What's new

Russia has made a new offer on the delivery of Sukhoi PAK FA

Out of date is irrelevant in this matter. What matters is what they say. Until they come out, any claims of high serviceability today are just that: claims.

We believe in our Defence minister
He is a Million times more sincere than that WASTREL ANTONY


Su-30 fleet plagued by engine woes, poor serviceability | india | Hindustan Times

An excerpt

The IAF operates close to 200 twin-engine Su-30s, with another 72 to be inducted. But only 110 fighter planes are fully serviceable. Parrikar said the serviceability currently stood at 56-57% but was likely to climb to 70% by the year-end.

This was in March ; So NOW the availability has definitely crossed 65 Percent
And by Next year end ; it will be 75 Percent
 
.
Wel if the Defence Minister of India states in Parliament the MKI fleet will have a 60-65% availabilty rate by the end of 2015 I am inclined to beleive him.
Once again. A government official whose job is to highlight good performances by his fellow partymen. So, the CAG is the check and balance to his claims.

We believe in our Defence minister
He is a Million times more sincere than that WASTREL ANTONY


Su-30 fleet plagued by engine woes, poor serviceability | india | Hindustan Times

An excerpt

The IAF operates close to 200 twin-engine Su-30s, with another 72 to be inducted. But only 110 fighter planes are fully serviceable. Parrikar said the serviceability currently stood at 56-57% but was likely to climb to 70% by the year-end.

This was in March ; So NOW the availability has definitely crossed 65 Percent
Let me put this clear terms to you. I have no interest in speaking to a hateful little person like you. So unless it is a moderation issue, and even then.. DO NOT QUOTE ME.
 
. .
I would like to add stealth Jets are only stealthy from below and front, if the opponent Jet fly higher it can detect stealth Jet like any other ordinary jet. And because of stealth design these Jets are less agile in dig fight only their main role is bombing ground targets to make they way for non-stealthy fighters.

@anant_s
Very informative video
Aircraft Designer: Stealth is a Scam | Military.com

A stealth fighter plane if uses its own radar to detect the enemy fighter plane will show its location and the whole idea of stealth of F22 Raptor fails, however F-22 could lock on the target using other platform FCR radar, and can shoot the target like the Sniper.

But if we consider the scenario of a mission in a decent, high SAM, and BVR threat enemy area, you nead the fighter plane like F-35 that gives the 360 degree picture of the whole battlefield, with top the notch sensors, and the fusion coupled with the help of the Computational analysis of the information gathered by the various sensors, and pilot could consentrate on performing the mission rather than confused and doing calculation of the RCS, RAM coating, stealthiness, frequency of the enemy radar. Low radar signature is just one small aspect in the 5th Generation fighter plane.

@FrenchPilot @Oscar @Taygibay
Sirs,
Its premature to ask this but if one talks purely of avionics and air maneuverability, how do Rafale and PAK FA compare?
one argument that is made in A2A combat is that a machine that detects other machine first even by a few seconds has theoretically higher probability of emerging victorious.
However in real world things would depend also on
a. how late can a plane allow itself to get detected
b. its maneuverability
c. its defences
d. weapons it has
e. how effective is airborne AWACS support a plane has.


Sooner or later Radar manufacturers will develop techniques to detect VLO fighters and then if RCS advantage gets neutralized, will smaller but nimble fighters have advantage over costlier generation 5 fighters?

Difference between the Rafale and the 5th generation fighter plane is that the later is a part of the system that is called a Fifth Generation fighter concept, and the plane is just a small part. 5th Generation concept means to detect the enemy from various sources or sensors, whether from the Satellite, JSTAR network, UAV, IR signature, SIGNIT or the sensor of the foot soldier, and all data gathered in realtime, and perform analysis my the Mission computer in realtime, and give the pilot options to choose to achieve its mission, thus taking off load of the pilot, in another word a super WSO. Stealth is not the everything, infact there is nothing called the stealth plane but its just fooling the eyes of the Radar aka RADAR or IR Sensors which can include the Detecting enemy radar frequency, making the radars range map, Jamming, DIRCM, avoiding the radar reach and range, and Smart Weapons.

Rafale can be a good fighter plane but it is not a 5th Gen fighter plane, not because it don't have the peculiar shaping or the internal weapon bay, but because it don't have the
  • powerful sensors like F-35
  • don't have the powerful computation power to analyze all the inputs from the various sensors and sources
  • don't have the speed of communication by which it transfer its data or receive data (5G vs dialup)
  • don't have the Smart weapons like swamp missile or the weapon that could take the decisions of its own.
  • are not designed to operate on the most hostile enemy environment
  • cannot share FCR targeting image to other platform, like UAV or other fighter plane.
@Taygibay @FrenchPilot

Sir, Pardon my ignorance


i don't think India should consider F35 for airforce. FGFA is a far better fighter (atleast on paper simulations) and given time and energy already devoted, it should be persued further.
Only thing is the original specifications should not be diluted.

If India consider F35, then they have to sign various deals to comply for the various assets and sensors to be used in this 5th Gen to take its full advantage, and that would need the whole system including US battlefield management, NATO standard communication and compliants network, JSTAR, SATELITTE Intel, weapons etc etc in short India have to change lot of things and have to buy various other platforms. A good example is the UK when tried to encorporate its own missile in F-35 have to send it to the US with the source code, so that the US designer would do that, and India is certainly not close to USA like UK.

FGFA is our best choise, because it will give us freedom to use our own satellite networks, our own encrypted datalink, and our own battlefield management system. Though it might be not as powerful as F-35, but neither India is going to join the NATO force, nor India have so much resource and money to buy and change all its existing systems. The countries buying F-35 are NATO members, and have alliance with the US in the strategic way, so they will operate this mean machine under US supervission AKA US Network.

Manoeuvrability is long going dead. The Rafale can be given thrust vectoring like the PAK-FA and they both can dance it out like some telegu fim stars. However, a mig-21 armed with a AA-11 Archer at high speed can come in and blow both of them out of the sky and run away shooting flares.. and survive.
Modern missiles and systems are making manoeuvrability more of an after thought than an actual requirement. What is now required of fighters is low observability in the radar and thermal spectrum. The rafale and PAK-FA more, manage that in the radar spectrum but lack it in the thermal range.
LOLZ Manueuvrability was never dead, but no sane fighter pilot in the world whatsoever claim to be the bravest don't want to indulge in the dogfight. Low observalibilty or the Low RCS is just the illusion, infact the radar signature return back also depend on the frequency of the radar, so it would be the smarter one who use better tactics and radar effectively of the two equal opponents will be advantageous. BVR fight is not of the range rather the first detect and better positional game.
Manuevarability is not needed in dogfight but also to dodge this BVR, and to get to the right position quickly, so that it could avoid the opponents radar detection and targetting range.

If IAF pilots could, and was not left to pencil pushers, MMRCA would have been a thrust vectoring Mig 35 single party procurement. I think @dadeechi has gotten it absolutely wrong about the Su30MKI and Mig 29....
SU30MKI and the mig 29 aswell are absolutely adored by the IAF pilots. There have been some recent threads on CAG reports on the MKI's, and frankly i dont give a flying F what a bunch of clerks have to say about a combat aircraft system.
Mig 29B was the wrong decission. When purchased it was without FBW, FADEEC and was not multirole but only airsuperiority fighter plane. Infact the whole Saga of purchase of Mig 23 (air superiority), Mig 29(air superiority), Mig 27(bomber), and Jaguar(DPSA) is out of my mind. IAF was interested in Mirrage 2000, but Congress govt. gave IAF all those fighter planes due to some soviet love or some other reason, but it would be much better if India would have gone for SU-24/25(bomber/DPSA) and Mirrage 2000H(Multirole) in large qty.

