Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

[Windjammer]

The advantage of integrating the Raad ALCM on the Block-3 is that unlike the Mirage which carried one under the belly, the Thunder will deploy Two, one under each wing, this also means another highly specialised weapon mentioned by Alan Warnes will now be cleared on the B3.

 

[Shah_Deu]

you are way off in the time line .. Full-scale development and production of Meteor began in 2003 with the signature of a £1.2 billion contract by the UK on behalf of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 2nd January, 2003 was the precise date, from when development of the missile started. But you are saying that French pitched a missile which was not even properly on the drawing board to PAF in 2004 ..

Metero was inducted into services in 2016, the same year PL 15 was inducted. Meteor has a ramjet engine vs a dua pulse solid fuel rocket for PL15. In all probability, Meteor would have more kinetic energy at the terminal phase than a solid fuel missile. Given the diameter of both the missile being same, probably both will have AESA radar with similar number of modules. There is no specific technology in PL15 to indicate that it can outgun a ramjet missile

Full scale development for production occurs way ahead in the development cycle and just before test firings. At this stage the OEM has already fixed the parameters and early developments are already finished followed by design validations. And hence the product marketing starts already. Infact OEMs want to find customers from this stage onwards to scale the production lines and production numbers accordingly. In 2004 infact meteor trial integration had already started on Gripens and Rafales.

@SQ8 is a very senior member here, so try to be a little precise in what you put. By just talking gibberish without researching does little to increase the validity of your points.

 

[HRK]

Without physical changes to Ra'ad (making it sleeker) or increasing the height of JF-17 how can it be fitted?

JF-17 was not suppose to take RA'AD at centerline hardpoint but under the wings of JF-17

Or were the issues software integration related?

I don't think there could be any anysowftwear issue as RA'AD is our own product, and PAF is on record said multiple time that it can integrate any off the shelf munition if is complied with universal standard 1760, therefore I don't think RA'AD should have any issue related to software in its integration

And "if" integration has really been done, then it would also mean that earlier blocks can carry it as well?

Well I can't answer this question with certainty but logic dictates that the study of integration must have been conducted on one of the previous block JF-17 not on blk-III which was not even under production at that time

 

[TheSolution]

Where to buy and does this directly support PAF?

 

[PurpleButcher]

JF-17 was not suppose to take RA'AD at centerline hardpoint but under the wings of JF-17

I don't think there could be any anysowftwear issue as RA'AD is our own product, and PAF is on record said multiple time that it can integrate any off the shelf munition if is complied with universal standard 1760, therefore I don't think RA'AD should have any issue related to software in its integration

Well I can't answer this question with certainty but logic dictates that the study of integration must have been conducted on one of the previous block JF-17 not on blk-III which was not even under production at that time

Thankyou for the detailed answer. Sometime back there was a detailed discussion in one of the threads that Ra'ad is too heavy to be placed on wings and JF-17 doesn't have enough height for Ra'ad placement underbelly. I was under the impression that this the reason Ra'ad was a;ways seen on mirages rather than on Thunders.
But if there was always this capability, why is it only being announced with the arrival of Block 3? The timing implies that there was some issue previously that has been resolved in this block?

 

[Vapnope]

Where to buy and does this directly support PAF?

If you mean Airforces monthly, then no it is now owned by PAF. It is available on amazon and airforces monthly web.

AirForces Monthly

AirForces Monthly Magazine is devoted to modern military aircraft and their air arms. Providing unrivalled news coverage – often exclusively – the editorial covers all aspects of military aviation, region by region, offering readers features on the strengths of the world’s air forces, their...

www.key.aero

 

[Saudang]

Full scale development for production occurs way ahead in the development cycle and just before test firings. At this stage the OEM has already fixed the parameters and early developments are already finished followed by design validations. And hence the product marketing starts already. Infact OEMs want to find customers from this stage onwards to scale the production lines and production numbers accordingly. In 2004 infact meteor trial integration had already started on Gripens and Rafales.

@SQ8 is a very senior member here, so try to be a little precise in what you put. By just talking gibberish without researching does little to increase the validity of your points.

View attachment 810023

not sure what you didn't understand.

