HAL begins flight trials of LCA Tejas Mk-1A

[Two banks of the River]

brah its still not good enough......the flights yr saying maybe will be with drop tanks r are in ferry range category. Mean from 1 air base to another. In Combat Air Patrol mission u will need to carry yr full weapons load fly in a hot zone do yr mission and still have enough fuel to return back safely. Thats whats called Combat range. And that what matters for an A/C in air warfare.

With 1 hr internal fuel its combat range is only 500km. Which is not good enough. At best it will only be used as an interceptor that way these Mig21s r also used as interceptors in PAF and IAF for this reason. It wont be able to function has a multirole a/c that it is designed for.

also what do u mean by ''Mk1A was supposed to be a quick fix''? isnt its internal fuel capacity and lack of maneuverability a concern for u guys?

Mk1A has been designed to be specifically placed close to only our western borders , even the two sanctioned GE F404 overhaul and testing centers will be created very near to the western border. The northern most deployment it will ever see might be Leh, but that's it. So range per say is not exactly something that's a big worry.

The flight characteristics is something that is continuously improving because the major cause of delay was also the biggest advantage, because the west denied access whole algorithms and flight control computers had to be R&D here. It's all ours only. That means every hour an LCA flies, more data is collected and the software improved. This has already lead to an improvement in Angle of Attack by 1.5 degrees. The Computers have been improved to take control of the aircraft and bring it back into flight envelope.... So hopefully Mig21 like accidents won't happen during its operational service.

Again it's not the world beater, but it will do fine.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Mk1A has been designed to be specifically placed close to only our western borders , even the two sanctioned GE F404 overhaul and testing centers will be created very near to the western border. The northern most deployment it will ever see might be Leh, but that's it. So range per say is not exactly something that's a big worry.

The flight characteristics is something that is continuously improving because the major cause of delay was also the biggest advantage, because the west denied access whole algorithms and flight control computers had to be R&D here. It's all ours only. That means every hour an LCA flies, more data is collected and the software improved. This has already lead to an improvement in Angle of Attack by 1.5 degrees. The Computers have been improved to take control of the aircraft and bring it back into flight envelope.... So hopefully Mig21 like accidents won't happen during its operational service.

Again it's not the world beater, but it will do fine.

ok, good info, i appreciate what u have written but how that exactly and convincingly answer my points and arguments against this design?

 

[Lava820]

brah its still not good enough......the flights yr saying maybe will be with drop tanks r are in ferry range category. Mean from 1 air base to another. In Combat Air Patrol mission u will need to carry yr full weapons load fly in a hot zone do yr mission and still have enough fuel to return back safely. Thats whats called Combat range. And that what matters for an A/C in air warfare.

With 1 hr internal fuel its combat range is only 500km. Which is not good enough. At best it will only be used as an interceptor that way these Mig21s r also used as interceptors in PAF and IAF for this reason. It wont be able to function has a multirole a/c that it is designed for.

also what do u mean by ''Mk1A was supposed to be a quick fix''? isnt its internal fuel capacity and lack of maneuverability a concern for u guys?

Maximum combat radius of Tejas is achieved in this configuration- 3x External fuel tank, 3000 ltr internal, that’s over 6000 ltr of fuel!.

JAS-39C/D has same aerodynamic profile(more or less) and same engine why should its range be different from that of LCA? Configuration-1 alone would give LCA nearly 800–1000km combat radius and >2000 km ferry range. With 3 external fuel tanks LCA flew nearly 1700 km nonstop (BIAS2016). JAS-39C/D has same aerodynamic profile(more or less) and same engine why should its range be different from that of LCA? Configuration-1 alone would give LCA nearly 800–1000km combat radius and >2000 km ferry range. With 3 external fuel tanks LCA flew nearly 1700 km nonstop (BIAS2016).

Configuration-1 :

Configuration-2 - 2x 1500ltr External fuel tank, 2x 500kg LGB, 2x AAM - Estimated combat radius 500–700km.

Configuration-3 : Interception/point defense role - 1x 450ltr centerline supersonic tank(not the one in pic), 1x IRST/ECM pod and 6x AAM, <500km combat radius BUT >1 hour of loitering period.

Finally - LCAs were designed to have flight endurance of 2 hour 30 minutes and that’s more than enough for a light air defense fighter. It is more than enough to strike Pakistani installations across border hit them under air cover of SU30 MKI and return back to base.