@dadeechi @anant_s IAF was never interested in PAK FA rather FGFA, which is much smaller fighter plane, extensive use, more stealthy, less manuveour than PAK FA. In short Russia will tailor make FGFA for India, with little bit Indian contribution like composites, fuel pumb, OBOGS, EW Suite, Mission computer and all other parts from frame, landing gear, accutators, engine, ejection seats etc will be procured.

Out of date is irrelevant in this matter. What matters is what they say. Until they come out, any claims of high serviceability today are just that: claims.
CAG is just an auditing agency, and includes beuracrats not the defense experts like you.

Serviceability of MKI cannot be comparable to F-16 type of fighter plane. BTW Rafale service availability in the peace time in French Airforce is around 55%. And MKI serviceability could never cross 60-65% in peace time taking its tandem seat, and dual engine and long time taken for maintainance in consideration.

I am a little confused about PAK FA vs FGFA. How much difference is there? Or FGFA is just rebadged PAK FA?
Check my post above. FGFA would be dual seater and PAK FA single.
PAK FA would be more bigger, and agile, titanium frame, FGFA would be more stealty with more composites

@anant_s @Oscar
A good read.. May help few things ... Courtesy to original poster Vann7 on SAMs, Stealth plans, AWACs and radars (jets and fixed ground and mobile) all with S400 as a part scenario

  • It all depends of how well you monitor the airspace..
  • if all you do is deploy an S-400 unit in one place and hope to target all at any altitude as far as 400km range ,then you a re doing something really wrong. Because enemy can fly under the radar ..taking advantage of earth that is not flat.
  • You need planes and awacs to improve the vision of radars ,specially at low altitudes of things that use mountains or elevated terrain as cover.
AcYtR.gif


if you look at that image ,you will see there are areas that radars can't see.. when something very solid blocks the way.. either a mountain or the earth curvature at some long distance it blocks radars view on the ground. So this is why you need Radars at high altitude,ideally planes, like awacs or hellicopters with radars or planes..


naval-communications-december-1950-radio-television-news-8.jpg



The smaller the radar the smaller the area it can see at the same time.

If you ever used binoculars ,that will be similar to the radars of missiles. it can only focus in a small area.. So you need a bigger Radar to tell the missile where to go ,and the missile use its own radar only when the plane is at visual distance in the final approach.

Stealth planes are not invisible ,they only have a lower radar signature. So what that means?
  • that if the S-400 can detect a plane at 600km.. something like an F-22 will only be detected using conventional radars at 100km to 200km.
  • But this is only the case IF... you only had one S-400 system deployed in one place..
  • if you deploy Pantsirs defenses in the front line ,at the borders of any country.. they have ultra sensitive Heat sensors that stealth cannot hide..and it will provide location of any F-22 plane as soon it enters illegally your airpace and supply that information to the S-400 unit.. so that it can engage the stealth plane ,that usually see at 100km to 200km distance.. now will see it at any distance.
  • That said Stealth planes will lose its stealthiness is a zone heavily covered by many different kinds of radars. deployed across a country. and no plane will be able to hide from radars if they are setup correctly across a whole territory and have the support of Air radars ,like Awacs or hellicopters etc.
  • This means that S-400s are far from the only dangerous weapon that Russian enemies needs to be worried. Things like Pantsirs are really deadly..
  • even more i will say. because they have a gatling gun ,that can't be jammed, you can't jam a bullet..
  • and pantsirs can operate with radars turned off and highly mobile , so you will only know where they are ,when they hit your plane.

So effectively S-400s works like a sniper rifle.. while pantsirs is like a mine. it will get you if your plane move to the wrong place where a pantsir is hiding and defending it. Imagine you entering a minefield ,that you don't know where the mines are.. and at the same time a sniper is shooting at you. Not cool.. and indeed you will not go there if you knew the place was mined with a sniper that you cant see either its position but that he can see you.

A really well defended airspace ,needs to combine long range with medium and short range defenses. An example should have S-400s + Buks/Tors + pantsirs.

The only ones the enemy will know the location are the S-400s..and they will be out of range of any enemy plane.. only cruise missiles could target long range places.. but they can be easily defeated by Pantsirs ,Gps jamming and other things.

All said is not a piece of cake to defeat a zone well covered by S-400s. not even by stealth planes ,contrary to what you have heard. And if you have a strong Airforce is even worse.. because the airforce will interrupt any enemy attempt to even try to break into your airspace.

The only effective way to defeat an S-400 is with boots on the ground..with paramilitary groups undercovertly taking territory and getting to artillery distance to your air defenses. This is exactly why Russia is bombing any terrorist position in Syria latakia ,because they represent the biggest threat to S-400s. They are not designed to operate withing artillery range of enemy positions.

It is also important to remember that S-400s are only useful if used. and you cannot measure its real performance now in places like Syria.. because Russia is not a war with any nation . not yet. So Russia rules of engagement allows foreign nations to get a bit close to S-400s positions.

The real way to measure S-400s capabilities is in a full scale war and against a modern nation with modern air defenses and airforce. thats when Russia can really keep at distance any potential enemy plane ,beyond its range of combat.
+++
Superb love you brother.

But just to add something there is a difference between the F-35 of USAF and USNAf and rest others F-35 against S-400 that USA would easily penetrate S-400, others won't find it so easy. WHY ? because US have vast resources, and as part of its 5th Gen warfare F-35 Sensors would easily make the whole image/map of the battlefield, and would direct its UAV to launch stealty smart weapons, and dosen't matter S-400 Radar would detect F-35 or not it will still operate outside missile reach. USA is already develping so called 6 Gen weapons disguissed in a plane called F-35

The North Indian SULTANS or Nizams who ruled various parts of South India were MUSLIMS

But at that very Time North India too was under Islamic rule

North Indian Hindu Kings never ruled over South

THEREFORE South Indian HINDUS have No grudge against North Indian HINDUS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Way Today's Indian Economy is being DRIVEN by the
West and South India with the NORTH and East lagging behind and
trying to catch up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





It is just NOT possible that North Indians would allow or invite A Pakistani to Join them
in troubling South INDIANS

thumps up nice answer
 
Last edited:
.
The defence deals signed by India with France,USA,Russia are unprecedented.Japan and Germany are also offering their Tanks and Submarines.Then Israel is also helping India in Radar tech and Anti-ballistic missile tech.The way India is arming itself is very alarming for the region and particularly for Pakistan.Except for submarine and few frigates deal with China nothing substantial is being done by Pakistan.
It is very worrying.Can someone offer any assurances that we have plans to counter these acquisitions in pipeline.
Have been hearing about plans of PAF for eons now but nothing concrete on ground.yes,money doesn't grow on trees.But are we surrendering due to it ?
 
.
The defence deals signed by India with France,USA,Russia are unprecedented.Japan and Germany are also offering their Tanks and Submarines.Then Israel is also helping India in Radar tech and Anti-ballistic missile tech.The way India is arming itself is very alarming for the region and particularly for Pakistan.Except for submarine and few frigates deal with China nothing substantial is being done by Pakistan.
It is very worrying.Can someone offer any assurances that we have plans to counter these acquisitions in pipeline.
Have been hearing about plans of PAF for eons now but nothing concrete on ground.yes,money doesn't grow on trees.But are we surrendering due to it ?

