JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics
The indigenous MMR radar developed for the LCA has diameter of 650mm. Its range is higher than 100 kms.
It is unlikely that the radar of the MiG-21 shall have diameter in the same range.
Mr. tphuang what did Mr.Yang Wei say about the LCA ? His response will give us a true guage of the reputation of the LCA program in international aviation community.
The indigenous MMR radar developed for the LCA has diameter of 650mm. Its range is higher than 100 kms.
It is unlikely that the radar of the MiG-21 shall have diameter in the same range.
Mr. tphuang what did Mr.Yang Wei say about the LCA ? His response will give us a true guage of the reputation of the LCA program in international aviation community.
Re: JF-17: New Pics
Tphuang, I in no ways mean't that a Phase Dopplar radar can match up to the performance of an AESA, when at similar technological levels of course. You simply cannot say that the infintile AESA of the japanese F-2 is the equivalent of the Russian Bars.
What Im simply implying is that with the mission capabilities of Fc-1 (interception and mabye arial-superiority), the redar simply does not need the high range and muli-function abilities of advanced AESA. Even though I doubt the "stealth" comment regarding AESA (provide me a link?), the stealth feature of such a radar would be insignificent to a Fc-1, seeing as how modern radar such as the Zuke-m can detect the RCS of the Fc-1 long before it can detect the radar signature. Also critical is the cost of the radar its self, seeing as how the f-16 block 52-60 went from 40 million -> 90 million, we can see that a high end AESA radar such as the Apg 79 would cost more then a fully loaded Fc-1 altogether while only minorly improving the combat capabilities. It would be far wiser to adopt a small, yet capable, PDR such as the combat proven apg 68. Although is true that AESA provides superior tracking and resistence to jamming.
I'm also quite surprised by the boast that the KLJ-10 can track and attack 4 targets, this is quite puzzling since the KLJ-3 intended for the J-10A is said only to be able two track to targets.(Sinodefence) If china were willing to export such a radar, wouldn't there be a better alturnative for the J-10A?
And on a side note, can we not get into a discussion/comparison with the lca every third post?
Tphuang, I in no ways mean't that a Phase Dopplar radar can match up to the performance of an AESA, when at similar technological levels of course. You simply cannot say that the infintile AESA of the japanese F-2 is the equivalent of the Russian Bars.
What Im simply implying is that with the mission capabilities of Fc-1 (interception and mabye arial-superiority), the redar simply does not need the high range and muli-function abilities of advanced AESA. Even though I doubt the "stealth" comment regarding AESA (provide me a link?), the stealth feature of such a radar would be insignificent to a Fc-1, seeing as how modern radar such as the Zuke-m can detect the RCS of the Fc-1 long before it can detect the radar signature. Also critical is the cost of the radar its self, seeing as how the f-16 block 52-60 went from 40 million -> 90 million, we can see that a high end AESA radar such as the Apg 79 would cost more then a fully loaded Fc-1 altogether while only minorly improving the combat capabilities. It would be far wiser to adopt a small, yet capable, PDR such as the combat proven apg 68. Although is true that AESA provides superior tracking and resistence to jamming.
I'm also quite surprised by the boast that the KLJ-10 can track and attack 4 targets, this is quite puzzling since the KLJ-3 intended for the J-10A is said only to be able two track to targets.(Sinodefence) If china were willing to export such a radar, wouldn't there be a better alturnative for the J-10A?
And on a side note, can we not get into a discussion/comparison with the lca every third post?
Last edited:
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics
This doesnt happen in case of pulse-doppler radar.
Also, although AESA radars are expensive they shall never equal or exceed the price of the rest of the aircraft.
Pulse-doppler radars are almost obsolete.
The above argument is incorrect. To have those mission capabilities as mentioned by you, implies the need of a good radar on the aircraft. They are not independent.xihaoli said:
AESA radars unlike pulse-doppler or slotted array radars dissipate radar beams that are bounced on them by enemy aircraft in the front, more effectively. So, the presence of the aircraft is shielded to an extent.xihaoli said:
This doesnt happen in case of pulse-doppler radar.
