JF-17 PFX program

[AsaRad1]

With the Turks and Saudis on board it would be perfect, bring in Qatar and Malaysia, spread the cost, the production etc.

Makes no sense.

Why would Turks go for PFX when they literally have their own TFX?

Why would Saudi & Qatar that flies larger twin engine jets go for single engine PFX instead of TFX that is more reliable too?

 

[PakAl]

Makes no sense.

Why would Turks go for PFX when they literally have their own TFX?

Why would Saudi & Qatar that flies larger twin engine jets go for single engine PFX instead of TFX that is more reliable too?

It all depends, why would the Usa go for F35 when they have the F22, if Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia jointly produce a light to medium weight fifth generation plane, it would be beneficial for all, it be cheaper and locally produced, jobs etc. Single or double engine we simply don't know, I was just speculating on the benefits for paf to go for a single engine jet, they may move on to the more powerful twin engine planes. Will Turkey be buying 400 TFX, they may look for a light to medium plane, cost effective, for exports etc, for the Saudis and Qataris they get local production, technology, experience, their own plane.

 

[MS Sandhu]

Why would Turks go for PFX when they literally have their own TFX?

KAAN is a high end expensive asset They also need some comparatively low cost asset to build in numbers.Hurjet is too small i think.
If their Typhoon & F16 dream doesn't come true,then PAF should confidently go for PFX and later on should persuade them to join PFX.

 

[PakAl]

KAAN is a high end expensive asset They also need some comparatively low cost asset to build in numbers.Hurjet is too small i think.
If their Typhoon & F16 dream doesn't come true,then PAF should confidently go for PFX and later on should persuade them to join PFX.

Will Turkish allies in the Organization of Turkic States be able to afford Kaan? They may need a lower cost plane, with local production, share of experience, technology, designing, exports. The option is definitely viable.

 

[alphapak]

Will Turkish allies in the Organization of Turkic States be able to afford Kaan? They may need a lower cost plane, with local production, share of experience, technology, designing, exports. The option is definitely viable.

Pakistan production line in Kamra needs to move onto 5th Gen fighter jets,
they can't make 4th Gen jets forever. They need to move onto 5th Gen single
engine JF 19 jets, either with the help of China or Türkiye.

 

[AsaRad1]

It all depends, why would the Usa go for F35 when they have the F22, if Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia jointly produce a light to medium weight fifth generation plane, it would be beneficial for all, it be cheaper and locally produced, jobs etc. Single or double engine we simply don't know, I was just speculating on the benefits for paf to go for a single engine jet, they may move on to the more powerful twin engine planes. Will Turkey be buying 400 TFX, they may look for a light to medium plane, cost effective, for exports etc, for the Saudis and Qataris they get local production, technology, experience, their own plane.

The USA has always had a single engine and dual engine requirement

 

[Zarvan]

Makes no sense.

Why would Turks go for PFX when they literally have their own TFX?

Why would Saudi & Qatar that flies larger twin engine jets go for single engine PFX instead of TFX that is more reliable too?

The cost of flying and maintaining a two-engine jet is really high. Turkey will eventually need a single engine jet also. That is why on previous defencepk I started a thread on is KAAN enough in Turkish section.

 

[Oscar]

Indeed, but you still not shown any evidence of this statement ", now we would get weapons and India will have to match them".


Furthur, J-10 CE wasnt bought to match Rafale, IAF most likely going to use Rafale as DPSA during initial days of war, and its in swing role. J-10 CE was bought to intercept Balakot like strike because of IRST capability and deeply integrated datalink that able to provide situational picture to pilots.

And if the war happen, then bulk of Ops for PAF will be done by F-16 and JF-17, not by J-10 CE.

Furthur PAF required IRST for recongnizing friend and foe, because of lack of "DEEPLY" integrated data-links on both sides before, they have to get visual id to confirm the target, and getting visual id means dogfight. Thats why even PAF's F-16 have to fire AMRAAM at dogfight ranges, after confirming the targets over the coordinates given by PAF's SAAB Erieye.

