JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

PAF has to initiate three major types of exercises

I) Annual air combat exercise with Egyptian & Qatari Rafales to perfect tactics against the Indian Air Force Rafale

II) An annual bilateral drills devoted to SEAD/DEAD with the Turkish Air Force training against S-400s. For this PAF must field DA-20s, Erieyes, F-16s and JF-17

III) a distinct SEAD/DEAD drills with the Chinese S-400. For this, PAF must field JF-17s, DA-20 & ZDK-03s

These exercises must be spread out throughout the year so that different units at any given time of the year are engaged in these sorts of drills.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @MastanKhan

We should also see more major joint exercises between the PAF and PA, especially for SEAD/DEAD.

 

[PakFactor]

We should also see more major joint exercises between the PAF and PA, especially for SEAD/DEAD.

Has their been any development from a Joint Operations Command POV — how well can the three branches of the armed forces coordinate?

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

I) Annual air combat exercise with Egyptian & Qatari Rafales to perfect tactics against the Indian Air Force Rafale

Do Qatari and Egyptian Rafales have same specifications as Indian ones?

 

[Falcon26]

Do Qatari and Egyptian Rafales have same specifications as Indian ones?

no major differences.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

no major differences.

All three have Same AESA and Spectra EW?

 

[PakFactor]

All three have Same AESA and Spectra EW?

Yes. But the Indian version have more by ways of software updates, integration of Indian weapons and joint Indian/Israeli Stand of Weapons — so it’s beefed up some what but else remains the same. If we can learn from the Egyptians and Qataris we should be able to counter it — but it’ll be from BVR environment, etc.

If one of the more senior and knowledgeable members can give more detail and how PAF can counter it that’ll be good.

 

[Saifullah]

Source code to the product that Chinese OEM wouldn't share the language integration with any Western OEM and vice versa. Every equipment has to be attached through software as well and in mix of working together; all needs to get settled at one point to work together within an Air Craft. For that integration and communications; these products comes with its own code which is necessary to integrate with other in network centric environment which is like connecting every hardware to processor in a PC. Similarly, you need Hardware Driver so that can work with your current PC setup otherwise, the error remains. Hope that I have been helpful in this regard. Furthermore, I am not a Tech Guy in this field however, a thorough search with keywords can help/lead you to certain papers available online.

This is not how things work. No company shares "Source Code" of their product with any other company. Communication interfaces are written to be shared and sharing them is 100 percent risk free. NG which developed radar for f16 they also don't have access to Amraam's Source code, Source code of any missile is biggest secret for the companies. During the development of JF17 we kept MIL-STD-1760 for Weaponry and MIL-STD-1553B for Avionics while developing our system in C++. This all was done so that we could integrate all the systems available to us. So there are no major problems in integration because of incompatibility etc.

Integration of AMRAAM or any other western system to jf17 is not because of OEM's reluctance to integrate the missile. It's because no one is going to give permission to use there weaponry on our Jet. If US or French give us permission to use their missile on our jet it will be integrated without any problem. There is no security risk for US, French or any other company and to Chinese as well with the integration of missile, in the sense that they will have to share code etc. It's purely political.

The posts coming from Senior members should be factually correct which in this case is not. If you know someone from IT background or someone who is working on avionics he will say the same thing.

Regards

 

[The Eagle]

This is not how things work. No company shares "Source Code" of their product with any other company. Communication interfaces are written to be shared and sharing them is 100 percent risk free. NG which developed radar for f16 they also don't have access to Amraam's Source code, Source code of any missile is biggest secret for the companies. During the development of JF17 we kept MIL-STD-1760 for Weaponry and MIL-STD-1553B for Avionics while developing our system in C++. This all was done so that we could integrate all the systems available to us. So there are no major problem integration because of incompatibility etc.

Integration of AMRAAM or any other western system to jf17 is not because of OEM's reluctance to integrate the missile. It's because no one is going to give permission to use there weaponry on our Jet. If US or French give us permission to use their missile on our jet it will be integrated without any problem. There is no security risk for US, French or any other company and to Chinese as well with the integration of missile, in the sense that they will have to share code etc. It's purely political.

The posts coming from Senior members should be factually correct which in this case is not. If you know someone from IT background or someone who is working on avionics he will say the same thing.

Regards

I am really sorry if I hurt you by any means but that's not my field as I stated and I was merely talking about the problem in general. I don't know if mere permission is needed to mate an AAMRAM 120 C with Chinese radar. Do you think this is the only reason they wouldn't give us weapon because they don't want us to have it on Thunder or there is more onto that?

Would like to read more for knowledge.

The posts coming from Senior members should be factually correct

Nobody is jack of all.

 

[MastanKhan]

This is not how things work. No company shares "Source Code" of their product with any other company. Communication interfaces are written to be shared and sharing them is 100 percent risk free. NG which developed radar for f16 they also don't have access to Amraam's Source code, Source code of any missile is biggest secret for the companies. During the development of JF17 we kept MIL-STD-1760 for Weaponry and MIL-STD-1553B for Avionics while developing our system in C++. This all was done so that we could integrate all the systems available to us. So there are no major problem integration because of incompatibility etc.

