JF-17 PFX program

[FuturePAF]

This is a common misconception among many Pakistanis.

First, we need to distinguish between "JF-17 PFX" and "PFX."

If the Pakistani official agencies define the project as "JF-17 PFX," then we can be certain that the project will continue the JF-17 model, i.e., China + Pakistan. Turkey is completely outside the scope of this project and cannot participate in any aspect of it. Whether the JF-17 PFX can use (or is compatible with) payload systems developed through Turkish-Pakistani cooperation is irrelevant to this project.

If the Pakistani official agencies define the project as "PFX," then many possibilities exist. It means that China will no longer be deeply involved in the project. China might sell certain subsystems, but only as a subsystem supplier.

As for how Pakistan chooses, the power lies with Pakistan.

You need to understand this clearly. Although there are currently no major disputes between China and Turkey, the two countries are not friendly. A potential adversarial relationship still exists between us. These issues could erupt at any time. We cannot provide any sensitive technology to any country that is militarily close to them.

Side note, what is the max speed of the J-35A? Also, can the J-35A supercruise?

 

[Michael]

I know they are two different engine classes, different lengths but especially different diameters. This is about what the design of the PFX should be, so we are not limited by the design in future use, and require to purchase another type to backfill the need we should have envisioned at the design stage.

Considering the export of the WS-19 is restricted, focusing around the WS-10 engine, would IMHO, be more prudent, for long term needs. Accommodating an internal bay as well as having enough electrical power should be more easier with a more powerful engine. Also no need to wait on an engines to reach full development to meet required parameters; the WS-10 engine is powerful enough to match a design like the McDonnell Douglas JAST which seems to be an inspiration for the PFX.

If the PFX uses a single WS-10 engine configuration, what would be the difference between it and a stealth-modified version based on the J-10 platform?

The J-10C fighter platform, powered by the WS-10B engine, has already reached a balance between power generation and power consumption. It would be difficult for it to accommodate more advanced avionics systems from 5th-generation fighter aircraft.

This is not a good idea.

The F-35 is the only medium-sized 5th-generation fighter aircraft that uses a single high-thrust engine. Its F-135 engine is currently the most powerful fighter jet engine in the world. It converts a large amount of thrust into electrical power to ensure the proper functioning of the F-35's advanced avionics systems, but this causes the F-35 to lose its supersonic cruising capability. That's the price to pay.

Side note, what is the max speed of the J-35A? Also, can the J-35A supercruise?

No data is currently available.

 

[Ali_Baba]

The gap between design a low observable design with and without an internal bay is not as far as it seems. Look at the example of the KFX. Also, I’m not talking about exquisite stealth, but at least Equivalent to Chinese export approved UCAV levels. heck, consider the maintained facility that will have to be built to support the J-35A in the PAF, that level of export approved stealth could be standardized to the PFX without much more work.

View attachment 164115

Conceptually yes, I would agree with you, but I still maintain that Pakistan lacks the aeronautical engineers to do it at all. There is no pool of proven engineers who have worked on enough projects that Pakistan can gather around for this PFX project. Therefore, to me, anything more than an avionics upgrade for PFX/Block 4 is vapourware and not achievable.

 

[hasssanali8998]

The language used portrays an absolute decision and policy statement.

Pakistan China collaboration and cooperation happen at the highest levels of leadership. Do not undermine the leadership of the China and Pakistan with posts that sound like absolute decision and state policy of China while actually they are your personal opinions.

Be respectful to the two states, don’t create confusions and clearly use a language that shows it to be your opinion.

he uses translates from Chinese to eng , so take that into account

 

[Bilal]

he uses translates from Chinese to eng , so take that into account

Quite an accurate translator that gives him exactly what he wants to post. So might as well use it a bit more sensibly.

 

[Michael]

he uses translates from Chinese to eng , so take that into account

Quite an accurate translator that gives him exactly what he wants to post. So might as well use it a bit more sensibly.

The problem isn't the translation software, but the completely different cultural backgrounds of both sides. (Translation software does occasionally make mistakes, but rarely.)

Some phrases that seem ordinary to us might be considered serious by you.
Conversely, some phrases that seem ordinary to you might be considered serious by us.

If there are any issues in this regard, please point them out to each other. That would be helpful for our future communication.

 

[Bilal]

If there are any issues in this regard, please point them out to each other. That would be helpful for our future communication.

You may refer to my previous post.

 

[FuturePAF]

If the PFX uses a single WS-10 engine configuration, what would be the difference between it and a stealth-modified version based on the J-10 platform?

The J-10C fighter platform, powered by the WS-10B engine, has already reached a balance between power generation and power consumption. It would be difficult for it to accommodate more advanced avionics systems from 5th-generation fighter aircraft.

This is not a good idea.