And as now getting reported Israel/US refused to deeply integrate Phalcons AEW&C with Indian ODL. Maybe that's why, only after induction of Netra AEW&C, IAF started to buy BNET-AD SDR for MKIs.

For most AF and IAF, you need 2 sensors confirmation to recognize a target, otherwise you need visual ID to confirm it.

Now IAF pursuing for, IFF-CIT, NCTR, IRST, Radar fingerprinting and situational-picture through data link to negate the need for visual id of targets.

I guess PAF pursuing the same, thats why they bought J-10 CE, not because of Rafale.

A valid PoV but VERY far from facts for J-10 procurement. Since you made a genuine, let me try to do the same based on what I consider closest to facts.

You can refer to the PAF “official” account written by Alan Warnes on the J-10 procurement back in 2008 so it has nothing to do as you allege.

IRST while a nice to have was not the reason for J-10 nor was Balakot or Rafale. IFF while a valid concern(which is why certain JF-17s have a floodlight for night intercepts) is generally accomplished with a few mechanisms for which the PAF has a robust interrogation capability in both F-16s and JF-17s and why AMRAAM employment is practiced at all ranges especially BVR and was utilized so.

Balakot was not a case of IFF - but intention - neither India nor Pakistan in normalcy wish to escalate without having RoE met and RoE is being engaged by the other(along with a host of other technicalities and then judgement from sector and watch commanders)- if ANY of the IAF aircraft on 26th had fired on a PAF interceptor(which to the IaFs credit in deception meant that by the PAF was in range the M2ks were behind the technical violation line on the Indian side) they would be fired on at range visual ID or NOT.

There are procedures that go just beyond visual ID that establish ID for the PAF - including NCTR built at all levels of sensors both airborne and ground based.

The J-10 procurement was first mulled by the PAF as a strike platform back in the early 2000s - however paucity of funds culled that. At that time the fighter was destined to be called the FC-20 in PAF service. The collapse of Pakistan’s economy during the tenure of the extremely corrupt and incompetent PPP regime and 2008 world recession culled it completely.

The J-10B was a result of Chinese ingenuity but also requests from the head of the sizable PAF team in Chengdu around the early 2000-10 timeframe who while not privy to everything were consulted on some aspects of that aircraft’s progress as well from a UX perspective.

The J-10B was then considered early 2010s but the lack of funds along with potential sale of F-16Vs took priority - as history shows that did not pan out and eventually the economic conditions collapsed further - this did not mean it ever left the ASR for a air superiority and surviving strike aircraft.

Around 2017 - the J-10 discussion opened up again - this time under a parallel opening of Chinese loans just as CPEC was kicking up but being aware of what was cooking at Chengdu the PAF held off waiting to see alternative engine options due to Indian pressure on the RD-93 supply and also wanting to see operational performance of the Chinese engine option for J-10( There are sources that suggest Russian involvement still on what powers J-10C including consulting on Pakistani soil for MRO suggesting some link to powerplant with AL-31 series.. but I cannot state with any authority and would let more strict observers comment @Deino, @JamD @Quwa )

Once the Rafale deal was signed - the PAF wanted to expedite the need for maintaining the range edge in BVR - the JF-17 was evaluating /testing a few AESA options since 2010 but performance did not come to PAF’s expectations until a few years later. Part of that was also the ability to employ a longer ranged system and the PAF had been offered the PL-15 in lieu of J-10 purchase.

Again, unconfirmed but reliable sources suggested that during Balakot the PAF took the chance to test AESA testbed JF-17 by looking at performance at the plentiful force projection displayed by India and also test capability of passing targeting data at range to PL-15 successfully.

However, the JF-17 is limited not just by the number of PL-15s it can carry but by range and performance necessary to maximize the PL-15s considerable performance.

I am not referring to the PL-15E

Finally, the Mirages were approaching their end of life and the F-16s will be approaching obsolescence in 5 years including the Block-52s with no potential for upgrades or additional airframes anymore.

