Selex ES radar & other technology on JF-17?

[MastanKhan]

Sir we have to go back to the original point. If the JF-17 (from Block-III and onwards) is equipped with the same kind of subsystems as the Gripen NG, then why couldn't it be a credible means of defence against Su-30MKI and Rafale? What is the decisive edge that those platforms have besides higher performance parameters? Does the Su-30MKI launching a radar-guided BVRAAM from farther away deprecate the effectiveness of the BriteCloud DRFM-based decoy? This was a key point in some of the earlier posts. When you bring the cutting edge technology to the JF-17, you enable the fighter to become a credible means of defence almost anything thrown at it. Is it 'superior?' No. Absolutely not. But it isn't markedly hopeless either.

Hi,

Here are two different views we have---mine is thru the eyes of a 59 years old---your 20's---30's in that range---I would assume.

Your's is an excellent plan---a top of the line fire control radar and complimentary electronics package etc.

But my experience says that heavy weights aircraft have a strength of their own---now remember---they would also have very potent systems as well that are no joke.

Deep strike missions are the most important aspect of this coming war---the enemy will do a lots of damage to us---but if we have the ability to do air strikes in their money making areas----so that the investors and tourists when they see the bombs dropping---would run out of the country faster than they came in---taking their money with them and then they are not coming back.

We also need to give our children some hope and security---rather than going nuclear.

Without heavy deep strike aircraft capability---all this equipment does not mean much until and unless your enemy feels the same pain and agony.

The major problem that I see over here is that the PAF has yet to admit its failure to have the right aircraft during the Kargil issue---sanctions or no sanctions---they got the pay check---they wore the uniform---they swore allegiance---and yet they failed to procure the right equipment.

What you and I write over here----the PAF is oblivious to the fact at what is staring it at its face----they are truly living in a La La Land.

The paf has yet to render its apology to the nation that it was ill prepared for Kargil---regardless who started it---regardless whose fault it was---regardless of who did what and who did not do what.

Again---I agree with you about the equipment package and what it will do for the air force---but it won't change the outcome of the conflict---it would delay it for another 48 to 72 hours---.

The only reason the allies won the second world war was that they could strike deep into the enemy homeland and destroy its industrial base----and not because the U S could produce so much weaponery.

If the german industry had kept on working without stoppage---the allied would have ultimately been smashed by the superior german forces.

 

[Tank131]

Before we move onto subject at hand, it is important to zoom out and take an overview of the broader picture. Put yourself in the shoes of Air Force generals for a while. Here you have an air force two third of which is flying second generation fighters facing an enemy 3 times bigger and half of them flying 4th generation fighters. Funds are scarce and procurement sources limited. Take time to grasp the fact what PAF has already procured for earlier blocks of JFT. That's 500 SD-10s 1000 PL-5 IIs, C-802A, CM-400 AKGs, KLJ-7 V1/2s and perhaps some ARMs. By far these are much superior weapons to Gen-2 fighter's inventory. When you want to go upgradation path or Western avionics+weapons path, would you replace these weapons first or would you replace Gen-2 fighters first? So who gets the upgrades? Of course the newly rolled out ones and not the block-1 and 2s. Do we have the money to throw away Klj-7s and associated weapons while F-7s and Mirage-III/ Vs are still around?

A cross section of F-16 squadrons gives an insight into PAF thinking and acquisition philosophy. We have them in three distinct classes; Block-15, MLU and Block-52 +. On the other hand PAF is bent on sucking the last drop of blood from legacy fighters; yet another class at the bottom of food chain. So my guess is we are beginning to see JFT going that path with each newer block occupying the top slots in food chain with ever decreasing gap between Block-52 and JFT. Meanwhile older blocks will continue to field Chinese package till all legacy fighters are replaced (7-10 years I guess). They will start to receive upgradation there on like MLU F-16s and ROSE Mirage did.

Block-III getting a Western AESA along with A-Darter and R-darter for air to air are entirely plausible and a good way forward. Integrating western TGP with South African/ Brazilian / Pakistani precision bombs and missiles is the right way to go. Trying to marry Chinese weapons with Western radar is not a good idea. There are just too many stumbling blocks. So it will be wiser to marry initial 100 JFTs with Chinese radars and weapons while marry next ones entirely with Western+South African weapons and radars. It will create two distinct classes of JFT flying in same Air Force. Well, that's how PAF has been managing its affairs due to budgetary constraints and diplomatic doldrums. Won't be a surprise for me.

