Option for new PAF BVR

[araz]

One possible gain is to go for a 4x2 configuration for the JF-17. 4 PL-15s and 2 Turkish WVR-BVR hybrid.
They would also be useful for the Mirage upgrade that is underway and noted by airomerix.
I thought bhai you said that Pak was developing a SAM system. What happened to that? Would appreciate some news on it.

I do not think the JFT was designed for this. Block 3 may be able to carry 2+2+configuration but feel 4+2+2 maybe a bit too much. Regarding the Mirage upgrade, given PAF's satisfaction with SD10A and the likelihood of he upgrade being done in house it seems more probable PAF might integrate SD10A on its M3/5s. The point I am trying to make is if we stick to one provider we will have a higher mass of requirement making in house manufacturing a more economical reality. Once the roots set in you can always experiment with subsýstems. We have a much better ally in Chi a in this sphere and the collaboration is already on going with talk of building the rockets for HQ16. Things will take off from there.

 

[StormBreaker]

I do not think the JFT was designed for this. Block 3 may be able to carry 2+2+configuration but feel 4+2+2 maybe a bit too much. Regarding the Mirage upgrade, given PAF's satisfaction with SD10A and the likelihood of he upgrade being done in house it seems more probable PAF might integrate SD10A on its M3/5s. The point I am trying to make is if we stick to one provider we will have a higher mass of requirement making in house manufacturing a more economical reality. Once the roots set in you can always experiment with subsýstems. We have a much better ally in Chi a in this sphere and the collaboration is already on going with talk of building the rockets for HQ16. Things will take off from there.

If only there was enough room in the airframe to somehow get a turbofan on existing M5s but all the design principles will be disobeyed.

If we intend to keep them for another decade then PAF must consider a serious upgrade this time, such that they push it to atleast Block 2+ level (sans engine). Install a good radar, Use them for EW, Get them HMD and HOBS AAM, BVRs. That would suffice I believe.

I do not think the JFT was designed for this. Block 3 may be able to carry 2+2+configuration but feel 4+2+2 maybe a bit too much. Regarding the Mirage upgrade, given PAF's satisfaction with SD10A and the likelihood of he upgrade being done in house it seems more probable PAF might integrate SD10A on its M3/5s. The point I am trying to make is if we stick to one provider we will have a higher mass of requirement making in house manufacturing a more economical reality. Once the roots set in you can always experiment with subsýstems. We have a much better ally in Chi a in this sphere and the collaboration is already on going with talk of building the rockets for HQ16. Things will take off from there.

I do hope that in future when China commissions their VLRAAM, Thunders should atleast be able to carry one on each wing.

J-10 or J-Flankers can do the work but I don’t know about Light fighters like thunders.

If AZM is the only next thing then Thunder must be taken to Gripen E level, To atleast makeup for the F-16 gap we have or in other words, To makeup for the required medium weight air superiority fighters.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

remember amraam has a high failure rate in terms of kill rate

at max range every missile has a high failure rate.

 

[khanasifm]

Most professional know max rangers represent marketing number against non maneuvering big cross section and slow moving targets vs reality if something is advertised as xx miles cut in half Or 4th for agile target at low level


people for-example take S-400 at 400Kn , it’s depends on target altitude type of target speed etc etc And your intercept range may be 1/4th or even less

anyway ...

 

[araz]

If only there was enough room in the airframe to somehow get a turbofan on existing M5s but all the design principles will be disobeyed.

If we intend to keep them for another decade then PAF must consider a serious upgrade this time, such that they push it to atleast Block 2+ level (sans engine). Install a good radar, Use them for EW, Get them HMD and HOBS AAM, BVRs. That would suffice I believe.


I do hope that in future when China commissions their VLRAAM, Thunders should atleast be able to carry one on each wing.

J-10 or J-Flankers can do the work but I don’t know about Light fighters like thunders.