Improvements to an aircraft with AESA are significant.xihaoli said:
Also, although AESA radars are expensive they shall never equal or exceed the price of the rest of the aircraft.
Please note that there is no substitute to AESA (even newer and untested versions). Only the highly tested PESA/ESA radars may compete with them.xihaoli said:
Pulse-doppler radars are almost obsolete.
Last edited:
Re: JF-17: New Pics
I didn't mean to say that PDR are superior to AESA in any way, im simply implying that upgrading to a swedish AESA radar is unsuitable to Fc-1's needs.
Even though it is true that the radar provides the largest part of an aircrafts rcs, the Fc-1 was not aimed at steath, therefore the airframe itself would be detected long before the radar signal.
When comparing the cost of an AESA radar to the current price of an Fc-1, we simply have to do simply arithmetic.
F-16 Blk 52 -> F-16 Blk 60 = an increase of 50 million, take in inflation, so 40 million.
Blk 60 = AESA radar, improved engines of 144Kn, enlarged fuel tanks based on the top of the fuelsolage, and and more advanced cockpit fitted with 4? Mfd's, larger Hud, and HMS.
Now, if we take away the radar (lets say 15 million for an Fc-1), does the rest of the package seem to be worth 25 million?
In following with this logic then a middle of the line radar such as the Blk 60's will cost more then the basic Fc-1, thats not even taking into account of the Apg-80, which I believe still suffers minor technological malfuntions.
I also do not know if its true, but does AESA have a shorter non-malfuntioning period then PDR due to the number of modules?
The battle tested and virtually perfected PDR radars can still content with basic AESA which is still in it's infancey. Sure Bars is no match for the Apg- 80, but Singapore and Malaysia considered it on par with the Apg-79 of the super hornets.
I didn't mean to say that PDR are superior to AESA in any way, im simply implying that upgrading to a swedish AESA radar is unsuitable to Fc-1's needs.
Even though it is true that the radar provides the largest part of an aircrafts rcs, the Fc-1 was not aimed at steath, therefore the airframe itself would be detected long before the radar signal.
When comparing the cost of an AESA radar to the current price of an Fc-1, we simply have to do simply arithmetic.
F-16 Blk 52 -> F-16 Blk 60 = an increase of 50 million, take in inflation, so 40 million.
Blk 60 = AESA radar, improved engines of 144Kn, enlarged fuel tanks based on the top of the fuelsolage, and and more advanced cockpit fitted with 4? Mfd's, larger Hud, and HMS.
Now, if we take away the radar (lets say 15 million for an Fc-1), does the rest of the package seem to be worth 25 million?
In following with this logic then a middle of the line radar such as the Blk 60's will cost more then the basic Fc-1, thats not even taking into account of the Apg-80, which I believe still suffers minor technological malfuntions.
I also do not know if its true, but does AESA have a shorter non-malfuntioning period then PDR due to the number of modules?
The battle tested and virtually perfected PDR radars can still content with basic AESA which is still in it's infancey. Sure Bars is no match for the Apg- 80, but Singapore and Malaysia considered it on par with the Apg-79 of the super hornets.
Re: JF-17: New Pics
If you want to know about why AESA is considered to be more stealthy, check this
search on lpi
Also, I forgot to mention that AESA is harder to jam, because you can have different modules operating on different frequencies.
As for the rising cost from block 50 to 60. It's not the 40 million you mentionned, the 80 million paid by UAE includes development cost and a lot of other things. Even the latest block 50 was 67 million each including all the auxillary costs. In order to be able to produce AESA radar, you need to solve the two basic problems:
1. high cost of T/R module
2. cooling issue
The Japanese F-2 is a different case, the radar itself had serious problems, because the Japanese never developed fighter radars beforehand.
As for the cost issue, if customers are willing to pay the extra dollar, let them do it. As I said, JF-17 can be upgraded or downgraded depending on how much you are willing to pay.
block 60's cockpit was recently displayed side by side with FC-1's cockpit, looks similar (meaning 3 MFD, 1 HUD and no more analog controls)xihaoli said:
If you want to know about why AESA is considered to be more stealthy, check this
search on lpi
Also, I forgot to mention that AESA is harder to jam, because you can have different modules operating on different frequencies.