Relax my friend. Actual India-Pakistan war is history. It's still possible on PDF though.:enjoy:

1) Pakistan is a nuclear power
2) Has backing of US, Saudi & China
3) Pakistan does not announce all projects like India and has many black projects under wraps which would be revealed at an appropriate time
4) Pakistan is much ahead of the game in many areas like Cruise missiles, Tactical nukes, UCAV and AIP Submarines
5) Apart from AESA incorporated indigenous JF-17 Block 3, Pakistan is also procuring SU-35. In another 6-8 years you would be inducting 5th generation J-31 fighters too.
 
. .
thats news to me

JF-17-2-692x360.png

Country PortfolioPakistan
Aug 30, 2015 Bilal Khan -
The JF-17 III: Major Changes Ahead on JF-17 Block-3
By Bilal Khan
Previous articles on Quwa discussed why the JF-17 is a significant advancement for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Not only is the JF-17 an effective multi-role platform that is poised to form the backbone of the PAF fighter fleet, but it is immune to sanctions, and it is a program that Pakistan ‘owns’ in terms of being able to freely decide on how to equip and develop it. With this article, it would be a good idea to have a clearer understanding of exactly what the PAF has in store for the JF-17 in the coming years in terms of its upgrade and development path. By the end of this piece, there should be little doubt in the seriousness of the PAF in as far as its commitment to the JF-17 is concerned.
The first upgrade to the JF-17 is at this time coming through the Block-2. The first JF-17 Block-2 made its maiden flight in February 2015, and it is the current production type rolling out of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra. The Block-2 is at heart an iterative update, so it would not be right to assume that it includes significant improvements or changes over the Block-1 currently in service.
Arguably, the most significant change in the Block-2 is the incorporation of an air-to-air refuelling (AAR) probe, and this will enable the JF-17 to refuel in-flight with the support of the PAF’s IL-78 tankers. The Block-2 also incorporates improvements in the JF-17’s avionics and electronic suites, but there are no specific details. There are rumours about a KLJ-7V2 pulse-Doppler radar with increased range, but this has not been confirmed by the PAF or PAC. If one were to simply refer to this piece by Jane’s, it would seem that the Block-2’s goal is to increase the JF-17’s flight-time (via in-flight refuelling and improved oxygen systems) and mission usefulness (in-flight refuelling can free up hard-points that would otherwise be used for external fuel-tanks). The 51st to 100th JF-17s will be Block-2.
The first major jump is in reality the JF-17 Block-3, which is currently in development. There are no known airframe updates or changes in the Block-3, but in terms of electronics, it is essentially confirmed that the JF-17 Block-3 will house an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Helmet Mounted Display and Sight (HMD/S) system, and possibly an additional hard-point suitable for specialized targeting and tracking pods. This article will breakdown each of these aspects, but if taken together (alongside a suitably upgraded avionics and ECM/EW suite), the Block-3 is positioned to be a significant upgrade.
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
The integration of an AESA radar is perhaps the most important development in the JF-17’s upgrade path. AESA radars are complex and expensive systems, but they are a standard feature of 4.5 generation fighters such as the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. In a battlefield environment that is increasingly ridden with electronic warfare, AESA radars can help fighter aircraft resist enemy jamming, thus helping said fighters successfully engage their targets.

Selex ES Vixen AESA Radar. The Vixen 1000E might be in contention for use on the JF-17 Block-3. Photo credit: Selex ES
An AESA radar is equipped with many small solid-state transmit/receive modules (TRM), and each TRM is capable of emitting its own radio wave. There are many advantages borne out of this arrangement.
The first is “low probability of intercept.” For example, an older radar would typically send out a single signal per pulse, and that signal will be received by the target’s receiver. Over time, that receiver will recognize that the specific signal that “stands out” of the environment (or background noise) is an enemy’s radar, and thus, the aircraft using its radar will have its presence exposed. An AESA radar on the other hand is much more difficult for radar warning receivers (RWR) to interpret as that radar is not just one unit sending one signal, but many small TRMs sending different signals. In general, RWRs would have difficulty pinpointing a peculiar signal (or limited set of signals) from the background noise, thus giving the AESA-equipped aircraft a “low probability of intercept.” In general terms, the AESA- equipped fighter is more difficult to detect.
The second advantage is higher resistance to jamming (from an adversary’s electronic warfare suites). Older radars cannot as easily change their frequencies, and as a result, a jamming system would have a higher chance of registering that specific frequency and sending out that very same one to confuse the pulsing aircraft. Modern radars could change their frequencies with every successive pulse, but an AESA radar could go a step further by emitting different frequencies within a single pulse. Here, jamming would become much more difficult as there is no single frequency to expose from the background noise. Given that an AESA radar is composed of different TRMs transmitting discrete signals, groups of TRM can be allocated to take on specific tasks, e.g. one can engage in targeting, the other in counter-jamming.
If the JF-17 were equipped an AESA radar, its ability to withstand enemy jamming as well as close in on enemy targets with a low probability of intercept would make it a much more effective system. That said, it is important to note that while an AESA radar can offer these advantages, it is imperative that one not sacrifice tracking range and engagement capabilities. If the PAF wishes to see the JF-17 Block-3 substantially improve upon the Block-1 and Block-2, then it should ensure that its AESA radar substantially improves upon the KLJ-7’s range and ability to engage targets. In other words, the JF-17 Block-3’s AESA radar could very well be an expensive system, and that will likely serve as an impediment.
Speaking of impediments, there is also the question of sourcing. In an article meant for the 2015 Paris Air Show, Alan Warnes (a very credible PAF watcher) noted that a radar from the British-Italian firm Selex ES was in the running. On a DefenseNews piece, retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail was quoted saying, “Given the Western concerns about transfer of sensitive technology, which could find its way further east, I think we may have had no other option but to buy Chinese.” This is an extremely important point. AESA technology is new and it is very sensitive, so the PAF can (and likely will) run into serious issues when it comes to Western suppliers (e.g. the latter might demand overbearing checks and guarantees, and possibly refuse to let Pakistan produce the radars locally). It is very likely that the PAF will ultimately eschew its Western options and go Chinese, especially if the latter enables the PAF to learn and understand AESA technology more deeply and bring this prized technology to local production.
Helmet Mounted Display & Sight (HMD/S)
The incorporation of HMD/S is also a very important step for the JF-17. An HMD/S is basically a visor equipped with optical and processing systems (in other words, a ‘smart display’). Current day HMD/S systems like the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing and Sight (JHMCS) system enable a fighter pilot to cue their air-to-air and air-to-surface weapon systems to the direction of where his or her head is pointing. Targets can be designated and engaged with minimal aircraft maneuvering, thereby increasing the efficiency (and thus lethality) of the fighter in combat.
Although slotted for the Block-3, it seems the PAF was at least toying with the idea of some kind of HMD on JF-17 for a few years. The proof for that is this screen-capture (below) taken from a PAF documentary from 2008 called “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” Although the PAF could have tacked on a random image, there is a clear hint that this particular system (which has a startling resemblance to the Denel Archer from South Africa) may have been at least tested by the PAF. For one thing, the Gentex MBU-5/P oxygen mask that was – at least in 2008 – the standard issue mask for PAF fighter pilots (though that is gradually being supplanted with current MBU-20/23 masks). Moreover, this specific photo was only ever shown on the PAF documentary and nowhere else prior.