Ramjet testing was done by MBDA since 1996 or before. The design of the missile was frozen on 2004. The integration you are talking about was software and system integration test for Rafale and Gripen, not the integration of the missile . the first live firing happned in 2006 and first product integration test happened in 2010. And all these development were aimed towards an AESA equipped platform from day one..

Still wondering why French would pitch the Meteor to a customer windowshopping for aircraft with a PESA/doppler radar ?

 

[araz]

This article solidifies my line of thought even further about the necessity of acquiring more JF-17s and not needlessly waste money on J-10C for a very incremental increase in capability.

Future PAF could be a three jet force. F-16, JF-17 and AZM's NGF

The possibility of quicker capability enhancement with J10 is the only cogent argument that I feel justifies J10 integration. PAF tried to paly US against China on its Medium weight requirement and I suspect the Chinese relented. PAF got a good deal and went for it. The fact that J10 precludes the US sanctioning the F16s and (at least theoretically) drastically reducing PAF's capability to mount a defence/wage war could be another reason. The Chinese vicinity could mean supply lines could remain open even in hostile periods. I remain in the confused camp regarding the j10 acquisition but could not find a logical argument to counter these 2 points.
A

J10C seem to be an interim gap filler. Also gives us numbers quickly.

PAF to my very limited knowledge has hardly ever(F7p being a notable exception) employed stopgap measures with a new kind of hardware. Even the 7ps lasted 20 years + so cannot be called a stop gap. On the topic do you or anyone else know what the airframe life of the J10 and Block 3 would be . Help appreciated.
A

 

[The Eagle]

Ra'ad ALCM with Block-III----- Hats off to AWC Busy Bees. Remember one of them senior was praised by Sajjad Haider sahib in live program? These boys have more tricks under sleeves. Wait for another good day to be revealed.

Block-III Radar is good enough. However, a short leg Radar means the detection & locking range by the Air Craft. If we go by the argument of Radar being short legged as compare to range of PL-15; remember that Fighter can still fly without Radar Off Mode and yet the AEWACS signals the target where PL-15 can be launched with F&F mode. However, it doesn't mean that Block-III will need AEWACS for the PL-15 launch on maximum range. Thunder, J-10C, Falcons all will play in a netcentric warfare domain and whether getting a feed or acting individually, will perform task without any short coming. These Birds will still play their part as a force multiplier during flight and thanks to Link 17. The reason why interoperability was coined and may be J-10Cs are coming.

 

[Trango Towers]

Without physical changes to Ra'ad (making it sleeker) or increasing the height of JF-17 how can it be fitted? Or were the issues software integration related? And "if" integration has really been done, then it would also mean that earlier blocks can carry it as well?

Loool bro..do u think our engineers don't know this basic fact?

 

[PurpleButcher]

Loool bro..do u think our engineers don't know this basic fact?

Bro!
I am unaware of any physical changes made to either raad or Jf-17. If wing load capacity has been increased, or raad shape has been changed, it would be news to me!

And if without physical changes, ra'ad has been integrated (as if only software was the issue), then I wonder why this news comes out now simultaneously with launch of block 3.

Hope to see Ra'ad on previous blocks soon!

PS:- I have never seen a real pic of jf-17 carrying ra'ad!

 

[Bilal.]

Ra'ad ALCM with Block-III----- Hats off to AWC Busy Bees. Remember one of them senior was praised by Sajjad Haider sahib in live program? These boys have more tricks under sleeves. Wait for another good day to be revealed.

Block-III Radar is good enough. However, a short leg Radar means the detection & locking range by the Air Craft. If we go by the argument of Radar being short legged as compare to range of PL-15; remember that Fighter can still fly without Radar Off Mode and yet the AEWACS signals the target where PL-15 can be launched with F&F mode. However, it doesn't mean that Block-III will need AEWACS for the PL-15 launch on maximum range. Thunder, J-10C, Falcons all will play in a netcentric warfare domain and whether getting a feed or acting individually, will perform task without any short coming. These Birds will still play their part as a force multiplier during flight and thanks to Link 17. The reason why interoperability was coined and may be J-10Cs are coming.

Can you please point where the article says that the radar has shorter range than PL15? Because I read completely opposite to it that the radar range exceeds all current and future BVRAAMs range.

