Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

[FuturePAF]

It's a master stroke by itself! It might also suggest the PAF engineers have got access to the high power/frequency devices and ultra-high speed computational platforms from some sources to implement their very own "imagination" in the EW domain.....

Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstein

Perhaps It’s akin to the Gripen E’s Arexis pod, but I hope they go further and integrate something like what Turkey is developing, at least for a few air frames per squadron (perhaps on the JF-17B models, during heightened tensions)

Would also be interesting if there is a joint venture with Turkish efforts considering they are also facing Greek Rafales and the S-400.

An interesting article on a very capable Jamming pod under development by Turkey. The article mentions capabilities of the Growlers Next Generation Jamming pod, and perhaps How Turkey’s new pod is benchmark with the US NGJ.

https://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5edfe5a79f24f.pdf

 

[siegecrossbow]

The new AFM issue has an article on the JF-17 which provides some key interesting details(if written in a bit nationalistic prose given the author is retired PAF).

Key takeaways:

1. Block-III has additional composites to increase load carrying capacity. You can read where by buying the AFM issue

2. Block-III might actually have that fuselage hardpoint for AAM(although I am still not convinced how that will look/work)

3. Range of PL-15 variant offerred to Pakistan exceeds range of JF-17 radar!

4. H2/H4 & Raad integration with Block-III

5. Airborne Simulated adversary trainer - apparently a adversary aircraft can be simulated from into radar and HSD to let pilots practice BVR(and WVR??) in flight without the risk of violating distance safety with a live opponent.. apparently the J-10C has a rudimentary version of this @Deino @Shotgunner51

6. Homegrown integrated EW system for JF called Panjnad

7. RD-93 baseline to speed up induction as RD-93MA still being evaluated.

8. Total losses are 3 single seaters and 1 dual
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @JamD @Windjammer

For anything else please read the article - will move the thread to JF-17 section soon.

Range of KLJ-7A is 170KM against fighter sized target. Damn.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Perhaps It’s akin to the Gripen E’s Arexis pod, but I hope they go further and integrate something like what Turkey is developing, at least for a few air frames per squadron (perhaps on the JF-17B models, during heightened tensions)

Would also be interesting if there is a joint venture with Turkish efforts considering they are also facing Greek Rafales and the S-400.

An interesting article on a very capable Jamming pod under development by Turkey. The article mentions capabilities of the Growlers Next Generation Jamming pod, and perhaps How Turkey’s new pod is benchmark with the US NGJ.

https://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5edfe5a79f24f.pdf

In fact the Turkish AESA radar, MEHPOD (national EW pod), indigenous avionics, structural changes, BVR/WVR misses etc. are under the OZGUR (Liberty) program for her F16s. If PAF can get the permission to get into this program its F16s can also be upgraded.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0odPBVlGU0ECQHIUJ_9iSo

[/URL]

 

[aliyusuf]

While reading the AFM Magazine article on the JF-17 Block-III Thunder, one thing that came to mind was that much of what is being revealed is perhaps done so from the export market version in mind.

The radar and missile ranges, for example, as advertised, need not be for the version that will be operated by the PAF, but for the one that would available for export to others.

The PAF is the principal operator of the fighter. Just like the French are for the Rafales and the Chinese are for the J-10's. The principal operator's version is quite likely to be superior to the ones being exported in certain aspects. Similarly, the PAF Thunders are bound to be superior in certain vital aspects in comparison to the Thunder Block-IIIs being exported to a customer, say, Azerbaijan.

The extent of superiority can be the principal operator's prerogative.

 

[HRK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Raad ALCM is pre-programmed hence it's fire and forget weapon system.
Once it's launched, the operator has no control over it.
So say if it was programmed to be launched at 20,000 feet to strike a target at 350 Miles range...what happens if the launch platform say counters bad weather or due to other circumstances the weapon can only be launched from 15,000 feet at the same target which is now only at 300 miles distance.

@SQ8 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @HRK

Well I will excuse myself from commenting on your post as JamD and Bilal Khan (Quwa) have already made comments on quoted post.

