JF-17 PFX program

[Goku-Kun]

The PAF hasn't said much about the PFX's requirements aside from it being 4.5-gen, using a local AESA radar and leveraging new LRAAMS.

There isn't much to go with here, but if that's the bulk of it, then yes a Hürjet-based fighter could be viable.

I'm not talking about the Hürjet today, but a larger airframe with a more powerful engine suitable for carrier operations. This would have to be 4.5-gen/5-minus.

so basically PFX is an attempt to achieve a medium weight airframe like f16,j10?

 

[JamD]

@JamD @arslank01

Hear me out...

I think (just my opinion) the PFX will eventually be rolled into an enlarged variant of the TAI Hürjet.

The most recent scaled mock-ups of Turkiye's aircraft carrier do NOT show the KAAN, but rather, a mix of Bayraktar Kızılelma UCAV as well as TB3 and the TAI Hürjet.

However, I don't think the Hürjet in its current design and configuration will be the final template for the Turkish Navy's crewed carrier fighter. Like HAL, TAI will find that the carrier-specific requirements will not translate well in the current design. IMO, TAI will likely need to enlarge it and use a higher output engine to produce a more optimal carrierborne design (ala Tejas Mk2 or Gripen E/M).

If this becomes a thing, then I can see the PAF hopping onto some TAI Hürjet-based fighter. Perhaps, and a big if, but a second-go-around with TAI and PAF (via NASTP) could yield better results, and that too on simpler development work (vs KAAN).

Ok so I have to admit that this sounds far fetched and that I have to squint my eyes to see this happening. BUT the time horizons that we expect the PFX to realistically take I would not be surprised if things changed enough to make what you've said a possibility.

EDIT: Do you want me to put this idea into the ears of some people at TA?lol

 

[Quwa]

Ok so I have to admit that this sounds far fetched and that I have to squint my eyes to see this happening. BUT the time horizons that we expect the PFX to realistically take I would not be surprised if things changed enough to make what you've said a possibility.

EDIT: Do you want me to put this idea into the ears of some people at TA?lol

Yeah, my rationale is this: To date, we have NOT shown the capacity for original fighter design and development work.

Let's put the lack of industrial inputs to the side, even when the task was to develop a jet with off-the-shelf inputs (like AZM), the PAF couldn't do it.

Now, I accept that one could learn their lessons and try again, and I'd fully believe that if the PFX was about bringing the full JF-17 production line in house at PAC and then being a stepping stone for more work.

But as PFX is not that and, again, echoes some call for a clean sheet design, then I don't think it'll go anywhere with the PAF helming it alone.

At some point, they'll need to bring in a more experienced and provisioned partner. Even TAI did it with KAAN. Otherwise, this PFX is going to be a study of air warfare quantum-buzzes and not a tangible thing.

So, aside from China, the only other countries with capacity are Sweden (for design work, would need to add UK for industrial help), South Korea, and Turkiye.

Of those, only 1 is even remotely open to helping, and they already have a project: naval fighter Hurjet.

 

[Ak01]

Yeah, my rationale is this: To date, we have NOT shown the capacity for original fighter design and development work.

Let's put the lack of industrial inputs to the side, even when the task was to develop a jet with off-the-shelf inputs (like AZM), the PAF couldn't do it.

Now, I accept that one could learn their lessons and try again, and I'd fully believe that if the PFX was about bringing the full JF-17 production line in house at PAC and then being a stepping stone for more work.

But as PFX is not that and, again, echoes some call for a clean sheet design, then I don't think it'll go anywhere with the PAF helming it alone.

At some point, they'll need to bring in a more experienced and provisioned partner. Even TAI did it with KAAN. Otherwise, this PFX is going to be a study of air warfare quantum-buzzes and not a tangible thing.

So, aside from China, the only other countries with capacity are Sweden (for design work, would need to add UK for industrial help), South Korea, and Turkiye.

Of those, only 1 is even remotely open to helping, and they already have a project: naval fighter Hurjet.

maybe im just too pessimistic but im not seeing anything other than a JF-17 block 4 coming from this. Theyre trying to distance it from the JF-17 in the same way lockmart did the F-16 and F-21. Im very confident we will see a JF-17 with Pakistani electronics and avionics alongside a local weapons suite (which makes sense, look at FAAZ development), which aligns with the timelines that they pitched and also the fact they keep calling it JF-17 PFX lol

 

[Oscar]

Regarding Russia's military-industrial cooperation with Pakistan, you have overlooked two fatal issues.

1. You need to sort out the international relations between “Russia, China, India and Pakistan”. Before any major change in the international situation, the possibility of any deep military-industrial cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is zero. ------ You can first go to the depth of understanding. JF-17 Russian engine is how to come to Pakistan.

2. Let's ignore the previous question. Russia does not have enough economic conditions to support Pakistan. It is unlikely to provide loans or aid services to Pakistan as China does. Are you sure that Pakistan has enough cash to pay accordingly now?

I don't rate Russia's military industry and technology right now. Many sober people will tell you the answer.

1. Most recently Russians were in Pakistan for the second time to help on some ToT on the AL-31 core. Just as they did before on the TD-93. It’s more flexible but also opaque than you think.

2. Russia does not support or otherwise - it’s plain cash - and the same process as with RD-93 will follow. First 100 came from China - then the direct connection was with Klimov for overhaul ToT and even engine improvements.

