Will PAF retire JF17s at 30 years, when it has 50+ year old Mirage III/V airframes still operating?
No they wont. PAF will mostly like refurbish the airframe, and try to zero as much of it as it can and replace what it can't..
IMO...I wouldn't use the Mirage as an example to make that point.
The Mirages serve an essential niche role -- SOW/ALCM deployment -- which the PAF has yet to transition over to any new aircraft as of-yet. Not only that, but being an import, replacing the older airframes with new aircraft wasn't a realistic or feasible option to begin with (which isn't the issue with the JF-17). Finally, the PAF never found a new (but affordable and accessible) aircraft to replace the Mirage in its niche role.
Basically, the Mirage III/5s are still flying 50+ years later more out of necessity -- and a lack of feasible alternatives -- than anything else. On the other hand, the JF-17 doesn't have any of these constraints.
Finally, it will also depend on how much the PAF can save, monetarily, by refurbishing and upgrading the old aircraft versus buying new. When we think of the fact that we're not dealing with a Western import, the margin is probably a lot lower (between new and upgrades). But we also know the Block-III-based aircraft (especially if there's a new engine involved as some here believe), then you may not be able to bridge the capability gap with upgrades easily or cost-effectively. You'll, at best, have a partial solution (e.g., some systems, but not all).
That
can be fine, but there's an operational cost to flying fighters (old or new), and a cost to the upgrades. So, for the PAF, the key is whether that gap (i.e., the cost of upgrading + flying older planes versus cost of buying new + flying newer planes) is big enough to upgrade, or to buy new. If we were talking about Western fighters, then yes, upgrading is probably the way to go. But the story with the JF-17 is quite different (built locally with key inputs from lower-cost Eastern sources).
You means, in next 3-4 years 50 Block-IIIs will churns out with old RD-93 Engine and this RD93MA is developed for an imaginative order of post 5 years of Block-3 for Block-IV?.....highly unlikly sir, conventional wisdom do not accepts it. In this context UEC press release is also supportive where it talks about "possible use of the power-plant on a single-engine aircraft..." bcz RD93 Series, due to Its unique Gear Box position cannot be used in any other aircraft except JF17 exclusively. So, why UEC developed an Engine in 2020 which cannot be usable until 2025?
We know PAC/PAC officials said they were OK with the RD-93. We also know that the Block-III is already under production (
source). Basically, they wouldn't start building the first 2 aircraft without securing a working engine.
So, they've either tested and certified the RD-93MA
before the OEM of the RD-93MA started any of its own tests on the engine (very unlikely),
or they're using the RD-93.
UEC itself states, "Upon successful completion of this stage,
permission will be obtained for flight design tests."
In other words, the RD-93MA isn't even ready for flight testing, so how can it be ready for a fighter the PAF will (COVID-19 notwithstanding) will start inducting in 2021?
There are only 3 possibilities here:
- the PAF has opted to delay the Block-III entirely and wait for this engine or;
- it will split the Block-III into 2 parts, one with the RD-93 and a later batch with RD-93MA (which will mean the second batch will come later than originally scheduled) or;
- the RD-93MA will make its way to a fourth tranche of JF-17s (which is plausible since the PAF has already gone over its 150 jet-requirement by adding 26 JF-17Bs).
