JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[fishhead]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

None of these KLJ-X is for J10, if you really know PLA's tradition. Even they have the same capability, but the parameter will be different.

That's why J10 export version goes into trouble with its electronic gear, and Pak seeks the western one, PLA simple forbids anything they use for export purpose, esp the front line weapons.

 

[kursed]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

The report also said that the Pakistanis are pretty damn impressed by the performance of this radar. Is it fathomable that the Chinese managed to miniaturize backend circuitry?

Can anyone here post the performance figures of this radar?

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

The report also said that the Pakistanis are pretty damn impressed by the performance of this radar. Is it fathomable that the Chinese managed to miniaturize backend circuitry?

Can anyone here post the performance figures of this radar?

You can check with the JF-17 entry on wikipedia. Someone posted the same information. Broadly speaking, 125km range, around 40 targets detected, 10 on track while scan, 4 engaged on ARH missile, 2 engaged on SARH missile. Without any context on the 125km range figure, its hard to say what the tactical value of this number. RWR contains as much as 500 radar signatures, and the plane also has an optical MAWS, which you can visually spot appearing on the tail of PT04 and onwards. The same optical MAWS appears on the J-11B, and the J-10 also appears to have a tail provision for it.

If you look at the KLJ-7 poster, that's an amazing job to put the electronics in boxed package on the backend, compared to many older designs when the backend is quite bulky. When the KLJ-1 and JL-10A first appeared in public, they got reasonably well packaged and arranged boxes, but still relatively big and bulky. The KLJ-4 intended for the J-11B shows a lot of trimming, since the boxes now appear to only use half of what the backend of the KLJ-1 used. This KLJ-7 takes it even further.

The original contenders for the JF-17 contract was the Grifo S7, ELTA M 2032 and the Phazotron Kopyo F (phase array). The ELTA is probably for markets with countries that are non Moslem, a sign of Israeli cooperation with the Chinese industry. The Kopyo phase array was probably gunning for the local PLAAF contract. My guess is that PAF was not completely satisfied with the Grifo S7, otherwise why did Thales come in offering the RC400? Then finally, it appears settled going into a Chinese radar, which of course, is homecourt advantage.

 

[challenge]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

The report also said that the Pakistanis are pretty damn impressed by the performance of this radar. Is it fathomable that the Chinese managed to miniaturize backend circuitry?

Can anyone here post the performance figures of this radar?

actually the pakistan wanted italian grifo radar for the first batch of production, but china insisted that PAF purchased klj-10 radar for the first batch.

 

[maglomanic]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Crobato,
Is that optical MAWS for rear hemisphere? Nothing for frontal hemisphere?

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Yes. Check the J-10 tail behind it. Also the same ports in the same location. The J-11B has them on its tail too.

I'm sure there would be one or two in the front hemisphere as well. Don't know where they are exactly, but there are a number of ports that can be candidates to where the front ones are located.

 

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Crobato,
Is that optical MAWS for rear hemisphere? Nothing for frontal hemisphere?

[qimg]http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2188/fc1j10dy5.jpg[/qimg]

As far as I know the two places on an aircraft where MAWS sensors are located are either on the tailboom and the glove ecm bays.

 

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Crobato,
Is that optical MAWS for rear hemisphere? Nothing for frontal hemisphere?

[qimg]http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2188/fc1j10dy5.jpg[/qimg]

The two obvious places for a MAWS sensor is either the tailboom or the nose cone. I have not seen one in the nose cone of JF-17.

 

[maglomanic]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Thanks PShamim and Crobato.

Apperciate it.

 

[Scratch]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

A bit late now but some thoughts of mine I made up during that aerodynamics discussion several days ago.

Somehow I'm of the impression that aircraft inteded for high AoAs, at least in greater speed regimes, should have their intakes somewhere under the wing(root)s or the fuselage where the airflow can be forced into the induct.
Of modern fighters (that I know of) only FC-1, Gripen, and F-35 have the inducts to the side of the fuseladge. (F-35 and FC-1 looking quiete similar from the side in regard to intake areas and to of the fuselage behind the canopy) Of these, only FC-1 and Gripen utilize LERX or canards. (The top edge of the F-35's intakes wich leads into the leading edge of the wing doesn't really act as LERX, does it?)
Now my point is that in those cases where the airflow isn't somewhat channelled into the induct, those aircraft are not really suited for high AoAs. Because the engine probably won't get enough air.
Is it therefore correct to assume the FC-1's LERX are not primarily for vortex generation since the aircraft is not really meant to operate in high AoAs?
As already said, the LERX type of the FC-1 generates some lift, wich in turn should also add drag.
Therefore my assumption that the FC-1 is intended for close in fights were it can turn slow and tight, and for ground attack roles like CAS, interdiction etc, wich happen at lower speeds.
We had the BVR discussion with FC-1 having a rather small RCS and the neccessary avonics. But I would argue that in BVR fights, kinematic energy (speed) is an essential part, wich the FC-1 simply does not offer (aerodynamics, engine).

Can it be said that in tailed planes those outward (?) LERX wich also generate lift have a bit the effect of canards to pith the nose up through positive lift?
I mean those LERX starting straight after the canopy should provide some pitch-up movement to the nose. Wich would have to be countered by the elevators pitching up the tail.
If you now move the elevators to neutral, the nose is already going up because of the lift generated by the LERXs.
For the reasons I just stated and following the FC-1 F-16 comparisson, can I say that FC-1 may have a higher ITR because the F-16 really needs to force down the tail (it's inward LERX not providing lift) in contrast to the FC-1?