PLA-MKIII don’t know why Tomcat’s post was deleted or if he deleted it himself, but I think what he was talking about was ITR vs. STR.
Even if we assume (and this is questionable and can be argued otherwise) that the ITR of the F-7G is less than that of the F-5E but the STR is superior (which is without a doubt). This alone does not mean that the F-5E will be superior to the F-7G.
PS: Ignore the troll, he’s the Mod’s privileged court jester.
PLA-MKIII think Greece will canibalize them, that at least part of the fleet will keep flying.
better to sell them to stave off bankruptcy. There are a lot of countries right now looking for military gear.
PLA-MKIIIt would be interesting if Greece was willing to sell some of their military hardware for cash. F-16s, M-2000s, frigates, submarines, C-130s / C-27s… S-300? Lots of stuff that countries could be interested in, for the right price.
PLA-MKIIyou said it yourself
so this wasnt the usual 200 hour/year rookie,
600 hours is suggested as required for a pilot to reach professionalism,
this DACT veteran was likely over that, its a given he will beat F-16 rookies on a regular basis no matter what he is flying
That’s a good point, and one that I agree with. The point still remains that the F-5 is still capable enough to be used that way. My point wasn’t gauging how far exactly the F-5 is vis-a-vis the F-16, but rather how it would compare with the J-7G.
The veteran pilot does not say he beat rookie pilots. He gives a full assessment of the F-5, the F-16, the F-15, MiG-29, F-35. His evaluation of the F-5E is clearly very positive, he likes the plane and how it can be utilized in wvr, even with its limitations that he explains.
PLA-MKIIAs the Russian test pilot puts it, it and run and BVR will be the only safe options.
Hi Tomcat VIP, I think you’re confusing the F-7G with the MiG-21. Very different aerodynamics.
As the PAF related link suggests, the pilots were impressed with its high alpha, and its close in maneuverability are considered close to the F-16.
Perhaps you are amazing at eyeballing aerodynamics, but it would make more sense to go with the evaluation of the PAF pilots don’t you think? By the way, the T-38 does have somewhat different aerodynamics than the F-5E…
Thanks however for your thoughtful response.
A good measure of a wing’s lifting efficiency is at high alpha, a regime that the PAF pilots have learnt to perform in almost as an art form. What better than to pace the MG through a slow speed loop? Normally, a safe entry speed for a loop would be between 800-900 kph (at 15,000 AMSL) on the F-7P. In the absence of any guidelines on a slower version of the manoeuvre, it was decided to try 700 kph at first. The MG went through smoothly without any hint of judder or slip at the top. With full faith in the leading edge flaps, the next loop was performed at 600 kph. Again, the same results were achieved and the aircraft went through a perfect loop without any jitter or judder. At lower altitudes it might do even slower and better, but airspace limitations at Chengdu did not permit low level aerobatics.
Several flights followed the first check of the aircraft’s aerodynamic efficiency. It was a most pleasant surprise to note that the turn rates were nearer to the F-16 at medium to high altitudes and, were exactly as advertised. A 33% improvement over the F-7P at 5,000’ AMSL, 50% at 10,000’ and 66% at 20,000 would certainly call for an end to the “supersonic sports plane” sobriquet that dogged its forerunners.
PLA-MKIIOkay, so we know that the F-5 could give F-16s a “run for its money” from the following account by a veteran DACT pilot:
F-5E/F: Getting selected to the aggressors was a huge deal for me and what I wanted to do after my initial fighter assignment. In those days, it was rare for a young punk like me to get a second consecutive Eagle assignment unless one went to either Luke AFB or Tyndall AFB to be an F-15 IP. The aggressor pilot selection process was competitive, so I felt pretty good about the opportunity. We had no two-seat F-5s in the aggressors. I didn’t fly the F-5F until I’d been flying the jet for over a year and a half. I hated the F-5F. It was a dog.
As complex as the Eagle is, the F-5E is the polar opposite. Simplicity is a whole quality unto itself. Most look at the F-5E and surmise it’s a single-seat T-38. That’s not the case. The F-5E’s GE J85-21 engines have almost as much thrust in military power as the T-38’s GE J85-5s have in full afterburner. The F-5E carries 900 pounds more fuel than the T-38, so it has slightly better legs. The F-5 also has semiautomatic or fully automatic, depending on vintage, leading and trailing edge maneuvering flaps and has leading edge extensions similar to the Viper. The Tiger II will fly rings around a T-38 and is faster at both low and high altitude.
Because the F-5 is so small it does present some issues with radar detection range and, if it survives to the merge, it’s difficult to acquire visually. Finding the merge in the F-5 is also a challenge as its pulse radar is not very good and is difficult to use. You bank on the fact that everyone is flying a bigger jet. In a maneuvering fight, the F-5E can acquit itself well. While not enjoying the sustained turn rate of other fighters, its nose can be jacked around at slow speed to at least intimidate some young fighter pilot into making a mistake. The controls feel slightly heavier than those in the T-38 and rearward visibility is somewhat lacking, but workable. Over-the-nose visibility is also a challenge as the nose is fairly long and you sit fairly low in the cockpit. I came into a lot of merges inverted if I knew the adversaries were below me.
