China to upgrade radar of Pakistan’s JF-17 fighter aircraft

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I am surprised that no member has yet come forward and made this statement in favor of aesa---

It is very hard to jam the aesa---. You conventional radar would be easily jammed.

The moment you turn your conventional radar on---the enemy knows where you are---and it can jam it.

With aesa---he cannot tell if you are present---.

So---when you respond to these posts of mine---at least think a little bit---rather than bring out your immediate " no money " response---or other sob stories---.

 

[Tank131]

Hi,

I am surprised that no member has yet come forward and made this statement in favor of aesa---

It is very hard to jam the aesa---. You conventional radar would be easily jammed.

The moment you turn your conventional radar on---the enemy knows where you are---and it can jam it.

With aesa---he cannot tell if you are present---.

So---when you respond to these posts of mine---at least think a little bit---rather than bring out your immediate " no money " response---or other sob stories---.

We have a buch of armchair policy makers (myself included) here. Without any info we proclaim this or that cant be done. When the NRIET guys are sayimg im interviews that the radar will be refit onto older blocks we respond with "it cant be done". I remeber the same argument when the block 1s were refit with the KLJ-7V2. People said that radar would be only for block 2, but block 1 airframes got the radar too. The cost of the radar will be noore than $1-2M per unit. How can we extrapolate that? Well the USN paid Raytheon $41M for 18 AN/APG-79s in 2014, putting the unit cost of that radar at $2.73M. The KLJ-7A will not be as expensive as the APG-79 so it is unlikely the refitting the 100 JF-17s in service will cost the PAF more than $200M (the price of 8 block 2s). The quality increase for each fighter would be like adding another 30 fighters (obviously im being a bit facetious) to make a point) ...that is called a force multiplier... For the cost of 8 fighter you dramatically increase the capability of your entire fleet. Any PAF planner worth his salt does that in a heartbeat. But we here dont think like that...

 

[MastanKhan]

We have a buch of armchair policy makers (myself included) here. Without any info we proclaim this or that cant be done. When the NRIET guys are sayimg im interviews that the radar will be refit onto older blocks we respond with "it cant be done". I remeber the same argument when the block 1s were refit with the KLJ-7V2. People said that radar would be only for block 2, but block 1 airframes got the radar too. The cost of the radar will be noore than $1-2M per unit. How can we extrapolate that? Well the USN paid Raytheon $41M for 18 AN/APG-79s in 2014, putting the unit cost of that radar at $2.73M. The KLJ-7A will not be as expensive as the APG-79 so it is unlikely the refitting the 100 JF-17s in service will cost the PAF more than $200M (the price of 8 block 2s). The quality increase for each fighter would be like adding another 30 fighters (obviously im being a bit facetious) to make a point) ...that is called a force multiplier... For the cost of 8 fighter you dramatically increase the capability of your entire fleet. Any PAF planner worth his salt does that in a heartbeat. But we here dont think like that...

Hi,

Thank you for your comments---.

I was waiting for the naysayers to come out again with some kind of sob story---.

 

[araz]

We have a buch of armchair policy makers (myself included) here. Without any info we proclaim this or that cant be done. When the NRIET guys are sayimg im interviews that the radar will be refit onto older blocks we respond with "it cant be done". I remeber the same argument when the block 1s were refit with the KLJ-7V2. People said that radar would be only for block 2, but block 1 airframes got the radar too. The cost of the radar will be noore than $1-2M per unit. How can we extrapolate that? Well the USN paid Raytheon $41M for 18 AN/APG-79s in 2014, putting the unit cost of that radar at $2.73M. The KLJ-7A will not be as expensive as the APG-79 so it is unlikely the refitting the 100 JF-17s in service will cost the PAF more than $200M (the price of 8 block 2s). The quality increase for each fighter would be like adding another 30 fighters (obviously im being a bit facetious) to make a point) ...that is called a force multiplier... For the cost of 8 fighter you dramatically increase the capability of your entire fleet. Any PAF planner worth his salt does that in a heartbeat. But we here dont think like that...

