alternative comparative analysis: LCA vs JF-17 / FC-1

Status
Not open for further replies.

tphuang

Super Moderator
ajaybhutani said:
and thats is the reason india replaced the processor for MKI with its own. which tracks 20 targets and engages 8. China should have tried replacing the same.( or was it not allowed from russia.).

which radar version are u talking about.. ?? N011??
yeah, I'm talking about N011-VE. I do believe that with improved software, you can increase the track/engage number, but 20/8 from 15/4 seems quite a jump.

BTW LCA's radar is speculated to be 100km frontal detection.

when was the last update date for the page.. ?? i couldnt find it..
since the development of indian MKi started BARS specifications must have changed considerably considering the fact that a more powerful transmitter was placed and also the radar controller has been replaced.

but it even says it more or less matches the N011M's performance . itself claiming that current bars range is 170km.
My view on Bars is this. I remember reading an article by JDW on an improved Bars for MKI with 140-160KM detection range vs fighter size targets:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/janes013.htm
I just can't imagine it can go from 120 to 140 KM to 200 KM as stated on some of these Indian sites. So I figure, Irbis probably improved from around 160KM in detection range to 170KM and also became fully ESA. And when I'm talking about fighter size, that's 5 m^2 for the Russian radars.
thanks for the info.. ( in other words same as a reduced RCS F16).
now i wonder whats the RCS for LCA( as i have no idea about it :D ).. except that its small size and extensive use of avionics should give it some advantages.

the info is from ACIG site documenting AERO india 2005
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/acig_aero05_lca.htm.
That's really interesting. hmm, I'm beginning to wonder now. btw, I think some of the RCAs are:
F-22: 0.01 or less?
Rafale: 0.75
EF-2000/F-18 E/F: 1
F-16: 1- 1.5 (this is why America uses 1 as its measurement for range)
Mig-21: 3 (this is why China uses 3 as measurement for range)
F/A-18: 5
Mig-29: 5 (this is why Russia uses 5)
su-27: 10+?
F-15: 25
I'm always wondering if 10 is a little understated for su-27, since F-15 is 25. Anyhow, I'd expect LCA to be somewhere between 1 and 3.
 

Brit

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #102
Aren't the RCS stats misleading as they always refer to a 'clean' aircraft from head on which is not the reality of the matter?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Brit said:
Aren't the RCS stats misleading as they always refer to a 'clean' aircraft from head on which is not the reality of the matter?
Exactly. NATO, Israeli, Brazilian and Indian (plus a few others) air doctrine emphasises the use of sympathetic assets such as AWACs to maximise opportunity.

The appearance of any AWACs, AEW&C's or any aircraft at a higher altitiude with look down capability is going to make RCS numbers academic. (let alone OTHR radar for those lucky enough to use it)

RCS is atypically a frontal measurement in a perfect environment. Battlefields and airspace are not perfect environments.
 

crobato

New Member
The PL-9 is on paper a step above the AIM-9P with a high off-boresight capability, high agility, compatibility with helmet mounted sighting and suchlike. However, it does not appear to be a runaway success, since China’s flagship J-10 fighter is consistently seen carrying PL-8 missiles and Janes Defense Review has expressed the opinion that it is very short ranged.
Taken from the first page.

Do you know exactly what a PL-9 is?

It's just exactly the same missile as the PL-8 except for the fins. The fins appear changed only to make it look less Python 3 to circumvent any agreed export restriction of the Python 3 license.

There is no reason for the PLAAF to use the PL-9 because the PL-8 is the same identical missile except for the fins.

As for the short range, that is because JDR reviewed the SAM version of the PL-9C, and 5km is consistent for a short ranged AAM converted into a SAM which now has to overcome the effects of gravity. Chinese brochures advertised the air to air PL-9C, which has a triband spectral seeker with InSb multiple elements, as 22km, whereas the original Python 3 is about 15km.
 

crobato

New Member
ajaybhutani said:
actually i m quite surprise hearing that J10 radar has better range than SU30's radar...
Its a pulse doppler or a PESA ??( i was under an impression that china still doesnot have PESA technology.).
And why?