Integration of AMRAAM or any other western system to jf17 is not because of OEM's reluctance to integrate the missile. It's because no one is going to give permission to use there weaponry on our Jet. If US or French give us permission to use their missile on our jet it will be integrated without any problem. There is no security risk for US, French or any other company and to Chinese as well with the integration of missile, in the sense that they will have to share code etc. It's purely political.

The posts coming from Senior members should be factually correct which in this case is not. If you know someone from IT background or someone who is working on avionics he will say the same thing.

Regards

Hi,

Thank you for the post---. That is exactly what R AVM Latif stated a few days ago---.

 

[Saifullah]

Do you think this is the only reason they wouldn't give us weapon because they don't want us to have it on Thunder or there is more onto that?

This is the major reason they are not going to let us use AMRAAM 120 on JF17. If that was not the case we would be using the latest AMRAAM on our F16s not the AMRAAM 120 C-5.

Nobody is jack of all.

I didn't mean that you should have knowledge of everything but Senior members must care about what they post as they have the responsibility to be factually correct.

 

[Thorough Pro]

I totally agree

While I cant disagree with you on the discussion percentage, I see a lone voice who does not have the right to delete posts and keep a section clean being made a moderator. I think this is a travesty and makes a mockery of being a moderator. If someone is a Moderator then give him all the rights .
A

 

[The Eagle]

This is the major reason they are not going to let us use AMRAAM 120 on JF17. If that was not the case we would be using the latest AMRAAM on our F16s not the AMRAAM 120 C-5.

My friend, mating an AAMRAM 120C5 with Chinese Radar onboard Thunder is far more different than mere politically hindered AAMRAM 120C7 for F-16s. For that matter, I will request more informed members as well to shed more light on the issue. I am all for learning and be updated if there is only political issue for US weapons for Thunders with Chinese radar. I am of the opinion that for the same reason, we are striving hard and succeeding to for in-house Radar solution so that we have freedom to integrate even though what's available for us.

I didn't mean that you should have knowledge of everything but Senior members must care about what they post as they have the responsibility to be factually correct.

I do agree to the extent that if somebody isn't in knowledge of exact detail, shouldn't enforce opinion on others and I stated that I am not the exact engineer or tech guy on this topic though I had stated what I know so far. So there exist the room for correction as well as more control on the topic. Nobody is perfect and senior member isn't the license for the same at all but more of a Forum designation and for many reasons.

 

[PakFactor]

My friend, mating an AAMRAM 120C5 with Chinese Radar onboard Thunder is far more different than mere politically hindered AAMRAM 120C7 for F-16s. For that matter, I will request more informed members as well to shed more light on the issue. I am all for learning and be updated if there is only political issue for US weapons for Thunders with Chinese radar. I am of the opinion that for the same reason, we are striving hard and succeeding to for in-house Radar solution so that we have freedom to integrate even though what's available for us.


I do agree to the extent that if somebody isn't in knowledge of exact detail, shouldn't enforce opinion on others and I stated that I am not the exact engineer or tech guy on this topic though I had stated what I know so far. So there exist the room for correction as well as more control on the topic. Nobody is perfect and senior member isn't the license for the same at all but more of a Forum designation and for many reasons.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say mating a western weapon with a Chinese radar would not just be difficult but the programming language would probably read differently? And most likely something would have to be codes from scratch?

If I’m not mistake US and West uses Ada Language while we are using C++

Example we use an Agency Management System for Commercial Insurance at one point we used a system to manually log data of new policies and another system to download the data from insurance carrier network. They tried mating the software and it didn’t work out as intended so they had to go back and rework the programming so the software could properly work together. Even till this day their are issues (bugs) they trying to hammer out.

At this point everyone said might have just built everything from scratch cause the man power and time involved to integrate these two — a new software package could have been developed, and communities smoothly.

Don’t know if above is good example or not, but I’m a business guy not programmer but just sharing my experience.

 

[SQ8]

We should also see more major joint exercises between the PAF and PA, especially for SEAD/DEAD.

A tete-a-tete with staff college grads reveals a lack of understanding of these concepts and force integration.

The mentality of not working/teaching beyond the box will be the death of us on the ground battlefield.

 

[PakFactor]

A tete-a-tete with staff college grads reveals a lack of understanding of these concepts and force integration.

The mentality of not working/teaching beyond the box will be the death of us on the ground battlefield.

It’s even worse because these senior officers (even those in my family) often times show a lack of battlefield concepts and tactics — these seniors then end up teaching the new batch of officers.

Problem also lies with higher military echelons where advice from Think Tanks or studying of other reports aren’t given much importance at times or implemented to the letter

At times I feel Like the officers are feudal lords than officers.