The F-35 is the only medium-sized 5th-generation fighter aircraft that uses a single high-thrust engine. Its F-135 engine is currently the most powerful fighter jet engine in the world. It converts a large amount of thrust into electrical power to ensure the proper functioning of the F-35's advanced avionics systems, but this causes the F-35 to lose its supersonic cruising capability. That's the price to pay.

No data is currently available.

An internal bay would be one advantage. Much lower RCS, limiting the efficacy of enemy A2A and Sam systems against it. Possibly better fuel efficiency, having weapons internal and other protrusions. As you said in an earlier post, a manned fighter is the best escort to a UCAV. Especially with limitations of secure datalinks over distance, flying together will allow the UCAV to carry the bulk of munitions while a larger manned fighter could have the power to use its radar and other sensors to coordinate the fight. A less powerful engine may not be enough to do all of these things simultaneously. The PAF may envision sending up a couple of manned fighters, alongside two to four unmanned platforms.

In a frontline filled with a dense empty SAM network, having lower RCS platforms with enough power to supply EW suites, could be the difference between operating in constant threat versus being competitive.

 

[FuturePAF]

Conceptually yes, I would agree with you, but I still maintain that Pakistan lacks the aeronautical engineers to do it at all. There is no pool of proven engineers who have worked on enough projects that Pakistan can gather around for this PFX project. Therefore, to me, anything more than an avionics upgrade for PFX/Block 4 is vapourware and not achievable.

Pakistan didn’t develop the Rd-93 nor the WS-10 in the JF-17 and J-10, respectively. It about building a design around the needs and doctrine. Once the engine is selected, you really can’t go back and upgrade, especially considering China’s nationals security needs not exporting the WS-19. The PAF is better off going with a WS-10 engine, IMHO, from the start. We need to look at the platform through its application, a shorter and sensor platform.

Sure, we don’t have the engineers to rebuild the ecosystem in Pakistan. But we can purchase the engines. Possibly be allowed to produce them under license, as they aren’t considered very sensitive technology anymore.

We also have to look at it from an export point of view. A light to medium weight modestly price (under $50 million) but still relatively stealthy platform has a good chance on the export market. Especially if we get support from a GCC investor, who for political reasons can’t be seen buying the J-35A, but wants the next best thing.

Also, with a larger platform, it is possible larger missiles could be stored internally. Instead of 4 meter long missiles, it is possible 5-6 meter long missiles could be stored internally, opening up anti-shipping options as well as long range A2A missiles.

 

[Michael]

An internal bay would be one advantage. Much lower RCS, limiting the efficacy of enemy A2A and Sam systems against it. Possibly better fuel efficiency, having weapons internal and other protrusions. As you said in an earlier post, a manned fighter is the best escort to a UCAV. Especially with limitations of secure datalinks over distance, flying together will allow the UCAV to carry the bulk of munitions while a larger manned fighter could have the power to use its radar and other sensors to coordinate the fight. A less powerful engine may not be enough to do all of these things simultaneously. The PAF may envision sending up a couple of manned fighters, alongside two to four unmanned platforms.

A fighter jet powered by a single WS-10 engine cannot achieve this level of performance. It cannot serve as the command aircraft for UCAV/CCA missions. Otherwise, we would have already upgraded the J-10S to conduct relevant tests.

We also have to look at it from an export point of view. A light to medium weight modestly price (under $50 million) but still relatively stealthy platform has a good chance on the export market. Especially if we get support from a GCC investor, who for political reasons can’t be seen buying the J-35A, but wants the next best thing.

Your idea is beyond all reason.
The J-10CE already costs over $50 million. It's the lowest-priced 4.5th-generation medium fighter jet on the international market.
How could you possibly produce a 5th-generation medium fighter jet for less than $50 million?

 

[FuturePAF]

A fighter jet powered by a single WS-10 engine cannot achieve this level of performance. It cannot serve as the command aircraft for UCAV/CCA missions. Otherwise, we would have already upgraded the J-10S to conduct relevant tests.

Your idea is beyond all reason.
The J-10CE already costs over $50 million. It's the lowest-priced 4.5th-generation medium fighter jet on the international market.
How could you possibly produce a 5th-generation medium fighter jet for less than $50 million?

Why can’t the J-10 control UCAVs? And if it can’t, all the more reason to design a fighter that can. If it is implausibly to produce a fighter for under $50 million, then at least it can come close to being only slightly more expensive than a J-10.