I agree with you mostly. I would start the Block III program as independent of the rest of the JF-17 fleet and continue replacing legacy fighters with Block 2 (and upgrading all Block 1 to block 2). Once the block 3 is matured and the so called "teething" issues are resolved, you can carry the rest of the block 3 upgrades over to the older fighters in an MLU. However the part I disagree with many of you is that I do think Chinese weapons would be able to be married to the western tech if the right political issues are resolved (independent/PAC integration without Chinese or Western oversight, and protection of IP which Quwa has addressed). Until that time, PAF has the option to go for Denel R-darter and A-darter and Marlin, MICA/Meteor, and already operates the AMRAAM which are already integrated into SELEX RAVEN ES-05 and VIXEN line (not the darter missiles but the US and French missiles). Options are available for the PAF in that respect.

It might be a stretch, but it is possible provided Pakistan offers enough money as well as respect for Selex ES' intellectual property and sensitive technology. A reasonable compromise would be Selex ES taking a portion of the Pakistani deal and re-investing it back into Pakistan through a subsidiary, which in turn could manufacture the radars and other subsystems within Pakistan. Long-term, the key would be to ensure that the maintenance, overhaul and repair is done in Pakistan, as you'd only be buying the radar for each fighter once, but you'll need to maintain and repair it numerous times over the radar's lifespan.

In regards to the J-10C. To be frank, I think the PAF should disregard the pursuit of medium-weight fighters and baton down the hatches on the JF-17 (intermediate term) and begin putting money aside for FC-31 (long-term). Inducting a new fighter platform is a costly venture, and it may not be worth the pursuit if one is only planning to induct a handful of squadrons; it'd be a much better idea to take $1.5bn U.S. in its entirety and put it towards the JF-17, i.e. the mainstay.

This is why it's important we remember the original point of the thread. If given enough money, could we make the JF-17 (with Selex ES and Denel Dynamics support) a credible means of defence against whatever IAF throws at us? If so, then shouldn't be all funding for intermediate needs be allocated to the JF-17?

Long-term:

1. JF-17 for all general multi-role fighter duties.

2. FC-31 for strike, maritime operations, strategic operations (i.e. serve as new Mirages)

3. F-16 to hold the fort down until JF-17 comes to its next tiers (Block-III/IV/V) and FC-31 enters the fore.

Many countries (including India) have laws that require a certain amount of investment on behalf of foreign companies, into the local industry. That is most often achieved by local subsidiaries being set up as you suggested. A "Selex-Pakistan" being responsible for the manufacturing and maintenance the radars would not be out of the question. That being said, Selex having a long working relationship with PAC (Radars and UAVs) indicates to me they probably would trust PAC to do the maintenance of the radar (and probably assembly as well) in house.

I agree with you that the J-10C likely would not be an effective solution IF PAF were to acquire a electronics and weapons package similar to the Gripen NG. If his is the case, you are spending money to induct the J-10 and train pilots on a relatively redundant aircraft. I would focus my attention and $$$ on the J-31/FC-31 and with the knowledge gained from block 3 experience, PAF could lend a great deal of insight into what works and what doesnt for the J-31 program. Additionally we need to remember that the 80 or so F-16s in service will continue to serve and could form a decent enough 3 tier defense until FC-31 is inducted at which point PAF can then focus on acquiring "BVR trucks" as @MastanKhan suggests.

Hi,

Here are two different views we have---mine is thru the eyes of a 59 years old---your 20's---30's in that range---I would assume.

Your's is an excellent plan---a top of the line fire control radar and complimentary electronics package etc.

But my experience says that heavy weights aircraft have a strength of their own---now remember---they would also have very potent systems as well that are no joke.

Deep strike missions are the most important aspect of this coming war---the enemy will do a lots of damage to us---but if we have the ability to do air strikes in their money making areas----so that the investors and tourists when they see the bombs dropping---would run out of the country faster than they came in---taking their money with them and then they are not coming back.

We also need to give our children some hope and security---rather than going nuclear.

Without heavy deep strike aircraft capability---all this equipment does not mean much until and unless your enemy feels the same pain and agony.

Agreed that Deep Strike is important, but frankly I dont think that large long legged aircraft are currently going to be on the cards for PAF because of cost. the J-10C is certainly not the answer there as it is not as long legged or robust a strike platform as even the F-16C/D, especially with the CFT that PAF has (the F-16 is a far more potent strike option). The best strike option would likely be the FC-31 as it would have the highest survivability, but PAF first needs to be able to secure its own airspace. Currently the focus as far as strike should be to utilize stand off munitions to blast targets within 500 - 1000km of the border. That means that PAF needs to increase the range of Ra'ad to 500km and enable its firing from F-16, JF-17 and FC-31. Additionally, Subs will need to be armed with Babur with an extended range of 1000km. These along with other precision strike munitions or PAF (H-2 (60km), H-4 (120km), MAR-1 (60-100km), CM-102 (100km), GB-6 (130km), JDAM (25km), LS-6 (60km), etc). A decent and highly specialized option would be Jh-7B which PAF could acquire 2 sqd of (1 should be acquired by Navy along with a block 2 or 3 JF-17 sqn) which could become a standoff range bomb truck while itself being protected by F-16, JF-17, and/or FC-31s, but that is all that will come in the near future. Su-35 and J-16 are unlikely to come in my estimation.