If AZM is the only next thing then Thunder must be taken to Gripen E level, To atleast makeup for the F-16 gap we have or in other words, To makeup for the required medium weight air superiority fighters.

Mirages will be upgraded only as much as is necessary. They have a designated role and the engine is fine for that role. Make unnecessary changes and it makes thing too complicated from time and money point of view. Also make an effort where it will bear long term fruits. So a 100 million spent on redesign of a 60 year old air frame is a huge waste of resources which we dont have. And more importantly you take our prime platform out of business for 3-4 years when you clearly need it NOW. So in short keep the changes simple add compatibility with other platforms as required and get the best out of them for the 10 to 15 year period you want to use them for.
JFT on the other hand is our work horse and we will keep upgrading it as much as is possible. So a better more powerful engine, more ATA&ATG weaponry, better software and hardware and even CFTs. We will see a maximum of 10 HPs.
A

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I do not think the JFT was designed for this. Block 3 may be able to carry 2+2+configuration but feel 4+2+2 maybe a bit too much. Regarding the Mirage upgrade, given PAF's satisfaction with SD10A and the likelihood of he upgrade being done in house it seems more probable PAF might integrate SD10A on its M3/5s. The point I am trying to make is if we stick to one provider we will have a higher mass of requirement making in house manufacturing a more economical reality. Once the roots set in you can always experiment with subsýstems. We have a much better ally in Chi a in this sphere and the collaboration is already on going with talk of building the rockets for HQ16. Things will take off from there.

In China's case, the incentive to sell Pakistan turnkey ToT (i.e., everything in the missile, including the sensitive dual-motor rocket tech) depends on whether it's ready to part with Pakistan as a customer. For China, that is the cost of ToT, and the price will be quite high as it will look to offset lost potential sales from the future. This is, of course, assuming it'll even entertain such a thought.

The ideal entry angle would've been to co-fund more programs with China, but in truth, the Chinese don't need us in terms of their defence industry. They have sufficient internal funding and economies-of-scale. It's no wonder that the only true joint-venture we had with them was the JF-17/FC-1, and it's unclear that we would have an option for a second in the future. This could be a reason why the PAF is pursuing AZM as an original design.

However, if one wants to localize AAM and SAM technology, then the likeliest entry-point is working with countries that need economies-of-scale and need co-funding for R&D.

Turkey might, but I'd argue even its needs aren't as urgent or pressing as say South Africa and Ukraine. Not only that, but we know for a hard-coded fact that those two countries also called for such collaboration with us:

In particular, there were negotiations with the leadership of one of the scientific and Industrial organizations of Pakistan. Terms and conditions of the launch of joint Ukrainian-Pakistani production of high-precision missiles of different classes were discussed. The parties confirmed readiness to start joint research and development works in the coming months.

https://ukroboronprom.com.ua/uk/med...pilnogo-vyrobnytstva-vysokotochnyh-raket.html

Acquisition of defence equipment as well as cooperation in Research and Development (R&D), Transfer of Technology,Coproduction/Joint Ventures in public as well as private sector, also fall within the domain of the signed MoU.

http://www.dod.mil.za/news/2017/03/mou_pakistan.htm
​

Be it technology for BVRAAM, WVRAAM, SAMs and SOWs (including miniature turbojets), we can work with South Africa. Likewise, for ramjet technology and rockets for BM/SLV, we can learn from Ukraine (albeit within limits as Ukraine's in the MTCR).

Ultimately, the decision to do so depends on whether our armed forces can hold the fort for a longer period of time (vs ad hoc off-the-shelf buys) to let the R&D gestate.

 

[Raider 21]

at max range every missile has a high failure rate.

It worked well for the Su-30 claim. Heard it maybe the longest BVR kill

 

[Philip the Arab]

Thing is, planes don't know they are being fired up by BVR missle until it goes pitbull and activates internal radar allowing missiles like PL-15 to take out planes from probably 100km with energy to spare.

