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

[Pandora]

Logic compels the conjecture that existing blocks, at least a majority of them, should get an AESA upgrade at the earliest opportunity for a scheduled overhaul or extended maintenance cycle. Why? Because it is the most cost effective force multiplication that the PAF can factor-in ... also in a very short interval of time. This gives our existing fleet of thunders a tremendous boost in --> situation awareness, combat survivability and weapons delivery capability. This will mitigate to an extent the need to acquire a stop gap platform till Project Azm matures.

Logic also needs to be accompanied by millions of dollars which will be required to upgrade older thunders. It is not just radar replacement but several structural modifications are required for block 1 and 2. For now focus is only to procure next batch of block 3 thunder which will take at least 4-5 years.

 

[aliyusuf]

Logic also needs to be accompanied by millions of dollars which will be required to upgrade older thunders. It is not just radar replacement but several structural modifications are required for block 1 and 2. For now focus is only to procure next batch of block 3 thunder which will take at least 4-5 years.

It seems that minimal structural modification is required for LETRI LKF601E Air-Cooled AESA radar which will keep costs down and staggered upgrade will further keep the yearly budget from getting stretched.

 

[krash]

Logic compels the conjecture that existing blocks, at least a majority of them, should get an AESA upgrade at the earliest opportunity for a scheduled overhaul or extended maintenance cycle. Why? Because it is the most cost effective force multiplication that the PAF can factor-in ... also in a very short interval of time. This gives our existing fleet of thunders a tremendous boost in --> situation awareness, combat survivability and weapons delivery capability. This will mitigate to an extent the need to acquire a stop gap platform till Project Azm matures.

I'm afraid it might not be as simple in our case. We have to again realize our constraints which have almost become a cliche now, i.e. funds. AESA radars of any type are very expensive and I fear that with our limited budget PAF in the end will have to choose between upgrading the older radars on the older Blocks VS adding raw numbers by producing new birds and/or even adding newer blocks. The older radars once removed will also be a complete sunk cost of millions of dollars which the PAF might not be very happy with. As long as the PAF performs an aggressive cost and benefit analysis on the matter, we should be happy with whatever they decide.

Why hire new scientists, produce a new supply chain, open a production facility when you can buy off shelf???

For more freedom. One basic example would be longer ranged missiles. The MTCR will not allow us to buy missiles with ranges exceeding 300 km. That's less than what we produce right now. It will also future proof our armory, we will keep on building on our existing technologies and ideally keep up with the times without depending on anyone. As long as you don't need it in negligible numbers it never makes sense to buy from others and not produce it yourself, especially when you already can.

Besides, why would we not want to spend that money on our own scientists, supply chain and production only to then spend more on someone else's? When you buy it you pay your fair share of whatever it took to make it, including the scientists, the supply chain and the production facilities.

 

[PakFactor]

I'm afraid it might not be as simple in our case. We have to again realize our constraints which have almost become a cliche now, i.e. funds. AESA radars of any type are very expensive and I fear that with our limited budget PAF in the end will have to choose between upgrading the older radars on the older Blocks VS adding raw numbers by producing new birds and/or even adding newer blocks. The older radars once removed will also be a complete sunk cost of millions of dollars which the PAF might not be very happy with. As long as the PAF performs an aggressive cost and benefit analysis on the matter, we should be happy with whatever they decide.




For more freedom. One basic example would be longer ranged missiles. The MTCR will not allow us to buy missiles with ranges exceeding 300 km. That's less than what we produce right now. It will also future proof our armory, we will keep on building on our existing technologies and ideally keep up with the times without depending on anyone. As long as you don't need it in negligible numbers it never makes sense to buy from others and not produce it yourself, especially when you already can.

Besides, why would we not want to spend that money on our own scientists, supply chain and production only to then spend more on someone else's? When you buy it you pay your fair share of whatever it took to make it, including the scientists, the supply chain and the production facilities.

Hold up Pakistan/China are not part of that MTCR agreement we don't even have to follow it as a non-member. It's within our right to produce/purchase anything beyond 300KM.

 

[krash]

Hold up Pakistan/China are not part of that MTCR agreement we don't even have to follow it as a non-member. It's within our right to produce/purchase anything beyond 300KM.

Turkey is.

 

[PakFactor]

Turkey is.

Oh, they should pull out of it.

 

[aliyusuf]

I'm afraid it might not be as simple in our case. We have to again realize our constraints which have almost become a cliche now, i.e. funds. AESA radars of any type are very expensive and I fear that with our limited budget PAF in the end will have to choose between upgrading the older radars on the older Blocks VS adding raw numbers by producing new birds and/or even adding newer blocks. The older radars once removed will also be a complete sunk cost of millions of dollars which the PAF might not be very happy with. As long as the PAF performs an aggressive cost and benefit analysis on the matter, we should be happy with whatever they decide.

