he said this too
Truely very interesting. 😉
I have read an equaly ‘interesting;)’ quote from a PAF Air Chief stating that the JF-17 is superior to the LCA (just don’t forget who brought up LCA in a PAF thread)– what does that prove?? Soon to be IAF Chief should know better than to think that China is going to hold back on source codes though – potential PAC workshare going possibly to 100% after PAF’s initail requirement of 150 units (on page 127 of the PAF book by Alan Warnes) and he thinks the type is inferior because PAF won’t have source codes??!!
CAT1Don’t you have it backwards…why would the PAF chief even want F-16’s if in truth the J-17 is better and cheaper?
What the IAF chief said is true..the PAF has closed the gap. They now have access to both BVR missiles and mid air refuellers which for about a decade was something only the IAF had. And it is also true that the PAF cannot hope to close the gap completely because of the difference in the respective budgets.
No I don’t have it backwards – my post clearly states that I am not stating the JF-17 is on par with the F-16block52. I agree with the rest of your post.
CAT1Have you ever seen any Air Chief saying we have a much superior air force already and no further purchases are needed.
IAF is learning from the USAF amongst others on how to sanction a larger budget for themselves.
Very fair point — but would this sort of logic also apply to ‘Chaudhry acknowledged that the Chinese JF-17 (another staple in the PAF fleet) is simply not comparable to the F-16 in terms of quality, particularly its avionics and weapons systems. ” in order to get the US to hand over the F-16’s and upgrade kits??
Don’t get me wrong I’m not claiming that the JF-17 is as good as the F-16C block 52 — only that perhaps his negative comments about the JF-17 should be seen in a similar context to which you are applying to the Indian Air Chiefs remarks.
CAT1Norman Brown who takes over the IAF command in a month or so has this to say –
“the asymmetry between the capabilities of both air forces was a certain amount in the past. That has somewhat [been] reduced now. The PAF is going in for a fast-track induction of beyond visual range air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions. These are things that actually tend to reduce the gap. But they won’t catch us up.”
Interesting comments;)
CAT1Saying that the JF-17’s avionics are on par with those of the F-16 – even if true – is not the same as saying the JF-17 is on par with the F-16.
The aims of the JF-17 project were to develop an agile,BVR fighter at relatively cheap price with local production input —- and regardless of whatever people with a vested interest in detracting from this fighter concoct to back up their ‘arguments’ — it has passed all of these key requirements with flying colours.
All due credit to PAF and CATIC for this success. The fighter is absolutely as good as it was intended to be — if not better — end of — and it will keep improving all the time – in line with addition of new (planned) capabilities — and rapid advancements in Chinese tech. Anybody who still thinks that the JF-17 is ‘just not good enough’ — suggest you get a copy of the super supplement with the July issue and have a read.
CAT124 page jf-17 supplement due out in a few days with the July issue of AFM. Do enjoy;)
Sign In