A HMD/S system showcased on the PAF documentary “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” The system shown here has some close similarities to the South African Denel Archer.
This image would suggest that the PAF was (and possibly still is) cooperating with numerous foreign vendors on the JF-17’s HMD/S system, especially if the Brazilian-South African A-Darter high-off-bore-sight (HOBS) within visual range air-to-air missile (WVRAAM) is in the running for use on JF-17. A HOBS WVRAAM can be paired with an HMD/S system to allow the pilot to utilize the system’s cueing advantages in dogfights with enemy fighter aircraft.
At this stage it is difficult to see exactly where the HMD/S system will come from, but there is a chance that this might be a solution that is heavily centric to the PAF’s specific needs. In other words, the HMD/S might in fact end up being an indigenously-sourced solution developed with external assistance, primarily Chinese with peripheral South African, European and possibly even Turkish support. The rationale for this argument is the reality that the JF-17’s HMD/S will need to be accessible to the full range of potentially compatible air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions in use by the PAF. An imported solution with limited access to the technology will limit the PAF from freely using the system, thus mitigating the actual need and advantage of the JF-17.

A JHMCS being used by a PAF F-16D pilot. Photo credit: PAFWallpapers
It is important to note that the PAF already uses an HMD/S system with its F-16s, the Boeing JHMCS. There is a good chance that the JHMCS is in fact influencing the PAF’s idea of a suitable HMD/S, and as a result, one might see the PAF’s solution adopt a few similar characteristics. For example, the JHMCS was designed to be adapted to a modified HGU-55/P helmet, the standard issue helmet in use by the U.S Air Force and many other air forces, including that of Pakistan’s. Modularity and flexibility are key advantages to have, and a possible solution might even mirror the Thales Visionix “Scorpion” Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). The Scorpion was developed to essentially fit onto the HGU-55/P helmet with an add-on mount, the mount could also be used to fit night-vision-goggles (NVG) in lieu of the HMD/S visor.
Additional Station for Specialized Targeting Pods
It is possible, though not clearly verified, that the JF-17 Block-3 would have an additional station or hard-point (likely under the fuselage, by the ‘chin’) to house special-purpose targeting pods.

The Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod
One incredibly useful-kind of pod would be a system similar in form and function to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod. The Sniper (which is also used on the PAF’s F-16s) is a multi-purpose pod that allows for tracking, targeting and engagement irrespective of the time of day or the weather. The Sniper can be paired with a wide range of air-to-surface weapon systems, including laser-guided bombs (LGB) and TV-guided stand-off missiles such as the AGM-65 Maverick.

The Chinese WMD-7 targeting pod. It is similar in form and function to the Sniper, and it may be used on the PAF’s JF-17s in the near future.
Although the JF-17 could house such a pod in one of its existing hard-points, if the pod were in fact light and deployable in a separate area, the JF-17 would be able to utilize all of its existing stations for actual munitions (and fuel-tanks, if aerial refuelling were not available or sufficient). An advanced targeting pod could greatly improve the JF-17’s capacity to undertake stand-alone (i.e. without satellite-aided guidance) precision-strikes using LGBs such as the LT-2 as well as TV-based stand-off glide-bombs such as the locally produced H2 and H4.
Possible Additions and Upgrades
One system that would be of use to the JF-17 is Infrared Search and Track (IRST). Ideally, the IRST system ought to be integrated into the nosecone of the fighter, but it is unclear if the PAF is actually going to take this route. IRST can be used to track enemy aircraft based on thermal signature using infrared, which allows for passive tracking (as opposed to the active tracking of a radar, which sends out pulses). In a scenario where enemy electronic warfare capabilities are of exceptional depth or where there is need to reduce the probability of intercept to the absolute minimum (below that of an even an AESA radar), an IRST-system can be used instead of radar. An IRST system can be paired with a 5th-generation HOBS WVRAAM, enabling the JF-17 to dogfight with minimal effects from enemy EW jamming.
Another area of discussion is the JF-17’s turbofan engine, the Russian RD-93 (a variant of the RD-33 used on the MiG-29). A higher thrust engine such as the in-development RD-93MA can help the JF-17 in achieving a better thrust-to-weight-ratio (TWR), enabling improved maneuverability, speed and payload. Again, it is unclear if an engine change is on the horizon for the JF-17 program, and if so, whether it would be incorporated as early as the Block-3. A new engine may be more likely on a later variant, especially if said variant exhibits a lighter airframe (as a result of a higher proportion of composite use).
Concluding Remarks
When taken collectively, the major changes coming with the JF-17 Block-3 will offer a significant leap for the PAF. It is important to remember that this upgrade will not be confined to a few planes, but in time it will be diffused across the rest of the PAF’s JF-17 fleet. The Block-3 will probably be the upgrade that defines the JF-17 more as a high-tech asset and a potent force-multiplier.


The JF-17 III: Major Changes Ahead on JF-17 Block-3
 
.
JF-17-6-692x360.png

A flight of JF-17s over the Himalayas
Country PortfolioPakistan
Oct 17, 2015 Bilal Khan -
JF-17 Block-2 and Block-3 Details Confirmed
AESA Radars, IRST, HMD/S and a new engine are all on the cards
16 October 2015
By Bilal Khan
The information below will not be new to most Pakistani defence enthusiasts, especially those following the development of the JF-17 Thunder, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF)’s new mainstay multi-role fighter. That said, all of what you are about to read on this article is verified information acquired through a Defence Industry Bulletin interview (during the 2015 Paris Air Show) of Air Commodore Khalid Mahmood, the Vice-Director of the JF-17 program and its sales and marketing manager. Though I will not repost the interview here, I will note and discuss the key details.
There were 50 JF-17s in use by the PAF as of June 2015
AC Mahmood told Defence Industry Bulletin (DIB) that the PAF had 50 JF-17s in service with three operational squadrons. He was referring to the No. 26 and No. 16 squadrons based out of Peshawar Air Base, the third unit he was referring to is the Combat Commanders School (CCS). CCS is the PAF’s training arm for experienced pilots who have shown considerable promise and aptitude for assuming operational leadership posts (such as commanding a fighter squadron). AC Mahmood also noted that a fourth squadron would be raised “within [the] year”, this would be the recently re-equipped No. 2 squadron operating from PAF Masroor.
Alongside the operational units there are also 10 JF-17s committed for testing and development, these are in use in Pakistan as well as in China. As one might imagine these units are being used for testing new subsystems, such as radars and avionics, among other things.

The JF-17 was formally inducted with CCS on 26 January 2015.
JF-17s have been used in combat
AC Mahmood confirmed to DIB that the JF-17 had seen use in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where “it has employed both guided and unguided munitions.” In other words, the JF-17’s precision-strike capabilities have been tested and put to use. I imagine the JF-17s were primarily using laser-guided bombs, likely LT-2, but I would not discount satellite-aided LS-3 and LS-6 munitions either (see this piece for an overview of the JF-17’s munitions inventory). It is likely that the JF-17’s LGBs have been paired with the Chinese WMD-7 targeting pod (Defense News).