The PFX is about meeting future needs. While the J-10 is great for current needs. The threat picture looks to be developing beyond the capabilities of the J-10 (as you yourself pointed out with the limitation to controlling UCAVs)

Especially in the realm of 4th gen versus 5th gen SEAD:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ali_Baba]

Pakistan didn’t develop the Rd-93 nor the WS-10 in the JF-17 and J-10, respectively. It about building a design around the needs and doctrine. Once the engine is selected, you really can’t go back and upgrade, especially considering China’s nationals security needs not exporting the WS-19. The PAF is better off going with a WS-10 engine, IMHO, from the start. We need to look at the platform through its application, a shorter and sensor platform.

Sure, we don’t have the engineers to rebuild the ecosystem in Pakistan. But we can purchase the engines. Possibly be allowed to produce them under license, as they aren’t considered very sensitive technology anymore.

We also have to look at it from an export point of view. A light to medium weight modestly price (under $50 million) but still relatively stealthy platform has a good chance on the export market. Especially if we get support from a GCC investor, who for political reasons can’t be seen buying the J-35A, but wants the next best thing.

Also, with a larger platform, it is possible larger missiles could be stored internally. Instead of 4 meter long missiles, it is possible 5-6 meter long missiles could be stored internally, opening up anti-shipping options as well as long range A2A missiles.

What you are describing is getting close to the Su-75 proposal or the F-35(single engine stealth).

Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I still maintain that PAF does not have the engineers that can design an unstable airframe let alone one that has stealthy qualities. No one can provide anything to the contrary on that. Hell, Pakistan only makes 58% of the JF17 airframe after all these years so the idea it can go to 100% on a new design doesn't sound feasible either.

Pakistan has never designed and delivered a FBW for any fast jet, let alone a unstable design. Germany tried to do this for the Eurofighter and it delayed the project by years, and that is with ALL of Germanys universities helping with the programme too. Pakistan has nothing comparable.

I will stop here. JF17-PFX, at most can only be avionics upgrades with new munitions and nothing else because that is all the technical capabilities that Pakistan has developed.

 

[Michael]

Why can’t the J-10 control UCAVs? And if it can’t, all the more reason to design a fighter that can. If it is implausibly to produce a fighter for under $50 million, then at least it can come close to being only slightly more expensive than a J-10.

The PFX is about meeting future needs. While the J-10 is great for current needs. The threat picture looks to be developing beyond the capabilities of the J-10 (as you yourself pointed out with the limitation to controlling UCAVs)

Especially in the realm of 4th gen versus 5th gen SEAD:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The most important indicators for UCAV/CCA command aircraft are battlefield environment awareness and control capabilities. They surpass conventional fighter jets in these aspects. And these capabilities almost all require a massive supply of electrical power.

For example: radar
Under the same technological level, the stronger the AESA radar's detection capability, the larger its size and surface area, and the greater its power consumption.
You can compare the cross-sectional area of the nose radomes of different fighter jets, their radar detection range, and their corresponding engines.

 

[FuturePAF]

What you are describing is getting close to the Su-75 proposal or the F-35(single engine stealth).

Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I still maintain that PAF does not have the engineers that can design an unstable airframe let alone one that has stealthy qualities. No one can provide anything to the contrary on that. Hell, Pakistan only makes 58% of the JF17 airframe after all these years so the idea it can go to 100% on a new design doesn't sound feasible either.

Pakistan has never designed and delivered a FBW for any fast jet, let alone a unstable design. Germany tried to do this for the Eurofighter and it delayed the project by years, and that is with ALL of Germanys universities helping with the programme too. Pakistan has nothing comparable.

I will stop here. JF17-PFX, at most can only be avionics upgrades with new munitions and nothing else because that is all the technical capabilities that Pakistan has developed.

Yes, something like the F-35A or Su-75.

On their own, I agree, the Pakistani engineers have not demonstrated domestically capacities to do most of this on their own. It would definitely involve the procurement of a design or major assistance to the design team from a Chinese firm, especially if the plan is to go with the WS-10 engine.

But if they bite the bullet and go for this modestly next gen design, they could not only deal with the enemy Sam network, but what appear to be the bulk of the Indian fleet being Sukhois, Rafales, and Tejas variants with quality over quantity. The alternative is more J-10s or slightly better JF-17 in the form of the JF-17 PFX-A. If the issue is funding, then, IMHO, The PAF and PAC would be there off trying putting their efforts into get GCC funding for a full fledged PFX program; training engineers, procuring equipment, funding Chinese expertise consulting, buying off the shelf design elements, etc.

 

[FuturePAF]

The most important indicators for UCAV/CCA command aircraft are battlefield environment awareness and control capabilities. They surpass conventional fighter jets in these aspects. And these capabilities almost all require a massive supply of electrical power.

For example: radar
Under the same technological level, the stronger the AESA radar's detection capability, the larger its size and surface area, and the greater its power consumption.
You can compare the cross-sectional area of the nose radomes of different fighter jets, their radar detection range, and their corresponding engines.

Is the J-35A able to control UCAV/CCA?