Also for a ground strike mission beyond 500 km say 800–900 km, if Tejas is operating along with SU30 it can take fuel from SU30 having BUDDY REFUELLING CAPABILITY, it can give fuel to tejas for extended range missions. Beyond 900 km we are not gonna do any missions against Pakistan.

Also, if we look at Chinese border its maneuverability comes into the scene along with its smaller RCS which makes it a deadly sneak peek fighter which can repel any Chinese attack.

 

[Two banks of the River]

ok, good info, i appreciate what u have written but how that exactly and convincingly answer by points and arguments against this design?

It's kind of known and actually accepted by HAL , ADA and IAF themselves that LCA aerodynamics is not upto the mark. But at this point there's not much we can do.

If we give up now, then in few years everything we have learnt will start to get lost. It's important to stick with this project untill the next one gets into production.

One thing I would say is that the DASH HMDS we are buying for this is quite a costly item. It's to cover up for some of the deficiency. And in the initial stage of conflict in WVR it's shown promising results. I will leave it at that. This solution will not solve the problem but make it but easy.

 

[SQ8]

It's kind of known and actually accepted by HAL , ADA and IAF themselves that LCA aerodynamics is not upto the mark. But at this point there's not much we can do.

If we give up now, then in few years everything we have learnt will start to get lost. It's important to stick with this project untill the next one gets into production.

One thing I would say is that the DASH HMDS we are buying for this is quite a costly item. It's to cover up for some of the deficiency. And in the initial stage of conflict in WVR it's shown promising results. I will leave it at that. This solution will not solve the problem but make it but easy.

It was to emulate the Mirage-2000(hence the french involvement in initial stages) so it has a decent ITR but then the aspect ratios start working against it.

Great for the role it was originally designed for - Mig-21 replacement: Fast dash to intercept, first to point nose and fire

Secondary role for BAI also works for it
In its current form it is a potent aircraft for the theatre its being deployed to

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Maximum combat radius of Tejas is achieved in this configuration- 3x External fuel tank, 3000 ltr internal, that’s over 6000 ltr of fuel!.

JAS-39C/D has same aerodynamic profile(more or less) and same engine why should its range be different from that of LCA? Configuration-1 alone would give LCA nearly 800–1000km combat radius and >2000 km ferry range. With 3 external fuel tanks LCA flew nearly 1700 km nonstop (BIAS2016). JAS-39C/D has same aerodynamic profile(more or less) and same engine why should its range be different from that of LCA? Configuration-1 alone would give LCA nearly 800–1000km combat radius and >2000 km ferry range. With 3 external fuel tanks LCA flew nearly 1700 km nonstop (BIAS2016).

Configuration-1 :
View attachment 867014

Configuration-2 - 2x 1500ltr External fuel tank, 2x 500kg LGB, 2x AAM - Estimated combat radius 500–700km.
View attachment 867015
Configuration-3 : Interception/point defense role - 1x 450ltr centerline supersonic tank(not the one in pic), 1x IRST/ECM pod and 6x AAM, <500km combat radius BUT >1 hour of loitering period.
View attachment 867016
Finally - LCAs were designed to have flight endurance of 2 hour 30 minutes and that’s more than enough for a light air defense fighter. It is more than enough to strike Pakistani installations across border hit them under air cover of SU30 MKI and return back to base.

Also for a ground strike mission beyond 500 km say 800–900 km, if Tejas is operating along with SU30 it can take fuel from SU30 having BUDDY REFUELLING CAPABILITY, it can give fuel to tejas for extended range missions. Beyond 900 km we are not gonna do any missions against Pakistan.

Also, if we look at Chinese border its maneuverability comes into the scene along with its smaller RCS which makes it a deadly sneak peek fighter which can repel any Chinese attack.

Gripen is an F16/J10 class fighter. Its bigger in size. They fall under MCA(medium combat a/c) not in LCA category.

Tejas is in LCA category like Jf17s They r Light weight and small size a/c. But problem in Tejas is its far too small, if im not wrong its the smallest 4th fighter in the world. JF17 being an LCA is still bigger in size atleast, airframe/wings. Its flight time for ferry range is 3.5 hrs with 3,482 km range. Combat range in multirole config. ie with 2xBVR, 2xWVR missiles 2xLGBs and 1x TPOD/Jammer/ECM/EW pod etc is 1300 km with 2.5 hrs flight time. In Air to ground/CAS config. its load-out increases and flight time decreases to 1.5 hrs...... All THESE CONFIGS R WITHOUT DROP TANKS!