One thing that PAF might consider is getting something like 6-8 H-6K which could be used for saturation attacks utilizing Babur (each able to carry 6 Air Launched Baburs under the wings) at 700km (probably closer to 800km when air launched). these could fire from inside Pakistan and reach deep into Indian territory without the risk of escalation to nukes due to a ballistic missile launch. Or you could fit them with numerous GB-6 and take out all the airfields within 200km of the border which would significantly hurt IAF positions.

A major danger that would need to be addressed is the S-400 system IAF will be operating that could potentially reach deep into Pakistan from close to the border to take out PAF fighers, hence why saturation attacks near the border would be more important.

 

[MastanKhan]

I agree with you mostly. I would start the Block III program as independent of the rest of the JF-17 fleet and continue replacing legacy fighters with Block 2 (and upgrading all Block 1 to block 2). Once the block 3 is matured and the so called "teething" issues are resolved, you can carry the rest of the block 3 upgrades over to the older fighters in an MLU. However the part I disagree with many of you is that I do think Chinese weapons would be able to be married to the western tech if the right political issues are resolved (independent/PAC integration without Chinese or Western oversight, and protection of IP which Quwa has addressed). Until that time, PAF has the option to go for Denel R-darter and A-darter and Marlin, MICA/Meteor, and already operates the AMRAAM which are already integrated into SELEX RAVEN ES-05 and VIXEN line (not the darter missiles but the US and French missiles). Options are available for the PAF in that respect.



Many countries (including India) have laws that require a certain amount of investment on behalf of foreign companies, into the local industry. That is most often achieved by local subsidiaries being set up as you suggested. A "Selex-Pakistan" being responsible for the manufacturing and maintenance the radars would not be out of the question. That being said, Selex having a long working relationship with PAC (Radars and UAVs) indicates to me they probably would trust PAC to do the maintenance of the radar (and probably assembly as well) in house.

I agree with you that the J-10C likely would not be an effective solution IF PAF were to acquire a electronics and weapons package similar to the Gripen NG. If his is the case, you are spending money to induct the J-10 and train pilots on a relatively redundant aircraft. I would focus my attention and $$$ on the J-31/FC-31 and with the knowledge gained from block 3 experience, PAF could lend a great deal of insight into what works and what doesnt for the J-31 program. Additionally we need to remember that the 80 or so F-16s in service will continue to serve and could form a decent enough 3 tier defense until FC-31 is inducted at which point PAF can then focus on acquiring "BVR trucks" as @MastanKhan suggests.



Agreed that Deep Strike is important, but frankly I dont think that large long legged aircraft are currently going to be on the cards for PAF because of cost. the J-10C is certainly not the answer there as it is not as long legged or robust a strike platform as even the F-16C/D, especially with the CFT that PAF has (the F-16 is a far more potent strike option). The best strike option would likely be the FC-31 as it would have the highest survivability, but PAF first needs to be able to secure its own airspace. Currently the focus as far as strike should be to utilize stand off munitions to blast targets within 500 - 1000km of the border. That means that PAF needs to increase the range of Ra'ad to 500km and enable its firing from F-16, JF-17 and FC-31. Additionally, Subs will need to be armed with Babur with an extended range of 1000km. These along with other precision strike munitions or PAF (H-2 (60km), H-4 (120km), MAR-1 (60-100km), CM-102 (100km), GB-6 (130km), JDAM (25km), LS-6 (60km), etc). A decent and highly specialized option would be Jh-7B which PAF could acquire 2 sqd of (1 should be acquired by Navy along with a block 2 or 3 JF-17 sqn) which could become a standoff range bomb truck while itself being protected by F-16, JF-17, and/or FC-31s, but that is all that will come in the near future. Su-35 and J-16 are unlikely to come in my estimation.

One thing that PN might consider is getting something like 6-8 H-6K which could be used for saturation attacks utilizing Babur (each able to carry 6 Air Launched Baburs under the wings) at 700km (probably closer to 800km when air launched). these could fire from inside Pakistan and reach deep into Indian territory without the risk of escalation to nukes due to a ballistic missile launch. Or you could fit them with numerous GB-6 and take out all the airfields within 200km of the border which would significantly hurt IAF positions.

