JF-17 Thunder Discussions

Then you need to look at the results, not what 'Russia claims' ... it turns out that the vast majority of missiles actually hit their target - this was determined by counting impact sites.

Yeah, thats always the thing, one side claims X, the other side claims Y. Not alot of actual verifiable info for anything recent. Also, IIRC they weren't shooting old school tomahawks/harms which the S300? S400? was designed to actually hit, but at least according to the article they were using JSSAM's and probably storm shadows which likely are a much tougher missile to detect and defeat.

Not what I'm talking about at all ... theoretically with one or two parameter changes SAMs can shoot at anything in game.

I'm talking about SAMs not sitting around like fish in a barrel, broadcasting their location etc.

Bonus point if mobile SAMs actually move to semi-random spots, preventing reuse of coordinates on mission replays.

More bonus points for TPOD/IR simulation that prevents you from so easily marking coordinates of vehicles - there are things to be considered like minimum recognizeable size, sensor resolution etc.

Oh if only, wags was real cagey about saying anything about the new FLIR system with regards to things like sensor res/johnson criteria etc...

Then again, ELINT/ISR birds and sats would be hunting these things and you'd have some idea of where they were. Especially if they went active. And you'd be getting strike coordinates for them via datalink. But again, I'm not holding my breath for ED to model any of that. Even with the promises of the IADS they mentioned.

The impact sites were very verifiable. And that attack, IIRC, was mostly tomahawks launched from destroyers.

Yeah, thats always the thing, one side claims X, the other side claims Y. Not alot of actual verifiable info for anything recent. Also, IIRC they weren't shooting old school tomahawks/harms which the S300? S400? was designed to actually hit, but at least according to the article they were using JSSAM's and probably storm shadows which likely are a much tougher missile to detect and defeat.

The impact sites were very verifiable. And that attack, IIRC, was mostly tomahawks launched from destroyers.

I'm no expert but the article claimed it was air launched JSSAM's from B1's and missiles from allied aircraft (hence my guess of storm shadow). No mention of naval strikes in the article. Maybe we are talking about different strikes? At any rate I only threw it up there as a data-blip, with the very real caveat of no one really knows until 20 years later anway.

I'm confident that at least the European aircraft launched some Storm Shadows, but it's hard to say how exactly how many (and how many other/possibly older cruise missiles).

You're right, that could well be.

I'm no expert but the article claimed it was air launched JSSAM's from B1's and missiles from allied aircraft (hence my guess of storm shadow). No mention of naval strikes in the article. Maybe we are talking about different strikes? At any rate I only threw it up there as a data-blip, with the very real caveat of no one really knows until 20 years later anway.

I'm confident that at least the European aircraft launched some Storm Shadows, but it's hard to say how exactly how many (and how many other/possibly older cruise missiles).

It's very well detailed actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_missile_strikes_against_Syria

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/russia-claims-71-out-of-105-cruise-missiles-downed-in-yestedays-air-strikes-none-were-shot-down-according-to-the-us/

RAF launched Storm Shadow.

Armée de l'Air launched Scalp EG (French variant of the Storm Shadow).

French Navy launched the very new MDCN (ship launched Scalp = new missile body with same guidance & targeting system).

USAF launched JASSM

US Navy launched Tomahawk.

Can't wait for the JF17!

Hope it will come soon.

It's very well detailed actually.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_missile_strikes_against_Syria

 

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/

 

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/russia-claims-71-out-of-105-cruise-missiles-downed-in-yestedays-air-strikes-none-were-shot-down-according-to-the-us/

 

RAF launched Storm Shadow.

Armée de l'Air launched Scalp EG (French variant of the Storm Shadow).

French Navy launched the very new MDCN (ship launched Scalp = new missile body with same guidance & targeting system).

USAF launched JASSM

US Navy launched Tomahawk.

Uh, I never expected all that information to be publicly available.

Back on topic, bring on the Thunder!

Oct. 1 was mentioned as a potential release date, but looking at things, it will be probably be later. Any new updates on this as progress looks good?

Oct. 1 was mentioned as a potential release date, but looking at things, it will be probably be later. Any new updates on this as progress looks good?

They're last video talked about their artist's health issues point to a mid october release.

Oct. 1 was mentioned as a potential release date, but looking at things, it will be probably be later. Any new updates on this as progress looks good?

OCT1 was yet another fevered DCS illusion of a release date. I don't think Deka has actually said anything offical, aside from end of summer. I'm gonna guess Oct-Nov ish. I'm sure we will get a heads up a few weeks before.

It's very well detailed actually.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_missile_strikes_against_Syria

 

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/

 

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/russia-claims-71-out-of-105-cruise-missiles-downed-in-yestedays-air-strikes-none-were-shot-down-according-to-the-us/

 

RAF launched Storm Shadow.

Armée de l'Air launched Scalp EG (French variant of the Storm Shadow).

