JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[ARMalik]

I think PAF may not have the luxury of waiting.

a fighter like J-35 is absolutely vital for Pakistan right now

100%. People just don't get it that it is NOT only India involved in destabalization of Pakistan. And I am also not talking about low life Afghans. There are International players involved and to take care of these so called players, Pakistan needs J-35 or J-20 ASAP.

 

[ARMalik]

This thread is fast becoming a "Speculation" thread. Must be a very slow month for military news.

 

[ARMalik]

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

 

[JamD]

this is pure knowledge.. thanks for such a knowledgeable post. this makes clear many of my concepts. what about other air launched missiles beside REK? what if we integrate some longer range air launched cruise missile like kind of smaller kind of F4 missile? will it case be similar to that of BVR or its integration will be like REK?

Without being involved at Chengdu or PAC I'm only making educated guesses. With that preface I would say think about what targeting information a particular weapon needs. For example, Raad needs Earth coordinates based path. This is likely information fed on the ground or through the mission computer. Secondly, it needs to sync its INS with the aircraft (I forgot what this process was called - alignment I think).
The aircrafts INS is much more accurate. Again this can be done without concerning the radar.

Now A2A missile needs coordinates of enemy jet track being generated from the radar. It needs rapid updates of this data too because the enemy jet is obviously moving. These information flow might be from an AWACs too. A missile needs track position and velocity at very high rates and very high precision because the target is moving so rapidly.

This should tell us why a2a missiles are harder to integrate than a2g weapons and how PACs weapons integration lab probably CANNOT integrate a2a missiles and is probably meant for a2g weapons.

 

[Michael]

Without being involved at Chengdu or PAC I'm only making educated guesses. With that preface I would say think about what targeting information a particular weapon needs. For example, Raad needs Earth coordinates based path. This is likely information fed on the ground or through the mission computer. Secondly, it needs to sync its INS with the aircraft (I forgot what this process was called - alignment I think).
The aircrafts INS is much more accurate. Again this can be done without concerning the radar.

Now A2A missile needs coordinates of enemy jet track being generated from the radar. It needs rapid updates of this data too because the enemy jet is obviously moving. These information flow might be from an AWACs too. A missile needs track position and velocity at very high rates and very high precision because the target is moving so rapidly.

This should tell us why a2a missiles are harder to integrate than a2g weapons and how PACs weapons integration lab probably CANNOT integrate a2a missiles and is probably meant for a2g weapons.

A few points require clarification:

Before the May 7th India-Pakistan air battle (and before the PAF released photos of the JF-17B3 equipped with the PL-15E), we had already made it clear that "there is no problem with the JF-17B3 using the PL-15E air-to-air missile."
1. All official Chinese agencies clearly refer to the "JF-17B3 + PL-15E" combination when introducing the JF-17B3 and PL-15E. There are no technical barriers between them.
2. A CCTV program exploring the PL-15 showed a video of a JF-17B3 launching a PL-15E air-to-air missile. This video predates the May 7th air battle, and the missile test itself predates it. (This test was conducted in China using an AVIC JF-17B3 fighter, not a PAF JF-17B3.)
Friends who are interested can search for this information on the Chinese Internet.

So, it is nonsense for some people to think that the JF-17B3 cannot use the PL-15E air-to-air missile.

But, China's military technology continues to advance rapidly. Different versions and production batches of the PL-15 missile have slightly different internal features. China is constantly upgrading these weapons.
Therefore, there may be a concern that the JF-17B3 may not be able to perform to the best of the latest PL-15E versions.

 

[Ak01]

2. A CCTV program exploring the PL-15 showed a video of a JF-17B3 launching a PL-15E air-to-air missile. This video predates the May 7th air battle, and the missile test itself predates it. (This test was conducted in China using an AVIC JF-17B3 fighter, not a PAF JF-17B3.)

so this is meaningless and a nothingburger.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

The pro-Indian Twitter accounts were deliberately avoiding the total numbers of CM-400AKGs stated by the IAF chief, which hit the sites at Adampur and Bhuj AFSs, but here, officially, the IAF chief at 1:32 is saying, "To 2-4 weapons aesi jagah gire hain jahan hamara system pehle tha." So I am assuming that this confirms that, due to the high caliber/heavy weapon level of the CM-400AKGs, we indeed just launched four of these, two at Adampur and two at Bhuj.