A major danger that would need to be addressed is the S-400 system IAF will be operating that could potentially reach deep into Pakistan from close to the border to take out PAF fighers, hence why saturation attacks near the border would be more important.

Hi,

The air launched version of the babur with the same fuel load could be around 1000 to 1400 Km.

 

[Paksanity]

I agree with you mostly. I would start the Block III program as independent of the rest of the JF-17 fleet and continue replacing legacy fighters with Block 2 (and upgrading all Block 1 to block 2). Once the block 3 is matured and the so called "teething" issues are resolved, you can carry the rest of the block 3 upgrades over to the older fighters in an MLU. However the part I disagree with many of you is that I do think Chinese weapons would be able to be married to the western tech if the right political issues are resolved (independent/PAC integration without Chinese or Western oversight, and protection of IP which Quwa has addressed). Until that time, PAF has the option to go for Denel R-darter and A-darter and Marlin, MICA/Meteor, and already operates the AMRAAM which are already integrated into SELEX RAVEN ES-05 and VIXEN line (not the darter missiles but the US and French missiles). Options are available for the PAF in that respect.



Many countries (including India) have laws that require a certain amount of investment on behalf of foreign companies, into the local industry. That is most often achieved by local subsidiaries being set up as you suggested. A "Selex-Pakistan" being responsible for the manufacturing and maintenance the radars would not be out of the question. That being said, Selex having a long working relationship with PAC (Radars and UAVs) indicates to me they probably would trust PAC to do the maintenance of the radar (and probably assembly as well) in house.

I agree with you that the J-10C likely would not be an effective solution IF PAF were to acquire a electronics and weapons package similar to the Gripen NG. If his is the case, you are spending money to induct the J-10 and train pilots on a relatively redundant aircraft. I would focus my attention and $$$ on the J-31/FC-31 and with the knowledge gained from block 3 experience, PAF could lend a great deal of insight into what works and what doesnt for the J-31 program. Additionally we need to remember that the 80 or so F-16s in service will continue to serve and could form a decent enough 3 tier defense until FC-31 is inducted at which point PAF can then focus on acquiring "BVR trucks" as @MastanKhan suggests.



Agreed that Deep Strike is important, but frankly I dont think that large long legged aircraft are currently going to be on the cards for PAF because of cost. the J-10C is certainly not the answer there as it is not as long legged or robust a strike platform as even the F-16C/D, especially with the CFT that PAF has (the F-16 is a far more potent strike option). The best strike option would likely be the FC-31 as it would have the highest survivability, but PAF first needs to be able to secure its own airspace. Currently the focus as far as strike should be to utilize stand off munitions to blast targets within 500 - 1000km of the border. That means that PAF needs to increase the range of Ra'ad to 500km and enable its firing from F-16, JF-17 and FC-31. Additionally, Subs will need to be armed with Babur with an extended range of 1000km. These along with other precision strike munitions or PAF (H-2 (60km), H-4 (120km), MAR-1 (60-100km), CM-102 (100km), GB-6 (130km), JDAM (25km), LS-6 (60km), etc). A decent and highly specialized option would be Jh-7B which PAF could acquire 2 sqd of (1 should be acquired by Navy along with a block 2 or 3 JF-17 sqn) which could become a standoff range bomb truck while itself being protected by F-16, JF-17, and/or FC-31s, but that is all that will come in the near future. Su-35 and J-16 are unlikely to come in my estimation.

One thing that PN might consider is getting something like 6-8 H-6K which could be used for saturation attacks utilizing Babur at 700km (probably closer to 800km when air launched). these could fire from inside Pakistan and reach deep into Indian territory without the risk of escalation to nukes due to a ballistic missile launch. Or you could fit them with numerous GB-6 and take out all the airfields within 200km of the border which would significantly hurt IAF positions.

A major danger that would need to be addressed is the S-400 system IAF will be operating that could potentially reach deep into Pakistan from close to the border to take out PAF fighers, hence why saturation attacks near the border would be more important.

You are probably implying parallel production of Block-2 and 3. This may not be possible because of production capacity and not enough trained manpower to run two production lines simultaneously.

We have to remember that Block-3 is slated to enter production in 2018 or at best late 2017. PAF will likely freeze its design and equipment in next 6 months. By now we have 16 Block-2 copies out of 50 planned. PAF has set an ambitious plan of producing 25 per year which means by end of Dec, 2017 we should have 66 copies of Block-2; 50 for PAF and 16 for exports (Myanmar signed for 16 JF-17s with deliveries scheduled in 2017). This makes perfect sense to conclude Block-2 production in 2017 and start Block-3 production in 2018. If any export orders are received meanwhile for Block-2, then either production run will continue longer or production capacity will have to be increased or small production run for Block-2 will commence in between beyond 2018.