At any case, our production rate has not been at par to our possible threat levels. The AESA on the newer blocks will be even more costlier than the air cooled LKF601E that will be used for the upgrades. Plus factor-in the cost of building the rest of the new fighter. At roughly the cost of about a dozen newer fighters we can have several dozen nearly as capable (upgraded) existing fighters. A very significant force multiplication. The finances can be managed by deferring the upgrade in staggered phases i.e. no need to upgrade the existing fleet in one go. Doing it according to the overhaul schedule of existing birds can also be quite suitable. This way fiscal viability and new production timelines can also be maintained.

 

[Pandora]

It seems that minimal structural modification is required for LETRI LKF601E Air-Cooled AESA radar which will keep costs down and staggered upgrade will further keep the yearly budget from getting stretched.

Ground clearance needs to be increased. Wings need to be strengthened. These are not minor modifications. These upgrades will have to be done at same time to avoid increased costs. You can't simply recall a plane for a single radar replacement.

 

[aliyusuf]

You can't simply recall a plane for a single radar replacement.

So if by the radar upgrade there is a significant boost in capability, to the existing fleet, we should not pursue it because it is too trivial and not worth the bother? Also you don't need to recall, as you can do it in the next scheduled overhaul or extended maintenance cycle.

Ground clearance needs to be increased. Wings need to be strengthened. These are not minor modifications. These upgrades will have to be done at same time to avoid increased costs.

These have nothing to do with radar upgrade. And the PAF has no plans to do it. They have not included these on the Block-III either.

Brother you have a right to form an opinion and express it.
But let's agree to disagree.

 

[MystryMan]

It seems that minimal structural modification is required for LETRI LKF601E Air-Cooled AESA radar which will keep costs down and staggered upgrade will further keep the yearly budget from getting stretched.

why not ask the maker of KLJ7A to make a version suitable for block 1 and 2 instead of LKFE601?

 

[aliyusuf]

why not ask the maker of KLJ7A to make a version suitable for block 1 and 2 instead of LKFE601?

So if LKF601E fits the requirement to upgrade the existing blocks, why ask for a different version? The one on Block-III may be more capable and the Block-III was perhaps redesigned to be compatible with it while the existing blocks weren't??!!

 

[NA71]

So if LKF601E fits the requirement to upgrade the existing blocks, why ask for a different version? The one on Block-III may be more capable and the Block-III was perhaps redesigned to be compatible with it while the existing blocks weren't??!!

How about "we already have few block 2 JFTs fitted with LKF601E"

little more insight on LKF601E
(https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-lkf601e-fcs-aesa-radar-from-china.html)

"The radar uses a 3GHz bandwidth at the X-band, provides detection of fighter-sized targets at 170 km, tracks up to 15 targets simultaneously and engages four with air/air missiles. The radar also supports air/ground modes, with one-meter SAR resolution and terrain mapping at 300 km. Searching targets at sea, the radar can detect large targets from 200 km. The planar AESA array measures 60×60 cm and weighs 69 kg. The processor and power module weigh another less than 35 kg. The array consumes 3,200 VA of power."

 

[denel]

At any case, our production rate has not been at par to our possible threat levels. The AESA on the newer blocks will be even more costlier than the air cooled LKF601E that will be used for the upgrades. Plus factor-in the cost of building the rest of the new fighter. At roughly the cost of about a dozen newer fighters we can have several dozen nearly as capable (upgraded) existing fighters. A very significant force multiplication. The finances can be managed by deferring the upgrade in staggered phases i.e. no need to upgrade the existing fleet in one go. Doing it according to the overhaul schedule of existing birds can also be quite suitable. This way fiscal viability and new production timelines can also be maintained.

remember one thing about cost; as production rate increases cost rate starts to drop off

 

[Mrc]

The cheapest and most cost effective solution for marching towards a self sufficient orce alive to challenges is to convert block 1 and 2 to aesa.

This is far more cheaper than buying a new aircraft or even opting for a new bomber platform

And also that will utilize existing platforms to full potential even when azm delivers in a decade

 

[Trango Towers]

Let me rephrase what you wrote.
RD-93 "had" smoke issue which was resolved, happened in the past you mentioned it in your post as this is still an issue.

But the first versions of JF-17 "had" smoke issues - why talk about the past?

There are alternatives to RD-93 but PAF still chooses RD-93 - There are no alternatives available, only because there are many jet engines made in the world does not mean they are "viable alternatives" available to PAF.

Nothing but a red carpet welcome for Heat seekers (SAMs). Don't make an even bigger fool of yourself by writing such stupid shit.

Smoke issues are not hard to resolve. Its unburnt fuel. Combustor chamber design has to be adjusted to increase vortex in the chamber. That increases the burn time and thus efficiency.