China built destroyers with huge panels of ESA. It also has large scanning air search radars of the same. Let's not mention home grown AWACS using such.


The last i recall reading about SU30's radar ranges. N1011M ( before being fitted into SU30MKI). could get a SU27 at 330km. and after that newer transmitter modules were added to increase the range. Also the backend control was replaced by an indian multiprocessor system. i would expect the current verions of BARS to be capable of much longer ranges.
BTW whats the J10's RCS expected to be ??
An Su-27 fitted with missiles has a very large RCS. An F-16 flying low and covered with RAM, which is getting standard these days, would be a much different matter.
 

Brit

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #106
I got my main info for the PL-9 from SinoDefence which tends to be pretty OK. Cool if I'm wrong, but what resouces are you using? But I agree that what you are saying makes a lot of sense. simple comparison: http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/109/pl92ai.jpg Note the seeker shape/size, fuses, control arms for forward fins and the launch rail (no adapters needed).

But the first PL-8 (Pythons) entered PLAAF service in around 1988 wheras the PL-9 came along in what, 1989. Seems that the initial development of the 'new' aerodynamic configoration was a bit quick. So basically the PL-9 is the export version of the PL-8(?) plus maybe a newer HMS (borrowed AA-11 technology).
 
Last edited:

wp2000

Member
Brit said:
I got my main info for the PL-9 from SinoDefence which tends to be pretty OK. Cool if I'm wrong, but what resouces are you using? But I agree that what you are saying makes a lot of sense. simple comparison: http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/109/pl92ai.jpg Note the seeker shape/size, fuses, control arms for forward fins and the launch rail (no adapters needed).

But the first PL-8 (Pythons) entered PLAAF service in around 1988 wheras the PL-9 came along in what, 1989. Seems that the initial development of the 'new' aerodynamic configoration was a bit quick. So basically the PL-9 is the export version of the PL-8(?) plus maybe a newer HMS (borrowed AA-11 technology).
It is true that PL9 is the export version of PL8. I remember even some chinese magazines admitted that in late 90s.
 

Brit

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #108
Well the Python3 was a fantastic missile in it's day but it is undeniably behind 'current' SRAAMs, which, if considered in light of the original post, puts the FC1 further behind the LCA in this aspect.
 

wp2000

Member
Brit said:
Well the Python3 was a fantastic missile in it's day but it is undeniably behind 'current' SRAAMs, which, if considered in light of the original post, puts the FC1 further behind the LCA in this aspect.
Actually, if you check US analysis on PLAAF in the last 5-10 years, SRAAM was almost the only thing got praised.

Considering LCA's progress and China's new generation SRAAM's progress, it's very hard to say whether LCA would have any advantege or not in this area.

MRAAM had always been the real headache for PLAAF until PL12 entered into service.
 

dabrownguy

New Member
The J-10 nose looks as is a lot smaller than the Su-27.

Also I happened to read Harry B's article on the LCA. The Hal guys designed the LCA to have a AoA of 35 degrees! Can anyone show me AoA of modern fighters these days?:unknown
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
wp2000 said:
Actually, if you check US analysis on PLAAF in the last 5-10 years, SRAAM was almost the only thing got praised.

Considering LCA's progress and China's new generation SRAAM's progress, it's very hard to say whether LCA would have any advantege or not in this area.

MRAAM had always been the real headache for PLAAF until PL12 entered into service.
I will wait for both to come out before I judge them. The so called PL-13 hasn't even shown itself in an airshow yet.
 

ajaybhutani

New Member
crobato said:
And why?

China built destroyers with huge panels of ESA. It also has large scanning air search radars of the same. Let's not mention home grown AWACS using such.
Its all about space.. The size of radar on a destroyer / AWACS etc.. is much much more than anything that can fit on a fighter jet.