The LT-2 LGB. Photo Credit to Air Power Australia and Zhuhai Imagery
Indigenous data-link network in use?
Although an ancillary comment, AC Mahmood stated that “a national solution” was being used to connect the JF-17 to “on and off-board sensors.”
If you are not familiar with the concept, a data-link network basically enables various assets to communicate and exchange information from their sensors in near real-time. For example, an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft could pick up incoming enemy aircraft and, nearly instantly, pass that exact information (with continuous updates) to friendly fighters. The network environment gives your side a live “picture” of the battlefield situation, enabling every friendly actor on the field to have an accurate and constantly up-to-date understanding of the situation.
The PAF uses the American Link-16 system with its F-16s, though it is not entirely clear if the Erieye AEW&C is equipped with Link-16. That said, it should be noted that Saab listed Link-16 (along with Link-11 and an “in-house data link”) as an option.
Besides mentioning that “the national solution” was working “okay”, the system in question was not elaborated upon. It is no secret that the JF-17 was slotted to be a network-centric platform, but it was not clear exactly how the PAF would achieve it. Would it import a data-link network that could be interoperable with Link-16? Or would it use two completely separated solutions (which could be relayed between one another by AEW&C)?
The use of a “national solution” can be a significant thing, assuming what is meant by “solution” is the actual network itself. I personally would consider this feat to be of paramount importance given how network-centric warfare is the norm in modern warfare.
PAC produces 20 aircraft a year for the PAF
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) is on-track to produce 20 JF-17s (approximately a little more than a squadron) a year for the PAF, but the rate can be increased to 25 a year. It seems the gap was left in anticipation for export orders.
The workshare agreement in effect between China and Pakistan permits PAC to produce 58% of the airframe and subsystems (the engine is imported from Russia). I imagine (and hope) the balance will gradually shift more to the Pakistani side as PAC becomes more capable.

The JF-17 production line at Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra.
JF-17’s maritime role explained
AC Mahmood confirmed that the No. 2 squadron from Masroor would be equipped for anti-ship warfare (AShW). However, there are some caveats, primarily owing to the JF-17’s inherent structural limitations. The C-802 anti-ship missile (AShM) in use with by PAF is a heavy missile, and as a result, the JF-17 will carry just one AShM in a mission, with the remaining hard-point stations reserved for fuel-pods and air-to-air missiles.
I suppose in-flight refuelling could help address this issue somewhat by alleviating the needs for the tanks, but this does not change the reality of the JF-17 being a lightweight fighter. The need to address the maritime theatre with a heavier and longer-range fighter was one of the purported reasons why the PAF was reportedly looking at the Sukhoi Su-35 from Russia.
Two-seat JF-17 on the way
The twin-seat variant of the JF-17 is under development and will be available as an operational conversion or training unit for prospective customers. However, AC Mahmood did not have much more to say about this variant. In other words, the two-seater is just poised be a training unit, not a specialized system for strike or dedicated electronic warfare. I imagine the reason, again, has to do with the reality that the JF-17 (at least the Block-1 and Block-2) is a lightweight fighter.
What is JF-17 Block-2?
The JF-17 Block-2 airframe is virtually identical to that of the Block-1.
The only external difference between the two is the Block-2’s incorporation of a fixed in-flight refuelling probe (which will be in effect from the 24th or 26th Block-2 aircraft produced). According to AC Mahmood, the JF-17 did not have enough room for a retractable probe.
The probe is being sourced from a South African company and is being integrated onto the starboard (i.e. right) side of the fuselage. In-flight refuelling is an important addition, it will enable the JF-17 to loiter for extended periods of time, utilize hard-points otherwise used for fuel pods for weapons, and travel without having to land and refuel on the ground as frequently as today (for reference the JF-17 unit made a total of six stops on their way to the Paris Air Show). The PAF’s current aerial refuelling cadre is composed of 4 IL-78 Midas tankers.

A JF-17 Block-2 unit, fresh off of the production line.
Although the refueling probe was the only external addition, the PAF is contemplating the idea of adding hardpoints under the fuselage chin area, which would be used for dedicated targeting pods such as the WMD-7.
Internally the Block-2 is equipped with an improved electronics suite. This includes the avionics and electronics warfare (EW) suite (which may involve the Spanish firm Indra) as well as an updated version of the KLJ-7 radar known as KLJ-7 V2. That is right, AC Mahmood explicitly mentioned the KLJ-7 V2. If you have been following the JF-17 through defence enthusiast circles you will have come across the V2 quite a bit, but mostly through independent defence news sources. It is not entirely clear exactly what range improvements were wrought with the KLJ-7 V2, but it could be (though not confirmed officially) in excess of 100km at 3m2 RCS.
Block-3 AESA, HMD/S and IRST studies confirmed
Although the JF-17 Block-3 has been discussed in detail, including on this very website, it helps to know exactly what has been confirmed and what has not.
AC Mahmood has confirmed that an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is being pursued, with the Chinese vendor Nanjing Research of Electronic Technology (NRIET) among the options being studied. The inclusion of an AESA radar would be a significant jump for the JF-17 (see here as to how and why), but a few important assumptions need to be made about the JF-17 Block-3, especially if the PAF intends to make it a substantive improvement over Block-2.
One of the general challenges with AESA radars is the impact these radars can have on weight and power consumption in the fighter. If the PAF intends to include AESA radars with the intention of maintaining or even improving the radar detection and engagement range of the Block-2, it will need a lighter airframe and more powerful engine.
While AC Mahmood did not confirm that a new engine will be used on JF-17, he did confirm that the PAF was studying its options, and that “the best equipment will find its way into the aircraft.” I think in the end the PAF would choose either the Russian RD-93MA or Chinese WS-13.
In any case, I firmly hope the Block-3 makes much greater use of composite materials and a new engine, these essentials would set up the Thunder to be up to task for most of the aerial threats facing the PAF. A larger and more powerful aircraft might also open up the doors to special warfare variants, such as strike and electronic warfare.
The PAF is also looking at its Helmet Mounted Display/Sight (HMD/S) and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) options. Again, specific details are non-existent, but I did discuss what might be the case in regards to the HMD/S. As for the IRST, this would be an interesting route for the PAF, I will direct you to Tyler Rogoway of Foxtrot Alpha for a clear and succinct explanation of IRST systems (note I have gone on a pretty big tangent here, if you are just interested in knowing what Air Commodore Khalid Mahmood said, then you can skip this section):
At its most basic level, an Infrared Search and Track system is an infrared energy detection device that is usually fitted in a spherical glass enclosure on the front of a fighter aircraft. The systems scans the airspace ahead of the jet for heat signatures caused by aircraft engines and/or skin friction caused by the aircraft flying through the air. Once the system detects a target, it usually has an ability to lock that target up, or a way to facilitate the crew in slaving their fighter’s radar onto the point in space where that heat signature exists in order to attempt a radar lock. Modern variations of IRSTs can search out to intermediate ranges, track multiple targets and even engage other aircraft using its telemetry data alone.
It should be apparent from the explanation above that IRST is in effect an alternative to using radar for aerial detection and engagement. Why would not use their radar? Well, radars are susceptible to detection by an opposing aircraft’s radar warning receiver (RWR) and electronic jamming by EW suites (and potentially even AESA radars). IRST can resolve that issue, and modern air forces around the world have caught on, particularly the Europeans (the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen all include IRST). The Americans are also pushing forward with Lockheed Martin’s Legion pod.
For the PAF I think the inclusion of IRST on JF-17 could be a game changer in some respects. By enabling the pilot to switch-off his or her radar and still engage an enemy at extended ranges, IRST offers the JF-17 a reasonable opening against genuinely advanced fighters. It would allow the JF-17 to track and engage an opposing fighter without giving away its position, in addition to greatly dampening the effect of the opposition’s EW jamming.
Returning to my earlier point about the paramount importance of a homegrown data-link solution, I am going again refer to Foxtrot Alpha for a very good point about how IRST can mesh with modern network-centric practices:
If the battlespace that the friendly fighter with the IRST installed is fighting in is ‘networked,’ where a whole range of different assets (other fighters, AWACS, ground or surface radars and so on) are sharing a common sensor “picture” via data-link, that IRST equipped fighter could still maintain a synthetic radar “picture” of airspace around it while keeping its radar turned off. This would allow that fighter to retain an incredibly high state of situational awareness, while still remaining electromagnetically silent regardless of if the enemy turns on their radar at all.
For instance, an F-16 with a Legion Pod and a Link 16 data-link terminal installed could use an E-3 Sentry’s radar picture to intercept an enemy fighter that is too afraid to turn on its own radar. Once in range of its IRST it can then prosecute the intercept and kill on its own, including a final weapons-grade firing solution. Basically, third-party sources are supplying the F-16 with the ‘big picture’ and once it is looking in the right direction it can use its IRST to shrink that picture down and enhance its targeting fidelity to a lethal level without giving away its own position via using its radar.
The basic point being made by Foxtrot Alpha is that an AEW&C, such as the Erieye or Karakorum Eagle in the PAF, could use its very powerful radar to detect enemy aircraft, and then it could pass that data to the IRST-equipped JF-17. The JF-17 at this point would have its radar switched-off (making it more difficult for the opposition to know if it is around), but it would know – in real-time – about the incoming threat from the AEW&C.
When the time for engagement comes, the JF-17 pilot can launch the SD-10 to reach preprogrammed coordinates or waypoints on the way to its eventual target, and once in position, the SD-10 can switch-on its radar-seeker and seek the target. The window for escape for the enemy could be very short (as the RWR would only pick up a radar signal from the missile when it hits terminal stage). Alternatively, the PAF could even take the MICA-IR route by pairing the SD-10 with an infrared seeker, thereby enabling it to be a completely silent threat.
At this point I should probably just recommend that you read Foxtrot Alpha, especially the IRST piece (here) as it does a superb job of capturing the key advantages of this system in modern air warfare. In the case of the JF-17, this could be an effective means of defence against the Indian Air Force’s mainstay, the Su-30MKI. Granted, we are not talking about an absolute advantage here, but the combination of IRST, a data-linked network involving AEW&C (capable of detecting enemy fighters at very long ranges) and suitable munitions (such as SD-10 or an IR-tipped version of it) can form a credible defensive position. Once again, I refer to Tyler Rogoway:
IRSTs can not only work well for US and allied nations combat aircraft, they can also work well for an enemy that has much less advanced fighter aircraft, but has upgraded those fighters with relatively cheap new subsystems. Electromagnetic silence, when paired with other aircraft using dissimilar tactics, such as active radar scanning, data-links and jamming, against a more advanced fighter force, can give that less advanced force a fighting chance at having a number of aircraft “break through” the more advanced enemy’s fighter screen. If that same less advanced force were equipped with IRSTs, they could work more independently with a greater chance of survivability against a non-IRST equipped, but more advanced fighter aircraft.
The big risk here is that countries can take old and fairly crude fighter aircraft and bolt on some pretty wicked systems, at relatively low cost, to help level the air-to-air playing field.
I expect the PAF’s approach to IRST will be very similar to what the U.S has done, i.e. find a suitable IRST pod and connect it to a hard-point (ideally the chin) station on JF-17. I do not think the PAF will opt for an integrated solution built into the airframe, the JF-17 is too small (which is the reason the PAF opted for a fixed in-flight refuelling probe). Moreover, a solution built into the airframe will add to the per-unit cost of the fighter, the PAF would probably prefer being able to buy the pods separately and allocate them according to the needs of specific JF-17 units.
Conclusion
Overall I think it is fairly apparent that the JF-17 is still managing to flow on-track (with JF-17 Block-2 in production), though I do wonder if the advances – and tandem cost increases – of the Block-3 will make matters a bit trickier for the PAF. That said, the potential at hand should not be underestimated.