The F-5 was a great aggressor aircraft. It did a great job simulating the MiG-21, a passable job of simulating the MiG-23, but was unable to simulate the new MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker. Its inability to simulate the new Soviet 4th-generation threats was one of the things that led to its demise in the USAF. It lacks as an operational fighter due to range limitations and it can’t carry a lot. But it is a hoot to fly. I learned more about stick-and-rudder fighter piloting in the F-5 than I did in anything else. In the high horsepower jets, thrust can make up for a lot of mistakes. Not so with the F-5. It’s a little jet with lots of bullets.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
On the other side, the F-7PG: “The Grifo-7/AIM-9L combination on board PAF’s F-7PG brings the aircraft much closer to the F-16 in close combat capabilities and the PAF must be credited with extracting the maximum from an innovatively redesigned low-cost fighter.”
http://urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pg.htm
This brings us to the basic conclusion that both the F-7G and F-5E are around the same aerodynamic ballpark.
In addition, we note that the F-7G had automatic maneuvering flaps and other modern features absent with the F-5.
The F-7PG also beats the F-5E on thrust to weight ratio, rate of climb and maximum speed.
However, the F-5E has better range.
Overall, safe to say the F-7G is a better WVR fighter hands down.
PLA-MKIIThat’s all well and good, but that doesn’t answer the question of which is the better WVR fighter. I think that the answer lies in not trying to find information on a direct comparison, but a comparison via the F-16. We have reliable accounts of the F-5 vs the F-16 and some accounts of lesser quality of the F-16 vs the F-7PG.
PLA-MKIIThanks for sharing lukos, I’ve read it before and found it most entertaining.
However, the J-7G is significantly refined, and has a different wing, giving it different aerodynamic characteristics. Here is an indication of some of the differences that the J-7G brought to the original: http://urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pg.htm
PLA-MKIIHow about going for the F-7Gs. Those would do for the limited air policing duties. BAF loves flying her F-7BGIs, often see them buzzing around.
PLA-MKIIAwesome footage, thanks for sharing!
You are most welcome. Yes, amazing footage. Definitely hope Bangladesh acquires a few of these birds.
PLA-MKII</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3z87fTvzdEk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>
Remarkable, that looks fantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z87fTvzdEk&feature=youtu.be
PLA-MKIIThe real question is, why new aircraft at all ? Why not just upgrade the available airframes to SMT standard ? Airframe life extension included. Since most advanced a2g weapons would be new additions to the armory, no need to restrict the source. Russian ammunitions are not that much more expansive compared to Chinese ones.
If the desire exists, even additional airframes can be bought at firesale prices:
http://defense-update.com/20140416_russian-air-force-receive-new-mig-29s.html
Well, this was just a “what if” brainstorming, in reality, what you are suggesting is rumored to be one of options being considered by the BAF.
PLA-MKIII used to live in Islamabad for a while and knew a Pakistani who had previously lived and worked in the US, in the F/A-18 program. He said that he was involved with some Pakistani black project or so. So I do think that they did contribute to the JF-17 in many more ways than giving the specs and choosing the paint or any such other random ideas reflective of one’s ego…
Exactly what that role has been, how much was contributed by Pakistanis or not, we will probably never fully know.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
what really piques my interest presently is the J-31 and reports / rumours that it has been offered to the PAF. How much truth there is to this and what kind of timeframe we are looking at if it is inducted into their air force.
PLA-MKIIFor the JF17, did you take into account:
– chittagong to rangoon is only 750Km. Easily within JF17 range.
– use of stand off weapons such as GB6, H2, H4 or LS6 with ranges from 60 to 150 km?
– use of ALCMs eg raad with range cut down to 300Km to comply with MTCR?
– CM400K and CM802A for maritime strikes
– Multirole including BVRWould you still want a J-8?
Oh, my bad, I think I messed up on the range calculations. No, in that case I would go with a JF-17 and leave out on the J-8 / JH-7Bs…
PLA-MKIIThis seems perhaps a far better and more pragmatic option for the role:
JH-7B Flounder/Flying Leopard
A rare photo of a JH-7B prototype is shown here. This newest member of the JH-7 series has been under development at 603/XAC since mid-2000. JH-7B was initially speculated to feature stealth optimized aerodynamics, including a diamond shaped forward fuselage and DSI or Caret inlets. However it turned out that JH-7B features only limited improvements, mainly in the areas of avionics and the flight control system. Its external appearance mostly remains the same, in order to save time and cut cost. A new fire-control radar and mission computer as well as a new full-authority digital FBW could have been installed. Composite materials may have been used in greater areas to further reduce the weight. Its engine could be the improved WS-9B turbofan with a higher T/W ratio. A retractable IFR probe was rumored to have been installed near the port side of the cockpit but it has not been confirmed. Its wing structure has also been strengthened in order to carry the next generation long-range supersonic AShMs and tactical ASMs, such as YJ-12. A large datalink antenna may have been installed under the nose in front of the main landing gear door. JH-7B might face competition from J-16 fighter bomber currently being developed at 601/SAC. However its primary customer is thought to be PLAN, similar to the JH-7 case. Therefore the aircraft is expected to replace the old batches of naval JH-7 once entering the service. The first prototype was rumored to be under construction in 2011. It was reported that a JH-7B prototype took off for the first time from the CFTE airfield in fall 2012. Currently two prototypes (#821 & 822) are being tested at CFTE.
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/attack-aircraft.html
Sign In