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

He's contradicting himself.

First by saying Pakistan was watching their asset movement via satellites and then saying Pakistan dropped 2-4 munitions on Indian assets but those assets had already moved from the targeted positions.

At the same time, he's saying S-400's range prevented PAF from dropping those munitions.

One very confused IAF Clown. He should rather retire than continue to further embarrass his country every time his opens his gob.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

... 2. A CCTV program exploring the PL-15 showed a video of a JF-17B3 launching a PL-15E air-to-air missile. This video predates the May 7th air battle, and the missile test itself predates it. (This test was conducted in China using an AVIC JF-17B3 fighter, not a PAF JF-17B3.)

How many "AVIC" JF-17B3s are there and are they still with AVIC?

 

[Michael]

How many "AVIC" JF-17B3s are there and are they still with AVIC?

These fighters are primarily used for air shows, foreign trade demonstrations, technology development, and testing. The exact number is unknown, but it is certainly a very small number(maybe 2-5).
They are owned by CAC and CATIC, both subsidiaries of AVIC.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

These fighters are primarily used for air shows, foreign trade demonstrations, technology development, and testing. The exact number is unknown, but it is certainly a very small number(maybe 2-5).
They are owned by CAC and CATIC, both subsidiaries of AVIC.

I was under the impression that the first Block-3 prototype was inducted into the PAF.

 

[zzw001]

It’s all just a commercial play.

The Chinese know the forces need increasingly longer sticks.

Why sell us the middle for our own craft when they can sell the missile AND their aircraft. It’s just business. Allowing PL-15 integration onto JF-17 shoots themselves in the foot and takes profits away from China. It also creates a distinction that is greater between jf-17 and j-10, allowing for the Chinese to drive more profitable sales of j-10s by touting pl-15s as a key defining feature like the PAF did with the pl15 hype all these years. Every jet and modern lifts are equipped with aesas, distinguishing the j10 comes from the increasingly capable weapons it carries, a tier china wants to make unavailable for the competition (jf17)

China is not making money on the J10C sale to Pakistan + the whole purchase was financed by a 10-year low-interest loan from AVIC. The most profitable thing China could have done regarding the J10C deal was to not make it in the first place. J10C was finalized and delivery accelerated only because of rising Pak-India tension post COVID (which led to direct intervention from the Chinese government to get the deal closed), otherwise AVIC and PAF would probably still be negotiating today because AVIC wanted much better commercial terms (or maybe the Saudis could have stepped in and funded the deal given their mutual defense agreement with Pakistan recently).

 

[Ak01]

China is not making money on the J10C sale to Pakistan + the whole purchase was financed by a 10-year low-interest loan from AVIC. The most profitable thing China could have done regarding the J10C deal was to not make it in the first place. J10C was finalized and delivery accelerated only because of rising Pak-India tension post COVID (which led to direct intervention from the Chinese government to get the deal closed), otherwise AVIC and PAF would probably still be negotiating today because AVIC wanted much better commercial terms (or maybe the Saudis could have stepped in and funded the deal given their mutual defense agreement with Pakistan recently).

Literally the worst cope imaginable.

"financed by low interest loans"

im not sure why this =/= no profit being made...
most of the world's arms trade works off of loans.

Infact, this is so laughable, i dont even know where to begin.

"Low interest loan" FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE.

the PURCHASE PRICE will include profit lol- unless you have details on the J-10c's cost of production, i think its a pretty retarded assumption to go ahead and say no money was made lol.

So, lets get this straight, Purchase price profit=X
Interest rate, Y...
X+Y= PROFIT lol.

Also, the 'low interest' is just flat out bullshit lol.

in June 21, Chinas LPR was 3.85%, the 5 year LPR was 4.65%. Globally interest rates were low due to covid lol, it is a bang on standard market rate, with the only concession being deferred payments, its not a 'low' interest loan like you claim. You're not doing anyone a favour lol.