JF-17 Block-2 and Block-3 Details Confirmed
 
.
Once again. A government official whose job is to highlight good performances by his fellow partymen. So, the CAG is the check and balance to his claims..
A slight disagreement....had it been said in a political rally one can question...however if something is being said on the floor of parliament then more likely than not it has to be a fact...
 
. .
JF-17-2-692x360.png

Country PortfolioPakistan
Aug 30, 2015 Bilal Khan -
The JF-17 III: Major Changes Ahead on JF-17 Block-3
By Bilal Khan
Previous articles on Quwa discussed why the JF-17 is a significant advancement for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Not only is the JF-17 an effective multi-role platform that is poised to form the backbone of the PAF fighter fleet, but it is immune to sanctions, and it is a program that Pakistan ‘owns’ in terms of being able to freely decide on how to equip and develop it. With this article, it would be a good idea to have a clearer understanding of exactly what the PAF has in store for the JF-17 in the coming years in terms of its upgrade and development path. By the end of this piece, there should be little doubt in the seriousness of the PAF in as far as its commitment to the JF-17 is concerned.
The first upgrade to the JF-17 is at this time coming through the Block-2. The first JF-17 Block-2 made its maiden flight in February 2015, and it is the current production type rolling out of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra. The Block-2 is at heart an iterative update, so it would not be right to assume that it includes significant improvements or changes over the Block-1 currently in service.
Arguably, the most significant change in the Block-2 is the incorporation of an air-to-air refuelling (AAR) probe, and this will enable the JF-17 to refuel in-flight with the support of the PAF’s IL-78 tankers. The Block-2 also incorporates improvements in the JF-17’s avionics and electronic suites, but there are no specific details. There are rumours about a KLJ-7V2 pulse-Doppler radar with increased range, but this has not been confirmed by the PAF or PAC. If one were to simply refer to this piece by Jane’s, it would seem that the Block-2’s goal is to increase the JF-17’s flight-time (via in-flight refuelling and improved oxygen systems) and mission usefulness (in-flight refuelling can free up hard-points that would otherwise be used for external fuel-tanks). The 51st to 100th JF-17s will be Block-2.
The first major jump is in reality the JF-17 Block-3, which is currently in development. There are no known airframe updates or changes in the Block-3, but in terms of electronics, it is essentially confirmed that the JF-17 Block-3 will house an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Helmet Mounted Display and Sight (HMD/S) system, and possibly an additional hard-point suitable for specialized targeting and tracking pods. This article will breakdown each of these aspects, but if taken together (alongside a suitably upgraded avionics and ECM/EW suite), the Block-3 is positioned to be a significant upgrade.
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
The integration of an AESA radar is perhaps the most important development in the JF-17’s upgrade path. AESA radars are complex and expensive systems, but they are a standard feature of 4.5 generation fighters such as the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. In a battlefield environment that is increasingly ridden with electronic warfare, AESA radars can help fighter aircraft resist enemy jamming, thus helping said fighters successfully engage their targets.