So, post pandemic and a bit of impetus the decision was made to formalize the purchase of the J-10C - not just to maintain the BVR edge but because much like the block-70/72 the aircraft has systems and avionics in it borrowed from the J-20 and other cutting edge systems make the only aircraft in the PAF fleet now capable of not just penetrating the formidable IAF ADGE but surviving there against high opposition.


lastly, the capabilities you refer to for IAF Afnet were part of requirements for Link-17 - I know because I can attest(and no more to my well being’s peril) that work was begun on the desk next to me in the summer of 2011 on it.

However, that doesn’t mean AfNET may not have superior implementation or architecture due to more experienced and much more resource pool equipped Indian R&D

 

[kaku]

A valid PoV but VERY far from facts for J-10 procurement. Since you made a genuine, let me try to do the same based on what I consider closest to facts.

You can refer to the PAF “official” account written by Alan Warnes on the J-10 procurement back in 2008 so it has nothing to do as you allege.

IRST while a nice to have was not the reason for J-10 nor was Balakot or Rafale. IFF while a valid concern(which is why certain JF-17s have a floodlight for night intercepts) is generally accomplished with a few mechanisms for which the PAF has a robust interrogation capability in both F-16s and JF-17s and why AMRAAM employment is practiced at all ranges especially BVR and was utilized so.

Balakot was not a case of IFF - but intention - neither India nor Pakistan in normalcy wish to escalate without having RoE met and RoE is being engaged by the other(along with a host of other technicalities and then judgement from sector and watch commanders)- if ANY of the IAF aircraft on 26th had fired on a PAF interceptor(which to the IaFs credit in deception meant that by the PAF was in range the M2ks were behind the technical violation line on the Indian side) they would be fired on at range visual ID or NOT.

There are procedures that go just beyond visual ID that establish ID for the PAF - including NCTR built at all levels of sensors both airborne and ground based.

The J-10 procurement was first mulled by the PAF as a strike platform back in the early 2000s - however paucity of funds culled that. At that time the fighter was destined to be called the FC-20 in PAF service. The collapse of Pakistan’s economy during the tenure of the extremely corrupt and incompetent PPP regime and 2008 world recession culled it completely.

The J-10B was a result of Chinese ingenuity but also requests from the head of the sizable PAF team in Chengdu around the early 2000-10 timeframe who while not privy to everything were consulted on some aspects of that aircraft’s progress as well from a UX perspective.

The J-10B was then considered early 2010s but the lack of funds along with potential sale of F-16Vs took priority - as history shows that did not pan out and eventually the economic conditions collapsed further - this did not mean it ever left the ASR for a air superiority and surviving strike aircraft.

Around 2017 - the J-10 discussion opened up again - this time under a parallel opening of Chinese loans just as CPEC was kicking up but being aware of what was cooking at Chengdu the PAF held off waiting to see alternative engine options due to Indian pressure on the RD-93 supply and also wanting to see operational performance of the Chinese engine option for J-10( There are sources that suggest Russian involvement still on what powers J-10C including consulting on Pakistani soil for MRO suggesting some link to powerplant with AL-31 series.. but I cannot state with any authority and would let more strict observers comment @Deino, @JamD @Quwa )

Once the Rafale deal was signed - the PAF wanted to expedite the need for maintaining the range edge in BVR - the JF-17 was evaluating /testing a few AESA options since 2010 but performance did not come to PAF’s expectations until a few years later. Part of that was also the ability to employ a longer ranged system and the PAF had been offered the PL-15 in lieu of J-10 purchase.

Again, unconfirmed but reliable sources suggested that during Balakot the PAF took the chance to test AESA testbed JF-17 by looking at performance at the plentiful force projection displayed by India and also test capability of passing targeting data at range to PL-15 successfully.

However, the JF-17 is limited not just by the number of PL-15s it can carry but by range and performance necessary to maximize the PL-15s considerable performance.

I am not referring to the PL-15E

Finally, the Mirages were approaching their end of life and the F-16s will be approaching obsolescence in 5 years including the Block-52s with no potential for upgrades or additional airframes anymore.