 

[Armchair]

I do not think the JFT was designed for this. Block 3 may be able to carry 2+2+configuration but feel 4+2+2 maybe a bit too much. Regarding the Mirage upgrade, given PAF's satisfaction with SD10A and the likelihood of he upgrade being done in house it seems more probable PAF might integrate SD10A on its M3/5s. The point I am trying to make is if we stick to one provider we will have a higher mass of requirement making in house manufacturing a more economical reality. Once the roots set in you can always experiment with subsýstems. We have a much better ally in Chi a in this sphere and the collaboration is already on going with talk of building the rockets for HQ16. Things will take off from there.

Hi Araz, I was not saying 4x2x2 but 4x2 with the Turkish missile acting as the WVR stand in.

In China's case, the incentive to sell Pakistan turnkey ToT (i.e., everything in the missile, including the sensitive dual-motor rocket tech) depends on whether it's ready to part with Pakistan as a customer. For China, that is the cost of ToT, and the price will be quite high as it will look to offset lost potential sales from the future. This is, of course, assuming it'll even entertain such a thought.

The ideal entry angle would've been to co-fund more programs with China, but in truth, the Chinese don't need us in terms of their defence industry. They have sufficient internal funding and economies-of-scale. It's no wonder that the only true joint-venture we had with them was the JF-17/FC-1, and it's unclear that we would have an option for a second in the future. This could be a reason why the PAF is pursuing AZM as an original design.

However, if one wants to localize AAM and SAM technology, then the likeliest entry-point is working with countries that need economies-of-scale and need co-funding for R&D.

Turkey might, but I'd argue even its needs aren't as urgent or pressing as say South Africa and Ukraine. Not only that, but we know for a hard-coded fact that those two countries also called for such collaboration with us:

In particular, there were negotiations with the leadership of one of the scientific and Industrial organizations of Pakistan. Terms and conditions of the launch of joint Ukrainian-Pakistani production of high-precision missiles of different classes were discussed. The parties confirmed readiness to start joint research and development works in the coming months.

https://ukroboronprom.com.ua/uk/med...pilnogo-vyrobnytstva-vysokotochnyh-raket.html

Acquisition of defence equipment as well as cooperation in Research and Development (R&D), Transfer of Technology,Coproduction/Joint Ventures in public as well as private sector, also fall within the domain of the signed MoU.

http://www.dod.mil.za/news/2017/03/mou_pakistan.htm
​

Be it technology for BVRAAM, WVRAAM, SAMs and SOWs (including miniature turbojets), we can work with South Africa. Likewise, for ramjet technology and rockets for BM/SLV, we can learn from Ukraine (albeit within limits as Ukraine's in the MTCR).

Ultimately, the decision to do so depends on whether our armed forces can hold the fort for a longer period of time (vs ad hoc off-the-shelf buys) to let the R&D gestate.

I think we have reached saturation levels with China as to how much they are willing to truly do ToT. There are some key programs that Pak needs going forward:

1. Indigenous LRSAM
2. MRSAM
3. EW
4. UCAVs
5. Mini submarines / USVs
6. Turbofan engine
7. Diesel engine
8. Satellites / pseudo satellites

Musharraf originally envisaged Pak to pursue #1. This program is possibly shelved but needs to be brought forward again at some point. Turkey is exactly the country that can help Pak with this, along with North Korea. I don't see any other countries willing to help with this. China will simply wish to sell their HQ-9, which Pak already possesses if rumors are correct.

MRSAM is not only important for the army but a decent indigenous effort would help boost PN tremendously and make indigenous frigates and corvettes far more meaningful. Turkey can definitely be an important partner for this. I doubt South Africa would want to do anything other than sell Pak something, they wouldn't want to turn their customer into a competitor.

Given the teeth being shown by Turkish UAVs, it is a matter of concern that Pak is not buying Turkish drones but expensive Western systems that are sanction prone and refused upgrades.

The rest of the list again could benefit from a relatively equal partner. China has nothing to win from Pak now, unlike the JF-17, which was their backup plan if the J-10 didn't make it.