What will be final shape and package for Block-3 remains to be seen. Probably by end of 2016 to mid 2017 we will have some idea. As for teething issues, I'm afraid it will be same story but it's not a bad news. These problems are always there with a new aircraft and every new aircraft has to go through this phase. Who said fighter jet development is an easy task?!

 

[Tank131]

Hi,

The air launched version of the babur with the same fuel load could be around 1000 to 1400 Km.

I wanted to stay on the conservative side but yes, you are probably correct!

You are probably implying parallel production of Block-2 and 3. This may not be possible because of production capacity and not enough trained manpower to run two production lines simultaneously.

We have to remember that Block-3 is slated to enter production in 2018 or at best late 2017. PAF will likely freeze its design and equipment in next 6 months. By now we have 16 Block-2 copies out of 50 planned. PAF has set an ambitious plan of producing 25 per year which means by end of Dec, 2017 we should have 66 copies of Block-2; 50 for PAF and 16 for exports (Myanmar signed for 16 JF-17s with deliveries scheduled in 2017). This makes perfect sense to conclude Block-2 production in 2017 and start Block-3 production in 2018. If any export orders are received meanwhile for Block-2, then either production run will continue longer or production capacity will have to be increased or small production run for Block-2 will commence in between beyond 2018.

What will be final shape and package for Block-3 remains to be seen. Probably by end of 2016 to mid 2017 we will have some idea. As for teething issues, I'm afraid it will be same story but it's not a bad news. These problems are always there with a new aircraft and every new aircraft has to go through this phase. Who said fighter jet development is an easy task?!

Your point is well taken. That being said, I would rather move forward with a more expensive, more capable fighter, built in Pakistan, than a fighter that will be minimally relevant in 10 yrs. What PAF cannot afford is for the 100 current JF-17s to go the way of the F-7PG (cant afford to get rid of it for the sake of numbers, but it can only handle low tier IAF fighters that it likely would never encounter in the first place given the fact that the only thing coming across the border is likely gonna be M2K, Mig 29, MKI, and Rafale (+/- PAKFA in future).

 

[Paksanity]

I wanted to stay on the conservative side but yes, you are probably correct!



Your point is well taken. That being said, I would rather move forward with a more expensive, more capable fighter, built in Pakistan, than a fighter that will be minimally relevant in 10 yrs. What PAF cannot afford is for the 100 current JF-17s to go the way of the F-7PG (cant afford to get rid of it for the sake of numbers, but it can only handle low tier IAF fighters that it likely would never encounter in the first place given the fact that the only thing coming across the border is likely gonna be M2K, Mig 29, MKI, and Rafale (+/- PAKFA in future).

Comparing to F-7PG, JF-17 is highly upgradable. My point being, it does not make economic and strategic sense to upgrade them just yet. Billions of dollars worth investment in aircraft, its subsystems and Chinese munitions can not and should not be done away with so soon. Not unless all the legacy fighters have been replaced with something far better. Only exception that I see is up gradation of Block-1 to Block-2 standards.

Block-2 in its final form is more than capable of holding its ground against the onslaught from East. It will stay relevant for a decade and beyond. By that time legacy fighters will be history (Air Chief recently said we will be done with legacy fighters by 2020 but I have my doubts, unless PAF plans to induct used and new F-16s in large numbers). Thereafter PAF will focus on the oldest JF-17s to bring them at par with the rest.

All this however is pure guestimate. As history has shown time and again, well laid plans do not survive contact with real world problems

 

[Tank131]

Comparing to F-7PG, JF-17 is highly upgradable. My point being, it does not make economic and strategic sense to upgrade them just yet. Billions of dollars worth investment in aircraft, its subsystems and Chinese munitions can not and should not be done away with so soon. Not unless all the legacy fighters have been replaced with something far better. Only exception that I see is up gradation of Block-1 to Block-2 standards.

Block-2 in its final form is more than capable of holding its ground against the onslaught from East. It will stay relevant for a decade and beyond. By that time legacy fighters will be history (Air Chief recently said we will be done with legacy fighters by 2020 but I have my doubts, unless PAF plans to induct used and new F-16s in large numbers). Thereafter PAF will focus on the oldest JF-17s to bring them at par with the rest.

All this however is pure guestimate. As history has shown time and again, well laid plans do not survive contact with real world problems

Not entirely sure what we are arguing here. I am stating that the Block 1 and 2 are fine for now but with Block 3 advent, it should be used to replace all the remaining legacy fighters and THEN upgrade Block 2 (as the Block 1s will already be upgraded to Block 2) to Block 3 standard with MLU.