If you note the comments made regarding Bl. 3 you will note that the Nose/frontal section had to be redesigned with consequent COG issues which needed resolving. The reason for that is possibly the installation of a cooling system to cool the AESA.
The other question in my mind is why has PAF paid to get the right to assemble KLJ7v2 in house if it did not want to continue with the project. I therefore inferred that the KLJ7v2 is likely to persists in Block 2s as otherwise there will have to be a fair bit of modulation of the frontal section required which economically seems nonviable and the fleet disruption would be immense for a fleet already deprived and wanting to replace ageing fighters.
From an operational point of view as well if operating in a net centric environment you dont want every AC to be AESA equipped as long as there is at least one in each group which is so equipped. If the fighters are linked it can direct the other ACs while remaining behind and let the others do the interception duties while relying on its guidance. It also makes sense for one fighter to remain fully equipped to cover the retreat of the other fighters should the enemy decide to strike on the rstreating fighters.
This is my thinking and therefore could be totally wrong. However need to hear other posters thoughts.
A

 

[The SC]

The Chinese did not say they were going to upgrade "existing" JF-17s.. they just talked about a radar upgrade.. So they might be talking about the JF-17 III alone.. If one remembers the structural, fuel refuelling and other upgrades that were made specifically to JF-17 II and couldn't be done to the JF-17 I ..

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

We have a buch of armchair policy makers (myself included) here. Without any info we proclaim this or that cant be done. When the NRIET guys are sayimg im interviews that the radar will be refit onto older blocks we respond with "it cant be done". I remeber the same argument when the block 1s were refit with the KLJ-7V2. People said that radar would be only for block 2, but block 1 airframes got the radar too. The cost of the radar will be noore than $1-2M per unit. How can we extrapolate that? Well the USN paid Raytheon $41M for 18 AN/APG-79s in 2014, putting the unit cost of that radar at $2.73M. The KLJ-7A will not be as expensive as the APG-79 so it is unlikely the refitting the 100 JF-17s in service will cost the PAF more than $200M (the price of 8 block 2s). The quality increase for each fighter would be like adding another 30 fighters (obviously im being a bit facetious) to make a point) ...that is called a force multiplier... For the cost of 8 fighter you dramatically increase the capability of your entire fleet. Any PAF planner worth his salt does that in a heartbeat. But we here dont think like that...

The issue with the Block-I/II is that (1) they're already in service and are indispensable to the PAF and (2) have lives of about 3,000 hours. So the only time where you can pull these planes from service to run an upgrade is when they're undergoing major overhaul. The issue though is that with 1,500 hours left, is it worth spending on a major upgrade? You'll need a SLEP to make it worthwhile and at that point, you might as well ask if it'd be better to just replace old JF-17s with new-build JF-17s (e.g. a Block-IV, Block-V, etc).

It's worth noting ... the Block-I/II were not meant to be high-tech planes per se, but the "medium-tech" workhorses meant to complement the F-16s. They were compromised at every stage - e.g. short-range, short-endurance, no OBOGS, hybrid flight control system etc - for the purpose of bringing key capabilities such as BVRAAM to the wider PAF fleet at low-cost.

The Block-III is fundamentally different in that actually brings new high-tech subsystems (e.g. AESA radar) to the PAF fleet. You'd be better off building upon that and basically pushing the JF-17 along the same track as the Tejas - i.e. push for a lightweight high-tech fighter capable enough to thwart all threats (defensively). From 2030/2035, have new-built, high-tech JF-17s (e.g. Block-IV, Block-V, etc) to replace the Block-I/II.

 

[khanasifm]

The Chinese did not say they were going to upgrade "existing" JF-17s.. they just talked about a radar upgrade.. So they might be talking about the JF-17 III alone.. If one remembers the structural, fuel refuelling and other upgrades that were made specifically to JF-17 II and couldn't be done to the JF-17 I ..

Original interview claims by Oem block 1 and 2 upgrade is also an option and there is forward Compatibility

The radar could also be used to upgrade in-service aircraft in the Block I and II configuration.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa-radar-447147/

 

[The SC]

Original interview claims by Oem block 1 and 2 upgrade is also an option and there is forward Compatibility

The radar could also be used to upgrade in-service aircraft in the Block I and II configuration.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa-radar-447147/

I do understand that.. but it goes a bit against what other Chinese experts said before, mainly, that replacing a mechanical radar with an AESA one was a very difficult task.. meaning it is possible, but very demanding..So, at best, the upgrade might be applied to Blk II.. but 50 Blk III with AESA spread on the existing squadrons can be very efficient by allowing the Blks I and II to go silent and communicate real time data to them through link 16..

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Thank you for your comments---.

I was waiting for the naysayers to come out again with some kind of sob story---.

Hi,

It is amazing how the story continues. There is always an excuse—-looking for a lowest common denominator for success- rather than the highest.

Any net centric comminication would be under heavy jamming.

That is why you need all aircraft to be able to operate independently of each other or of the awacs

 

[monitor]

If China able to make reliable AESA then why they aren't they using it on their J-11/16 instead still using PESA ?

 

[dy1022]

If China able to make reliable AESA then why they aren't they using it on their J-11/16 instead still using PESA ?