 

[CriticalThought]

Metero was inducted into services in 2016, the same year PL 15 was inducted. Meteor has a ramjet engine vs a dua pulse solid fuel rocket for PL15. In all probability, Meteor would have more kinetic energy at the terminal phase than a solid fuel missile. Given the diameter of both the missile being same, probably both will have AESA radar with similar number of modules. There is no specific technology in PL15 to indicate that it can outgun a ramjet missile

@SQ8 highlighted part is completely correct. Let us not give ourselves a wrong psychological benefit here. Meteor is potent, and the Americans do not currently have a parallel exactly because it takes time to research and develop the underlying ramjet technology. But with the Americans and Brits, they can simply acquire the Meteor, as the Brits have done for their F-35s. The Meteor isn't a competitor, rather a value addition to the Western platforms. America doesn't need to think about AMRAAMs out-gunning the Meteor. Pakistan on the other hand needs to find an answer. And if the top leadership is prudent, they will revise numbers to cater for increased number of kills that will now be achieved by Meteor. Per the latest article in AFM, part of the plan seems to be loyal wingmen.

What is also interesting is the following ... "With all Western options having been disregarded, the X-band KLJ-7A liquid-cooled, airborne AESA Fire Control Radar (FCR) became the system of choice for the Block III JF-17." The article then goes on to contradict itself by saying that it looks like KLJ-7A AESA radar will be an air-cooled system ... I think the latter is accurate as we have discussed on the forum extensively already.

Try using your mind for a change. How can an air-cooled radar be even more powerful than the prototype? Here is the meaning of what's written in AFM: by looking at the picture of Block 3, the writer couldn't ascertain that it is a liquid cooled AESA. He says it looks like it is air-cooled. And this can simply be ignorance on the writer's part about the latest GaN technologies.

It's still air cooled. Article made an error I think

It was never air-cooled. I wrote about it extensively after the Sept 7 program. Only morons think it was air-cooled.

 

[FuturePAF]

In fact the Turkish AESA radar, MEHPOD (national EW pod), indigenous avionics, structural changes, BVR/WVR misses etc. are under the OZGUR (Liberty) program for her F16s. If PAF can get the permission to get into this program its F16s can also be upgraded.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0odPBVlGU0ECQHIUJ_9iSo

[/URL]

Perhaps if Turkey gets cleared to get the Block 70/72 F-16s it could put in a good word to be allowed to put in to upgrade the PAF’s F-16s. A tough sell, but good for Turkish industry and good for the US interests as well as it keeps the PAF invested into the F-16, without giving the PAF modern US AESA technology.

 

[CriticalThought]

3. This may be controversial to some but it needs to be said. I have confirmed the following from multiple sources so I can vouch for this. But I am just some guy on the internet so you can choose to ignore it.
PAC is NOT free to integrate whatever it wants on the JF-17 ON ITS OWN as is often claimed. Since we have very little to do with the designing and implementation of the JF-17 flight control hardware and software, we are unable to modify and test it freely. I don't know if this is a lack of capability on our part or the unwillingness of the Chinese to share this tech with us. Basically, PAF tried integrating "a local payload" (possibly Ra'ad, maybe H2/H4, or even IREK) and the JF-17 flight control system went into a "safe mode" because it didn't recognize what had been mounted. This had some pretty disastrous consequences. So anytime we want to integrate a new system onto the JF-17, we have to collaborate with China to do so. It is NOT something that PAC can do independently.
So this is why the plaque probably shows "aeromechanical" and not something like "integration". Our side did what it was able to/allowed to do. That is make sure the JF-17 can handle the static and dynamic loads and fly reasonably well and have proper store separation. The actual integration for the flight control system will have to be done with the help of the Chinese. Considering how Ra'ad is a strategic weapon I can understand why the PAF would hesitate with handing over all the data to China so PAC may have been gaining the capability to integrate some stuff on their own. I don't know. This part is speculation.
This is another reason PAC needs to focus on flight control systems. But maybe I give undue importance to FCS because I'm a controls engineer.

This defies common sense and logic. It goes against very clear and unequivocal statements by the MD of PAC. It goes against the simple fact that JF-17 Block 3 utilizes the MIL-STD-1773 bus. As long as PAC writes in conformance with bus protocol, there should be no error. It goes against the very clear working in the AFM article that JF-17 is an open-source platform and comes with no strings attached. It also goes against not one, but TWO simulation facilities available to PAC for integration.

