JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 / Super-7 Discussions

[tahir_kheshgi]

first of all i think these defence systems are the biggest crap right now... what a waste of money!!!
man do you know the ratio of succes of these defence systems?? they are useless!! and when pakistan would b making these missiles in mass numbers.. it wouldnt really matter if one of them gets defended by indians... they will just keep firing more and more missiles!... how many would the indians b able to stop? not many my friend!
AND... a cruise missiles velocity is much lower than a A2G stand off missile. it will b much harder to stop it

 

[gf0012-aust]

first of all i think these defence systems are the biggest crap right now... what a waste of money!!!
man do you know the ratio of succes of these defence systems?? they are useless!! and when pakistan would b making these missiles in mass numbers.. it wouldnt really matter if one of them gets defended by indians... they will just keep firing more and more missiles!... how many would the indians b able to stop? not many my friend!
AND... a cruise missiles velocity is much lower than a A2G stand off missile. it will b much harder to stop it

THEL has had 25 kills without failure in intercepting battlefield rockets and 5" naval shells.

Roilling RAM has a similar success rate. The US has deployed 5 aegis kitted vessels to the sea of japan in the last week to undertake missile picket duty.

I'd be betting a bit more money on the fact that various systems do work. The Russian S-300 is also designed to kill cruise missiles as well as aircraft.

I'd hate to be a pilot trying to enter a properly configured and layered air defense network.

 

[tahir_kheshgi]

i think there is a difference between a cruise missle and a stand off A2G missile bro!!
we are not talking about battlefields rockets or navel shells here heheheh we are talking about H-4 .. a STAND OFF A2G missile bro..
...
there is a difference

 

[gf0012-aust]

i think there is a difference between a cruise missle and a stand off A2G missile bro!!
we are not talking about battlefields rockets or navel shells here heheheh we are talking about H-4 .. a STAND OFF A2G missile bro..
...
there is a difference

yep, there is, but there are a number of systems designed to take out a cruise missile. The USN has been training against Yakhonts for the last 10 years, similarly the RN has a range of ACM's that have been designed exactly for that purpose ever since the Falklands.

cruise missiles can trace their development to anti-shipping missiles. ever since the regulus, styx etc...

it's the integration of the response system that is the key. anyone who thinks that cruise missiles, supersonic anti-shipping missiles are unable to be countered is not thinking very hard.

 

[adsH]

i think there is a difference between a cruise missle and a stand off A2G missile bro!!
we are not talking about battlefields rockets or navel shells here heheheh we are talking about H-4 .. a STAND OFF A2G missile bro..
...
there is a difference

Ok mate, from my point of view any thing/System that can kill or come close to killing a Cruise missile has to be commended a stand off Missile is relatively cheap and very light has alot more time to accelerate granted but it doenot have a sophisticate AI Guidance and supposedly protection of a comprehensive EW systems on bord which i would think are on Bord a Cruise missile(£5 million each unit). the main idea of a cruise missile is to be fired off any where and get to where it is spose to with out it's destruction before its own payload does the damage at the given target. how it does that is amazing through an aray of a sophisticated onboard computer that comtains AI software (i spose ) but a stand off missile is relatively simple and is fast but it cannot avoid suphisticated Air defese system designed to take down a decieving Cruise-missile the defense system should also have AI software too.

your point there Tahir is that a Stand off missile is faster i am sure a ground launched weapons which is the ground sam site can have much more powerful Booster rocket for a relative quick time acceleration couple that up with the Falcons early warning system which would be able to detect missile launch off the AC the moment it is fired before it even reaches its target there would be intermediary SAM sites that would be able to try and take the missile!! so there is a low probability that those missiles would reach NewDelhi intact!!!!! being very frank here mate



COME ONN GF you have to give Cruise missiles some credit the cleverer its AI core programer the Cleverer the Missile. after all the person writing the AI Core for the Anti Cruise missile system would have to equally match the abilities so that the Anti Missile system would stand a chance

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

COME ONN GF you have to give Cruise missiles some credit the cleverer its AI core programer the Cleverer the Missile. after all the person writing the AI Core for the Anti Cruise missile system would have to equally match the abilities so that the Anti Missile system would stand a chance

I thought I was indicating that for every system, there is a counter system?

I don't discredit the cruise at all, but a cruise trying to enter an integrated air defense system is going to struggle. Some cruise systems (like the Styx and Yakhont) would struggle to penetrate a competent system (like Aegis) Which is why the Russians tried to increase the odds by saturation attacks.

