wow thats a lot of responses!
thanks guys, I knew you loved me 😀 (err.. maybe the Indian crowd doesn’t but no hard feelings just my thoughts).
I wish I had the time to answer everyone personally, which I hope to as soon as I get some time but I’m beat for today. I’ll just answer a thing or to from the last post:
Actually this is a fairly common type of ECM where you use a small phase array to steer an interfering beam at the target. The ECM pods commonly seen on the Su-27 and J-11 use this principle.
true, but notice those are pods rather than being integrated into the frame (or am I wrong here, I WONDER)
Domestic WS-10A might be heavier than AL-31FN, so that could add 100 to 200kg more per engine.
I did a small comparison on the RD-93 / WS-13 and, basically it turns out that the WS-13 might be slightly smaller as well (on a tangent, this could mean it was designed from the ground up for a fighter OTHER than the FC-1). Interestingly it is still heavier and yet gives more dry thrust and even afterburning thrust, while the latter not proportionately higher (all this if my figures are right). See my article’s section on the RD-93 / WS-13 comparison table for hypothetical percentage differences in various parameters.
On carrying a heavy missile. It should be noted that the TC-2 from the ROC is even heavier than the SD-10 by 20kg. Yet the Ching Kuos, fighters which are closely approximate to the weight and power of the JF-17 carry them well, and can carry as much as four. So SD-10s, even as many as four, should be not be bother on the JF-17.
The SD-10, despite its weight, should be fairly maneuverable. A large part of this is the sawtooth wings on the rear. Although this may create additional drag, it increases the control authority of the vanes so that less deflection is required to make a turn, and the lesser the deflection, the less drag it causes.
that is true but the PAF tends to ask for a higher standard than our Taiwanese brethren did for the IDF. And the PAF values maneuvreability more – notice how Taiwan prefers the mirage2k over the F-16, perhaps more of a slash attack general philosophy to the PAF’s. It remains that a heavier missile is less suited for a super light class fighter, and the PAF would probably prefer the AMRAAM not only because of this but also because the latter is a known quantity.
On the radar, the redesign of the nose to for the DSI meant an opportunity to make the nose larger, while reducing RCS through inward canted sloping. With the nose larger, that means a larger radar. It was for this reason Grifo followed up the proposal for the Grifo S7 with a bigger version of greater range. The original Chinese radar for the JF-17 may have been the smaller KLJ-6F (the KLJ-6E is used for the J-7G), but the revised version of the JF-17 could have called for a new and larger radar, which is probably the KLJ-7.
man, you notice everything don’t you. shoot I wish I had factored this in into my article 😮
IMO, the revamp of the plane, with LERX, DSI etc,. and on the electronics (cockpit, larger radar, EW/RWR/MAWS suite) has made the aircraft a much more serious threat and survivable aircraft, especially when compared to older fighters. The final element is the communication links, which is where the PLAAF and the PAF will differ. The PLAAF would surely use their HN-900 and Beidou links.
agreed, but I think the PAF would prefer the Beidou over the US GPS and I have a feeling the Beidou would very soon be able to provide the required coverage.
Sign In
