JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Munir]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

a chinese aero magazine reported that the UHF radio can be double as data link.

It is. If you search F16 UHF communications then you will hear on certain frequencies strange buzzing. That is the interlink...

>>>
2.6.1.2 Security
Both messages (bits) and transmissions (waveforms) are encrypted in Link-16. Messages are encrypted by a KGV-8B encryption device in accordance with a specified cryptovariable, i.e. key. Transmission security (TSEC) is provided by another cryptovariable that determines JTIDS waveform specifics. The waveform uses frequency hopping with a hop pattern determined by the net number and the TSEC cryptovariable.
Due to the constant relocation of the carrier frequency across the frequency spectrum, it is difficult to detect and difficult to jam.
The TSEC cryptovariable also determines the amount of jitter in a signal. Jitter is the delay, or dead time, that occurs at the beginning of each time slot where no pulse energy is transmitted. Varying the amount of jitter from time slot to time slot makes it difficult for a jammer to know when to turn on the jamming signal [Nor94].
The pseudorandom noise (PN) determined by the TSEC cryptovariable increases the TSEC of the JTIDS signal. This is accomplished by performing an exclusive-or operation (XOR) on 32 message bits with the 32-chip PN sequence of ones and zeroes. As a result, the transmitted data appears like incoherent noise to an unintended receiver [Nor94].

 

[Londo Molari]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I think the F-16 E/F question is still pending.

You can use any other upgrade as an example, take the MLU-III or block 52 development, which are much more popular and greatly enhance the capability of basic F-16A.

The JF-17 is less capable than the J-10 or F-16 E/F.

That's because its in a different class. Just like J-10 or F-16 E/F are "less capable" than F-15 and Su-27. Regardless of upgrades and development, JF-17 will remain SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than J-10 or F-16.

 

[Mashan]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You can use any other upgrade as an example, take the MLU-III or block 52 development, which are much more popular and greatly enhance the capability of basic F-16A.

That's because its in a different class. Just like J-10 or F-16 E/F are "less capable" than F-15 and Su-27. Regardless of upgrades and development, JF-17 will remain SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than J-10 or F-16.

The design of JF-17 suppose to give the PAF the high/low configuration. PAF also only consider single engine aircraft. So the F16/JF-17 will fulfill that goal.

 

[tphuang]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You can use any other upgrade as an example, take the MLU-III or block 52 development, which are much more popular and greatly enhance the capability of basic F-16A.

That's because its in a different class. Just like J-10 or F-16 E/F are "less capable" than F-15 and Su-27. Regardless of upgrades and development, JF-17 will remain SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than J-10 or F-16.

I can tell you now that J-10 is not less capable than su-27. Once J-10B joins service, it will be by far the most capable air dominance fighter in PLAAF.

 

[the spectator]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I can tell you now that J-10 is not less capable than su-27. Once J-10B joins service, it will be by far the most capable air dominance fighter in PLAAF.

Greater than the su-33?

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Greater than the su-33?

1) China does not have Su-33.
2) Current Flankers, such as MKI, J-11B, MKK and Su-35 are all more modern and capable than the Su-33.
3) Su-33 has not been produced/marketed/upgraded for over a decade.

The Su-33 as it stands today is just a basic Su-27 with in flight refueling, canards, leading edge extensions, and a little tougher construction. It lacks composite materials, RCS reduction, and modern avionics which can be seen in all the current Flanker models.

I can tell you now that J-10 is not less capable than su-27. Once J-10B joins service, it will be by far the most capable air dominance fighter in PLAAF.

Maybe in terms of A2A performance, but in overall capability you have to figure in range, payload, and A2G capability as well. A larger fighter is simply going to be able to hurl a larger payload a larger distance.

 

[Mashan]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

1) China does not have Su-33.
2) Current Flankers, such as MKI, J-11B, MKK and Su-35 are all more modern and capable than the Su-33.
3) Su-33 has not been produced/marketed/upgraded for over a decade.

The Su-33 as it stands today is just a basic Su-27 with in flight refueling, canards, leading edge extensions, and a little tougher construction. It lacks composite materials, RCS reduction, and modern avionics which can be seen in all the current Flanker models.



Maybe in terms of A2A performance, but in overall capability you have to figure in range, payload, and A2G capability as well. A larger fighter is simply going to be able to hurl a larger payload a larger distance.

Again as posted before, the J11B/J10B makes the high/low combination, even the USAF uses F22/F35 the same way. So nothing wrong with J10B being less capable than the J11B. It is also a lot cheaper to build and maintain.

 

[challenge]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

It is. If you search F16 UHF communications then you will hear on certain frequencies strange buzzing. That is the interlink...

>>>
2.6.1.2 Security
Both messages (bits) and transmissions (waveforms) are encrypted in Link-16. Messages are encrypted by a KGV-8B encryption device in accordance with a specified cryptovariable, i.e. key. Transmission security (TSEC) is provided by another cryptovariable that determines JTIDS waveform specifics. The waveform uses frequency hopping with a hop pattern determined by the net number and the TSEC cryptovariable.
Due to the constant relocation of the carrier frequency across the frequency spectrum, it is difficult to detect and difficult to jam.
The TSEC cryptovariable also determines the amount of jitter in a signal. Jitter is the delay, or dead time, that occurs at the beginning of each time slot where no pulse energy is transmitted. Varying the amount of jitter from time slot to time slot makes it difficult for a jammer to know when to turn on the jamming signal [Nor94].
The pseudorandom noise (PN) determined by the TSEC cryptovariable increases the TSEC of the JTIDS signal. This is accomplished by performing an exclusive-or operation (XOR) on 32 message bits with the 32-chip PN sequence of ones and zeroes. As a result, the transmitted data appears like incoherent noise to an unintended receiver [Nor94].

any info about the russian air force LINK-16?

 

[tphuang]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Maybe in terms of A2A performance, but in overall capability you have to figure in range, payload, and A2G capability as well. A larger fighter is simply going to be able to hurl a larger payload a larger distance.

yeah, I was talking strictly about air defense, interception, escorting in attack missions and such. The greatest problem to J-10A was that it's range is not all that great. Hopefully, the range of J-10B will be enough to be able to escort fighter bombers with PLAAF. That's one of the problems with JF-17 when it comes to PLAAF. That you simply cannot expect it to escort something like JH-7A on a long range mission. But of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't have other possible places with PLAAF. It would still be able to be used for air defense.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

yeah, I was talking strictly about air defense, interception, escorting in attack missions and such. The greatest problem to J-10A was that it's range is not all that great. Hopefully, the range of J-10B will be enough to be able to escort fighter bombers with PLAAF. That's one of the problems with JF-17 when it comes to PLAAF. That you simply cannot expect it to escort something like JH-7A on a long range mission. But of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't have other possible places with PLAAF. It would still be able to be used for air defense.

Well its not as if all those J-7 that need replacing perform such missions anyways. Most JH-7s are with the PLANAF anyway, and we know the PLANAF has no shortage of long range aircraft (J-8D/H/F, although their suitability for such tasks isn't really known as they're more long range BVR AAM platforms)