Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[Tank131]

I agree with @denel that the listed specs for Chinese equipment may not always be reliable. This can be for any numver of reasons from a lack of coordination between the technical and sales/pr staff to hiding the real capabilities (better or worse) from the real world. That being said, whatever the real specs, i am certain PAF is NOT going to pick a radar based on its brochures. It is likely fully aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of the system. It will pick them on 3 things, capabilities, cost, and subsystems/munition availability.

From the end of capabilities, ranges are likely similar (+/- 10-15km) but we dont know the other details if them like which has better ecm/eccm etc. My suspicion is that the chinese radar has more range by a bit but the other capabilities are likely in the favor of the Grifo by a bit. It will come down to cost and availability of the subsystems and munitions.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

An fighter aircraft is as strong as its weakest link---ie the radar---the EW package---the weapons---.

Sensor Fusion is also crucial for faster OODA loop decision making. Too much useless information can also give the pilot phantom returns to chase, and get lost in the reeds hunting ghosts.

The PAF needs to aim to make the JF-17 match the Gripen as closely as possible, and if the PAF goers for the J-10CE; it will need to get CAC to build it up to the level of the Eurofighter Tranche 4; Leading in Sensor Fusion, EW, ECM/ECCM, Datalinks, the best algorithms and waveforms fort the AESA radar, and cutting edge munitions.

If PAF can commit itself to procuring 102 J-10CE (6 Squadrons), it can set up a second production line at Kamra, benefiting from the economies of scale, and get the ToT to maintain and upgrade the jet itself. It will really help towards practically advancing project AZM; as the J-10CE and its engine are in the weight class of the single engine Project AZM.

 

[Chak Bamu]

If PAF can commit itself to procuring 102 J-10CE (6 Squadrons), it can set up a second production line at Kamra, benefiting from the economies of scale, and get the ToT to maintain and upgrade the jet itself.

Two production lines is a pipe dream - not gonna happen any time soon. Pakistan needs GDP growth of more than 6% for a decade before such thoughts are practically realized.

 

[fatman17]

Squadron leader Saira Amin :
She is one of the female pilots of Pakistan Airforce who made the history. She was awarded by Sword of honour in Pakistan airforce academy. https://t.co/zJ1SGA56iT

 

[araz]

Two production lines is a pipe dream - not gonna happen any time soon. Pakistan needs GDP growth of more than 6% for a decade before such thoughts are practically realized.

I do wonder whether there would be a side by side production of pr. Azm and JFT.
With J10 we will probably get depot level maintenance and overhauling rights for WS10. Anything more for 40 odd planes would be too much to ask.
A

 

[Chak Bamu]

Hush Kit interview of JF-17 pilot is a treat to read.

https://hushkit.net/

 

[Tank131]

Hush Kit interview of JF-17 pilot is a treat to read.

https://hushkit.net/

Really good find! I think the big take away is that the pilots seem to live the aircraft although they seem to have very specific constructive criticisms which are likely to be addressed with continually upgrading the aircraft (most specifically wanting more powerful engine and more BVR missiles). And second, it seems PAF is operating the CM-400AKG

 

[Armchair]

The radar is not as big a problem as we imagine vis-a-vis integration. The JFT is designed in such a way that the radar plugs into something like a "CPU" and this "CPU" can handle other weapons and items, and use data from the radar to target them.

It is very easy for PAF to integrate Chinese and Russian missiles on the same aircraft. Possibly even European missiles if those missiles can do a handshake with the "CPU".

 

[MastanKhan]

Sensor Fusion is also crucial for faster OODA loop decision making. Too much useless information can also give the pilot phantom returns to chase, and get lost in the reeds hunting ghosts.

The PAF needs to aim to make the JF-17 match the Gripen as closely as possible, and if the PAF goers for the J-10CE; it will need to get CAC to build it up to the level of the Eurofighter Tranche 4; Leading in Sensor Fusion, EW, ECM/ECCM, Datalinks, the best algorithms and waveforms fort the AESA radar, and cutting edge munitions.

If PAF can commit itself to procuring 102 J-10CE (6 Squadrons), it can set up a second production line at Kamra, benefiting from the economies of scale, and get the ToT to maintain and upgrade the jet itself. It will really help towards practically advancing project AZM; as the J-10CE and its engine are in the weight class of the single engine Project AZM.