So, post pandemic and a bit of impetus the decision was made to formalize the purchase of the J-10C - not just to maintain the BVR edge but because much like the block-70/72 the aircraft has systems and avionics in it borrowed from the J-20 and other cutting edge systems make the only aircraft in the PAF fleet now capable of not just penetrating the formidable IAF ADGE but surviving there against high opposition.


lastly, the capabilities you refer to for IAF Afnet were part of requirements for Link-17 - I know because I can attest(and no more to my well being’s peril) that work was begun on the desk next to me in the summer of 2011 on it.

However, that doesn’t mean AfNET may not have superior implementation or architecture due to more experienced and much more resource pool equipped Indian R&D

Indeed, PAF looking for J-10 since 2000-10, I want to touch upon IRST. It is not just Balakot strike, but during Abottabad raid also, PAF felt the need of IRST and conducting night time interceptions, maybe that time PAF requested Block-60 or Legion pod from US, and for sure they refused.
This increased the pace of J-10 procurement. But with which haste PAF procured J-10 C is just little bit suspicious, J-10 C capable to become one of the best multirole for PAF & highest weapons to target matching combinations, but what I have seen on X, that they only purchased with PL-15, that is little bit surprising to see PAF havent thought about swing-role/multi-role beforehand.

Also, want to touch upon AFnet and IACCS, I am not sure about it, just trying to make sense. It is now proven beyond doubt, that MKIs/Mirages/MiG-21 werent getting any air situational picture through C-band datalink, but through voice comms.

If they had Phalcons since 2007, they must have thought about NCW, and data-link capability, now I might have found the answer

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

Because of properitory nature of Phalcon system, US/Isreal never allowed Phalcons to be integrated with AfNet and IACCS.
Even the ASP (air situation picture) IAF released after Balakot was from Netra Mk.1 and not Phalcons, because Netra are linked with Ground Exploitation System of IACCS thourgh Ku-band satellite datalink.

Maybe, thats why IAF never considered SDR for fighters, otherwise if not in MKI, they have asked this in Tejas Mk.1 FOC.

But only after induction of second Netra, they started inducting SDR and asking NCW in every jet.

I am not sure what is the experience of PAF with Erieye, but this is most likely case with IAF.

 

[Oscar]

Indeed, PAF looking for J-10 since 2000-10, I want to touch upon IRST. It is not just Balakot strike, but during Abottabad raid also, PAF felt the need of IRST and conducting night time interceptions, maybe that time PAF requested Block-60 or Legion pod from US, and for sure they refused.
This increased the pace of J-10 procurement. But with which haste PAF procured J-10 C is just little bit suspicious, J-10 C capable to become one of the best multirole for PAF & highest weapons to target matching combinations, but what I have seen on X, that they only purchased with PL-15, that is little bit surprising to see PAF havent thought about swing-role/multi-role beforehand.

Also, want to touch upon AFnet and IACCS, I am not sure about it, just trying to make sense. It is now proven beyond doubt, that MKIs/Mirages/MiG-21 werent getting any air situational picture through C-band datalink, but through voice comms.

If they had Phalcons since 2007, they must have thought about NCW, and data-link capability, now I might have found the answer

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

Because of properitory nature of Phalcon system, US/Isreal never allowed Phalcons to be integrated with AfNet and IACCS.
Even the ASP (air situation picture) IAF released after Balakot was from Netra Mk.1 and not Phalcons, because Netra are linked with Ground Exploitation System of IACCS thourgh Ku-band satellite datalink.

Maybe, thats why IAF never considered SDR for fighters, otherwise if not in MKI, they have asked this in Tejas Mk.1 FOC.

But only after induction of second Netra, they started inducting SDR and asking NCW in every jet.

I am not sure what is the experience of PAF with Erieye, but this is most likely case with IAF.

IRST was considered in podded form but as a stop gap using the Sniper XR works - for Balakot’s case the problem wasn’t so much IFF but more so the LoC airspace rules.