J16,J10C,J20 all using AESA

 

[MastanKhan]

If China able to make reliable AESA then why they aren't they using it on their J-11/16 instead still using PESA ?

Hi,

They are upgrading all aircraft in due time---. Older aircraft will not get the upgrades---. They will be made to run out their natural life cycle---.

If there is a mid life structural upgrade feasible for those aircraft---then they would get all the technical and electronic upgrades.

The issue with the Block-I/II is that (1) they're already in service and are indispensable to the PAF and (2) have lives of about 3,000 hours. So the only time where you can pull these planes from service to run an upgrade is when they're undergoing major overhaul. The issue though is that with 1,500 hours left, is it worth spending on a major upgrade? You'll need a SLEP to make it worthwhile and at that point, you might as well ask if it'd be better to just replace old JF-17s with new-build JF-17s (e.g. a Block-IV, Block-V, etc).

It's worth noting ... the Block-I/II were not meant to be high-tech planes per se, but the "medium-tech" workhorses meant to complement the F-16s. They were compromised at every stage - e.g. short-range, short-endurance, no OBOGS, hybrid flight control system etc - for the purpose of bringing key capabilities such as BVRAAM to the wider PAF fleet at low-cost.

The Block-III is fundamentally different in that actually brings new high-tech subsystems (e.g. AESA radar) to the PAF fleet. You'd be better off building upon that and basically pushing the JF-17 along the same track as the Tejas - i.e. push for a lightweight high-tech fighter capable enough to thwart all threats (defensively). From 2030/2035, have new-built, high-tech JF-17s (e.g. Block-IV, Block-V, etc) to replace the Block-I/II.

Hi,

I would say that it would be better to keep the blk 1 and 2 as second tier aircraft for as long they can last---and build the air force up from BLK3 aircraft---.

But then looking back at the years---the BLK 1 & 2 were designed to take the french avionics---and they were not second tier electronics of that time.

 

[Tank131]

I would like to point out that according to most estimates just 1-2 years ago (and i believe it came from the then ACM mouth) that PAF needs to replace 190 fighters by 2025. Anyone here believing that the original block 1 or 2 will be replaced by then? They will definitely umdergo a SELP/MLU. To the notion that the nose cone needs to be adjusted. That is speculation at this point, but as i pointed out, there have been numerous fighter which have had their nose cones changed and it did not offset their performance (mirage 3/5 /cheetah/kfir, F-4, Jaguars, mig-21 etc) . People have mentioned the fighter crunch and how pulling the block 1 amd 2 from service will make it challenging...replacing them with new versions will be more expensive than upgrading them. And you do it a bit at a time... Obviously all 100 woupd go offline at the same time, but you do it sqd by sqd. It no different that PAF sending its F-16 for MLUs... Infact, given the F-16 was the best fighter in service, it wasore problematic to send them out for upgrades. All these things are excuses to not do something which is more cost effective ...and they are poor excuses. The reality is that the oldest machines by 2025 will be 18 years old...and you habe Mirages which will be approaching 50 nerding to be replaced. You have F-16A/ MLU which will be approaching 30 years old and for whom you have difficulty with getting spares. You have F-7PG who, while not that old, are well past useful by 2025 and are approaching 25 years that need replaced. Believe me, the last thing PAF would do in that situation is to replace block 1 when it can get 90% of the performance with an MLU for 1/4th the cost of a new build. Rather use those new builds to finish replacing Mirage and F-7P/PG and also (along with project AZM) Early F-16s.

 

[BRAVO_]

The Chinese did not say they were going to upgrade "existing" JF-17s.. they just talked about a radar upgrade.. So they might be talking about the JF-17 III alone.. If one remembers the structural, fuel refuelling and other upgrades that were made specifically to JF-17 II and couldn't be done to the JF-17 I ..

i am not expecting significant structural changes in Block III other than use of more composite materials... so question arises why not the upgradation of block 1 ? obviously it cant be like block 3 but it could be upgrade significantly

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Hi,

When a pilot is trained on a 5th gen aircraft---he is made to forget what the EW package of the 4th gen aircraft operated like---. They have to learn to fly and operate the aircraft in a different manner---.

On a similar scale---when a pilot switched over from a conventional radar to an AESA radar---the battle plans are different---because the playing field has changed---.

Now that you are learning that you have eye sight and your opponent is blind for a certain time period---. Your battle plans are now focused on that little window of time frame---where your enemy is blind---and that is where you learn to fight different---.

It would be impossible to go back to the conventional radar system and still be a tier 1 pilot---.

So with new AESA radar, PAF pilots training will go a major overhaul or the role will be assigned to the rookies specifically to be trained on AESA equipped plane ?