As another example, the Boeing/USN purchased 5 MA-31/KH-31's from russia a few years ago for cruise/anti-shipping aggressor training, so they know the parameters for that generation of missile, flight characteristics etc...

these things need to be looked at in context - not as isolated units - which is what a lot of people tend to do. (eg "my tank is better than your tank")

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

COME ONN GF you have to give Cruise missiles some credit the cleverer its AI core programer the Cleverer the Missile. after all the person writing the AI Core for the Anti Cruise missile system would have to equally match the abilities so that the Anti Missile system would stand a chance

I thought I was indicating that for every system, there is a counter system?

I don't discredit the cruise at all, but a cruise trying to enter an integrated air defense system is going to struggle. Some cruise systems (like the Styx and Yakhont) would struggle to penetrate a competent system (like Aegis) Which is why the Russians tried to increase the odds by saturation attacks.

As another example, the Boeing/USN purchased 5 MA-31/KH-31's from russia a few years ago for cruise/anti-shipping aggressor training, so they know the parameters for that generation of missile, flight characteristics etc...

these things need to be looked at in context - not as isolated units - which is what a lot of people tend to do. (eg "my tank is better than your tank")

Good point GF but about the the KH31's system does russia sell those to its customers wouldn't that be deceiving your own customers!!

And yeas thanx for that reminder that for every Weapon there is a counter weapon i did forget that for a bit i got so carried away thinking some cruise missile's are nothing less then perfection lol


I hope india keeps updating its own Defense system because i think cruise missiles are like updated every time when ever it can i bet they are updated every month or something. the designers work on them too much and the beauty of it is that the already manufactured Cruise missiles can just be Updates

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

Good point GF but about the the Kh-31's system does russia sell those to its customers wouldn't that be deceiving your own customers!!

Well, one would think so.

The Kh-31's were bought specifically to train against a different level of supersonic. Boeing bought 5 units, they did not perform as expected, and the cost to improve them within certain parameters was not considered economical.

The US has reverted back to using it's own ramjet supersonics as they more accurately reflect the characteristics of the Yakhont. The Kh31 deal went through without a hitch (Clinton administration years)

Who knows the ways of business?

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

Good point GF but about the the KH31's system does russia sell those to its customers wouldn't that be deceiving your own customers!!

Well, one would think so.

The Kh31's were bought specifically to train against a different level of supersonic. Boeing bought 5 units, they did not perform as expected, and the cost to improve them within certain parameters was not considered economical.

The US has reverted back to using it's own ramjet supersonics as they more accurately reflect the characteristics of the Yakhont. The Kh31 deal went through without a hitch (Clinton administration years)

Who knows the ways of business?

OH!!!! so was this the deal that lead Russia to aquire tech on there Failed Ramjet Tech !!! i heard it was done when Clinton was in office The US gave a vital piece of next generation tech to the russians which filtered through as MIssiles, to INdia China and Teh tech was filtered to China to Pakistan now!!!!

 

[webmaster]

Tahir, please stick to the topic. If you want to vent your disgust on spending that countries do on defense, please open up a thread and invite others to discuss your opinion with. Defence spendings, defense projects and systems are reality and they must be discussed as such... JF-17 thread is not the best place to do that.

 

[tahir_kheshgi]

Administrator, i was talking about H-4 a2g missiles which are to b used on JF-17....
read again.. u would find out! i am sticking to the point
i am tlaking about h-4 and its capabilities

sorry gf, but H-4 is a pin point accurate missile! it has been tested already on mirage V! so it is an accurate missile no doubt about that.
but i dont think PAF would use H-4s for nuclear strikes.. they would use something which they have spent billions on... ghauri, shaheen and company! i think H-4 would b used on Jf-17 for just a2g normal strikes!! even then it would be a lethal weapon as it has an amazing range of 120 km!! more than enough!!

 

[adsH]

Administrator, i was talking about H-4 a2g missiles which are to b used on JF-17....
read again.. u would find out! i am sticking to the point
i am tlaking about h-4 and its capabilities

sorry gf, but H-4 is a pin point accurate missile! it has been tested already on mirage V! so it is an accurate missile no doubt about that.
but i dont think PAF would use H-4s for nuclear strikes.. they would use something which they have spent billions on... ghauri, shaheen and company! i think H-4 would b used on Jf-17 for just a2g normal strikes!! even then it would be a lethal weapon as it has an amazing range of 120 km!! more than enough!!