 

[Quwa]

people will probably disagree with me here, but, i dont actually think JF-17B3's can deploy PL-15s.

I think that was purely a PAF propaganda video to create confusion among Indian ranks.

NO kills were attributed to JF-17s, at all, even though they were flying and a part of the battles. Not a single kill.

Same missiles, allegedly a radar capable of deploying said missiles, yet not a single kill... seems sus.

as @Quwa notes, AVIC had ALWAYS pressed PAF to procure a different missile for the JF-17, called the PL-12AE, which would have been a comprehensive modernisation of the SD-10, infact, i even think it carries the same seeker stack as the PL-15.

its a seriously deep upgrade, with the only similarity (i think) shared between the SD-10 is its common airframe. Other than that, its got a 2 way datalink, its also 20kg heavier, and has a range "greater than 120km".

It was also certified for use on the JF-17.

For all intents and purposes, it was Chinas AMRAAM D for the export market, particularly Pakistan.

China was always hesitant to release the PL-15 to Pakistan for JF-17. We did not see it EVER, except until sindoor.

Now people will say this was for the element of surprise, i say bullshit, because if that was the case, the PAF would not have been discussing the PL-15/PL-10 integration onto JF-17B3 ever since the JF-17B3 was conceptualised at like every public gathering.

The PL-15 was meant to be a missile available only with the J-10C and i think that is still the case. I think PAF pulled a USSR and fitted it for show, but never actually deployed them because they cant.

IMO, in the meantime PAF is comfortable, but it just doesnt have the funds anyway to do anything. We will probably see some more J-10s, alongside SOMETHING from the US- im bloody sure of it!! PAF seems to be more shook up on its AD side of things post sindoor, hence the AD shopping spree and turn to Europe for SAM's, as alan also said, J-35 is not on the cards fully yet, rather, being considered (the logical thing to do- cant commit to a product we havent seen fully enter service, teething issues etc.)

Yep, I called it way back in 2019 and 2020 that the main option for JF-17 Block-3 was going to be a new version of the SD-10. The PL-15E came along much later after the purchase of the J-10CEs.

IMO the PAF inducting the PL-12AE would be a bigger deal than the PL-15 because it'd imply an upgrade to the FAAZ program (which we suspect is basically NESCOM license manufacturing the SD-10).

So, in that context, if you can get both an AAM and SAM with the same AESA seeker as the PL-15, that would be a big deal. Hence, you can mix up the SHORAD layer with a SL-AMRAAM-type munition via the PL-12AE and a CAMM-type SAM with TVC and range scaling via boosters.

It wouldn't surprise me if it comes down the line later, e.g., the PAF saying "upgraded SD-10" or something. @Oscar @JamD

 

[Ak01]

IMO the PAF inducting the PL-12AE would be a bigger deal than the PL-15 because it'd imply an upgrade to the FAAZ program (which we suspect is basically NESCOM license manufacturing the SD-10).

I wonder what the play is with the PL12AE if being produced in Pak, in China, id have thought they're repurposing old SD-10 bodies and mating it with leftover bits from other systems to create a frankenmissile.

But, it would be a significant upgrade and a pretty capable baseline for FAAZ, offering an actually capable starting point, one that can just be built on for more advanced missiles. I think the bottleneck will be the missile body here- @JamD , how hard would it be for Pak to redesign a missile body later down the line for a Faaz 2/ER, repurposing the avionics and motor stack from PL-12AE.

for reference:



Launch modes are rail and ejection;
Maximum usable overload: 38G;
Attack range: ≥120 km;
Guidance system: Strapdown Inertial Navigation System (INS)/BeiDou satellite combination + two-way datalink correction + active radar terminal guidance;
Missile length: 3939mm,
missile diameter: 203mm,
mass: ≤214 kg.

vs the PL-15
Maximum usable overload: 40G;
Attack range: ≥145 km;
Guidance system: Strapdown Inertial Navigation System (INS)/BeiDou satellite combination + two-way datalink correction + active radar terminal guidance;
Missile length: 3996mm,
missile diameter: 203mm,
mass: ≤210 kg.

