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

[StormBreaker]

Please keep in mind that PAF has a pretty good relationship with Italians historically and increasingly with the Turks in the avionics arena. Secondly, with the EU in tatters, most European countries deal with other countries on a bi-lateral basis. Pakistan has decent options however the best would be to push Chinese to deliver on PAF's requirements. This will allow the best level of customization for Pakistan (aside from maybe the Turkish option).

Exactly, EU is pretty much negotiable with us on tables except for some countries or some specific systems.

But, we are always prone to sanctions and Given that China is progressing rapidly, it is best to take some time, and get a chinese instead !!!

 

[PakFactor]

Please keep in mind that PAF has a pretty good relationship with Italians historically and increasingly with the Turks in the avionics arena. Secondly, with the EU in a state of disarray, most European countries with an aviation industry are willing to deal on a bilateral basis as long as there is money to be made. As such Pakistan has decent options however I would maintain the best would be to push Chinese to deliver on PAF's requirements. This will allow for the best level of customization for Pakistan (aside from maybe the Turkish option).

Chinese are also the most willing to invest in Pakistan's local avionics industry so there are long term advantages to be had versus going back to the same well (Western one) over and over with no ToT/strict end user restrictions (no mods etc.). As a result, our short term dependence has the potential to kill off the opportunity to grow the indigenous industry because once PAF has a solution purchased, the local options die off. Now sometimes we make the same argument with the Chinese equipment (with the refrain they aren't as good as the western options). Let's keep one thing in mind NO country in the world, aside from the US, is putting as much money into R&D and post-graduate level education focused on defense industry as China. This means what took decades to develop will be possible in years.

I am also not proposing that PAF should not do what it needs to for meeting its immediate needs. However there has to be a good balance here and discounting Chinese products, whose benefit in a synergistic and efficient employment can be significant, maybe counter-productive.

Lastly, the end goal for Pakistan is to take care of the avionics all by ourselves. It's a tall goal but achievable. This is increasingly important in an export-oriented environment with the country trying to sell JF-17 abroad. This means that Pakistan's specific requirements for avionics are fully customized for our own need without a second or a third country getting the same from China. Think F-35 and IAI (Israel Aeronautics) model because this is what the goal for PAC is with our own future aircraft.

You have a point their as well what was taking decades before is being done in years. I guess we wait and work with our partners and try local level R&D along with China/Turkey.

I’m mean as long we can counter their Russian made weaponry, which I’m sure China can as they are using same thing and well wait until it matures to counter west.

 

[Falcon26]

Look as far as EW is concerned, nothing you can speculate or write will highlight what is actually the case.

As far as US or Chinese, well in my personal experience of testing Chinese units and European (Ericson/Thales) as well as Harris - they remain a decade behind US. Most of their specs dont add up and are hyper inflated. My observation is they copy and put in modules and fail to see the bigger picture. I am watering down a lot what i can write here.

Since PAF has primarily used western ew system (Indra first and now rumored Turkish) do we still need to discuss the Chinese angle? I agree, Chinese EW systems are not as good as advertised.

 

[PakFactor]

Since PAF has primarily used western ew system (Indra first and now rumored Turkish) do we still need to discuss the Chinese angle? I agree, Chinese EW systems are not as good as advertised.

Unless it’s confirmed or verified inside we can ignore the Chinese aspect.

 

[aliaselin]

testing Chinese units a

Test Chinese unit? Which brand? What unit?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Please keep in mind that PAF has a pretty good relationship with Italians historically and increasingly with the Turks in the avionics arena. Secondly, with the EU in a state of disarray, most European countries with an aviation industry are willing to deal on a bilateral basis as long as there is money to be made. As such Pakistan has decent options however I would maintain the best would be to push Chinese to deliver on PAF's requirements. This will allow for the best level of customization for Pakistan (aside from maybe the Turkish option).