WITH DROP TANKS, THESE RANGES DOUBLE OR IMPROVE IN EACH CONFIG..

This flight characteristic is for Block 2.....Its further improved in Block III, Blk 3 is a 6 tonner same as Gripen. Also Gripen is a cropped Delta with canards, not full delta. It doesnt suffer as much drag while turning as lets say a mirage/tejas would. This drag put extra pressure on average fuel consumption for engine as well, resulting in lower mileage then a non full delta design.. Add to that the weapons load and its just gets poorer and poorer in both aspect ratio and average fuel consumption.....Resulting in poor maneuverability and mileage.

These things r extremely important buddy.......In any hot zine the first thing pilots do is jettison their drop tanks/payload for extra maneuverability to dodge AD systems and enemy AAMs, And for Tejas pilots this will be a must thing to do since Tejas already suffers from poor maneuverability.

So its lack of both internal fuel and maneuverability r a big problem......And if im not wrong These r one of the main reasons why IAF and Navy had rejected this project, before this current government forcefully made IAF purchase it specially after the 2019 saga. While IN didnt budge and r going for F18s.

 

[Flight of falcon]

This ghatia machine was planned before I was born. Will probably fly after I reach 50.

 

[Lava820]

Gripen is an F16/J10 class fighter. Its bigger in size. They fall under MCA(medium combat a/c) not in LCA category.

Tejas is in LCA category like Jf17s They r Light weight and small size a/c. But problem in Tejas is its far too small, if im not wrong its the smallest 4th fighter in the world. JF17 being an LCA is still in size atleast, airframe/wings. Its flight time for ferry range is 3.5 hrs with 3,482 km range. Combat range in multirole config. ie with 2xBVR, 2xWVR missiles 2xLGBs and 1x TPOD/Jammer/ECM pod etc is 1300 km with 2.5 hrs flight time. In Air to ground/CAS config. its load out increases and flight time decreases to 1.5 hrs...... All THESE CONFIGS R WITHOUT DROP TANKS!

WITH DROP TANKS, THESE RANGES DOUBLE OR IMPROVE IN EACH CONFIG..

This flight characteristic is for Block 2.....Its further improved in Block III, Blk 3 is a 6 tonner same as Gripen. Also Gripen is a cropped Delta with canards, not full delta. It doesnt suffer as much drag while turning as lets say a mirage/tejas would. This drag put extra pressure on average fuel consumption for engine as well, resulting in lower mileage then a non full delta design.. Add to that the weapons load and its just gets poorer and poorer in both aspect ratio and average fuel consumption.....Resulting in poor maneuverability and mileage.

These thing r extremely important buddy.......In any hot zine the first thing pilots do is jettison their drop tanks for extra maneuverability to dodge AD systems and enemy AAMs, And for Tejas pilots this will be a must thing to do since Tejas suffers from poor maneuverability.

So its lack of both internal fuel and maneuverability r a big problem......And if im not wrong These r one of the main reasons why IAF and Navy had rejected this project, before this current government made IAF purchase it specially after the 2019 saga. While IN didnt budge and r going for F18s.

In close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its wings doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed. It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3(or series 2?), whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from PAC's “Combat thrust” claim. Hence the true, lower than published, specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one’s guesses. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best.


The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

 

[CSAW]

In close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its wings doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed. It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3(or series 2?), whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from PAC's “Combat thrust” claim. Hence the true, lower than published, specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one’s guesses. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best.


The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

In the era of AESA's , BVRs with clear, Clean, High PtK shots at 40 - 70 km ranges, Even BCM with HMD/S and HOBS , You seem to analyse a modern 4.0Gen Multi role in a scenario of "Close combat and Interception". If those were the golden / critical KPIs for a modern day warfare, maybe IAF would keep MiG-21s flying in the air.

The Mach 1.6 is more a function of DSI design which has several advantages but trade-offs which is normal to any aerodynamic design.

Increasingly, fighter aircraft are equipped with active missiles that are capable of homing on to a target autonomously; Compared to the Legacy semi-active missiles require the target to be constantly illuminated (usually by the radar of the aircraft firing the missile) throughout missile flight.The major disadvantage of semiactive missiles, therefore, is that the illuminating aircraft has to continue pointing at (and therefore getting closer to) the target throughout the missile flight time.