 

[araz]

Hi Araz, I was not saying 4x2x2 but 4x2 with the Turkish missile acting as the WVR stand in.




I think we have reached saturation levels with China as to how much they are willing to truly do ToT. There are some key programs that Pak needs going forward:

1. Indigenous LRSAM
2. MRSAM
3. EW
4. UCAVs
5. Mini submarines / USVs
6. Turbofan engine
7. Diesel engine
8. Satellites / pseudo satellites

Musharraf originally envisaged Pak to pursue #1. This program is possibly shelved but needs to be brought forward again at some point. Turkey is exactly the country that can help Pak with this, along with North Korea. I don't see any other countries willing to help with this. China will simply wish to sell their HQ-9, which Pak already possesses if rumors are correct.

MRSAM is not only important for the army but a decent indigenous effort would help boost PN tremendously and make indigenous frigates and corvettes far more meaningful. Turkey can definitely be an important partner for this. I doubt South Africa would want to do anything other than sell Pak something, they wouldn't want to turn their customer into a competitor.

Given the teeth being shown by Turkish UAVs, it is a matter of concern that Pak is not buying Turkish drones but expensive Western systems that are sanction prone and refused upgrades.

The rest of the list again could benefit from a relatively equal partner. China has nothing to win from Pak now, unlike the JF-17, which was their backup plan if the J-10 didn't make it.

Thank you for a very good and detailed post. Regarding the JFT, I stand corrected.
The reason I was suggesting the Chinese angle is based on open source information leading me to believe the local manufacture of the LY80 rockets. I am also led to believe that SD 10A could potentially be produced locally though we will continue to acquire THE PL15s. Once we produce locally we can then take it from that level to improve our products.
I fully agree we will come to a stage where we will have to take a indepth assessment of our needs and where we can produce. Regarding the procurement of products like UAVs, my understanding was that small amounts were procured to gain critical inputs into tech which the Chinese either did not have or were not providing to us.
I agree we will fall back to the basic question of whether we have the basic industry as well as demand to manufacture these items in house. If we do sooner or later we will see our own products on our own platforms.
A

In China's case, the incentive to sell Pakistan turnkey ToT (i.e., everything in the missile, including the sensitive dual-motor rocket tech) depends on whether it's ready to part with Pakistan as a customer. For China, that is the cost of ToT, and the price will be quite high as it will look to offset lost potential sales from the future. This is, of course, assuming it'll even entertain such a thought.

The ideal entry angle would've been to co-fund more programs with China, but in truth, the Chinese don't need us in terms of their defence industry. They have sufficient internal funding and economies-of-scale. It's no wonder that the only true joint-venture we had with them was the JF-17/FC-1, and it's unclear that we would have an option for a second in the future. This could be a reason why the PAF is pursuing AZM as an original design.

However, if one wants to localize AAM and SAM technology, then the likeliest entry-point is working with countries that need economies-of-scale and need co-funding for R&D.

Turkey might, but I'd argue even its needs aren't as urgent or pressing as say South Africa and Ukraine. Not only that, but we know for a hard-coded fact that those two countries also called for such collaboration with us:

In particular, there were negotiations with the leadership of one of the scientific and Industrial organizations of Pakistan. Terms and conditions of the launch of joint Ukrainian-Pakistani production of high-precision missiles of different classes were discussed. The parties confirmed readiness to start joint research and development works in the coming months.

https://ukroboronprom.com.ua/uk/med...pilnogo-vyrobnytstva-vysokotochnyh-raket.html

Acquisition of defence equipment as well as cooperation in Research and Development (R&D), Transfer of Technology,Coproduction/Joint Ventures in public as well as private sector, also fall within the domain of the signed MoU.

http://www.dod.mil.za/news/2017/03/mou_pakistan.htm
​

Be it technology for BVRAAM, WVRAAM, SAMs and SOWs (including miniature turbojets), we can work with South Africa. Likewise, for ramjet technology and rockets for BM/SLV, we can learn from Ukraine (albeit within limits as Ukraine's in the MTCR).