Chinese are also the most willing to invest in Pakistan's local avionics industry so there are long term advantages to be had versus going back to the same well (Western one) over and over with no ToT/strict end user restrictions (no mods etc.). As a result, our short term dependence has the potential to kill off the opportunity to grow the indigenous industry because once PAF has a solution purchased, the local options die off. Now sometimes we make the same argument with the Chinese equipment (with the refrain they aren't as good as the western options). Let's keep one thing in mind NO country in the world, aside from the US, is putting as much money into R&D and post-graduate level education focused on defense industry as China. This means what took decades to develop will be possible in years.

I am also not proposing that PAF should not do what it needs to for meeting its immediate needs. However there has to be a good balance here and discounting Chinese products, whose benefit in a synergistic and efficient employment can be significant, maybe counter-productive.

Lastly, the end goal for Pakistan is to take care of the avionics all by ourselves. It's a tall goal but achievable. This is increasingly important in an export-oriented environment with the country trying to sell JF-17 abroad. This means that Pakistan's specific requirements for avionics are fully customized for our own need without a second or a third country getting the same from China. Think F-35 and IAI (Israel Aeronautics) model because this is what the goal for PAC is with our own future aircraft.

Since PAF has primarily used western ew system (Indra first and now rumored Turkish) do we still need to discuss the Chinese angle? I agree, Chinese EW systems are not as good as advertised.

IMO ... I wouldn't undercut the Chinese on electronics. From what I understand, you can get tier-1 stuff from China provided you're willing to pay for it. The question is if the Chinese have reached a level of efficiency with tier-1 stuff such that they can price it lower than the competition. It's at that point you'd go to the US or EU for finding a better priced solution (relative to performance). But the Chinese can do it, IMO.

Also, from what I understand, the hardware stack is but one part of EW, there's also the threat library and some other elements I imagine. The latter may have more to do with the end-user than the OEM (unless the OEM can and is willing, like the US is with some of its goods).

Ironically, perhaps, India and Pakistan are both in a position to offer some compelling feedback and data (for the US and China, respectively). But the Europeans will want to know about every party involved, which is why they will keep their doors open to Pakistan, provided the money is there to keep the conversation going.

Anyways, the end goal is to create the best package possible, and ideally, we would want to include the areas where the Chinese excel at just as much as those of the Europeans, Turks, etc. We want to avoid end-to-end 'stacks' (like the radar and weapons coming from the same source, be it China or France) and make a custom grade suite that works best for us (with back-ups in place in case one source fails).

To be honest, the only thing keeping me up at night about the JF-17 Block 3 is literally just the HMD/S. I think there's a good-enough or great solution for every other subsystem (incl. AAMs) available or in the pipeline, but the HMD/S is a weird mystery. It's one of those rare situations where one company somehow took 90% of the market, and very few are bothered to work on the underlying technology outside of that company.

 

[Dil Pakistan]

I found this just now. Very informative video. Don't miss.

Above video claims that Block-III test flight done by PAF pilot

 

[notorious_eagle]

IMO ... I wouldn't undercut the Chinese on electronics. From what I understand, you can get tier-1 stuff from China provided you're willing to pay for it. The question is if the Chinese have reached a level of efficiency with tier-1 stuff such that they can price it lower than the competition. It's at that point you'd go to the US or EU for finding a better priced solution (relative to performance). But the Chinese can do it, IMO.

Also, from what I understand, the hardware stack is but one part of EW, there's also the threat library and some other elements I imagine. The latter may have more to do with the end-user than the OEM (unless the OEM can and is willing, like the US is with some of its goods).

Ironically, perhaps, India and Pakistan are both in a position to offer some compelling feedback and data (for the US and China, respectively). But the Europeans will want to know about every party involved, which is why they will keep their doors open to Pakistan, provided the money is there to keep the conversation going.

Anyways, the end goal is to create the best package possible, and ideally, we would want to include the areas where the Chinese excel at just as much as those of the Europeans, Turks, etc. We want to avoid end-to-end 'stacks' (like the radar and weapons coming from the same source, be it China or France) and make a custom grade suite that works best for us (with back-ups in place in case one source fails).