An Su-27 fitted with missiles has a very large RCS. An F-16 flying low and covered with RAM, which is getting standard these days, would be a much different matter.
u missed a very big point here SU27 comes with a big radar too.its all about a good combination of how visible you are and how far away you can see a shoot down that makes a good fighter..
Neways i m still not clear about what point were u trying to make with this post.. can u elaborate a bit more on ur post.
 

siresoul

New Member
Pakistan begins making Islamic world’s first fighter jet “JF-17 Thunderâ€

Publish Date : 11/30/2005 11:49:00 AM Source : Latest Asia News Onlypunjab.com
Pakistan has begun indigenous production of “JF-17 Thunder†fighter jet, which is being described as the Islamic world’s first fighter plane. It would be inducted into Pakistan Air Force by December 2006.
The country also plans to export the fighter aircraft to its friendly countries. “We are ready to export the aircraft to friendly countries, especially the Arab states,†the Daily Times quoted Chairman of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Board Air Marshal Aurangzeb Khan as saying in an interview with Khaleej Times, at the conclusion of the Dubai 2005 Air Show.

Khan said that the fighter jet was expected to be on static display, and would also take part in aerobatics at the Dubai 2007 Air Show.

“The manufacturing of all-weather “JF-17 Thunderâ€, a multi-role and light-weight fighter aircraft, marks a significant milestone towards technological advancement by the PAC,†he said.
Link : http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-8-newsID-75281.html
I was visiting another forum and i found this could anybuddy conform this news or it is just a False statement coming after the LCA's Flight???
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
siresoul said:
I was visiting another forum and i found this could anybuddy conform this news or it is just a False statement coming after the LCA's Flight???
The news has nothing to do with LCA. The website has quoted the news from Khaleej Times, a well know Middle Easter (UAE) news paper & the quotes are from the Chairman of PAC.

Even though the interview is from recent Dubai airshow 2005, the news is not new. Its same old, same old & its not false.
 

Elite-Pilot

Banned Member
Aviation Week & Space Technology 11/28/2005 Robert Wall, Dubai

Iran seen as one of several JF-17 export candidates

Pakistan and China are making configuration changes to the Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 to boost the fighter's performance in what is likely only the first of a series of iterations the aircraft will undergo in coming years.

In the run-up to limited batch production slated for next year, flight testing of a modified prototype, called TP4, is underway. This aircraft incorporates design changes including a larger inlet to boost top speed to around Mach 1.8 from below Mach 1.6. The center and aft fuselage configuration has also been tweaked.

Program officials say the higher speed was of interest to Pakistan and is considered important to maintain the fighter's export attractiveness. Although the program is still in its early stage, project managers see interest from Iran, Egypt and Malaysia for the JF-17.

THE AIRCRAFT FEATURES a partial fly-by-wire system that controls yaw only. Pakistani officials say they opted for this configuration to keep the cost of the aircraft down. A full fly-by-wire system could have made the aircraft unaffordable, they suggest.

Still ahead is testing of the avionics system, since most of the work to date has concentrated on structural matters. Two of five initial prototypes are used for fatigue and static testing, while the PT1 was the basic design of the Chinese FC-1. PT4 is the only aircraft so far to feature the design changes.

Pakistani officials expect the first contract for 16 aircraft (split equally with China) to be awarded next year, with deliveries as early as 2007. Those would undergo further flight-testing to refine the design and exercise subsystems, including avionics, that have not been explored.

A full-rate production contract would follow around 2009. Initially, Pakistan will provide 58% of the parts, but that is supposed to increase gradually to 100%. One of the big question marks over the project, though, is whether China will place its promised order, which is seen as vital to keeping the program moving forward.

The aircraft is powered by a Russian Klimov RD-93 engine with 11,340 lb. thrust. Maximum take-off weight is 28,066 lb., according to the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, an industrial partner in the program along with China's Chengdu.

The weapons package has not yet been settled. Despite speculation that China would push Pakistan to use its PL-12/SD-10 radar-guided weapon, Pakistani officials are keeping their options open, possibly as a bargaining chip to try to lower the cost of the SD-10. One senior Pakistani official said Pakistan would also be interested in technology transfer, with an eye on building its own missile capacity.

One outside candidate to meet its requirement for an infrared-guided dogfight missile for the aircraft could be Denel's A-Darter. The weapon has undergone some technology demonstration, but South Africa is still deciding whether to fund its full development--which would take about five years--or buy a weapon offshore, like the German IRIS-T. Current political sentiment is leaning toward funding A-Darter's development to maintain the country's industrial capacity, but a firm decision isn't expected until next year, and has slipped repeatedly.

