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

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

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.



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.

The advancement isn't judged on the origin of the electronics, but the electronics themselves. Yes, the French stuff originally sought was good, but it was still designed for entry level fighters and is (by today's standards) previous gen tech (mechanically steered radar etc). The KLJ-7/V2 was analogous to the RC400. The KLJ-7A though is next-gen stuff, it has a new tech framework (e.g. fixed array, multiple TRMs, etc) that requires reworking the plane's design in some areas (e.g. cooling requirements).

In other words, with the Block-I/II you're not just inserting a diff radar (RC400 vs KLJ-7/V2) but altering the design (of how electronics are arranged, making internal room, etc) to make proper use of the new hardware.

Going AESA is as siginficant as replacing a 1960s-era detection radar a new multi-mode radar with track-while-scan in the 1980s.

 

[nang2]

The advancement isn't judged on the origin of the electronics, but the electronics themselves. Yes, the French stuff originally sought was good, but it was still designed for entry level fighters and is (by today's standards) previous gen tech (mechanically steered radar etc). The KLJ-7/V2 was analogous to the RC400. The KLJ-7A though is next-gen stuff, it has a new tech framework (e.g. fixed array, multiple TRMs, etc) that requires reworking the plane's design in some areas (e.g. cooling requirements).

In other words, with the Block-I/II you're not just inserting a diff radar (RC400 vs KLJ-7/V2) but altering the design (of how electronics are arranged, making internal room, etc) to make proper use of the new hardware.

Going AESA is as siginficant as replacing a 1960s-era detection radar a new multi-mode radar with track-while-scan in the 1980s.

KLJ-7A probably doesn't require extensive modification to the existing frame as it is air cooled.

 

[volatile]

I really doubt the manufacturing cost of AESA radar is that high ,As a person i know where i can charge for my product (where i know Congress won't allow me to export ) to many countries what i will do i will make up my sales number by increasing Contribution margin on single radar ,Secondly so far till 2014/2015 Chinese economy was not in mood of R&D as the much easier option was buying whole tech or steal (Im proud of my Chinese brothers in doing that) US spends Billions of $ in R&D of product but to manufacture Chinese are Gods they really know how to product ,how much to produce and what cost to produce ,Imagine Chinese winning tenders on loss

PS KLJ is as good and tougher radar then any counterpart available minus the strings

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

KLJ-7A probably doesn't require extensive modification to the existing frame as it is air cooled.

IIRC KLJ-7A is liquid cooled, but another AVIC firm has an air cooled AESA radar in the works.

 

[nang2]

IIRC KLJ-7A is liquid cooled, but another AVIC firm has an air cooled AESA radar in the works.

My bad. I mixed them up.

 

[CHI RULES]

IIRC KLJ-7A is liquid cooled, but another AVIC firm has an air cooled AESA radar in the works.

This means existing versions of JF17 also have option for AESA upgrade

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

This means existing versions of JF17 also have option for AESA upgrade

Depends on the performance of the air cooled radar. If it's really well designed, then it should at least match the range and engagement capabilities of the KLJ-7 V2, but with the benefits of AESA. It'd be great if it was a true plug and play solution; just insert w/minimal cost during overhaul.

 

[MastanKhan]

The advancement isn't judged on the origin of the electronics, but the electronics themselves. Yes, the French stuff originally sought was good, but it was still designed for entry level fighters and is (by today's standards) previous gen tech (mechanically steered radar etc). The KLJ-7/V2 was analogous to the RC400. The KLJ-7A though is next-gen stuff, it has a new tech framework (e.g. fixed array, multiple TRMs, etc) that requires reworking the plane's design in some areas (e.g. cooling requirements).

In other words, with the Block-I/II you're not just inserting a diff radar (RC400 vs KLJ-7/V2) but altering the design (of how electronics are arranged, making internal room, etc) to make proper use of the new hardware.

Going AESA is as siginficant as replacing a 1960s-era detection radar a new multi-mode radar with track-while-scan in the 1980s.

Hi

The ‘advanced’ term is relative.
After 10 years of service a structural upgrade is needed.

Just like gripen is getting the upgrade to ng and new electronics

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 ?

Hi

With paf it is going to be senior top category pilots getting the job rather than the rookie pilots

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi

The ‘advanced’ term is relative.
After 10 years of service a structural upgrade is needed.