In contrast, active missiles, more commonly known as ‘fire and forget’, allow the launching fighter to begin its escape manoeuvre long before the weapon has reached its target.

Situational Awareness, DATA, Sensors, Early information , Synergy with other Assets have taken over the age old Kinematic performance dependence .

"The black magic of the aircraft’s electronic warfare suite can also come into its own, reducing the opponent’s situational awareness. Situational awareness, weapons capability and combat persistence are probably more important than manoeuvre capability" -

which unfortunately some people are still stuck to.

Its the Package , Training , Skill which beats the hardware and Magic Bullets don't work. Wake up and embrace the world which has changed.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

In close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its wings doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed. It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3(or series 2?), whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from PAC's “Combat thrust” claim. Hence the true, lower than published, specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one’s guesses. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best.


The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

@CSAW i think have given u a good answer abt jf17. BTW jf17 is known as a good slow speed handling a/c. It beats an f16 as well in slow speed handling. Performance of jf17 in WVR were never a question of doubt. By anybody be it national or international expert. Its aspect ratio is 3.5 which is almost same as f16's. In WVR or dogfights u need a nimble a/c, capable of turning and burning fights.

The secret are in its bump DSI intakes F35 style, which optimizes engine for better performance. And this same bump intake is found in J10B too which was also done on PAF recommendations, just one of the 50 changes we requested.

The other secret is in its F16A Blk 15/20 lighter wings. I hope u do know abt f16s right? An Aircraft which was inherently designed for WVR/dogfights? And has the most successful record in WVR for any fighter in the world.

It also has Gripen's vertical tale BTW if u dont know.

T/W weight ratio of jf17 blk 1/2 are @ 0.95 with RD93(thrust of rd93 is 84.4kn wet, Rd93 was specially designed for jf17s increasing its thrust and relocation of its gearbox resulting in lower life of new engine vs baseline RD33) and 1.10 with WS13(notice its ws13 baseline engine not ws13E which is more powerful, which will be Blk 3's engine). Baseline Ws13 has a thrust of 86kn wet and 101 kn wet for WS13E which is blk 3 engine. And Rd93 u know is the rd33 ie mig29 engine, an aircraft known for for excellent slow speed handling.

So when u take this all together, u get an excellent dogfighter, with excellent maneuverability and excellent slow speed handling. But as now ws13e comes in and as Argentina is getting her Block 3s with ws13e, then this will clear the path for the PAF's ws13E induction as well since PAF had concerns with ws13e's reliability. Now lets see.......Ws13E is a high speed handling engine, BTW same as F16's engine and yr teja's. Now its Speed is already is @ mach 2+. And as i told u before its now a 6 ton a/c same as Gripen. With more speed, size, range n internal fuel.

Just as @CSAW said to u, update yrself!!!!!!

But all that u have written in reply to my post abt teja,,, how does that answer my questions, concerns and arguments against Tejas design and size? leave jf17, i only mention it as an example in size, range n internal fuel comparison. Its already is a battle proven jet read op. swift retort with export success. It doesnt have much to prove anymore. Just stay on topic in hand which is Tejas mk 1/1A.

This ghatia machine was planned before I was born. Will probably fly after I reach 50.

me too, i was born in 1988 and this teja project started in 1983.

It was to emulate the Mirage-2000(hence the french involvement in initial stages) so it has a decent ITR but then the aspect ratios start working against it.

Great for the role it was originally designed for - Mig-21 replacement: Fast dash to intercept, first to point nose and fire

Secondary role for BAI also works for it
In its current form it is a potent aircraft for the theatre its being deployed to

not m2k but m3/5. Its size n internal fuel capacity is same as their's even though they r 2nd/3rd gen fighters.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

View attachment 866932
The maiden flight trials of the LCA Tejas MK-1A (Light Combat Aircraft Mark-1A) have been started from the first week of May, said sources in the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) associated with the project.

LCA Mk-1A is an upgraded version of the LCA Mk-1. LCA Mk-1 reached Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2020.
An official, who is a part of the project, told The Indian Express on condition of anonymity that the flight trials were kept secret. “We did not publicly announce the trials. HAL has upgraded an aircraft with serial production number SP-25, which was at the level of Tejas Mk1, to Tejas Mk1A level. SP-25 and one more aircraft, which is under modification, will act as a test platform for the entire production line of the Mk1A version.”