Selex ES Vixen AESA Radar. The Vixen 1000E might be in contention for use on the JF-17 Block-3. Photo credit: Selex ES
An AESA radar is equipped with many small solid-state transmit/receive modules (TRM), and each TRM is capable of emitting its own radio wave. There are many advantages borne out of this arrangement.
The first is “low probability of intercept.” For example, an older radar would typically send out a single signal per pulse, and that signal will be received by the target’s receiver. Over time, that receiver will recognize that the specific signal that “stands out” of the environment (or background noise) is an enemy’s radar, and thus, the aircraft using its radar will have its presence exposed. An AESA radar on the other hand is much more difficult for radar warning receivers (RWR) to interpret as that radar is not just one unit sending one signal, but many small TRMs sending different signals. In general, RWRs would have difficulty pinpointing a peculiar signal (or limited set of signals) from the background noise, thus giving the AESA-equipped aircraft a “low probability of intercept.” In general terms, the AESA- equipped fighter is more difficult to detect.
The second advantage is higher resistance to jamming (from an adversary’s electronic warfare suites). Older radars cannot as easily change their frequencies, and as a result, a jamming system would have a higher chance of registering that specific frequency and sending out that very same one to confuse the pulsing aircraft. Modern radars could change their frequencies with every successive pulse, but an AESA radar could go a step further by emitting different frequencies within a single pulse. Here, jamming would become much more difficult as there is no single frequency to expose from the background noise. Given that an AESA radar is composed of different TRMs transmitting discrete signals, groups of TRM can be allocated to take on specific tasks, e.g. one can engage in targeting, the other in counter-jamming.
If the JF-17 were equipped an AESA radar, its ability to withstand enemy jamming as well as close in on enemy targets with a low probability of intercept would make it a much more effective system. That said, it is important to note that while an AESA radar can offer these advantages, it is imperative that one not sacrifice tracking range and engagement capabilities. If the PAF wishes to see the JF-17 Block-3 substantially improve upon the Block-1 and Block-2, then it should ensure that its AESA radar substantially improves upon the KLJ-7’s range and ability to engage targets. In other words, the JF-17 Block-3’s AESA radar could very well be an expensive system, and that will likely serve as an impediment.
Speaking of impediments, there is also the question of sourcing. In an article meant for the 2015 Paris Air Show, Alan Warnes (a very credible PAF watcher) noted that a radar from the British-Italian firm Selex ES was in the running. On a DefenseNews piece, retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail was quoted saying, “Given the Western concerns about transfer of sensitive technology, which could find its way further east, I think we may have had no other option but to buy Chinese.” This is an extremely important point. AESA technology is new and it is very sensitive, so the PAF can (and likely will) run into serious issues when it comes to Western suppliers (e.g. the latter might demand overbearing checks and guarantees, and possibly refuse to let Pakistan produce the radars locally). It is very likely that the PAF will ultimately eschew its Western options and go Chinese, especially if the latter enables the PAF to learn and understand AESA technology more deeply and bring this prized technology to local production.
Helmet Mounted Display & Sight (HMD/S)
The incorporation of HMD/S is also a very important step for the JF-17. An HMD/S is basically a visor equipped with optical and processing systems (in other words, a ‘smart display’). Current day HMD/S systems like the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing and Sight (JHMCS) system enable a fighter pilot to cue their air-to-air and air-to-surface weapon systems to the direction of where his or her head is pointing. Targets can be designated and engaged with minimal aircraft maneuvering, thereby increasing the efficiency (and thus lethality) of the fighter in combat.
Although slotted for the Block-3, it seems the PAF was at least toying with the idea of some kind of HMD on JF-17 for a few years. The proof for that is this screen-capture (below) taken from a PAF documentary from 2008 called “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” Although the PAF could have tacked on a random image, there is a clear hint that this particular system (which has a startling resemblance to the Denel Archer from South Africa) may have been at least tested by the PAF. For one thing, the Gentex MBU-5/P oxygen mask that was – at least in 2008 – the standard issue mask for PAF fighter pilots (though that is gradually being supplanted with current MBU-20/23 masks). Moreover, this specific photo was only ever shown on the PAF documentary and nowhere else prior.

A HMD/S system showcased on the PAF documentary “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” The system shown here has some close similarities to the South African Denel Archer.
This image would suggest that the PAF was (and possibly still is) cooperating with numerous foreign vendors on the JF-17’s HMD/S system, especially if the Brazilian-South African A-Darter high-off-bore-sight (HOBS) within visual range air-to-air missile (WVRAAM) is in the running for use on JF-17. A HOBS WVRAAM can be paired with an HMD/S system to allow the pilot to utilize the system’s cueing advantages in dogfights with enemy fighter aircraft.
At this stage it is difficult to see exactly where the HMD/S system will come from, but there is a chance that this might be a solution that is heavily centric to the PAF’s specific needs. In other words, the HMD/S might in fact end up being an indigenously-sourced solution developed with external assistance, primarily Chinese with peripheral South African, European and possibly even Turkish support. The rationale for this argument is the reality that the JF-17’s HMD/S will need to be accessible to the full range of potentially compatible air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions in use by the PAF. An imported solution with limited access to the technology will limit the PAF from freely using the system, thus mitigating the actual need and advantage of the JF-17.

A JHMCS being used by a PAF F-16D pilot. Photo credit: PAFWallpapers
It is important to note that the PAF already uses an HMD/S system with its F-16s, the Boeing JHMCS. There is a good chance that the JHMCS is in fact influencing the PAF’s idea of a suitable HMD/S, and as a result, one might see the PAF’s solution adopt a few similar characteristics. For example, the JHMCS was designed to be adapted to a modified HGU-55/P helmet, the standard issue helmet in use by the U.S Air Force and many other air forces, including that of Pakistan’s. Modularity and flexibility are key advantages to have, and a possible solution might even mirror the Thales Visionix “Scorpion” Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). The Scorpion was developed to essentially fit onto the HGU-55/P helmet with an add-on mount, the mount could also be used to fit night-vision-goggles (NVG) in lieu of the HMD/S visor.
Additional Station for Specialized Targeting Pods
It is possible, though not clearly verified, that the JF-17 Block-3 would have an additional station or hard-point (likely under the fuselage, by the ‘chin’) to house special-purpose targeting pods.

The Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod
One incredibly useful-kind of pod would be a system similar in form and function to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod. The Sniper (which is also used on the PAF’s F-16s) is a multi-purpose pod that allows for tracking, targeting and engagement irrespective of the time of day or the weather. The Sniper can be paired with a wide range of air-to-surface weapon systems, including laser-guided bombs (LGB) and TV-guided stand-off missiles such as the AGM-65 Maverick.

The Chinese WMD-7 targeting pod. It is similar in form and function to the Sniper, and it may be used on the PAF’s JF-17s in the near future.
Although the JF-17 could house such a pod in one of its existing hard-points, if the pod were in fact light and deployable in a separate area, the JF-17 would be able to utilize all of its existing stations for actual munitions (and fuel-tanks, if aerial refuelling were not available or sufficient). An advanced targeting pod could greatly improve the JF-17’s capacity to undertake stand-alone (i.e. without satellite-aided guidance) precision-strikes using LGBs such as the LT-2 as well as TV-based stand-off glide-bombs such as the locally produced H2 and H4.
Possible Additions and Upgrades
One system that would be of use to the JF-17 is Infrared Search and Track (IRST). Ideally, the IRST system ought to be integrated into the nosecone of the fighter, but it is unclear if the PAF is actually going to take this route. IRST can be used to track enemy aircraft based on thermal signature using infrared, which allows for passive tracking (as opposed to the active tracking of a radar, which sends out pulses). In a scenario where enemy electronic warfare capabilities are of exceptional depth or where there is need to reduce the probability of intercept to the absolute minimum (below that of an even an AESA radar), an IRST-system can be used instead of radar. An IRST system can be paired with a 5th-generation HOBS WVRAAM, enabling the JF-17 to dogfight with minimal effects from enemy EW jamming.
Another area of discussion is the JF-17’s turbofan engine, the Russian RD-93 (a variant of the RD-33 used on the MiG-29). A higher thrust engine such as the in-development RD-93MA can help the JF-17 in achieving a better thrust-to-weight-ratio (TWR), enabling improved maneuverability, speed and payload. Again, it is unclear if an engine change is on the horizon for the JF-17 program, and if so, whether it would be incorporated as early as the Block-3. A new engine may be more likely on a later variant, especially if said variant exhibits a lighter airframe (as a result of a higher proportion of composite use).
Concluding Remarks
When taken collectively, the major changes coming with the JF-17 Block-3 will offer a significant leap for the PAF. It is important to remember that this upgrade will not be confined to a few planes, but in time it will be diffused across the rest of the PAF’s JF-17 fleet. The Block-3 will probably be the upgrade that defines the JF-17 more as a high-tech asset and a potent force-multiplier.


