JF-17 Ready To Deliver Another Surprise

[The Eagle]

It’s not speculated but already known, tufail article , Mirages launches single weapon with manual guidance to the end via joy stick in two seater While jf-17 launched pk-83 with REK which is fire and forget mode looks like it was carrying drips tanks otherwise mk-84 based REK can also be launched from jf

Lastly I am not sure paf is going for Chinese lgb with aselpod but rather existing gbu-12/10 inventory along with aselpod

I had read in Janes long time ago that pak had license to produce lgb kit locally but not sure if it’s true or not but have seen some pic of locally developed lgb similar to GBu-12/10 named al-battar but not sure if lgb kit is locally licensed produced or imported with just locally developed pk-8x

Then the said in-house solution is surely mentioned as iREK which may stands for (Indigenous Range Extension Kit).

 

[JamD]

MoDP Book for last fiscal year also reveals development of IREK which I guess will have more range & capability as compare to current version. @Oscar @messiach @Bilal Khan (Quwa) or others any thoughts?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) I don't think anyone has noticed this yet but there are two distinct range extension kits.

The first called REK here as shown as a purchase (for a large sum that is probably a typo as @khanasifm pointed out). The second is called IREK. I am assuming this is short for indigenous or improved REK.

I was talking to an AWC engineer about REK and on something I said, they said "oh you must be talking about the Chinese REK. There are two." I think we've bought a large number of LS-6 (**read FT-6**) kits and a local design has been developed in parallel. What if the cost listed is not a typo and that's what the Chinese are selling them for. That would certainly be a motivation to develop the kit in-house.

EDIT: Evidence for why there are two distinct REK:
View attachment 578945

EDIT: The I is for ingenious for sure. Confirmed it.

The REK looks like the Chinese FT-6, not LS-6. So, if what we've been seeing thus far has been the FT-6, then we haven't seen what IREK looks like. I wonder what it could be: ToT FT-6 or LS-6? Or an original project?

Discussed on another thread.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Discussed on another thread.

In a way, the blur box is also a huge hint. If it had involved Chinese inputs, they'd be little reason to show it, except if it involves a sensitive capability (e.g. penetrating warhead). Otherwise, the idea is to hide any clue of help from a smaller player, whoever it might be. I'd be interested in seeing (1) if we'll have a rocket-assisted IREK (similar to the H4) (2) if we can pair it to Mk84s and (3) if we give it a remote-operated EO/IR seeker. Those 3 factors may see the IREK supplant the H4.

 

[JamD]

In a way, the blur box is also a huge hint. If it had involved Chinese inputs, they'd be little reason to show it, except if it involves a sensitive capability (e.g. penetrating warhead). Otherwise, the idea is to hide any clue of help from a smaller player, whoever it might be. I'd be interested in seeing (1) if we'll have a rocket-assisted IREK (similar to the H4) (2) if we can pair it to Mk84s and (3) if we give it a remote-operated EO/IR seeker. Those 3 factors may see the IREK supplant the H4.

That's an interesting perspective. All this time I've never thought to probe this angle. I've just assumed IREK is just a glide kit.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

That's an interesting perspective. All this time I've never thought to probe this angle. I've just assumed IREK is just a glide kit.

The way I see it, the PGB is technically a modular kit built around a GPB. If you nail down the gliding and GPS/INS components, you can keep adding stuff to it (albeit with some design changes) to make it more sophisticated.

Your constraint is whether that altered kit can fit on larger bombs.

So, I know that the South African Umbani/Tariq long-range kits (120 km / 200 km) with remote-operated seekers are actually limited to the Mk81 and Mk82, but if you want to scale up to the Mk83 and Mk84, you have to stick with a more REK-like bomb, hence the Sajeel series. You lose the range.

It makes me wonder then, is there no way to make a long-range glider using the Mk83/84 without basically creating a new version of the Raptor/H-series? You'd need to give them different wings, a rocket booster, a new superstructure or airframe, and do it?

So, I wonder, is that a technical constraint? Is that why we see JSOW and H4 etc?

 

[HRK]

In a way, the blur box is also a huge hint. If it had involved Chinese inputs, they'd be little reason to show it, except if it involves a sensitive capability (e.g. penetrating warhead). Otherwise, the idea is to hide any clue of help from a smaller player, whoever it might be. I'd be interested in seeing (1) if we'll have a rocket-assisted IREK (similar to the H4) (2) if we can pair it to Mk84s and (3) if we give it a remote-operated EO/IR seeker. Those 3 factors may see the IREK supplant the H4.

IF all this is integrate REK than all in all it would be something which will mimic the capability of RAPTOR-IIII

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

IF all this is integrate REK than all in all it would be something which will mimic the capability of RAPTOR-IIII

Raptor III is actually a cruise missile. It has an unconventional shape, but it's apparently almost 900 kg and uses a turbojet engine.

I'm referring more to a JSOW design, but I think the IREK may cap out as a PGB. The PAF might need to do what everyone else is doing and look at a different approach to heavy payload bomb design, e.g. JSOW.

 

[khanasifm]

Discussed on another thread.

To cut it short now REK is completely localised solution vs earlier version

 

[messiach]

Local.

I had read in Janes long time ago that pak had license to produce lgb kit locally but not sure if it’s true or not but have seen some pic of locally developed lgb similar to GBu-12/10 named al-battar but not sure if lgb kit is locally licensed produced or imported with just locally developed pk-8x

agree with @khanasifm

MoDP Book for last fiscal year also reveals development of IREK which I guess will have more range & capability as compare to current version. @Oscar @messiach @Bilal Khan (Quwa) or others any thoughts?

 

[JamD]

The way I see it, the PGB is technically a modular kit built around a GPB. If you nail down the gliding and GPS/INS components, you can keep adding stuff to it (albeit with some design changes) to make it more sophisticated.

Your constraint is whether that altered kit can fit on larger bombs.

So, I know that the South African Umbani/Tariq long-range kits (120 km / 200 km) with remote-operated seekers are actually limited to the Mk81 and Mk82, but if you want to scale up to the Mk83 and Mk84, you have to stick with a more REK-like bomb, hence the Sajeel series. You lose the range.

It makes me wonder then, is there no way to make a long-range glider using the Mk83/84 without basically creating a new version of the Raptor/H-series? You'd need to give them different wings, a rocket booster, a new superstructure or airframe, and do it?

So, I wonder, is that a technical constraint? Is that why we see JSOW and H4 etc?

To fly anything you need:
1. Wings big enough to make it glide with a decent glide ratio,
2. Fins/Tails to stabilize it so it doesn't need too much active control,
3. Control surfaces to actively control it because you want to steer it.

All three of the above are sized based on the mass and mass distribution (mass-moment of inertia for technical folks), and speed. If you wanted the same range, the mass of a Mk-84 means it would need wings, fins, and control surfaces probably too big to be practical. Going from Mk-83 to Mk-84 isn't just a simple scaling up. The required wing-area and control surface sizes probably scale by a factor of 2 or something. This is why the 1100 kg Ra'ad has rather unwieldy fins and control surfaces that make it difficult to carry. The Ra'ad is actually able to get away with smaller wings and control surfaces than what a mk-84 REK would need BECAUSE it has propulsion (and hence speed).

You can think of the Ra'ad as a Mk-84 that sacrificed half its boom-boom for range. A Mk-84 with no propulsion and short stubby wings like the Ra'ad would drop like a rock essentially. A Mk-84 with the right sized wings for a REK would be a small airplane.

For something smaller like Mk-82 it makes sense to just use glide because the mass fraction occupied by a cruise-missile type propulsion system would be too high (compared to the warhead mass). Consequently, the range might not increase significantly (or actually go down) by addition of a jet engine.

I could conceive of adding a rocket to Mk-83 to get additional range but this design tradeoffs are hard to do without data. I am just spitballing.

It's all a tradeoff between warhead mass, range, and size.