Is this what you are suggesting, because If so I agree. The reason I made the F-7PG comparison is because while currently JF-17 Block 2 is capable enough, in 10-15yrs it will not be at all and will be where the current PG sits as far as utility (granted it can be upgraded).

 

[Paksanity]

Not entirely sure what we are arguing here. I am stating that the Block 1 and 2 are fine for now but with Block 3 advent, it should be used to replace all the remaining legacy fighters and THEN upgrade Block 2 (as the Block 1s will already be upgraded to Block 2) to Block 3 standard with MLU.

Is this what you are suggesting, because If so I agree. The reason I made the F-7PG comparison is because while currently JF-17 Block 2 is capable enough, in 10-15yrs it will not be at all and will be where the current PG sits as far as utility (granted it can be upgraded).

Yes. We are saying the same thing. That's how it is likely to pan out.

 

[araz]

. We are hoping too much from PAF. Aesa from Selex is not a new phenomena. We've been hearing about Vixen-500 or Vixen-1000 radar since 2006. If my memory serves me right. British ambassador offered this radar back in 2007. But PAF remained mum on it and still obfuscating the whole E-Scan issue into whether they are going to go PESA or AESA route. We heard Pakistan going for IRST and PESA radar and additional hardpoints in block 2 but what happened is JF-17 down the road faced serious structural, software issues (MFD going blank mid flights, Missiles not leaving the rail launch after Pilot pressing the joystick button) and all the upgrades were put on hold and pushed back to Block-III. So what is the guarantee that PAF is finding it hard to mate AESA radar with JF-17 due to space and modifications require to install cooling system. As we all know there would be no structural changes



All the nations who are involved in fighter jet manufacturing lay out their definitive radar requirements well advance in 1 or 2 years e.g Rafael, EF, LCA, F-16, Chinese fighter jets but there is no news from PAF except we are looking into this and that.


What we are seeing is the repeat of PAF IFR fiasco

In the end, what was being propagated that JF-17 doesn't have enough space to host this kind of solution in it.

Then comes the reliability issues. JF-17 entire AAM, majority of AGM armory is chinese origin. How SELEX would give Pakistan go ahead to integrate Chinese missiles into its product ? If Pakistan can not get selex radar, then one might think Chinese AESA might be installed which in my humble opinion would be wishful thinking .Chinese AESA solution is not matured. Only in the last year, they started testing their AESA radars on J-10 B and J-16They have to overcome the reliability issues, Quality issues regarding the hardware and software controlling AESA. Pakistan has to go through the same painful road of heavy modification which it went with KLJ PD radar so it can fire BVR SD-10 A and majority of PGM's. It took KLJ-7 4-5 years to be reliable. Chinese AESA solution will be no exception

but there PESA solution has matured well enough. It has been perfected on J-10 B and can be minituarised in 2-3 year time frame.

Another thing to consider is cost of the AESA radar. PAF wants to equip its block II with the Block-III upgrades. You cant spend a large amount of money on AESA radar and then install other goodies on JF-17 because of the trade offs JF has to face for being a cost effective solution.



قویٰ

put paysh on Kaaf and and read Small Yay with Khari zabar.

I Have highlighted the parts that I am posting. My impression was that this was during early stages of JFT testing and that along with issues with engine vibrations and radio clutter were resolved before the first 20 planes were built. I am not aware of problems persisting with late block 1s. Could you please elaborate or if not PM me.
A

 

[araz]

Is there any possibility of licensed production of selex tech at PAC kamra especially if we intend to procure around 150 to 200 kits ? Furthermore, i would recommend a mix of selex and chinese aesa on JF 17 i.e. a 50-50 number. It is not sensible and advisable imho to put all eggs in one basket unless offcourse if a landmark deal of tot regarding such radar is involved. In such case, our avionics industry will make a giant leap forward.



Sir, your futuristic insight is highly commendable and paf must think on the same line. If one can think about it then it can be done. SO better to get it with tot with further modifications to plug loopholes of any high tech software intervention and manipulation of radar data in critical time. And both chinese and selex (if it happens) solution may be installed on 50 - 50 basis on JF 17. Regards