Just like gripen is getting the upgrade to ng and new electronics



Hi

With psf it is going to be senior top category pilots getting the job rather than the rookie pilots

The Gripen NG was a proper redesign, it can't be replicated (entirely) to the C/D. Something of this scale means re-opening the JF-17's airframe; inserting new changes along with the many years of testing (from windtunnel to tech demo to prototyping) - that the NG is still undergoing - before getting a serviceable product. It's basically the Tejas Mk2 and that might not be a bad idea if the PAF intends to have Thunders (via Block-IV, V, VI, etc) through the 2030s and 2040s.

 

[MastanKhan]

The Gripen NG was a proper redesign, it can't be replicated (entirely) to the C/D. Something of this scale means re-opening the JF-17's airframe; inserting new changes along with the many years of testing (from windtunnel to tech demo to prototyping) - that the NG is still undergoing - before getting a serviceable product. It's basically the Tejas Mk2 and that might not be a bad idea if the PAF intends to have Thunders (via Block-IV, V, VI, etc) through the 2030s and 2040s.

Hi,

And I wrote about that 2 years ago regarding the JF17 BLK3 design upgrade---.

Grippen gave a lead to Paf for the upgrade

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

And I wrote about that 2 years ago regarding the JF17 BLK3 design upgrade---.

Grippen gave a lead to Paf for the upgrade

In most cases, structural changes mean undergoing a very long testing process.

With the Block-III the PAF pushed for changes that would not significantly delay the lead-time. Most of it is 'catch-up' - e.g. digital FBW, better internal fuel storage, special mission hardpoints, etc - and basically minimal.

Once the Block-III is in full-swing (e.g. maxing out PAC's production, inducting new squadrons) the PAF could look at re-opening the design and emulating the Gripen NG and Tejas Mk2. It's at this point (early-to-mid 2020s) where the subsystems to pull-off the key benefits, e.g. supercruise, more efficient AESA radars, etc, become a reality and around which you can tailor a new JF-17 variant. Time it for the 2030s so that you can get a massive leap out of switching up from Block-I/IIs (which will begin reaching 3,000 hours or so).

 

[MastanKhan]

In most cases, structural changes mean undergoing a very long testing process.

With the Block-III the PAF pushed for changes that would not significantly delay the lead-time. Most of it is 'catch-up' - e.g. digital FBW, better internal fuel storage, special mission hardpoints, etc - and basically minimal.

Once the Block-III is in full-swing (e.g. maxing out PAC's production, inducting new squadrons) the PAF could look at re-opening the design and emulating the Gripen NG and Tejas Mk2. It's at this point (early-to-mid 2020s) where the subsystems to pull-off the key benefits, e.g. supercruise, more efficient AESA radars, etc, become a reality and around which you can tailor a new JF-17 variant. Time it for the 2030s so that you can get a massive leap out of switching up from Block-I/IIs (which will begin reaching 3,000 hours or so).

Hi

I really believe that the Grippen NG gave a simple opening to the BLK3 team to make the needed changes---.

I for sure hope so that the Paf had the vision to make them for the upcoming block 3

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi

I really believe that the Grippen NG gave a simple opening to the BLK3 team to make the needed changes---.

I for sure hope so that the Paf had the vision to make them for the upcoming block 3

Depends what you're expecting. The Block-III might emulate most of the NG's electronics, but don't expect supercruise or big range improvements. Structural changes of the Gripen NG's magnitude can't be tested and qualified within 18 months of rolling out a prototype (Block-III is to enter production in 2020).

 

[MastanKhan]

Depends what you're expecting. The Block-III might emulate most of the NG's electronics, but don't expect supercruise or big range improvements. Structural changes of the Gripen NG's magnitude can't be tested and qualified within 18 months of rolling out a prototype (Block-III is to enter production in 2020).

Hi,

I would rather have the technology at this time rather than super cruise---. The structural changes could have been done awhile ago---if Paf had already planned the change---.

We can't just take the retd Air marshall's word that the change just started---.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Hi

With paf it is going to be senior top category pilots getting the job rather than the rookie pilots

Also with larger eyes (AESA), PAF will be looking more and more towards BVR warfare.