PLA-MKIIThe real question is what if the Tejas never shows up? what then for India? I’d see that to be a reason for India to upgrade and keep flying the “flying coffins”. Maybe a western engine and Israeli avionics? Can anyone think of a a plane they could buy as replacement for the MiG-21s if the Tejas doesn’t show up?
PLA-MKIIsorry for the multiple posts.
by and by the F-16 has a greater wingspan (while about the same length) by more than .3 meters not to mention the basic shapes differ – the F-16’s shape merges with its body giving it a further advantage in that and so do the air inlet location. Finally it has inherently more instability – last I heard the JF-17’s wings are not inclined downwards but are completely horizontal.
This is actually good in another sense, in case of problems with the FBW or any other problem including a wing area breaking off the JF-17 would have greater survivability. For instance the F-15 wing is not inherently instable like the F-16 and we have all heard of the israeli pilot who got away with one wing…
Finally, the F-16’s engine give it a qualitatively different parameter than the JF-17s RD-93s. Here I am not certain, but I think the cruise speeds do vary – I recon the RD-93s have a lower cruise speed ( or should I say speed at military power?).
Altitude/speed both make a very big diffence as far as I know about it. Try ACIG’s Korean war section and its desciption of the MiG-15 and Sabre’s fighting capabilities/comparisons. Or look for the development issues relating to the F/A-18 and why the US Navy did not go for the F-15 and F-16. Or issues related to the Mirage’s combat advantages/disadavantages. Or issues related to friendly aircombat exercises btw German MiG-29s against F/A-18s / F-16s. The MiG-29s out-do the F-16s at lower speeds while the F-16s are a league ahead at supersonic speeds.
Again this is all my rational layman analysis, I am merely an amateur in this subject. My apologies if you are an expert in this field – as an economist I understand how annoying laymen analysis can be.
PLA-MKIIOff Topic
pros
Has excellent ECM/SEAD capability
Cons
-the mig-31 is a complicated aircraft,
-Lacks the monuverability in WVR combat.
-Mayoko No longer manufacture Foxhounds,
-the Mig-31s which were in service during the cold war days required a hell of a lot of maintanance.
I read an article that they are still manufacturing. The maintenance issue can be solved by putting a western engine (?) as the engine is the main cause of the problem? 🙂 Not likely though.
Use it as a stand off long range missile truck and let the other planes in the armory deal with the AMRAAM and WVR range. Basically act like the sniper in the group (?)
With the extra long range AAMs and awacs support, this could be an added advantage (?).
anyways, I’m counting that WVR is history in future wars specially over the planes of punjab and the rajastani desert (although far from so in the mountaineous north).
PLA-MKIIBoth the F16 and the FC1 are tailed cropped delta configurations (ie similar “airframes”). Why would their comparitive performance differ because of altitude? If one can out-manouvre the other at sea level it will also out-manouvre the other at any other altitude. It not as if configuration and other performance enabling form factors in the “airframe” would change due to the altitude? Aircraft with similar configurations will behave similarly (within the contraints of their “airframe”) at any altitude. They dont conviniently change their performance wrt each other just because the altitude varies.
The F16 C/D has a calculated ITR of 1.5 deg/sec greater than the FC1 at any altitude. It has a lower stall speed than the FC1 and its calculated corner velocity is greater than the FC1 by less than 15 m/s. Why would these advantages be negated solely because of altitude? Would the wing area of the FC1 suddenly change at different altitudes to enable greater performance in these aspects? I don’t think so.
Shalav,
I am sure you know more than me about airframes, I really am an amateur.
PLA-MKII…. what western engine do u inted to get on to the MiG-31??
How abt AL-41 for the MiG-31, won’t it fit in?? …..
BTW, MiG-31 did not have supercruise, isn’t it…and was fully on AB …. so hows was the engine …. as normally in other a/c AB is used for a very short duration mainly coz of fuel consumption and — ???
yeah you’re right!
I wonder if india can buy some to replace the MiG-25. Not that they need them but I just love the MiG-31!!! I don’t know much about engines, but how about the F-15 engines? that would solve the achilles heal of the MiG-25/31 – the unreasonably high cost of maintenance mainly due to the engines…
PLA-MKIImy two pence on this canopy issue…
Again, I can only offer a highly amateur opinion as I am not an aeronautic engineer. Half a decade ago I spent 6months studying aerodynamics. From that I can say that the larger the cross section of a fighter frame the greater the drag, particularly at supersonic speeds (drag increases exponentially at high speeds).