Tahir i apologise for an over critical stance against the ideas of H-4 being very effective in terms of the destroying the victim's key assets which would be protected by the Israelis Arrow SAM systems. the H-4 does not have SAM avoidance systems which are on the cruise missiles and the Ballistic missiles systems like the Shaheen 2, i think a balistic system is more than just a 2 stage rocket with a simple SAM avoidence system i think its more it must have some realy clever AI software (GF do you know much about Balistic Misiles) apperently the markect price of one Shaheen 2 is 350 million Dollars, so sticking to the point if a JF-17 fires such a missile towards lets say a key operational base and the base is protected with Arrow SAM i doubt the missile would efectivly reach the target, unless you overwhelm the system by alot of them but then you have to consider that Phalcon AWACS would be in the Airspace with other more hightech AC like the SU-30 which would be sent out to neutralise the Source of such weapons. if you can fire an infinate numbers of H-4 then the Indians can fire infinite numbers of SAM missiles and the home advantage would be with the Indian as the missile would be entering An airspace with a sophisticated SAM system(some russians some Israeli Arrows) (presumably every thing Networked up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

sorry gf, but H-4 is a pin point accurate missile! it has been tested already on mirage V! so it is an accurate missile no doubt about that.

I assume that you have links to support this? I've got a substantial collection of doco on missiles and guidance systems (some of which are used as reference data by some militaries), I can find no supporting doco for your claims.

I would assume that articles and reference works on missile guidance systems used by defence sector personnel would be slightly more believable than something in the public domain.

I actually do know a little about missiles - which is why I'm more than interested in some of your claims.

Like most things (especially military) I don't tend to accept statements unless I can corroborate them through other sources.

The seeker for an AGM is very different from ALI or AAM. Especially when the missile is designed for BVR

Pakistan Tests H-4 Air To Air BVR Missiles

April 22nd, 2003: Pakistan successfully test-fired an indigenously manufactured, air to air, anti-aircraft missile on Monday.
According to the credible sources, the missile, fired from a Mirage fighter jet, successfully targeted a flying object. This H-4 missile is made by a subsidiary organization of NESCOM and it is the most advanced version of H missiles.
According to the sources the missile was fired on its target from a Mirage plane over the Arabian Sea. One of the salient feature of the H-4 missile is that it can hit even the out of sight target. The successful experiment of the air to air missile will go a long way in countering the enemy’s air supremacy.
[/url]

or, same source: dated JANUARY 07, 2004

Pakistan conducts second test firing of H-4 missile
ROBERT HEWSON Editor, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons
London

To change an ALI to AGM is not even logical as there are a sequence of things that need to be in place for that to happen.

I think you're friend is having a lend of you by a considerable margin.

btw, Ballistic Missiles use stellar guidance in conjunction with other systems. There appears to be some confusion with you as to how missiles are terminally guided to a target.

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

sorry gf, but H-4 is a pin point accurate missile! it has

Pakistan Tests H-4 Air To Air BVR Missiles

April 22nd, 2003: Pakistan successfully test-fired an indigenously manufactured, air to air, anti-aircraft missile on Monday.
According to the credible sources, the missile, fired from a Mirage fighter jet, successfully targeted a flying object. This H-4 missile is made by a subsidiary organization of NESCOM and it is the most advanced version of H missiles.
According to the sources the missile was fired on its target from a Mirage plane over the Arabian Sea. One of the salient feature of the H-4 missile is that it can hit even the out of sight target. The successful experiment of the air to air missile will go a long way in countering the enemy’s air supremacy.
[/url]

or, same source: dated JANUARY 07, 2004

Pakistan conducts second test firing of H-4 missile
ROBERT HEWSON Editor, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons
London

To change an ALI to AGM is not even logical as there are a sequence of things that need to be in place for that to happen.

I think you're friend is having a lend of you by a considerable margin.

btw, Ballistic Missiles use stellar guidance in conjunction with other systems. There appears to be some confusion with you as to how missiles are terminally guided to a target.

GF NOW I AM CONFUSED AN H-4 is a Air to ground BVR missile i am sure it is the SD-10 which is Air to Air BVR missile which is not ready but its Guidence system and its Ramjet Engine has been completed by Pakistan it is ready to test but not induct!!