 

[Oscar]

Yeah, my rationale is this: To date, we have NOT shown the capacity for original fighter design and development work.

Let's put the lack of industrial inputs to the side, even when the task was to develop a jet with off-the-shelf inputs (like AZM), the PAF couldn't do it.

Now, I accept that one could learn their lessons and try again, and I'd fully believe that if the PFX was about bringing the full JF-17 production line in house at PAC and then being a stepping stone for more work.

But as PFX is not that and, again, echoes some call for a clean sheet design, then I don't think it'll go anywhere with the PAF helming it alone.

At some point, they'll need to bring in a more experienced and provisioned partner. Even TAI did it with KAAN. Otherwise, this PFX is going to be a study of air warfare quantum-buzzes and not a tangible thing.

So, aside from China, the only other countries with capacity are Sweden (for design work, would need to add UK for industrial help), South Korea, and Turkiye.

Of those, only 1 is even remotely open to helping, and they already have a project: naval fighter Hurjet.

The real reason is egos.
Just as AZM went through multiple egos with little direction and more a case of “CAS is coming, look busy” so will PFX and others flop.

“The Pentagon wars” is a great way to look at what is going on and then multiply and make it more inefficient by a factor of 3. Except in that case the manufacturers are private entities with shareholders and need to sustain themselves - and PAC is still funded by taxes in many ways which means it’s even worse from an accountability perspective.

I am not sure what model CATIC or SAC follow - maybe @Michael can shed some light

 

[JamD]

Yeah, my rationale is this: To date, we have NOT shown the capacity for original fighter design and development work.

Let's put the lack of industrial inputs to the side, even when the task was to develop a jet with off-the-shelf inputs (like AZM), the PAF couldn't do it.

Now, I accept that one could learn their lessons and try again, and I'd fully believe that if the PFX was about bringing the full JF-17 production line in house at PAC and then being a stepping stone for more work.

But as PFX is not that and, again, echoes some call for a clean sheet design, then I don't think it'll go anywhere with the PAF helming it alone.

At some point, they'll need to bring in a more experienced and provisioned partner. Even TAI did it with KAAN. Otherwise, this PFX is going to be a study of air warfare quantum-buzzes and not a tangible thing.

So, aside from China, the only other countries with capacity are Sweden (for design work, would need to add UK for industrial help), South Korea, and Turkiye.

Of those, only 1 is even remotely open to helping, and they already have a project: naval fighter Hurjet.

I don't think PFX is or can be a clean sheet design. IF PAF has learned anything from Azm its that they cannot do a clean sheet design. JF-17P is PFX.

maybe im just too pessimistic but im not seeing anything other than a JF-17 block 4 coming from this. Theyre trying to distance it from the JF-17 in the same way lockmart did the F-16 and F-21. Im very confident we will see a JF-17 with Pakistani electronics and avionics alongside a local weapons suite (which makes sense, look at FAAZ development), which aligns with the timelines that they pitched and also the fact they keep calling it JF-17 PFX lol

Brother that's the optimistic view lol.

 

[Ak01]

I don't think PFX is or can be a clean sheet design. IF PAF has learned anything from Azm its that they cannot do a clean sheet design. JF-17P is PFX.

Brother that's the optimistic view lol.

lol, maybe im giving them too much credit, but tbh i dont think its unrealistic for a local aesa equipped jf-17, it was always the next step, i have been harping on about it since before the b3 times haha, b3 always seemed like an interim solution to me

 

[Bilal]

I don't think PFX is or can be a clean sheet design. IF PAF has learned anything from Azm its that they cannot do a clean sheet design. JF-17P is PFX.

Brother that's the optimistic view lol.

The question is what is the difference between JF-17 Block3 and Block3P and PFX-alpha from PFX.

 

[JamD]

The question is what is the difference between JF-17 Block3 and Block3P and PFX-alpha from PFX.

View attachment 84779

My previous reply was maybe too much like a joke but I meant it seriously. We should take these slides and plans as vague, nebulous, and rough directions. When I see that slide I think they want to do something with the JF-17 and they want to see how it goes as it goes.

 

[Ak01]

My previous reply was maybe too much like a joke but I meant it seriously. We should take these slides and plans as vague, nebulous, and rough directions. When I see that slide I think they want to do something with the JF-17 and they want to see how it goes as it goes.

your comment about what new brainfart is pretty accurate, theyve presented many different slides regarding it over the last few months lol

 

[Ak01]

The question is what is the difference between JF-17 Block3 and Block3P and PFX-alpha from PFX.

View attachment 84779

well, id assume the P stands for Pakistan-ified lol. i.e as i mentioned, pakistani aesa and pakistani AAM's.

 

[Bilal]

well, id assume the P stands for Pakistan-ified lol. i.e as i mentioned, pakistani aesa and pakistani AAM's.

Exactly if 3P is Pakistanified JF then Aloha is something more and PFX is something more than that.

 

[Ak01]

Exactly if 3P is Pakistanified JF then Aloha is something more and PFX is something more than that.

yea but every day these slides change, theyre useless to base stuff off of. Officials referred to PFX as JF-17PFX to janes. Says all you need to know.

 

[Ak01]

Exactly if 3P is Pakistanified JF then Aloha is something more and PFX is something more than that.

also alpha is probably just further pakistani gear. Expect a Pak radar/ecm and aam's in B3P if it even ccomes to fruitio