I find it interesting the PL12AE is heavier than the PL-15 and OG PL-12.

Typically avionics upgrades will reduce the weight, particularly AESA ones.

Alongside this, modern warheads are lighter because they're more optimised.

The 35KG weight increase seems to be a result of more dense fuelling, its a very, very interesting missile

 

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

Without being involved at Chengdu or PAC I'm only making educated guesses. With that preface I would say think about what targeting information a particular weapon needs. For example, Raad needs Earth coordinates based path. This is likely information fed on the ground or through the mission computer. Secondly, it needs to sync its INS with the aircraft (I forgot what this process was called - alignment I think).
The aircrafts INS is much more accurate. Again this can be done without concerning the radar.

Now A2A missile needs coordinates of enemy jet track being generated from the radar. It needs rapid updates of this data too because the enemy jet is obviously moving. These information flow might be from an AWACs too. A missile needs track position and velocity at very high rates and very high precision because the target is moving so rapidly.

This should tell us why a2a missiles are harder to integrate than a2g weapons and how PACs weapons integration lab probably CANNOT integrate a2a missiles and is probably meant for a2g weapons.

very plausible but now the question come to my mind is if we have to take a moving target on ground the air launched missile integration must also be harder? thanks for the knowledge though.

A few points require clarification:

Before the May 7th India-Pakistan air battle (and before the PAF released photos of the JF-17B3 equipped with the PL-15E), we had already made it clear that "there is no problem with the JF-17B3 using the PL-15E air-to-air missile."
1. All official Chinese agencies clearly refer to the "JF-17B3 + PL-15E" combination when introducing the JF-17B3 and PL-15E. There are no technical barriers between them.
2. A CCTV program exploring the PL-15 showed a video of a JF-17B3 launching a PL-15E air-to-air missile. This video predates the May 7th air battle, and the missile test itself predates it. (This test was conducted in China using an AVIC JF-17B3 fighter, not a PAF JF-17B3.)
Friends who are interested can search for this information on the Chinese Internet.

So, it is nonsense for some people to think that the JF-17B3 cannot use the PL-15E air-to-air missile.

But, China's military technology continues to advance rapidly. Different versions and production batches of the PL-15 missile have slightly different internal features. China is constantly upgrading these weapons.
Therefore, there may be a concern that the JF-17B3 may not be able to perform to the best of the latest PL-15E versions.

you are right what @arslank01 is saying is for PAF JF-17 Block3 the integration may not be there which is purely his speculation based on business model. and which may not be accurate as well thats just his assumption based on why there was no kill associated with JF-17 block 3 on 7 may. yes the AVIC version may have integrated and testing PL-15. but your last paragraph makes sense maybe we have some older initial versions of PL-15 integrated with JF-17 block 3.

Literally the worst cope imaginable.

"financed by low interest loans"

im not sure why this =/= no profit being made...
most of the world's arms trade works off of loans.

Infact, this is so laughable, i dont even know where to begin.

"Low interest loan" FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE.

the PURCHASE PRICE will include profit lol- unless you have details on the J-10c's cost of production, i think its a pretty retarded assumption to go ahead and say no money was made lol.

So, lets get this straight, Purchase price profit=X
Interest rate, Y...
X+Y= PROFIT lol.

Also, the 'low interest' is just flat out bullshit lol.

in June 21, Chinas LPR was 3.85%, the 5 year LPR was 4.65%. Globally interest rates were low due to covid lol, it is a bang on standard market rate, with the only concession being deferred payments, its not a 'low' interest loan like you claim. You're not doing anyone a favour lol.

Bhai please chinese members pay torha hath hola rakho? chalo beshak wo profit kama rahay ho laikin aik yahi tau hai jo humain kuch acha de tau raha? iss waqt defence army, airforce and navy sab inn pay totally dependent hai..kyun in chinese member ko pakistaniyo say bad dil kar rahay? guzara karo..