Yeppp ... and in the end a single seater version would make a lot of sense for such countries ... which would make it de facto a rebirth of the original Super-7.
Deino
The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
Yeppp ... and in the end a single seater version would make a lot of sense for such countries ... which would make it de facto a rebirth of the original Super-7.
Deino
Kept wondering why not develope an passive infra-red homing Medium range (30KM) missile along lines of a R-27T, for these smaller but still potent jets that for budget/size reasons can not mount a potent radar thus are denuded of BVR options on other wise a potent platform?
R-27T was able to do it based on old 70s era technology. I would think in this age of DAS, one can do much better.
let's say an SD-10 body chopped down and mated with an liquid nitrogen cooled gimble mounted IRST derived seeker head. also provided with Home-on-Jam capability. datalink capable to beam back pictures.
Let's say a late model J-7E with RD-93 engine with a pair of those bad-boyz on midwing pylons, plus a pair of dogfightin PL-8s on outboard. and mounting a pair of IRST slaved to HMDs to provide sit-aware and cueing + RWR and jammers.
WHo says one needs a big radar to have credible BVR capability? !
no need to emitt anything and still could shoot at you 30 kms away.
This whole package could be had less than 10 million $$$s a ship!
(I am really a sucker for small, cheap, retro but disruptive technologies)
Last edited:
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
The idea that China would go BACK to buying engines from Russia like the RD-93 is unlikely. A Turbofan engine for say.... some kind of super... fighter F-7/JL-9 would be ideal but probably not Russia, the WS-13 would be the most likely candidate since the WS-12 and the WP-14 projects as far as I know are dead. OR just another WP-13 derivative for a cost saving option. This is all really speculative though since nobody here has heard a peep from Guizhou or Chengdu about developing a the JL-9 into a fighter ( other than farcical 'LFC-16' proposal from way back in 2002 which we can all safely assume went nowhere)
Nevermind about the Russian engines, the point is to stuff a modern turbo fan into a small-airframe (mig-21/J-7).
and use EO path as primary detection sensor and weapons.
fighter radars are expensive and requires alot of training and most of time needs AWACS support in this enviornment to be effective anyways. something a poorer 3rd world AF typicall don't have. if you can still have decent BVR capability with out a radar why not ditch the weight and expense to start with?
---
and for richer AFs who needs an low-cost but effective fighter to fill the ranks and in time of war drop bombs, who typically requires their fighter not to turn on their radar in this day and age anyways. going to an complete EO solution would not be bad.
only their top line bigger fighters have big radars that can take advantage of those ridiculously long range on those active radar AAMs.
rest don't really need radar, just rely on size/stealth/ EO and datalinks. but still can shoot a 30 km missile at you.
----
The more I think of it, the requirement sounds more and more like LWF and what Fighter mafia thought was a perfect fighter.
except back then they didn't have such things as prevalence of stealth, good EO equipment, datalinks, and longer range IR-AAMs (not in NATO camp anyways) .
a modernized, stealthy, F-16 sized A/C, without radars, good EO sensors all around,
Something to think about....
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think there are a number of issues standing in the way to such a fighter, and your suggestion of a missile is quite separate from the actual fighter.
The most obvious limitation to the J7's lack of effective BVR capabilities is the fact that it does not have the onboard sensors needed to spot enemies far enough away to make BVR missiles worth while. Mounting IR missiles does not suddenly remove that requirement.
If you are thinking of relying on 3rd party targeting, why the fuss with the fancy new missile? You can hang a couple of regular PL12s/SD10s on a J7 and have it act as a launcher if you have other assets ready to take over guidance.
Range and payload will also be an issue. The J7 is a small fighter with short legs. For the best BVR results, you want to be flying fast and high, but that takes up a lot of fuel, so the J7 would be unlikely to have much if any time left to fight in WVR. So you are trading the fighter's greatest strength for a mediocre (at best) BVR capability that is highly reliant on other assets doing the hard part of the job. Not really worth it in my book, especially when there are other platforms far better suited to BVR.
Now, sticking an IRST on the J7 will not really help, as even the best ones in the world do not give you the ranges you need to make best use of BVR, especially head-on. If you were thinking of replacing the radar with a supersized IRST, that might get you enough range in optimal conditions, but you end up with a fighter that is highly dependent on the weather being perfect to do its job. Not good.
Now, onto your IR BVR missile, well that sounds a lot like the IR MICA tbh, and apart from the French, no-one seems all that keen on the idea. The Americans, Russians, Chinese, even the British and Germans never seriously tried to come up with something in the same class even after all these years. That clearly shows a consensus.
I have a feeling the biggest reason for this lack of 'wow' factor comes in the operation of the missile.