French Navy launched the very new MDCN (ship launched Scalp = new missile body with same guidance & targeting system).

USAF launched JASSM

US Navy launched Tomahawk.

Still alot of "He said, She said" in that article about how many, if any missiles were actually shot down. Which was my point all along.

OCT1 was yet another fevered DCS illusion of a release date. I don't think Deka has actually said anything offical, aside from end of summer. I'm gonna guess Oct-Nov ish. I'm sure we will get a heads up a few weeks before.

They did. They hope they can finish most of the 3d/2d work within a month. Source, the second latest dekka video.

Still alot of "He said, She said" in that article about how many, if any missiles were actually shot down. Which was my point all along.

The damages on selected targets have been shown and are consistent with the announced number of missiles shot.

So the Syrian air defence shooting down 3/4 of the missiles is mostly BS to me.

On the C-802AKG it has much more range(280km vs 180km) and a much larger warhead(285kg vs 190kg) then the C-802A. I assume the imaging seeker is small enough compared to the radar for more space internally?

Seriously that is a huge range and larger warhead then harpoon. I wonder what the letters stand for? I also wonder about handing off datalink MITL control to another JF-17

Officially the AK/AKG have 230km range - the datalink ability is (AFAIK) 280km which is a bit hmm ok ...

http://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2012/11/cm-802akg-air-to-surface-missile.html

Officially the AK/AKG have 230km range - the datalink ability is (AFAIK) 280km which is a bit hmm ok ...

 

 

 

http://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2012/11/cm-802akg-air-to-surface-missile.html

the export version, max 300km limitation.

it cannot be 299.99km every time:)

IIRC all C-802 are export, the 'YJ' are the non-export variants...am I wrong?

In any case, so far the flight range of the 802AKG seems to be 230km, not 280.

Thank you my mistake. Helluva warhead on that thing and still more range then C-802A. Trying to find out what the suffixes mean...

The damages on selected targets have been shown and are consistent with the announced number of missiles shot.

So the Syrian air defence shooting down 3/4 of the missiles is mostly BS to me.

Those missile numbers "shot" were announced well after the strikes landed. So yes no doubt they will closely match google earth photos. Just sayin...

Those missile numbers "shot" were announced well after the strikes landed. So yes no doubt they will closely match google earth photos. Just sayin...

About the French strike we even know how much failed. So need to go into conspiracy. :music_whistling:

JF-17 for Iran? That would be good for DCS Persian Gulf

So I came across this article

http://defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=581797 which is almost a year old, I wonder what the outcome was.

Would be really nice to include JF17 forn Iran in DCS even though mayne not realistic.

What do you think?

By the way, art in this article looks familiar ...

Questions about the radar shown in the Air to Air video

1. The radar is shown to have 4 bar 120 degree scan capability in TWS. Is this a bug or do you guys believe the radar can do this? I would think full TWS would limit scan volume to maintain trackfile update rate. The images below shows TWS go to a plus/minus 25 degree scan (50 degree total scan).

Footage from this video shows TWS limited to a 50 degree sweep in a 3 or 4 bar (hard to tell) scan.

2. SAM mode should also limit the azimuth and bar area as seen in available SAM mode picture below. (plus or minus 30 degrees)

Going off the information above, (SAM mode with a 4 bar / 60 degree total scan) the KLJ-7 would be able to do a 2 bar / 120 degree scan but not a 4 bar / 120 degree scan.

3. The left azmiuth indicator should read the plus & minus azimuth scan, not the total scan.

4. In VS and RWS you show trackfiles (target ALT and vector) instead of "hits" or "bricks". Was this intentional or another bug? VS definitely shouldn't have a target vector, and RWS probably wouldn't either unless Latent TWS was being performed.

However, given that you have a target history option (M1, M2, M3, M4) that only applies to RWS and VS, it seems to me that those modes use bricks/hits, as there is no reason to display old trackfiles behind an existing trackfile..

Target history specifically exists to give the pilot SA to where the target is going when target vector isnt shown (ie brick movement over time). If every radar hit had a velocity vector, target history (M2, M3, M4) would serve no purpose. In fact, SAM and TWS would be completely useless if trackfiles are always present in RWS. Thus I think its very likely that RWS and VS use radar bricks / hits.

They probably look like the F-16 radar bricks, since everything else looks like its been influenced by the APG-66/early APG-68 (likely acquired from the Peace Pearl project).

Example of a generic radar brick:

5. Will the "EXP" option be added to TWS as seen in the first 2 pictures?

6. The lower left bearing and range indicator looks like it can also work when a target isn't locked or soft locked. Thus is must be relative to your own aircraft in that case. See pic below.

7. DTT mode should not continue to scan for additional targets. DTT is like STT but switching back and forth between the two targets. Proof below in KLJ-7 replacement footage. Watch the antenna position while radar is in DTT.

That last video is about the LKF601E AESA radar. We have KLJ-7