The PAF knew the IAF was coming with good advance warning so the interceptors were there but the deception the IAF played basically had the airborne CAP diverted elsewhere to the south and by the time the additional assets came online the job was done for the IAF.

What is important is that even with advanced warning / the militaries on both sides (not politicians) are professional to know of mechanisms and conditions before the fire upom each other. Even the exchanges on LoC that happened which seem hap hazard or even the URI incident follow a clear protocol.

As far as the voice comms are concerned - PAF advantage is the western systems in the F-16 as standard - it adopted a western SDR early on(frankly not as impressive as what has been adopted for the Army but Im biased because my work/hands touched it) for all assets incl the Mirages & JF-17s.

They made a decision (which I don’t agree with from my limited perspective) to aggregate all data via ground stations through link-17 and then transmit it to respective platforms - so the F-16s can talk to Erieyes, the JF-17 can also talk to the Erieyes due to the western-tech radio and so on.

The challenge is that this is a vulnerable backbone - IAF by virtue of private sector nudging and the smarter folks has its net buried underground om fiber with redundancy which means its very robust in the air and impossible to stop within the ground links as you’ve highlighted.

 

[AsaRad1]

They made a decision (which I don’t agree with from my limited perspective) to aggregate all data via ground stations through link-17 and then transmit it to respective platforms - so the F-16s can talk to Erieyes, the JF-17 can also talk to the Erieyes due to the western-tech radio and so on.

The challenge is that this is a vulnerable backbone - IAF by virtue of private sector nudging and the smarter folks has its net buried underground om fiber with redundancy which means its very robust in the air and impossible to stop within the ground links as you’ve highlighted.

Does PAF plan to do the same? What happens if ground stations are targeted?

 

[Oscar]

Does PAF plan to do the same? What happens if ground stations are targeted?

Frankly I would not say anything with certainty but the focus seems to be more on expanding the tech base first. Knowledgeable Indian members can correct me but the IAF structure was outsourced in some aspects to HCL and other well established and experienced IT firms. Nothing like that in Pakistan and while bits and pieces of expertise do exist the usual sharks with connections would only push for their mediocre skill sets as appropriate

 

[TopGun786]

Sorry to burst your bubble here my dear Zarvan. even in the worst case scenario KPK going nowhere. For immediate PTI anti venom are Pashtun nationalist parties who hates IK more than PMLN ever. Strategically The moment PTI cross the line in KPK, they will be labeled Anti Pakistan (9 May) and case closed!!

Just ask PTI Try it again!!



Yes Indeed.

Sorry to say but I feel your post is just load of BS.
You are just in denial mode. Entire "Pakistani awam" differs with your opinion.. Results of election show this.

 

[kaku]

Frankly I would not say anything with certainty but the focus seems to be more on expanding the tech base first. Knowledgeable Indian members can correct me but the IAF structure was outsourced in some aspects to HCL and other well established and experienced IT firms. Nothing like that in Pakistan and while bits and pieces of expertise do exist the usual sharks with connections would only push for their mediocre skill sets as appropriate

The IACCS/AFnet was developed by HCL, and the hardware was imported from Cisco and Raytheon. Also HCL was involved in integrating all three network Where AFnet was linked with Link-II of Indian Navy and of Indian Army.

There is development to fully indegenize the hardware, and close the doors for Five Eye and NSA for any kind of vulnerabilities. With the 28nm node founday by Tata, they most likely able to develop and manufacture military grade CPUs and servers.

There was new development recently to integrate SATCOM in all IACCS nodes, maybe thats why IAF asked SATCOM in ISE for Rafale, and in Upgraded MKIs (and Ku-band SDR), and LPI radars in Tejas Mk1A and Mk2. So besides tactical datalink, they are also adding SATCOM based datalink, maybe for redundency if C/L-band datalink getting jammed, also ground radars able to provide ASP in case AEW&C is not on station.

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

 

[warbird]

Indeed, that’s what they do in durability test. And the number is given by @Quwa , not by me.

these numbers are inaccurate.