On the face of it, a passive BVR missile sounds all kind of win as you are not tipping off the enemy by setting off their RWR.
However, how were you supposed to have located, identified, and targeted an enemy at BVR ranges passively in the first place? If you used your radar to find the enemy, you already tipped your hand and he should be ready even if you doesn't get a lock warning from his RWR.
AESA LPI modes are a very recent development, and with new generation of digital EW suits being fielded or nearing it in an increasing number of countries, it looks increasingly likely that LPI will be a fleeting advantage that will be cancelled out soon in the future. What more, with MAWS becoming ever more common and sophisticated, the days when a passive missile can expect to sneak up on a target seemed numbered as well.
The J7G has become all it can effectively be given the limitations of its airframe. Trying to squeeze more out of the design will only result in spiking costs for modest improvements. That is why CAC effectively started with a new slate with the JF17 instead of carrying out with their original super7 or J7MF concepts to make this plane BVR capable.
Those were old ideas born when China had few if any better alternatives. Now its a very different China, and they have moved on to bigger and better things.
I do not like long and verbose post that don't get to the point quickly.
I will reply the rest later.
but...
Almost EVERY ONE of Soviet Long Range AAMs had both an IR model and a SARH model. The standard soviet tactics seem to rely on salvo firing both too.
and they has had combat success too.
In gulf war I, an Iraqi Mig-25 firing an R-23T IR-Medium Range well beyond vis range score a kill on an American F-18.
They are not as impotent nor neglected as you think.
certainly Americans were aware the effectiveness of such arrangement. The fact that both entry for the replacement for Phoenix missile the AIM-152. AAAM, put an IR-sensor as the terminal seeker in their design.
and as you mentioned the French were interested MICA IR,
And are you aware that the IRIS-T has an 25 KM range, which was in beginning an requirement from Germans. So that crosses out Germans.
AND....
are you aware that the British led AIM-132 ASRAAM (or ass-ram) one requirement was to trade maneuverability for range, resulting most importantly much better kinetics at those range than the typical short range AAMs? based on a airframe that is not bigger and heavier than an standard AIM-9?
so out of that list...
The Americans, Russians, Chinese, even the British and Germans ...
That leaves... CHinese.
as the only ones do not have an good IR Mid range AAMs.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Yes, you are right, I did forget about the Russian long range heat seekers.
However, the AIM152 was a cancelled project, and has not successor. No US BVR weapon is IR guided at present.
Classing IRIS-T and ASRAAM as 'BVR' weapons is a bit of a stretch. The PL9 has a 23km range btw, but that does not make it a BVR weapon.
The only nations with BVR class IR missiles are the French and the Russians. And the Russians do not use their IR seekers all that much iirc, which is why I forget about it at first, and that practice seem to be dying out as well, since I do not know of any IR versions of the R77 or more recent missile developments.
However, the AIM152 was a cancelled project, and has not successor. No US BVR weapon is IR guided at present.
Classing IRIS-T and ASRAAM as 'BVR' weapons is a bit of a stretch. The PL9 has a 23km range btw, but that does not make it a BVR weapon.
The only nations with BVR class IR missiles are the French and the Russians. And the Russians do not use their IR seekers all that much iirc, which is why I forget about it at first, and that practice seem to be dying out as well, since I do not know of any IR versions of the R77 or more recent missile developments.
Russians love their IR Med range missiles and I think the only combat success for a mid range IR missile has been russians.
and I assure you the golden age of IR guidance is coming!
Pretty soon you will see IRST systems that has near 100 KM tracking range. (duh it is already here in F-35's DAS)
and almost all of today's newest IR missiles already uses a focal planar array to do infrared imaging. it is one more step to miniturize and mount a more capable seeker in a medium range missile body.
and as for ASRAAM/IRIS-T these new missiles, vs older, the idea is not to have a "true" BVR, but a missile that can utilize the seeker performance by trade high-g manuevability for kinetic performance at its extended range. manage chemical (rocket) energy - kinetic energy trade if you will and trade for high G maneuver with kinetic performance at end of the range.
an older AIM-9 may have the advertized range of 20 KM but at end of that flight most of its energy (speed.or.rocket burn) is gone and it can not manuever (trade speed for Gs). these newer missiles retains energy much better at those extended ranges.
The impetus is that if you can lock on and fire first in >10s of KMs instead of having to merge and close in to the traditional < 10Km useful range of AIM-9... that gives you an advantage.
these ranges are already close to what the useful range for Sparrow was.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
As interesting as this discussion on possible BVR IR AAMs is, I feel we are getting a little off topic here.
If you want to start a new thread on IR BVR AAMs, we can continue this discussion there, but I think we should return the focus back to the J7 here.