Ultimately, the decision to do so depends on whether our armed forces can hold the fort for a longer period of time (vs ad hoc off-the-shelf buys) to let the R&D gestate.

Thank you Bilal.
A very good post. I think the problem is a chicken or egg one in Pakistani armed forces. We lack the basic infrastructure to initiate realsearch for growth. Then there is the question of what is the need and is the investment worth it for that particular need. Where we have felt the need we have progressed and established industry and are reaping the rewards for it. With other technologies I simply do not see the demand to indulge in the research. For instance how many MRAMS will we need. So is it not better to buy off the/shelf. On the other hand UAVs and UCAVS are a dife need and we will see resultsin this direction. One also has to take into account priorities. For instance engaging Ukraine to gain engine manufacturjng technology for local tank as well as Truck manufacturing is a dire need but is MRAAM as dire a need?
A

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Thank you Bilal.
A very good post. I think the problem is a chicken or egg one in Pakistani armed forces. We lack the basic infrastructure to initiate realsearch for growth. Then there is the question of what is the need and is the investment worth it for that particular need. Where we have felt the need we have progressed and established industry and are reaping the rewards for it. With other technologies I simply do not see the demand to indulge in the research. For instance how many MRAMS will we need. So is it not better to buy off the/shelf. On the other hand UAVs and UCAVS are a dife need and we will see resultsin this direction. One also has to take into account priorities. For instance engaging Ukraine to gain engine manufacturjng technology for local tank as well as Truck manufacturing is a dire need but is MRAAM as dire a need?
A

The interesting thing about LRAAM/MRAAM, SAMs, etc is that the underlying technology for each application is the same: dual-pulse rocket motors. You can master it once and then re-apply it across thousands of individual air-to-air missiles, surface-to-air missiles, etc over several decades. We have the economies-of-scale.

IMHO mastering this technology is a must, otherwise, our suppliers will start expecting $2 million US per missile (as the US is now doing with the AIM-120C7). This would be catastrophic for us as it would make even arming the JF-17s a pain-in-the-back (never mind our frigates, land-based SAM units, etc). We need independence here.

We can take a page from the Turks. They started developing the core underlying technology through their Hisar-A/O SAM series. Once that cleared, they used the lessons (in dual-pulse rocket motors, seeker technology, etc) towards their indigenous BVRAAM and HOBS AAM projects. They're now taking it a step further to long-range SAMs.

We could tap into South Africa's expertise to co-develop our own BVRAAM, HOBS AAM and SR/MR-SAMs (using the same underlying rocket, seeker, guidance, etc technology). We can also try partnering with the Turks on their long-range SAM programs (Hisar-U and SIPER). So, we have ways to meet our needs in full and develop our industry.

The challenge is (1) whether have the funds to foot further gestating products (vs urgent needs) and (2) the fact that our domestic R&D base is still behind. The more R&D help we can bring to the table, the better it will be for us and any co-development partner, our money alone isn't going to take us far.

I am assuming local AAMs are on the cards for Project AZM, otherwise, it wouldn't break Pakistan's reliance on other countries. So, it's possible that the capacity to truly partner on munitions (and not just take a back seat) could come down the line in 5-7 years.

 

[mingle]

It worked well for the Su-30 claim. Heard it maybe the longest BVR kill

You mean Indian MKI kill?? What was range??

 

[Armchair]

You mean Indian MKI kill?? What was range??

Somewhere between 150 to 200 kms.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Somewhere between 150 to 200 kms.

Oh bhai But AMRAAM C-5 range of 105 km how can you assumed that 105 km range AAM can kill the target beyond its range

 

[CT-9914 "Snoop"]

PL15 better tracking

and how can anyone be certain of that if it hasn't seen any combat. The aim-9x was also supposed to have improved tracking and performance against countermeasures but got decoyed by cold war-era flares.