F-20 vs Gripen vs JF-17?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

On the shelf selection may be Griffo or ELM2000 derivatives, if you prefer eastern products it will be Zhuk in crippled podded version. Certainly there are some options available. But right now your limit is not airframe size and nose section - but money - with electronic arrays and DSP you are available to spread your radar aperture across airframe not necessary keep it located in one place even it is most effective means but not only one possible...
 
kitplane01 said:
Yep. You can fit a small antenna .. but not a normal sized one. An F-16 (or F-15, F-35) sized antenna won't fit. Did you see how many times times they said "tailor made"?
Click to expand...
Well what do you consider "normal size?" Do you need a larger antenna to support your mission profile? As the old saying goes "size isn't everything" but in the case of an aircraft like the F-5 you do have some limitations and then have to consider what you're going to do to work around those limitations if even possible. After that It's a matter of money as J_P_C mentioned.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Well what do you consider "normal size?" Do you need a larger antenna to support your mission profile? As the old saying goes "size isn't everything" but in the case of an aircraft like the F-5 you do have some limitations and then have to consider what you're going to do to work around those limitations if even possible. After that It's a matter of money as J_P_C mentioned.
Click to expand...
Size does matter!

Consider every mainline fighter being manufactured today. If it's smaller than all of them (F-16, F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-27, F-15, F-35, J-20 and Saab Gripen) then it's too small.

If you want to make a ground attack aircraft, then why use an F-20 airframe. If you want to engage in beyond visual range air combat, money doesn't overcome physics.
 
kitplane01 said:
Size does matter!

Consider every mainline fighter being manufactured today. If it's smaller than all of them (F-16, F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-27, F-15, F-35, J-20 and Saab Gripen) then it's too small.

If you want to make a ground attack aircraft, then why use an F-20 airframe. If you want to engage in beyond visual range air combat, money doesn't overcome physics.
Click to expand...
you are right... to the specific extent.. with, lets say, classic approach size of the array is critical.. but with clever design of sensor you may bypass space constrains for example with splitting your radar aperture on multiple locations on the airframe, you may even make selected modules bandwidth specialized which makes your radar anti-stealth capable device - generally limitation in possible design right now are more skills of the designers and budget. For the clean sheet design such approach will be limited to optimal geometrical distribution of the modules - for retrofit purposes it is just theoretical possibility - you are not platting with gold machine with remaining 25% total life of airframe - this is matter of economical calculation.
 
kitplane01 said:
Size does matter!
Click to expand...
It does to a point. There's been great strides to make smaller radar antennas more capable, the one I shown on the link is an example, it depends what you're going to use it for.
kitplane01 said:
Consider every mainline fighter being manufactured today. If it's smaller than all of them (F-16, F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-27, F-15, F-35, J-20 and Saab Gripen) then it's too small.
Click to expand...
I have - have you compared the size of their radar antennas (AN/APG-68, AN/APG-77 or -81?) rather than the aircraft itself? They are all about the same size but perform differently. If you look at the APG-83 antenna (F-16 upgrade) it isn't much bigger than the GRIFO-F which is an excellent antenna from what I understand and smaller then say and -77 or -81
kitplane01 said:
If you want to make a ground attack aircraft, then why use an F-20 airframe. If you want to engage in beyond visual range air combat, money doesn't overcome physics.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% but sometimes it's about what equipment you have on hand and what you can afford
 
J_P_C said:
you are right... to the specific extent.. with, lets say, classic approach size of the array is critical.. but with clever design of sensor you may bypass space constrains for example with splitting your radar aperture on multiple locations on the airframe, you may even make selected modules bandwidth specialized which makes your radar anti-stealth capable device - generally limitation in possible design right now are more skills of the designers and budget. For the clean sheet design such approach will be limited to optimal geometrical distribution of the modules - for retrofit purposes it is just theoretical possibility - you are not platting with gold machine with remaining 25% total life of airframe - this is matter of economical calculation.
Click to expand...
100% My point
 
tomo pauk said:
China has enough of money to buy, fuel and maintain the pricy and more capable hardware. Not just the bigger, heavier and more expensive J-10, but a whole host of 2-engined fighter-bombers.
Click to expand...

That's true, although its worth noting that the JF-17 was designed to replace the Q-5 and J-7, combining their capabilities in one airframe as a swing role fighter, but the PLAAF still operates the older, less sophisticated Q-5s and J-7s in numbers, while choosing an array of type specific aircraft. It was China that initiated and spent on the JF-17, or FC-1 as it was originally coded and intended the type for the export market, thus far displaying no intent to buy it, but it could be a useful type for China, since despite upgrades, the J-7 is essentially a warmed over MiG-21 and the Q-5s are long in the tooth.

Pakistan operates the export variants of the Q-5 and J-7, the A-5 and F-7 and is replacing them with the JF-17.
 
kitplane01 said:
You literally cannot fit a modern radar into the skinny nose of an F-20. A full sized antenna won't fit. That's why no modern fighter has an F-20 style nose.
Click to expand...

