Thanks Aussie digger thats what I sort of wanted to know. Well mechanical steeered array , thats old. Anyway, has any of the Chinese stuff been actually battle tested???? How reliable are their hardware??? And what about the BVRAAMs performance??? Well the weapon carriage aint very impressive.
Nothing wrong with chinese technology I know, but how reliable are they????
Yes, mechanically steered fire control radars are no longer considered "cutting edge" but that doesn't mean they are useless. Far from it. The majority of advances in radar capability nowadays is in the "back end", ie: the processing capability, the software that controls the radar and the modes the radar can operate in and as this is quite a new fighter designed from a "clean sheet", I am sure the processing power, data-bus, cabling, electrical supply and cooling capacity are all quite high (sufficient at least to allow for present capability and some measure of future growth) and that the software controlling it all is quite advanced.
I am quite sure the PAF will also be looking at including an AESA antenna array on the existing back-end at the very least in future years, if not a whole new AESA radar as well, to allieviate the remaining short-coming of the current radar system (ie: the relatively slow, due to mechanical limits, scan rate and beam steering capabilities).
It won't likely be as capable as a modern AESA based radar system in it's current form that is true enough, but I'm quite certain it will have a capable fire control radar system. Even if the MMRCA program for example, chooses a fighter equipped with an electronically scanned array radar system right from the very start, (such as the Super Hornet) the IAF will be operating mechanically scanned array radars on it's for quite a long time. They are not obsolete as yet, indeed the majority of fighter aircraft in-service at present utilise M-SCAN radars.
F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, Gripen and Mirage 2000 fighters all utilise mechanically scanned radar systems in the vast majority of cases. Are these obsolete fighters?
I am not aware of any of the Chinese military systems being bought by the Pakistan airforce having been tested in any sort of combat scenario. That is often the case with new generation technology though. In India's MMRCA program (again as an example only) how many of those fighter aircraft have actually undertaken combat operations?
The answer is (being generous here) only half. 3 of the entrants have not undertaken any form of combat operation at all and only one of the entrant types has ever seen any air to air combat operations of any kind (and even that in earlier models, namely the F-16). I guess it is lucky that actual combat is not the only means by which a defence capability can be tested, eh?
Reliability is a very varied term. How often can they operate effectively you mean? How often they operate partially degraded in performance? What is a particular component's mean time between failure? The amount of man hours a particular level of servicing requires? There is a lot of potential answers to these questions...
I'd suggest that as the JF-17 is a new capability, it will be considerably more reliable than the older aircraft it is replacing. The engine for instance is a development of the engine used in the MiG-29 fighter.
This engine is not known for being particularly unreliable as far as I am aware. Smoky yes, not particularly fuel efficient nor particularly powerful in terms of overall thrust and it certainly requires far more maintenance than equivalent thrust Western engines from all reports, but I've not heard that it is particularly known for it's unreliability.
In any case however, the engine used in the JF-17 at the present time is a development of the RD-33 known as the RD-93 so it is not going to be exactly the same as the RD-33 engine used in the MiG-29 and should not be directly compared. For one thing, the JF-17 is a single engined fighter, so I am quite sure that more attention than usual is paid to ensuring the RD-93's reliability. Furthermore there is a good chance, that the RD-93 will not remain the engine used by the JF-17 anyway. Reports indicate a variety of different engines have been assessed, including new developmental Chinese manufactured engines and a French (SNECMA) manufacturered design. We will have to wait and see how it pans out. Right now, RD-93 engines are used by the PAF on their JF-17's and I have not heard that they are failing to meet their reliability requirements.
As far as BVR missile performance, the weapon that will equip the JF-17 is reportedly the SD-10 active radar guided, medium range missile. It is a missile of comparable capability to the earlier (A/B) models of the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile I understand.
In size and performance however the SD-10 is likely to be roughly equivalent to the AIM-120C AMRAAM missile. It is slightly longer and slight bigger in diameter than the AMRAAM, which suggests it has a bigger rocket motor than the AMRAAM, meaning it might have more range though personally I doubt the Chinese weapon features quite as refined a boost/sustain propulsion system nor as refined a ballistic trajectory as the AMRAAM. This is due to the relative new-ness of the weapon. In time, I'm sure it will benefit from a similar amount of development as the AMRAAM has.
The active radar guidance and data-link system I believe is the same as that used on modern variants of the Russian R-77 Vympel BVR missile, so I guess it would not be stretching things too far if one were to state that the SD-10 should have a roughly equivalent physical performance to earlier model AMRAAM missiles with roughly the same guidance capability as the R-77.
Matched to the relatively modern radar system and if we assume the aircraft features a reasonably capable electronic warfare system (let's face it, there is no reason not to. PAF operates modern electronic warfare systems on the F-16 and they have stated they are happy with those on the JF-17) and possesses the good airframe performance and agility I expect it has, the JF-17 should have quite a handy BVR air to air combat capability. I doubt it will be superior to the capability provided by the PAF F-16 Block 52 + aircraft, but it seems likely to be quite respectable.
In terms of weapons carriage I am not quite sure what you are referring to? I believe the JF-17 is equipped with 7 external hardpoints and is capable of carrying over 8000lbs of ordnance and fuel externally on the aircraft.
From this basic information and from photos I've seen of the aircraft, it certainly appears capable of carrying typical offensive counter air weapon loads (2x BVR weapons, 2x WVR weapons, external fuel and 1 or 2x precision guided air to ground munitions and an EO/IR sensor pod) or typical defensive counter air loads (4x BVR air to air weapons and 2x WVR air to air weapons plus external fuel) or additional air to ground weapons at the expense of some or all BVR weapons for strike operations.
Because of these facts, I'm not sure what you mean exactly when you say it has poor load carrying capability? The JF-17 certainly won't carry the ordnance that an F-15, SU-30 or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet could manage, but it isn't intended to. It is a different class of aircraft. Comparing aircraft negatively in this light, is akin to comparing a C-130 Hercules negatively to an F-15 in relation to these two aircraft's respective acceleration...
The JF-17 can't carry what an F-15E Strike Eagle can carry, but then you can't buy an F-15E Strike Eagle for $15m or $20m either. If you feel you need 250 fighters but you've only got a relatively limited budget, you certainly won't be buying aircraft at the "top end" of the market...
Again in terms of reliability, I am not sure what you mean exactly. I believe the PAF has about 30 JF-17's in service now and it has been operating them long enough to have an understanding of what it takes to keep these aircraft operational. I have not heard of any significant issues with reliability for the aircraft...
Hope this helps.
Regards,
AD