H-4 is a similar copy of a Drater missile from South Africa!!!
Could you clear this up for me thnx!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

The SD-10 is a derivative of the R-77 Russian BVRAAM
The H-4 according to Pakistani sources is a BVRAAM
The South African Darter is an AAM

None of the above are AGM's

If you look at the design of an AGM it usually has a large diameter body for propelling it as it has a large warhead. An AGM has to have a bit more explosive power than an ALI/AAM

AAM's typically will generate a proximity kill - eg shrapnel exploding near an aircraft is enough to render it dead. If it's an IR seeker, then it heads for the exhaust area - again, not a huge amount of explosive power is required as shredding the aircrafts engine will kill it.

An AGM is often a kinetic kill, a contact kill. So the target acquisition is very different, and usually requires different termination control.

To get an ALI to do an AGM role would mean a change in the seeker, fire control system, and terminal guidance.

It's not cost effective to do it. You can't change the role of those missiles mid flight etc....

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

JF-17 To Be Equipped With Advanced BVR Missiles: AVM Shahid Lateef
April 25, 2004: The air force on Friday announced plans to integrate the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles into the JF-17 Thunder aircraft. Half of the 16 Thunders from the first batch of the supersonic third-generation aircraft are expected to be inducted into the PAF inventory by mid 2006, while the rest would be conscripted by the Chinese air force.

Briefing journalists at the JF-17 Thunder project directorate at Chaklala, Air Vice-Marshal Shahid Lateef shared the progress being made on the project and dilated on the features of the maiden flight of prototype-3 held at Chengdu in China on April 9. It was for the first time that two foreign pilots had flown a prototype aircraft in China. "We have now selected the BVR missiles for integration into the JF-17 Thunder. We made a breakthrough recently by acquiring the technology," he said. He said the JF-17 would also carry H-2 and H-4 bombs.

About the avionics component of the JF-17, AVM Lateef said the West was reluctant to offer help in this regard. He said an avionics package for the aircraft had been examined and a contract for it would be finalized next month. In reply to a question, AVM Lateef said five radars of Italian make would be used on the prototypes. The information made available to the media said the prototype-1 of the aircraft was for verification of flight performance, prototype-2 for ground and load testing, prototype-3 for verification of light performance, prototype-4 for avionics and weapons integration and qualification and prototype-5 for fatigue testing. Prototype-2 and prototype-5 were only for ground tests, it said.
/////////////
here the AVM said they have chosen the BVR to be incorporated into the JF-17 and they said that it would carry H-4 and H-2 why would they carry two types of BVRAAM.
/////////////////
Some real good new here have a read thorugh http://www.pakistanidefence.com/news/MonthlyNewsArchive/2004/April2004.htm



PAF adds new bombs to its arsenal

ISLAMABAD, Dec 17: Pakistan Air Force has integrated the H-4 out-of-sight target bombs in its arsenal of fighter aircraft, official sources said. The incorporation of H-4 bombs have added to the capability of the PAF to hit out-of-sight targets from a distance of up to 120 kilometres to evade enemy radars during air strikes. A lighter version of the bomb, H-2 model, can hit the out-of-sight targets from a range of up to 60 kilometres.

"It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region," sources said.
[]
The indigenously produced H-4 bombs is an achievement of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), which works in close collaboration with Pakistan Missile Organizationand the Air Weapons Complex.

"Three successful tests of H-4, with the latest conducted this year, produced satisfactory results leading to addition of arsenal in the fighter jets," the sources said.

The H-4 bombs have been made through indigenous efforts by modifying the technological design of South African T-Darter BVR missiles. Till the induction of JF-17 Thunder in 2006, with a provision for BVRs, the H-2 and H-4 bombs could be carried by Mirage fighter jets. The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal.

Moreover, the sources said, fighter aircraft in PAF's arsenal have the "provision" to be fitted with precision-guided munitions and BVR missiles. When asked about advantages of BVR in Indian arsenal, PAF spokesperson Air Commodore Sarfaraz said: "We are aggressively trying to utilize whatever equipment we have to its optimum operational limits through professional training and by pursuing high standards of maintenance."

Mr Sarfaraz said: "We are aware of our technological needs and are vigorously trying to meet those requirements either through procurements or indigenous developments."

The European and the US suppliers were currently not willing to share the technology with Pakistan. However, contacts were being established with China, defence sources said, adding that JF-17 Thunder (to be inducted in 2006), F-16s and the Mirage aircraft in Pakistan's fleet all had the provision to be fitted with BVRs once the technology and the missiles would be acquired.