South Africa has been discussing cooperation with Brazil, but with the latter's future fighter program in flux, the cooperative missile endeavor also has made little progress, a South African official says. Pretoria is looking for close cooperation with India, as well. However, controversy over an army weapons program could sideline Denel there, in which case the company might be drawn to Pakistan to expand A-Darter's sales potential, the official added.

-----------

old but helpful news to some people

Elite-Pilot please post the LINK/URL of the source from where you have copied this news from, if you do not have the Link than do not post with out consulting the Administration first (Webmaster & Moderators).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fieldmarshal

New Member
Sino-Pakistani fighter improved

ROBERT HEWSON Editor, Jane's Air Launched Weapons
Dubai


Source: JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - DECEMBER 07, 2005


The joint Sino-Pakistani FC-1/JF-17 light multirole fighter aircraft has undergone a major redesign, including changes to its air intakes as well as the wing-fuselage join and rear fuselage section. The fourth prototype with the modifications has completed three months of trials.

The Chengdu FC-1, which will also be manufactured by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) as the JF-17, is an export-orientated programme under joint development by the two countries. The fourth prototype (TP4) with new features is well into its test programme while a fifth aircraft is being used for static testing (along with the second prototype).

The PAC is establishing its own facility to build the aircraft and has been importing specialist machine tools from suppliers in Sweden, and elsewhere, to set up a better production line than the one already established at Chengdu. Work on the first PAC aircraft is expected to begin in 2006.

According to a PAC official the original FC-1 design was found to be Mach-limited, forcing a revision of its engine intake design.

The conventional intake with splitter plates found on the first three aircraft has now been replaced with convex diverterless supersonic inlets (DSIs), similar to those found on Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The rounded 'bump' of the DSI compresses and redirects the oncoming boundary layer airflow that can otherwise cause airflow disruptions in the engine. The revised FC-1 now has a maximum speed of M1.8, powered by a Russian-built Klimov RD-93 engine.

Along with these major fixes to the inlet design and the surrounding fuselage area has come a redesign of the wing-fuselage join and the rear fuselage section. The FC-1's fin-tip has also gained a new fairing, understood to be an electronic counter- measure housing. It remains to be seen if such changes to the FC-1's design can be easily accommodated.

The FC-1 is planned to be a fully fly-by-wire (FBW) aircraft. However, the flight control system (FCS) has FBW in the yaw axis only, with conventional controls for pitch and roll.

According to the PAC, Pakistani test pilots are flying with the Chinese test team, with FCS development as a major focus. However, PAC officials have also indicated that the current FCS configuration is an optimised low-cost solution and not one that is expected to be revised in the near future.

The PAC said that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) plans to qualify the JF-17 with all current PAF weapons. This increases the possibility that the FC-1/JF-17 will become the first Chinese aircraft to be integrated with US weapons.

At Dubai, FC-1 models were displayed both by CATIC (China National Aero-Technology Import Export Corp) and PAC showing the aircraft armed with short- and medium range air-to-air missiles.

The JF-17 has long been touted as a platform for China's SD-10 active radar beyond-visual-range missile, for which Pakistan is expected to be the launch customer.

The JF-17 may yet find itself armed with a less capable Chinese weapon, such as the semi-active radar homing FD-60 (PL-11), or other weapons sourced away from China entirely.

An initial production contract for 16 aircraft (eight from the Chengdu line, eight from PAC) is expected to be signed in 2006, with deliveries proposed for 2007. These aircraft will be used for further test and development flying. Full-rate production, is not expected until the end of the decade.

China launches FC-1 fighter production (jdw.janes.com, 16/01/03)
 

fieldmarshal

New Member
ROBERT HEWSON Editor, Jane's Air Launched Weapons says in the above and i quote "that the FC-1/JF-17 will become the first Chinese aircraft to be integrated with US weapons."
Which is wrong and not true, the first chinese ac to be matted with US weapons was F-6(mig-19). PAC technicians had added the aim-9 sidewinder AOA missile to the weapons complement of the "farmer".;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top