It's surprising what can be done when there is a necessity. When the RNZAF chose to upgrade its A-4s in the 1980s it chose the APG-66 radar and shoehorned that into the A-4's nose. The avionics bays were tightly packed.
 
nuuumannn said:
That's true, although its worth noting that the JF-17 was designed to replace the Q-5 and J-7, combining their capabilities in one airframe as a swing role fighter, but the PLAAF still operates the older, less sophisticated Q-5s and J-7s in numbers, while choosing an array of type specific aircraft. It was China that initiated and spent on the JF-17, or FC-1 as it was originally coded and intended the type for the export market, thus far displaying no intent to buy it, but it could be a useful type for China, since despite upgrades, the J-7 is essentially a warmed over MiG-21 and the Q-5s are long in the tooth.

Pakistan operates the export variants of the Q-5 and J-7, the A-5 and F-7 and is replacing them with the JF-17.
Click to expand...

PLAAF has phased out the Q-5 in 2017, or at least so Wikipedia says. The J-7 is probably also phased out by now, Wikipedia counts 320 copies in service as of 2012.
My take is that J-10 is the 'low' part of the high-low mix composition of Chinese fighter force, the 'high' part being Su-27 derivatives and the newest 20-30 series. FC-1/JF-17 is - doh - the 'Chinese Tigershark': principal producing country has no use for it, but countries with small budgets might buy it.
 
tomo pauk said:
PLAAF has phased out the Q-5 in 2017, or at least so Wikipedia says. The J-7 is probably also phased out by now, Wikipedia counts 320 copies in service as of 2012.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rely too much on Wiki, the J-7 is undergoing avionic upgrades as the J-7G following upgrade success among export variants and still serves the PLAAF in numbers. The Q-5 is still alive and well within the PLAAF and in smaller numbers with the PLAN, but in ever decreasing quantities in both services though. It is on its way out however, and that does depend on the Su-27/Su-30 strike derivatives being developed.

tomo pauk said:
My take is that J-10 is the 'low' part of the high-low mix composition of Chinese fighter force, the 'high' part being Su-27 derivatives and the newest 20-30 series. FC-1/JF-17 is - doh - the 'Chinese Tigershark': principal producing country has no use for it, but countries with small budgets might buy it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the J-10 was supposed to replace the J-7, but they are still hanging on for dear life even though the J-10 undergoes upgrades to better variants, including a 'Wild Weasel' version capable of carrying ARMs. The Su-27 derivatives, despite their future within the PLAAF are still proving troublesome, the naval variants in particular, despite new variants built with CATOBAR capability they remain high maintenance and low serviceability and are not capable of operating from the ski jump platforms fully armed and fuelled as they are so heavy. There are versions being developed with a strike capability to replace the JH-7, production of which has ended a few years back, the J-16, which is based on the Su-30.

Yes, the 'Chinese Tigershark' is an apt description! Although production in Pakistan, which is investing heavily in the type and small scale export success means that already its doing better than the F-20. It does come as a surprise that China has no use for the FC-1/JF-17; it has the potential to sell well and the lack of Chinese investment might deter potential purchasers. Pakistan doesn't exactly have a credible support and logistics background from which to sustain maintenance support for a combat aircraft, so China being more involved would help its sales potential.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Absolutely. The Canadians installed upgraded avionics in their F-5s during the last years they were flying them, similar to what was found in the F/A-18. The issue is when you have to mount sensors and antennas that might be built into a modern airframe designed from the ground up to accommodate those avionics. You may give an older airframe new life but may inhibit some performance aspects because of "bolt on" improvements.
Click to expand...
On the bright side, old avionics usually were bulkier and heavier, so finding space for new ones shouldn't be a problem.

I think there is an Israeli avionics manufacturer that even offers to modernize Mig-21. While I don't expect them to sell cutting edge stuff (also for security reasons) I wonder how these modernized Mig 21s stack up against some low cost, "export only" offerings from Russia and China

Besides avionics, also engines got more efficient and lighter with time. So, even if one finds a way to bring avionics up to date, there is still the problem of using an outdated engine. From an engineering point of view, engines swap in a plane are problematic for a number of reasons, most notably, maintaining the same weight distribution, making sure the air intakes are adequate, rewiring all the controls, accessories placement, etc...
 
msxyz said:
On the bright side, old avionics usually were bulkier and heavier, so finding space for new ones shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
Generally yes, but there's many variables involved depending on what you're putting in, what its supposed to do and what kind of installation requirements are involved
msxyz said:
Besides avionics, also engines got more efficient and lighter with time. So, even if one finds a way to bring avionics up to date, there is still the problem of using an outdated engine. From an engineering point of view, engines swap in a plane are problematic for a number of reasons, most notably, maintaining the same weight distribution, making sure the air intakes are adequate, rewiring all the controls, accessories placement, etc...
Click to expand...
Agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Snautzer01
Israel vs Hamas Conflict 2023
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
7K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
DerAdlerIstGelandet
J
F-106 vs. F-4 (1972)
Replies
0
Views
441
Joe Broady
J
M
F-22 Crumbling Skin
Replies
3
Views
365
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
USMC Purchases More F-5 Fighters
Replies
2
Views
359
GTX
GTX
A
2030, Chinese CBG vs. Japanese CBG
Replies
0
Views
342
Admiral Beez
A
Back