To be honest, the only thing keeping me up at night about the JF-17 Block 3 is literally just the HMD/S. I think there's a good-enough or great solution for every other subsystem (incl. AAMs) available or in the pipeline, but the HMD/S is a weird mystery. It's one of those rare situations where one company somehow took 90% of the market, and very few are bothered to work on the underlying technology outside of that company.

What happened to this HMD/S that was showcased in a PAF documentary for JF-17. I was under the impression that this HMD/S was given the Green Light:

 

[Cookie Monster]

At this stage, there is too much political bigwigs bsing all over the organisation; if Brazil picks up on their Gripen orders, then we will see some more movement. There has been so much fallout from the bastard Guptas and ANC who were trying to break apart the organisation.

This has been on my wishlist...Pak working with Denel and integrating it's munitions on PAF assets. Then going forward with Pak's push of making in house munitions for its jets...maybe a JV going forward

 

[Bilal.]

IMO ... I wouldn't undercut the Chinese on electronics. From what I understand, you can get tier-1 stuff from China provided you're willing to pay for it. The question is if the Chinese have reached a level of efficiency with tier-1 stuff such that they can price it lower than the competition. It's at that point you'd go to the US or EU for finding a better priced solution (relative to performance). But the Chinese can do it, IMO.

Also, from what I understand, the hardware stack is but one part of EW, there's also the threat library and some other elements I imagine. The latter may have more to do with the end-user than the OEM (unless the OEM can and is willing, like the US is with some of its goods).

Ironically, perhaps, India and Pakistan are both in a position to offer some compelling feedback and data (for the US and China, respectively). But the Europeans will want to know about every party involved, which is why they will keep their doors open to Pakistan, provided the money is there to keep the conversation going.

Anyways, the end goal is to create the best package possible, and ideally, we would want to include the areas where the Chinese excel at just as much as those of the Europeans, Turks, etc. We want to avoid end-to-end 'stacks' (like the radar and weapons coming from the same source, be it China or France) and make a custom grade suite that works best for us (with back-ups in place in case one source fails).

To be honest, the only thing keeping me up at night about the JF-17 Block 3 is literally just the HMD/S. I think there's a good-enough or great solution for every other subsystem (incl. AAMs) available or in the pipeline, but the HMD/S is a weird mystery. It's one of those rare situations where one company somehow took 90% of the market, and very few are bothered to work on the underlying technology outside of that company.

You know, it might sound a bit unorthodox but I think we should engage with Chinese tech companies like Huawei to develop the HMD/S. I think we can come up with a world class system working with them with a quick time to market, given their expertise in compact design, MEMS, user interface, etc.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

What happened to this HMD/S that was showcased in a PAF documentary for JF-17. I was under the impression that this HMD/S was given the Green Light:

It was something (possibly Archer) they tested back in the mid-2000s, but they didn't go ahead with it. I think had the Thales deal for Block-I/II gone through, we would've gotten TopOwl-F with it. That aside, there's basically only the Elbit Targos-line, and that's a non-starter. So, we're waiting for someone to develop an alternative.

 

[FuturePAF]

It was something (possibly Archer) they tested back in the mid-2000s, but they didn't go ahead with it. I think had the Thales deal for Block-I/II gone through, we would've gotten TopOwl-F with it. That aside, there's basically only the Elbit Targos-line, and that's a non-starter. So, we're waiting for someone to develop an alternative.