Secondly, I believe that the very design of the F-16 requires this – it is well known that the pilot is given maximum vision. This requires the pilot to be sitting almost at waist height to the canopy. The cross section is obviously increased. I might add that the F-16 is a bit bigger and heavier than the JF-17 as well.
However, this canopy design does give much greater vision to the F-16 pilot – even greater than to the F-15 pilot. Personally, I’d rather be on a F-16 block 52 than on a JF-17.
A qualitative comparison would suggest some key differences – firstly, I recon the F-16 would out maneuvere the JF at higher speads and greater altitudes and the JF-17’s airframe indicates a better performance at a lower altitude / at a lower speed threshold. Something like the difference between a Mig-15 and a Sabre.
This is further contributed to by the greater aerodynamic instability of the F-16 which encourages this high/low difference.
I might repeat that I am just an amateur and you’d be better off talking to an Air Force engineer or even an actual fighter pilot.
Finally, I’d like to speculate 🙂 that the JF will fly something of a top cover for the F-7 PG, and the F-16s will do the same for the JF and the J-10 will do the same for the F-16. A few things I wish I could add – ‘swarms’ of UAVs, Swedish AWACS, MiG-31s and tankers… that would pretty much be my ideal of a complete picture for PAF air defence (and offence?). but this is very unlikely, particularly the MiG-31s.
I wonder why the indians don’t go for the MiG-31s – I totally love those planes.
PLA-MKIIOff topic, but Europe and France ahead of the US in radar development?
:rolleyes:
Hehe, yeah but then again he posted it in 1999… check out the link I posted to his comment, this guy sounds like he know his stuff.
PLA-MKIIWhat I’d love to see is a MiG-31 with Western engines…
PLA-MKIIwhat I would like to know is what kind of IRST the JF-17 is likely to have and if its going to feature radar absorbant material. Also, if the chinese are reverse engineering the engine, if its going to have slightly different characteristics – personally I’d prefer more dry thrust than on AB. I’m not an Aeronautics engineer but, if there is one out there, do you think this is possible?
On a less practical note, (again I am not an aeronautics engineer but) I have heard that western (Jet) engines are in many ways different from Russian engines (I recall a comment by a US pilot checking out a German Mig 29). Again this could be totally baseless, but supposing this is true, perhaps a synthesis could be achieved of both technologies, or more practically, add a few things from here and there into the russian engine (again I do understand we are not making an omlete). If this is possible at all, I think Pakistan-China would be in the best possible position to exploit this, given the relevant experties. The only historical corollary I can recall is how the RAF Mustangs performed 30 MPH better when the “spark plugs” (btw I didn’t know engines required these) were replaced with US spark plugs.
HEre is were I dug this up from: http://pub131.ezboard.com/fjpspanzersfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=4117.topic&start=201&stop=216
I usually don’t post, but since I’m on it I’ll end it with something interesting I found:
By Tiger on Thursday, January 21, 1999 – 02:29 pm:
The russians are a little bit behind the US in radar technology, who are noticeably behind the Europeans, who are noticeably behind the French (who I consider European, but as they aren’t sharing, I mentioned them differently) who are in the lead.
http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/178.html?TuesdayMarch2319990106pm
This guy sounds very authentic, but could this be true? I remember the Americans during Cope india saying that some of the French Mirages showed different characteristics…. then again the PAF is probably going to choose the italian radar rather than the French…
PLA-MKIIThat could explain it, but do you have a source that the RD-33 was ever used for any prototype?
CAT1,
I saw it on GeoTV. The inlet was visibly large. Besides, someone at Pakdef posted it as well.
I suggest you do a google search, I find that always most relevant. Here is one link, but please don’t ask for more as its a time wasting exercise for me.
PLA-MKIII believe the engine intake got enlarged because the prototype aircraft were using the RD-33 and as the RD-93 has a slightly greater thrust, for optimal configeration, the intake has been proportionately increased.
PLA-MKIIDoes anybody know if the chinese are learning air combat tactics from the pakistanis?
PLA-MKIIWhat would be interesting is if the PAF could get western parts for the JF-17s as a by-product of the deal
PLA-MKIIBoth the FC-1 and the J-10 would be chinese and wouldn’t have any problems with the WTO. I cannot recall a case ever of the WTO having a problem with Chinese reverse engineering and selling their military ware. Of course, they haven’t really been exported to the US but thats not exactly the market they are looking at 🙂
PLA-MKIISorry for the multiple posts. Concerning the UAE, I think there is a world of a difference between countries like the UAE and a country like China. Also, the Iraq example is highly questionable, they never put up a fight and yes their equipment was downgraded and their pilots ill trained.
Sign In