“LCA Mk-1A is an indigenously-designed aircraft with more than 70 per cent indigenous content. During subsequent trials, the aircraft will be equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar, Advanced Short Range Air-Air Missile (ASRAAM) which is a combat missile, Electronic Warfare (EW) Suite and Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) to meet the operational requirements of the IAF,” the source added.

AESA is capable of tracking multiple enemy targets with high accuracy suitable for firing missiles in all terrain operations. The major function of the EW suite is to identify and locate threat signals, attack or jam adversary’s signal operations and give a leverage to the pilots. These systems have been designed and developed by various labs of Defence Research Development Organisation and the Aeronautical Development Agency, Bengaluru, and are claimed to increase the lethality of the fighter aircraft.

In December last year, HAL signed a contract with Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for development and supply of critical avionics like Flight Control System Line Replaceable Units (a modular component like radio which can be replaced during field operation) for the LCA Mk1A programme.


The official said that HAL aims to deliver the 83 LCA Mk-1A aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF) from 2023-24 onwards.

HAL begins flight trials of LCA Tejas Mk-1A

LCA Mk-1A is an upgraded version of the LCA Mk-1. LCA Mk-1 reached Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2020.

indianexpress.com

JF-17 block 3 is already in production nearly for a year

 

[VkdIndian]

Argentina is getting her Block 3s with ws13e, then this will clear the path for the PAF's ws13E induction as well since PAF had concerns with ws13e's reliability. Now lets see.......Ws13E is a high speed handling engine,

Can a different engine be fitted like this? It isn’t as easy due to technical as well as cost factors.
Any source to confirm that Block IIIs would get the Chinese engine?

Good acceleration and manoeuverability along with weapons package are more meaningful than maximum top speed.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

mk1A doesnt have canards?

canards are not needed for MK-1A but MK-2 will have them, which will be whole different jet than TEJAS and it will be medium weight fighter not light weight jet in category

The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

top speed doesn't matter in real world combat situations, only accelerations and maneuverability, for example F-35 has top speed of 1.6 Mach and F/A 18 hornet has also top speed of 1.8 Mach but both of them consider one of the best jets in the world

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Can a different engine be fitted like this? It isn’t as easy. Due to technical as well as cost factors.
Any source to confirm that Block IIIs would get the Chinese engine?

Good acceleration and maneuverability along with weapons package are more meaningful than maximum top speed.

yeah! finally i found someone who knows what he is talking abt. Yr Dead right!, Thats why very few of the modern planes r mach 2. Eg F35 is only 1.6 mach.

But for blk3 needs were different, it has to dodge a missiles like meteors, Barak-8s, S400s, Akash etc etc. Hence mach 2+ to be able to run away from from hot zone in high speeds if needed. But regardless, yr dead right ''Good acceleration and maneuverability along with weapons package are more meaningful than maximum top speed.'' I was just answering the off topic post of that Shabby little school boy called Lava.

Integration of new system in jf17 isnt difficult, it was designed for this job in mind. with MIL-STD-1553 data bus

MIL-STD-1553 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically means its plug n play.....watch from 9:28 min video below for details. It has a capacity of 100% avionic updates.

Engine testing BTW is already done.

https://www.facebook.com/developingPak/photos/a.858002447660788/3533791876748485

here is an old thread i dig out for its testing with ws13.

JF-17 test flight with ws-13 "taisan" engine.

JF-17 test flight with ws-13 "taisan" engine successfully. ?????????????????????_????_??? the link is from phoenix news which in my opinion is more reliable than many Chinese domestic bbs

defence.pk

 

[VkdIndian]

Integration of new system in jf17 isnt difficult, it was designed for this job in mind. with MIL-STD-1553 data bus

Integration of new systems shouldn’t be an issue since most of the newly developed aircraft have modular concept.
Engine change may not be that easy. As per my understanding aircraft is desgined around available engine and putting in a completely different one may be a tall order. If RD3 is already installed, putting in a WS series may not be feasible due to structural change requirements that would add to cost and time.
I am sure PAF would have done due deliberation and decided on the best option. On procurement front PAF has always proven to be more nimble than IAF (sad for me).