The possibility of quicker capability enhancement with J10 is the only cogent argument that I feel justifies J10 integration. PAF tried to paly US against China on its Medium weight requirement and I suspect the Chinese relented. PAF got a good deal and went for it. The fact that J10 precludes the US sanctioning the F16s and (at least theoretically) drastically reducing PAF's capability to mount a defence/wage war could be another reason. The Chinese vicinity could mean supply lines could remain open even in hostile periods. I remain in the confused camp regarding the j10 acquisition but could not find a logical argument to counter these 2 points.
A

PAF to my very limited knowledge has hardly ever(F7p being a notable exception) employed stopgap measures with a new kind of hardware. Even the 7ps lasted 20 years + so cannot be called a stop gap. On the topic do you or anyone else know what the airframe life of the J10 and Block 3 would be . Help appreciated.
A

The original JFT airframe was 4000hrs (talking from memory). Don’t know about block 3 or J10C but I guess it’s safe to assume it would be more.

 

[Bratva]

Thankyou for the detailed answer. Sometime back there was a detailed discussion in one of the threads that Ra'ad is too heavy to be placed on wings and JF-17 doesn't have enough height for Ra'ad placement underbelly. I was under the impression that this the reason Ra'ad was a;ways seen on mirages rather than on Thunders.
But if there was always this capability, why is it only being announced with the arrival of Block 3? The timing implies that there was some issue previously that has been resolved in this block?

JF-17 was not suppose to take RA'AD at centerline hardpoint but under the wings of JF-17

I don't think there could be any anysowftwear issue as RA'AD is our own product, and PAF is on record said multiple time that it can integrate any off the shelf munition if is complied with universal standard 1760, therefore I don't think RA'AD should have any issue related to software in its integration

Well I can't answer this question with certainty but logic dictates that the study of integration must have been conducted on one of the previous block JF-17 not on blk-III which was not even under production at that time

As per the article, Block-1 and 2 had structural issues which led to limited load capacity. With increase in composites, the strengthened structure has led to integration of heavier payloads as well as Dual Racks.

Without physical changes to Ra'ad (making it sleeker) or increasing the height of JF-17 how can it be fitted? Or were the issues software integration related? And "if" integration has really been done, then it would also mean that earlier blocks can carry it as well?

Earlier RA'AD was bulkier, wider and heavy. Also JF-17 had weak load structure plus RA'AD 1 would have interfered with JF-17 landing gears. With sleek RA'AD II and Structurally strengthened Block-III, RA'AD was finally integrated with JF-17

 

[Bratva]

As the Picture shows, RAAD-II And it was shared by @JamD 2 years ago which is enough time to integrate RAAD-II with Block-III

Raad 2 was first tested on 16 FEB 2020

Pakistan Test Launches Ra’ad II Nuclear-Capable Air-Launched Cruise Missile

Pakistan on Tuesday conducted a successful test of its latest Ra’ad-II air-launched cruise missile with a new range of 600 kilometers.

thediplomat.com

Block-III made first flight in December 2019. 2 prototypes flew. one in china, one in Pakistan. Serial Production started in december 2020. So there was enough time to test and integrate RAAD-II with Block-III 3001 prototype in Pakistan from March 2020 to December 2020

The Ra'ad I may fit on the JF-17 afterall. This picture is recent (last month)View attachment 648160

 

[Bilal.]

As the Picture shows, RAAD-II And it was shared by @JamD 2 years ago which is enough time to integrate RAAD-II with Block-III

Raad 2 was first tested on 16 FEB 2020

Pakistan Test Launches Ra’ad II Nuclear-Capable Air-Launched Cruise Missile

Pakistan on Tuesday conducted a successful test of its latest Ra’ad-II air-launched cruise missile with a new range of 600 kilometers.

thediplomat.com

Block-III made first flight in December 2019. 2 prototypes flew. one in china, one in Pakistan. Serial Production started in december 2020. So there was enough time to test and integrate RAAD-II with Block-III 3001 prototype in Pakistan from March 2020 to December 2020

The picture depicts RAAD not RAAD-II as it’s not X-Tail but rather the same old H-Tail.