Hi,

This was discussed here years ago---.

It is already in place for over half a decade---.

 

[Quwa]

Yes but if we see it from overall prespective putting in Grifo will cause more challenges as you have to go back to the drawing board which seperates blk1/2 from 3. All upgrade paths for each plus weapon systems will be seperated with seperate maintenance streams.
While it will definitely provide diversity, it may be more trouble than worth it.

It depends on whether the PAF is viewing the Block 3 in the same continuity as the Block 1 & 2.

As I said earlier, the existing JF-17s can and will keep using the Chinese AAM/AShMs, and the PAF will need a munitions set with the Blk-3 anyways.

The advantage of going Chinese all the way is that that the newer Chinese AAMs can make their way to the older JF-17s. But any initial order of new Chinese AAMs (or if Grifo-E is bought, Western) will start with focusing on just the Block 3, and they can expand if and when the Block 1/2s are upgraded.

Still, upgrades an open question; the PAF can do it, but you're looking at taking a lot of planes out of the front to run the upgrade, and the airframes will be old by that point (late 2020s/early 2030s). The best course may just be to replace old JF-17s with new ones -- i.e., keep existing ones as they are.

Hopefully by the late 2020s/early 2030s this integration question will end ... Project Azm should lead to indigenously manufactured AAMs by that point.

 

[Tank131]

It depends on whether the PAF is viewing the Block 3 in the same continuity as the Block 1 & 2.

As I said earlier, the existing JF-17s can and will keep using the Chinese AAM/AShMs, and the PAF will need a munitions set with the Blk-3 anyways.

The advantage of going Chinese all the way is that that the newer Chinese AAMs can make their way to the older JF-17s. But any initial order of new Chinese AAMs (or if Grifo-E is bought, Western) will start with focusing on just the Block 3, and they can expand if and when the Block 1/2s are upgraded.

Still, upgrades an open question; the PAF can do it, but you're looking at taking a lot of planes out of the front to run the upgrade, and the airframes will be old by that point (late 2020s/early 2030s). The best course may just be to replace old JF-17s with new ones -- i.e., keep existing ones as they are.

Hopefully by the late 2020s/early 2030s this integration question will end ... Project Azm should lead to indigenously manufactured AAMs by that point.

I think this is one of the very few areas where i dont agree with you. The cost of refurbishing an aircraft is significantly less than building a new airframe. For PAF they can achieve near block 3 potential from block 1 and 2 by changing out the radars of aircraft for LKF601E or Grifo if they choose to go that route. Add in the HMD/S and you have, from an offensive standpoint, near the capability of a block 3 (minus probably some of the ECM/ECCM advancements). Additionally, if they choose to go with a new engine, the Blk 1/2s will be structurally able to house both RD-93MA and WS-13 so there is not much from a structural standpoint except a refurbish at 20yrs and at 30 if necessary you can do a rebuild or replace them at that point. If you marry these to PL-15 and PL-10 they will be nearly as potent as tge blk 3,certainly in the a2a realm.

 

[Quwa]

I think this is one of the very few areas where i dont agree with you. The cost of refurbishing an aircraft is significantly less than building a new airframe. For PAF they can achieve near block 3 potential from block 1 and 2 by changing out the radars of aircraft for LKF601E or Grifo if they choose to go that route. Add in the HMD/S and you have, from an offensive standpoint, near the capability of a block 3 (minus probably some of the ECM/ECCM advancements). Additionally, if they choose to go with a new engine, the Blk 1/2s will be structurally able to house both RD-93MA and WS-13 so there is not much from a structural standpoint except a refurbish at 20yrs and at 30 if necessary you can do a rebuild or replace them at that point. If you marry these to PL-15 and PL-10 they will be nearly as potent as tge blk 3,certainly in the a2a realm.

Re: the airframe it depends.

If we look at it from the PoV of Western aircraft, i.e., high materials sourcing, labour and production costs, then yes, you're definitely correct (hence the $100 m F-16). However, those costs aren't as high with the Chinese, and the JF-17 sits in a cost tier beneath the J-10C and J-11, so its airframe is even cheaper.

Moreover, the JF-17 airframe was designed for 15-20 years (as per PAF officials on numerous occasions), so I don't think the gap between extending the life for another 10 years and replacing the fighter is that much.