A few thoughts in response to your post:
Firstly Selex licence production is going to cost you a couple of Billions which you dont have. I honestly dont think they would even bother to entertain that request as AESA tech is the latest and handing it over without bleeding the vendor dry would be contrary to modern day practices. Also read Bilal khan777 post very carefully to give yourself some insight into what the real problems are.
Secondly, you can have all the dreams in the world ,but you need firstly money and secondly honesty to convert the ideas into reality. When you dont have the money no idea will bear fruit. When you have some money but too many greedy swines eyeing the pot, your ideas will not bear fruit. Just see what 5 yrs of Zardari did to your acquisition programme and you will know what I mean.
The J10 versus F16 debate rolls on. The point everyone is forgetting is that for the PAF 16s are a bonus. If you get them(from FMF) then they are free and integration and flying them becomes cheap. The 1.5 billion $ people are talking about is not your money, it is FMF so its no skin off your nose if you dont get them. What PAF is really after is capability at minimal cost. therefore New/ MLUed F16s make sense due to existing infrastructure. As long as US is embroiled in Afghanistan, it needs pakistan and therefore the 16s will come whether reluctantly or willingly.
Now when you talk of spending your own money you want something that will remain relevant for the next 30 years. J10s are not the answer there as they do not do anything that the JFT( or 2 JFTs) cannot do. The answer lies either with SU35 if the J31 is not ready till 2022-25 or failing that J31/equivalent. It is as PAF sees it and if you look at your deficiencies what makes sense when after spending 2 billion you will need to fork out another 2-3 billion in another 5 yrs. It is nonsensical.

People have posted this image before on htis forum. I ask you all if you had JFT in this format in 5-7 years time at around 50 million a pop, would you still reget not having gone for J10s and secondly, which of the two are more distinct possibilities in 5-7 yrs time. I would stick with JFTanytime and await the arrival of J31s.
Araz

Hi,

The problem is with the time frame---3 years and that is too long.

2 sqdrn's of BLK61's would mean around 6--7 sqdrn's of J10C's or similar number of J16's---which could easily be split into 3 1/2 sqdrn each. Paf needs numbers.



Hi,

J31 in itself is nothing without a complimentary heavy BVR truck aircraft.

In order for it to succeed---it needs to have heavy bvr capable aircraft at its disposal to guide and launch missile thru.

If we were facing an equal number of aircraft---that would be a different situation---but we are facing 3 times the number---and aircraft hat can carry 5 times the load of bvr's than our aircraft.

Plus---J31 is too far away----. The real need of pakistan is deep strike heavy----it could be the JH7B---the J16---the SU34.

The JF17 in its current status is like your 8th grade little brother and you want to send him to take care of the 10th grade boyz---.

If it does not happen in real life----it cannot happen in the ranks of air force either----.

I mean to say---there has to be a REALITY CHECK---. The enemy's HEAVY weapons need to be RESPECTED. D

Disrespecting the enemy's heavy weapons is like disrespecting the sovreignty and security of your nation.

The enemy is not sleeping---it would sabotage the italian sales as well--and it would do it at a time where it hurts the most.

It would do it when the equipment is almost ready to be installed and then it would create problems.

So---on the paper---selex looks very good and deadly----but in reality---I have my doubts----guarantees---guarantees---guarantees.

All the more reason to think along the lines of a heavy twin engined aircraft ala SU35 /J11/16. J10 is no longer relevant.
A

 

[Preacher]

I have been following this forum from a very long time. Learned a lot and this one is the best of all. Keep it up seniors

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

what? well what your saying is that the jf-17 is a multi role fighter? wow!!!!!!!! thanks for that i never knew that.
ok yes it is a short range multirole fighter regardless of what you say. its a fact. i forgot to mention its a multirole fighter so you can have that.

I mentioned "Multirole" because of a reason, Sir.
Whenever a "specific" mission is planned, the plane is configured according to that mission. The "planning" includes minute details down to the level of how much fuel needed to be carried.
Now as per my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) Thunder combat radius is 1350KM on internal fuel+2 drop tanks.
Can you provide the combat radius of various single engine fighters?
For a minute assume that Thunder has to fly in 350 km inside enemy space for a mission not 650 or 1350 just 350km. Can you check out the map and tell me how much 350km is on our Eastern border?
Can you tell me how many targets can be covered in 350km?
Is it logical, if your own space is not yet secured and other 350km still has huge lists of targets and you are thinking beyond?
Can you elaborate, even if we have a fighter with 2000KM+ range, which can even strike as far as Southern India or North Eastern regions. Can it really cross all the enemy space without enjoying complete air dominance?
Why are we investing in Stand of Weapons like RAAD or other such goodies?

Short legged or long legged matter little. Its the core competency that matters for a fighter plane.
And I differ on this by Sir @MastanKhan also.

I mentioned in my post that, 150 or so Thunders will be distributed to various squadrons. The squadrons have varying roles, some are trained specifically for CAS and some only for Air defense and some for Naval roles.
The probable goodies mentioned for this thread are most suited for Air superiority squadrons. Hence, the logic say that only 1 or 2 squads at the most will get them. I was just putting forward the cost factor.. purchasing 30 odd kits or 150 kits make a huge difference.