GF i sincerly apologize to you for makeing you read all this but i am sure the H-4 is Air to ground there were some Idiotic News media that were associating this missile with BVR AtoA it was mainly the hyped up Pakistani media that thought that the missile was infact what paksitan was trying to procure they read the words BVR and assumed it was Air to Air infact they(Development team) clearly said it was a step towards it. if pakistan has manged to produce a missile like H-4 with darter basic designs the ramjet should be incorporable with the SD-10 missiles that the Chinese were trying to build but they were slow at it and were not getting very far the main reason why i think pakistan has worked so hard on BVR is becasue no one wan't to sell those missiles to Pakistan unless pakistan would purchase Modern AC with them!!. well the Skanks thought enough is enough!! i have heard paksitan has mainly designed the guidance system of the SD-10.


Now could you explain me what you were trying to tell me about the AGM i still don't get it. is it the type of missile that destroys its slef only on contact!!!



SEE GF i am realy confused so try and bare with me while i get by bearings rite !!

this is what i read on another fourm

This reporter has obviously mixed up three different projects here. But the important thing is that the H-2 and the H-4 are finally coming 'out of the closet'.

H2 is the Raptor 1.
H4 is the MUPSOW.

You can scope them out on

http://www.armada.ch/99-3/001.htm

And yes, we have both!

__________________

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

adSh, no need to apologise at all.

GF i sincerly apologize to you for makeing you read all this but i am sure the H-4 is Air to ground there were some Idiotic News media that were associating this missile with BVR AtoA it was mainly the hyped up Pakistani media that thought that the missile was infact what paksitan was trying to procure they read the words BVR and assumed it was Air to Air infact they(Development team) clearly said it was a step towards it. if pakistan has manged to produce a missile like H-4 with darter basic designs the ramjet should be incorporable with the SD-10 missiles that the Chinese were trying to build but they were slow at it and were not getting very far the main reason why i think pakistan has worked so hard on BVR is becasue no one wan't to sell those missiles to Pakistan unless pakistan would purchase Modern AC with them!!. well the Skanks thought enough is enough!! i have heard paksitan has mainly designed the guidance system of the SD-10.


Now could you explain me what you were trying to tell me about the AGM i still don't get it. is it the type of missile that destroys its slef only on contact!!!

There must be two weapons systems with the same designator. The comments I quoted were Pakistani Defence Force sources and Janes. There must be an H-4 freefall weapon as well. (read the text, it clearly states "bomb". It cannot be a glide bomb unless it has data linking between the bomb and the platform. I don't recall seeing IRST on the JF-17, although it's been a while since I actually saw any recent photos. A glide bomb would make sense as its a cheap stand off weapon - but as in my prev post, and as in yr news article - it shows two different types of H-4. A BVRAAM and a bomb.

Also, the Darter cannot be converted into a ramjet - it's a knock off of a sidewinder and is a thruster, solid fuel propellant only.

As for the AGM, most AGM's are designed to detonate on contact. There are others though which are proximity triggered, barometric triggered etc.. but in the main, they are triggered to either go off on contact, or go off milliseconds after contact (assuming that they are penetrators)

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

"Also, the Darter cannot be converted into a ramjet - it's a knock off of a sidewinder and is a thruster, solid fuel propellant only. "


Sorry about that comment i thought of takeing that off after i wrote that but to be honest i am not well versed on missiles. but i am trying to reeead up on them


did you read the added comment that i added i might aswell put it in this :::

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This reporter has obviously mixed up three different projects here. But the important thing is that the H-2 and the H-4 are finally coming 'out of the closet'.

H2 is the Raptor 1.
H4 is the MUPSOW.

You can scope them out on

http://www.armada.ch/99-3/001.htm

And yes, we have both!

__________________

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

ahh, I feel much better now. It's good to be right when you are starting to wonder whether you missed something out of the equation..

If it's a SOW then that means that the JF-17 will require data linking or IRST (or similar) to be fitted.

 

[adsH]

Re: FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17

ahh, I feel much better now. It's good to be right when you are starting to wonder whether you missed something out of the equation..

If it's a SOW then that means that the JF-17 will require data linking or IRST (or similar) to be fitted.

would of made more sence if you could of elaborated lol IN LAYMAN term lol

DATA linking with what?