So let's say a new-built airframe is like $15 m (minus the electronics). And let's say a structural refresh for another 10 years is $5 m (very liberal estimate, I don't even the UP/STAR for the F-16 cost that little). From that PoV, you'd be right, a refresh is 33% the cost of a new airframe.

But there's more to a fighter than that.

The electronics (incl. radar, avionics, etc) are all imported, and they'll command like 30-40% of the total cost no matter if you go for a new airframe or an old one. The % will likely spike to 50% if we go European. And it's fixed no matter if you upgrade or build new, it's the same radar, mission systems, etc.

So a new JF-17 will cost $25 m, while a refurbished JF-17 (minus 3-axis FBW, more hardpoints, more internal fuel room, etc of the Block-3 line mind you) is $15 m, and it only has another 10 years of life vs. 15-20+ years of the Block-3.

At that point, you have to ask if the $10 m savings is really worth it.

You can either keep refreshing an antiquated airframe (so fly the Block 1 frame into the 2030s/2040s) or just delay the inevitable of replacing it with a Block-3 (or -4 or later).

 

[Tank131]

In

Re: the airframe it depends.

If we look at it from the PoV of Western aircraft, i.e., high materials sourcing, labour and production costs, then yes, you're definitely correct (hence the $100 m F-16). However, those costs aren't as high with the Chinese, and the JF-17 sits in a cost tier beneath the J-10C and J-11, so its airframe is even cheaper.

Moreover, the JF-17 airframe was designed for 15-20 years (as per PAF officials on numerous occasions), so I don't think the gap between extending the life for another 10 years and replacing the fighter is that much.

So let's say a new-built airframe is like $15 m (minus the electronics). And let's say a structural refresh for another 10 years is $5 m (very liberal estimate, I don't even the UP/STAR for the F-16 cost that little). From that PoV, you'd be right, a refresh is 33% the cost of a new airframe.

But there's more to a fighter than that.

The electronics (incl. radar, avionics, etc) are all imported, and they'll command like 30-40% of the total cost no matter if you go for a new airframe or an old one. The % will likely spike to 50% if we go European. And it's fixed no matter if you upgrade or build new, it's the same radar, mission systems, etc.

So a new JF-17 will cost $25 m, while a refurbished JF-17 (minus 3-axis FBW, more hardpoints, more internal fuel room, etc of the Block-3 line mind you) is $15 m, and it only has another 10 years of life vs. 15-20+ years of the Block-3.

At that point, you have to ask if the $10 m savings is really worth it.

You can either keep refreshing an antiquated airframe (so fly the Block 1 frame into the 2030s/2040s) or just delay the inevitable of replacing it with a Block-3 (or -4 or later).

You raise some good points but i think we would need to examine the quality of the airframe at the time, furthermore need to have clear cost estimates. My suspicion is the answer will be somewhere in the middle of our two positions. After all, even F-7 is flying 30 years and their standards are far less than JF-17. Not i want thunders falling from the sky like that, but we would need tonsee the cost/benefit. You may be right in the end.

 

[Quwa]

In

You raise some good points but i think we would need to examine the quality of the airframe at the time, furthermore need to have clear cost estimates. My suspicion is the answer will be somewhere in the middle of our two positions. After all, even F-7 is flying 30 years and their standards are far less than JF-17. Not i want thunders falling from the sky like that, but we would need tonsee the cost/benefit. You may be right in the end.

Yup, but bear in mind, the PAF is extending the F-7Ps to keep flying them, there are no upgrades on the horizon.

If we're just talking about keeping the Block-1 and Block-2 as they are, then yes I agree, the PAF can certainly run a structural re-fresh and keep flying them as-is. That's a likely scenario, but in that case, there's no issue with the munitions as the PAF can keep using its SD-10 and C-802 stocks.

The question is whether it's feasible to do a structural refresh + radar & avionics upgrade, or to eventually just fly the Block-1/2s out and replace them with Block-3/4 in the 2030/2040 timeframe.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

This was discussed here years ago---.

It is already in place for over half a decade---.

Any Details? Could you provide the link. Has the PAf implemented actual sensor fusion?; where only one track appears on the screen, but an integrator module or piece of software blends the tracks from the radar, IFF, MAWS, etc.