As for the rising cost from block 50 to 60. It's not the 40 million you mentionned, the 80 million paid by UAE includes development cost and a lot of other things. Even the latest block 50 was 67 million each including all the auxillary costs. In order to be able to produce AESA radar, you need to solve the two basic problems:
1. high cost of T/R module
2. cooling issue
The Japanese F-2 is a different case, the radar itself had serious problems, because the Japanese never developed fighter radars beforehand.
As for the cost issue, if customers are willing to pay the extra dollar, let them do it. As I said, JF-17 can be upgraded or downgraded depending on how much you are willing to pay.
Re: JF-17: New Pics
This is an article about JF17-4 same as the one Tphuang posted but there have more details about Yang Wei speak. It said the fly of JF17-4 will be within two months and china had bad opinion on engines from Russia that Su27 will be replace by chinese engines.
This is an article about JF17-4 same as the one Tphuang posted but there have more details about Yang Wei speak. It said the fly of JF17-4 will be within two months and china had bad opinion on engines from Russia that Su27 will be replace by chinese engines.
silverpike
New Member
CCTV reveal xiaolong fighter's cockpit and chinese-made AVIONICS!
i use to believe that Xiaolong fighter(super-7) is a low-cost export model build for the export market, as a low-end option(along with J-10) for the third world country to replace the old 2nd generation fighters.
people saying the reason PLAf did not plan to purchase any xiaolong fighter is because, PLAf's upgrade of J-7G and J-82M~~~therefore we think that xiaolong's performace is no better than china's 2.5 generation fighters such as J-82 or J-7G...
but few days ago, chinese state-meida revealed 'new'xiaolong's cockpit(xiaolong o4) and its avionics system which is surprisingly advance,~~~~ quite a shock for me!
there is also a news that when Pakistan president visits Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) ,he told the media, the joint-developed xiaolong fighter is in many aspects could compete with the f-16s they have got, and will be the front-line fighter of parkstani air force in the future.... (this article in chinese )
now how good the 'new' xiaolong is?? i really wonder~~~~
xiaolong's cockpit #
because of the copyright¬¬¬ i can not post some of the pic,besides, the forum only allow 5 pics,so--- click on the links i provide for more pics
article about the test¬¬
_cockpit.jpg)
the 'old' super-7's cockpit, according to this article ( ),it has nothing to do with the new xiaolong! they are completely two different type of fighter!super-7 is history now...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
for years, china's avionic technology is long way behind the western world, this news i believe marks a great leap forward...but it is still not clear that PlaF will finally aquire any of this new xiaolong fighter.
article in chinese :
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
all the links and resources are from state-run media 'www.people.com' and other major chinese online medias...
i use to believe that Xiaolong fighter(super-7) is a low-cost export model build for the export market, as a low-end option(along with J-10) for the third world country to replace the old 2nd generation fighters.
people saying the reason PLAf did not plan to purchase any xiaolong fighter is because, PLAf's upgrade of J-7G and J-82M~~~therefore we think that xiaolong's performace is no better than china's 2.5 generation fighters such as J-82 or J-7G...
but few days ago, chinese state-meida revealed 'new'xiaolong's cockpit(xiaolong o4) and its avionics system which is surprisingly advance,~~~~ quite a shock for me!
there is also a news that when Pakistan president visits Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) ,he told the media, the joint-developed xiaolong fighter is in many aspects could compete with the f-16s they have got, and will be the front-line fighter of parkstani air force in the future.... (this article in chinese )
now how good the 'new' xiaolong is?? i really wonder~~~~
xiaolong's cockpit #
because of the copyright¬¬¬
i can not post some of the pic,besides, the forum only allow 5 pics,so--- click on the links i provide for more pics article about the test¬¬
the 'old' super-7's cockpit, according to this article ( ),it has nothing to do with the new xiaolong! they are completely two different type of fighter!super-7 is history now...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
for years, china's avionic technology is long way behind the western world, this news i believe marks a great leap forward...but it is still not clear that PlaF will finally aquire any of this new xiaolong fighter.
article in chinese :
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
all the links and resources are from state-run media 'www.people.com' and other major chinese online medias...