 

[araz]

I mentioned "Multirole" because of a reason, Sir.
Whenever a "specific" mission is planned, the plane is configured according to that mission. The "planning" includes minute details down to the level of how much fuel needed to be carried.
Now as per my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) Thunder combat radius is 1350KM on internal fuel+2 drop tanks.
Can you provide the combat radius of various single engine fighters?
For a minute assume that Thunder has to fly in 350 km inside enemy space for a mission not 650 or 1350 just 350km. Can you check out the map and tell me how much 350km is on our Eastern border?
Can you tell me how many targets can be covered in 350km?
Is it logical, if your own space is not yet secured and other 350km still has huge lists of targets and you are thinking beyond?
Can you elaborate, even if we have a fighter with 2000KM+ range, which can even strike as far as Southern India or North Eastern regions. Can it really cross all the enemy space without enjoying complete air dominance?
Why are we investing in Stand of Weapons like RAAD or other such goodies?

Short legged or long legged matter little. Its the core competency that matters for a fighter plane.
And I differ on this by Sir @MastanKhan also.

I mentioned in my post that, 150 or so Thunders will be distributed to various squadrons. The squadrons have varying roles, some are trained specifically for CAS and some only for Air defense and some for Naval roles.
The probable goodies mentioned for this thread are most suited for Air superiority squadrons. Hence, the logic say that only 1 or 2 squads at the most will get them. I was just putting forward the cost factor.. purchasing 30 odd kits or 150 kits make a huge difference.

If I could have thanked this post ten times I would have done so. It is a prime example of how a post should be countered with respect yet sticking to ones point of view. Well done and i look forward to seeing you in days to come as a more matured and senior poster.
At the expense of digressing from the point there are a few considerations which you should look at.
FIrstly the need for a long range fighter which a lot of us have now been vying for is not in my humble opinion to attack deep into the indian territory but to have longer loitering time on station and perhaps even for safeguarding of slower aerial platofrms surveillance/ naval platforms etc. I agree that in the current environement long range aerial strikes over Indian air space is a luxury we cannot afford and frankly should not even contemplate.
Your response regarding the use of stand off weapons is on the ball. I fully agree with that.
The situation of AESA is somewhat ricky one. I have read that PD radars are much more prone to blocking and therefore there is a need to have a platofrm with AESA which is relatively more difficult to block. I suspect in a netcentric environment you will have one platofrm lighting up targets from a far and the others offloading their weapons and returning to base. However, if we have a decent range AESA do we need to have it on every platfrm as long as the basic fabric of the netwrk centric environment remains. So the prime target for the enemy and for us would be the aerial platforms and the ground nodes. If we lose the facility do we then rely on planes that have their PD radars blocked or do we then say" bring it on" and use what respources we have to hand. All we have said to date supposes this scenario and counters it and I suspect this is what Mastan has also alluded to. For this to materialize you need to have facilities for two types of radars which complicates matters soemwhat. So I suspect PAF will look for a solitary solution that incorporates all the solutions and not only is easy on the pocket but is effective. This is where it becomes tricky because of our perrenial cost constraints. If we had a wealthy benefactor or the planes sold like hot cakes we would have the resources to re invest in the project but neither has yet materialized.However AESA will become cost effective in the next few years as more and more providers come out with their products. If then these platofrms are loaded with AESA do you not want to protect your prime investment and these things are generall y marketed as solutions which are relatively cheapconsidering the cost of the plane.
A

 

[Bratva]

I Have highlighted the parts that I am posting. My impression was that this was during early stages of JFT testing and that along with issues with engine vibrations and radio clutter were resolved before the first 20 planes were built. I am not aware of problems persisting with late block 1s. Could you please elaborate or if not PM me.
A

Ministry of Defense production book 2013-2014. MFD problems were mentioned in one line. Page 45. "Indigenous efforts were undertaken to recover display issues of JF-17 aircraft"

33 JF-17 had to go for wing strengthening. Air Commodor Khalid Mehmood in one of his interviews. ( which obviously occured after JF crash in 2011. )


And for the Jf-17 firing problems. Someone here I forgot is a friends with JF pilot. He mentioned that JF faced such issues. Concurrently @TaimiKhan and @Najam Khan can confirm that as well.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

We can talk as much as we want not matter the level of talk is mature as in this thread. But in the end its the PAF who would deide what it likes n not no matter how much of a lala land they r living in.

I personally would like us to build everything at home since that would be the best solution in regards to cost. That experience from the past projects should be used for a greater practical form.