Probably, as is wont to happen in Pakistan, some early attempt at integration failed, and some braindead subordinate started an uninformed rumor. Happy to be proved wrong though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Raad ALCM is pre-programmed hence it's fire and forget weapon system.
Once it's launched, the operator has no control over it.
So say if it was programmed to be launched at 20,000 feet to strike a target at 350 Miles range...what happens if the launch platform say counters bad weather or due to other circumstances the weapon can only be launched from 15,000 feet at the same target which is now only at 300 miles distance.

@SQ8 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @HRK

This is a strategic weapon we are talking about. First of all, it has been designed so it can be launched without hindrance from enemy aircraft. It can be launched from multiple vectors, and in a wide range of weather conditions. In the case where launch is not possible, it will be mission abort. Just my guess.

 

[CriticalThought]

I would bet its the latter. I had pointed out in another thread - just because a discussion has occurred on the sidelines or even a MoU exists doesn’t mean a budget allocated program exists with dedicated people working on it.

Unfortunately,when reported to public information sources it gets interpreted as if a full fledged development program is underway.

Janab, he is not saying there is a program. He is saying there is a multi-tier effort going on between Pakistan, Turkey, and China. That's a bit hard to create out of nowhere.

 

[JamD]

This defies common sense and logic. It goes against very clear and unequivocal statements by the MD of PAC. It goes against the simple fact that JF-17 Block 3 utilizes the MIL-STD-1773 bus. As long as PAC writes in conformance with bus protocol, there should be no error. It goes against the very clear working in the AFM article that JF-17 is an open-source platform and comes with no strings attached. It also goes against not one, but TWO simulation facilities available to PAC for integration.

Probably, as is wont to happen in Pakistan, some early attempt at integration failed, and some braindead subordinate started an uninformed rumor. Happy to be proved wrong though.

Nope. All I can say is that I do have some subject matter knowledge and the issue clearly has nothing to do with the software communication layer. PAC was worried enough to reach out to experts outside of PAC. But like I said, I'm just a guy on the web and it's probably better everybody treats what I said as an unfounded rumor.

 

[luciferdd]

Range of KLJ-7A is 170KM against fighter sized target. Damn.

New air-cooled LKJ-601E had improved it to more than 200KM against typical fighter,i think as a winner of the competing liquid-cooled KJL-7A should do better.

 

[MastanKhan]

No one is going to talk about Ra'ad integration on JF-17 ? I mean seriously ? Ra'ad is a bloody ALCM with conventional and nuclear warhead, give it some respect.

Hi,

Always remember the saying---" Drive is for show---Putt is for dough "

 

[Bilal.]

New air-cooled LKJ-601E had improved it to more than 200KM against typical fighter,i think as a winner in the competing liquid-cooled KJL-7A should do better.
View attachment 810200

The article says it has improved 65% over the prototype radar that had 81NM range. That comes out around 250Km.

 

[aliyusuf]

The article says it has improved 65% over the prototype radar that had 81NM range. That comes out around 250Km.

By prototype couldn't it have meant the radar on the prototype JF-17 i.e. the mechanically steered KLJ-7v1? And the more than 81NM range stated in the article is for the current one i.e. KLJ-7A?

Also, this could be the open market export version specs. Because why should we reveal what prowess our own Thunders would be having in the context of radar ranges?

 

[Bilal.]

By prototype couldn't it have meant the radar on the prototype JF-17 i.e. the mechanically steered KLJ-7v1? And the more than 81NM range stated in the article is for the current one i.e. KLJ-7A?

Also, this could be the open market export version specs. Because why should we reveal what prowess our own Thunders would be having in the context of radar ranges?

KLJ-7v1/2 have already been marketed at around 110km for 5 sq m RCS target if I remember correctly so how would 81 NM (150Km) be 65% more? Also if we refer to the updated specs of LKF601, it’s now touted to be 200Km.

In any case this article has created some confusions and @SQ8 is just refusing to answer my queries to clear things for us