Any Chance the Turks are working on a Fighter Version of their Aselsan Avci Helmet system. We plan to get it for the T-129, I presume, why not see if they can develop it further for our JF-17 if they don't have a variant for fighters already.

https://www.aselsan.com.tr/en/capab...-systems/avci-helmet-integrates-cueing-system

https://www.aselsan.com.tr/e21fc56d-07ab-402d-a4b2-027e00660377.pdf

Also, here is the results of a survey of what HMD users said about HMD use. It could be insightful in developing or selecting the best HMD
https://web.archive.org/web/2008100...ics.com/files/documents/2008SurveyResults.pdf

Also, using the JHCMS II as a modern metric (due to PAF experience with the JHCMS), With the T-FX a few years away, it would fit into the needs of both the PAF and TuAF perfectly

https://jhmcsii.com/technical-details/

 

[Armchair]

IMO ... I wouldn't undercut the Chinese on electronics. From what I understand, you can get tier-1 stuff from China provided you're willing to pay for it. The question is if the Chinese have reached a level of efficiency with tier-1 stuff such that they can price it lower than the competition. It's at that point you'd go to the US or EU for finding a better priced solution (relative to performance). But the Chinese can do it, IMO.

Also, from what I understand, the hardware stack is but one part of EW, there's also the threat library and some other elements I imagine. The latter may have more to do with the end-user than the OEM (unless the OEM can and is willing, like the US is with some of its goods).

Ironically, perhaps, India and Pakistan are both in a position to offer some compelling feedback and data (for the US and China, respectively). But the Europeans will want to know about every party involved, which is why they will keep their doors open to Pakistan, provided the money is there to keep the conversation going.

Anyways, the end goal is to create the best package possible, and ideally, we would want to include the areas where the Chinese excel at just as much as those of the Europeans, Turks, etc. We want to avoid end-to-end 'stacks' (like the radar and weapons coming from the same source, be it China or France) and make a custom grade suite that works best for us (with back-ups in place in case one source fails).

To be honest, the only thing keeping me up at night about the JF-17 Block 3 is literally just the HMD/S. I think there's a good-enough or great solution for every other subsystem (incl. AAMs) available or in the pipeline, but the HMD/S is a weird mystery. It's one of those rare situations where one company somehow took 90% of the market, and very few are bothered to work on the underlying technology outside of that company.

You know, it might sound a bit unorthodox but I think we should engage with Chinese tech companies like Huawei to develop the HMD/S. I think we can come up with a world class system working with them with a quick time to market, given their expertise in compact design, MEMS, user interface, etc.

HMDS is not a difficult technology just one that needs a lot of sweat to develop. The earliest Soviet HMS was quite simply a round wire. Putting a display is child's play and a question of what info you want on it.
Also HMD is to an extent an alternative to the HUD. Its best not to have too much clutter on the visor and the HUD otherwise the pilot loses info not gaining it.

To develop the right combo and info on the HUD and HMD one has to have close specialised knowledge about modern warfare. This means its best to actually develop this in house.
Huawei would be a great partner for PAF to shrink the bulky Chinese HMD and to make it more use able.

 

[FuturePAF]

Also If the JF-17 Block III has a Chin/intake hard point, the PAF should consider placing a IRST pod there, similar to the 250 Kg Legion Pod from Lockheed.

While a modern AESA is great, there may be some environments where even a radar can be jammed enough to significantly degrade its performance. Furthermore, as the Indian Spice Jet airline incident taught us, we need to be able to visually identify an unknown jet as far out as possible. Electronic means could be made to trick Pakistan to place the lives of a passenger jet (or own own fighter pilots be lured into a trap).

All JF-17s need not house this pod, but if every other plane carries it, then one of a flight of two on CAP could positively identify the unknown aircraft from a safe distance (the other plane could carry the Aselpod to watch for activities on the ground, such as enemy SAMs). Data can be shared via the data-link, between the jets and to ground controllers and higher command.

We need to think from the point of view that we facing hybrid warfare.

 

[Ghessan]

I found this just now. Very informative video. Don't miss.

Above video claims that Block-III test flight done by PAF pilot

the helmet and a PAF pilot he is pointing in the video is actually mentioned in the link provided by @LKJ86 in his previous post, link below:

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/rv6Ht-_qgT9rVq7z_yYkcg