The JF-17 III: Major Changes Ahead on JF-17 Block-3

i was actually referring to the su-35 bit
 
.
i was actually referring to the su-35 bit

Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks | IHS Jane's 360

Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks
Farhan Bokhari, Islamabad - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
18 September 2015
1330877_-_main.jpg


A senior Pakistani official has confirmed Russian media reports that the two countries have discussed a potential deal on the Su-35. Source: Sukhoi
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has discussed buying Su-35 'Flanker-E' fighter aircraft from Russia in potentially the largest defence deal between the two countries, but a final decision is yet to be made, a senior Pakistani government official has confirmed to IHS Jane's .
The official was responding to Russian media reports that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had said talks were underway for an unspecified number of Su-35s, which follow a recent agreement to provide Mi-35M 'Hind E' attack helicopters to Islamabad.
While the official said "it's too early to say if a deal will conclude and the terms", the fact that discussions have taken place shows Russia's willingness to sell advanced hardware with Pakistan despite Moscow's longstanding ties with India.
The official said Pakistan's interest in the Su-35 was driven by the PAF's need for a twin-engine fighter "that can fly for a longer range than the JF-17 and penetrate more deeply into the enemy's territory". The PAF flies a mixed fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s, Dassault Mirage-5s, Chinese-manufactured F-7s, and the JF-17 Thunder, which is jointly produced by China and Pakistan.
In November 2014 a senior Pakistani official told IHS Jane's that Pakistan was in discussions with China to buy 30 to 40 FC-31s - the export version of China's J-31 fifth-generation platform. At the time, the official told IHS Jane's that Pakistan was interested in the platform partly because it was fitted with two RD-93 Russian Klimov engines, which also powers the JF-17. PAF officials have also told IHS Jane's in the past that they have considered the purchase of up to 40 Chengdu J-10 fighters.

Coming Soon: Russian Su-35s to Pakistan and American F-35s to India? | The National Interest Blog


Coming Soon: Russian Su-35s to Pakistan and American F-35s to India?
6120285680_2e19f607f6_b.jpg

Dave Majumdar
September 14, 2015
inShare28

Russia seems to be eager to antagonize both friend and foe alike these days.
In a move that seems to be completely inexplicable, Russia is apparently negotiating to sell Pakistan advanced Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E fighters along with Mi-35 Hind-E attack helicopters. Perhaps more amazingly, the Russians don’t seem to grasp that their Indian allies are likely to react extremely negatively at the prospect of such a deal.



Russia-Pakistan Military Cooperation Not Threatening Relations With India


Russia-Pakistan Military Cooperation Not Threatening Relations With India

18:21 09.09.2015Get short URL
5453292516
Expansion of military cooperation between Russia and Pakistan will not have any negative effect on relations between Moscow and New Delhi, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Wednesday.
1026633155.jpg

Russia, Pakistan Preparing for First Cultural Exchange Year
NIZHNY TAGIL (Russia), September 9 (Sputnik) — Moscow and Islamabad are currently in talks on the delivery of Russian multirole Mi-35M attack helicopters and the latest Su-35 fighter jets.
"I do not think that the contacts under discussion will cause jealousy on the part of any of the two sides," Ryabkov told journalists.
Pakistan is Russia's closest partner, Ryabkov said, adding that the two countries’ ties are evolving not only militarily but in other sectors, including energy.
Relations between India and Pakistan have been strained since the end of British rule seven decades ago. They agreed to a ceasefire in 2003 following a number of military conflicts. Both sides have repeatedly accused each other of violating the truce.
 
.
$330 Billion USD on defence procurments for 2014-2022.


Has anyone noticed that all of the defence deals signed by the NDA have been un-f*cking the UPA's (Antony's) mess? Very few RFPs have actually gone out, they have simply been getting India to where it should have been 4-5 years ago in terms of defence orders.

@PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @anant_s @Star Wars @Aminroop @Water Car Engineer @SpArK @nair @ranjeet @gslv mk3
most big ticket purchase in UPA era came through G2G route.
the government was not able to clear much of deals proposed through open tender route for fear of audit agencies and corruption charges that dotted UPA 2 time.
Had someone been more pragmatic, a lot could be done.
we could evidently sense government dragging its feet on MMRCA deal and hoped to pass the responsibility to next government. With a modernization requirement like that of our defence forces, this was nothing short of criminal negligence.
 
.
Mig 29B was the wrong decission. When purchased it was without FBW, FADEEC and was not multirole but only airsuperiority fighter plane. Infact the whole Saga of purchase of Mig 23 (air superiority), Mig 29(air superiority), Mig 27(bomber), and Jaguar(DPSA) is out of my mind. IAF was interested in Mirrage 2000, but Congress govt. gave IAF all those fighter planes due to some soviet love or some other reason, but it would be much better if India would have gone for SU-24/25(bomber/DPSA) and Mirrage 2000H(Multirole) in large qty.

Mig29's 9.13B that India got were not the Mig29M as they were not offered and the development was cut short due to collapse in funding for Mikoyan. The Mig29M rather than dying later evolved into the Mig29K which was kept alive by the Indian Navy's order. Watch the Mig29K documentary on the Mig29K's on youtube, the developmental history is quite well documented.

I absolutely disagree on the Mig29 9.13B being a wrong choice, it has been an excellent Air Superiority platform and till date the program has derived the most talented pilots from the branch to serve as fulcrum drivers. Multi role was never a requirement back in the day and none were available to India untill the Mirage 2000H came along. Also remember the Mirage 200H that ame to India did not come as strike platforms but as Air superiority platforms with the ability to conduct strike missions and the frames were not modified untill the kargil war to do so. As far as the airforce is concerned it squarely put the technolgy advantage back into the IAF's hands with the platform being able to mitigate the risks faced due to introduction of F16's in the region. There are not enough words to describe the edge that fulcrum brought to the IAF.

Mig23 served as low tech high speed interceptors, at the time of selection of the engine we couldn't persuade the Soviets to give us the Al21 engine and got the Khatchaturov R-29B-300 instead, which in hind sight was a mistake. 2 sqdns of Mig23 MF's were brought to provide high altitude CAP support to strike platforms whereas the BN versions specifically for ground attack missions, some BN versions were also special mission platforms but I don't have any info on there roles as they were always kept at BRD's and were quite hush hush.

As far as Mig 27's are concerned, they were specialized BN versions for didicated ground attack as the IAF was generally happy with the BN performance for ground attack, especially coming fresh from the 71 experience. Both aircrafts fit into the second tier attack and interception roles.

Also recall this was the 80's, Indian economy was on the verge of collapse and this is all that we could afford, sure back in the day Mirage 2000 would have been great, but just like today, back in the day french and British options were extremely expensive.

Jaguar - I agree was not a great induction, if anything jaguar Specat was inducted about 15 years late, the original requirement for the deep penetration strike/ nuclear strike role was the SAAB Viggen, but the sale was blocked by the S in those days, not because its love for the neighbor but it was trying to push the F20 Tigershark to India with local production. It forced India to look elsewhere and ended up with the jaguar. Now as a strike platform, it is still a safe platform, has had good safety record and is quite over-engineered than required.

There is no comparison between the Fencer and the flogger, Mig23MF was a cracker of an aircraft compared to the Su24s. As far as Su25's are concerned, IAF has never been interested in a low speed armored CAS fighter for some reason.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom