JF-17 PFX program

[Michael]

There is no need for CAC involvement -

Pakistan did not involve CAC per se when it installed custom avionics such as radios and ancillary EW systems - Turkish ASELPOD - Local weapons and so on.
For JF-17 the dependence on CAC is structural - nothing to do with avionics or wiring.

Hey, bro.
I don't know how Pakistanis feel about JF-17 ownership. The information I can see is as follows:

The intellectual property of JF-17 is jointly owned by PAC and CAC. That is the JF-17 brand, the JF-17 airframe and the main system.
The subsystems of the JF-17 are owned by their respective providers. For example: the third generation HMS helmet of the JF-17 B3 belongs to Luoyang Guangdian; the engine belongs to Russia; the KLJ-7A radar belongs to CETC ...... They do not belong to either PAC or CAC.

This means that any matter against the JF-17 needs to be agreed upon by both the PAC and the CAC. If PAC wants to use Pakistan's own manufactured radar in JF-17. Or use any other country's radar, it requires CAC's consent. If Pakistan wants the technology for the KLJ-7A radar, the CAC cannot provide it either. Pakistan has to go to CETC for negotiations. Of course, CAC can help PAC establish channels of communication with CETC.

So, your point is not valid. Unless PAC buys out all intellectual property rights of JF-17.

 

[Oscar]

Hey, bro.
I don't know how Pakistanis feel about JF-17 ownership. The information I can see is as follows:

The intellectual property of JF-17 is jointly owned by PAC and CAC. That is the JF-17 brand, the JF-17 airframe and the main system.
The subsystems of the JF-17 are owned by their respective providers. For example: the third generation HMS helmet of the JF-17 B3 belongs to Luoyang Guangdian; the engine belongs to Russia; the KLJ-7A radar belongs to CETC ...... They do not belong to either PAC or CAC.

This means that any matter against the JF-17 needs to be agreed upon by both the PAC and the CAC. If PAC wants to use Pakistan's own manufactured radar in JF-17. Or use any other country's radar, it requires CAC's consent. If Pakistan wants the technology for the KLJ-7A radar, the CAC cannot provide it either. Pakistan has to go to CETC for negotiations. Of course, CAC can help PAC establish channels of communication with CETC.

So, your point is not valid. Unless PAC buys out all intellectual property rights of JF-17.

It is very valid - and has been carried out in practice. You are not privy to the agreement that allows Pakistan complete freedom to install subsystems as needed so long as it informs(not involves) CATIC.

When Pakistan installed a third party radio - it let CAC know what it was doing and did it without their involvement.

When Pakistan put EW subsystems - it told CAC and did not provide any further information.

When it integrated weapons locally - it already has blanket permission to do what it wants without needing to inform CAC unless it needs technical assistance.

What subsystems it installs it had the relationship with those respective manufacturers directly - which is why I also told you regarding Russian engineers being involved with PAC directly and CAC stepping back.

It is all defined within the working contract and relationship.

 

[Michael]

It is very valid - and has been carried out in practice. You are not privy to the agreement that allows Pakistan complete freedom to install subsystems as needed so long as it informs(not involves) CATIC.

When Pakistan installed a third party radio - it let CAC know what it was doing and did it without their involvement.

When Pakistan put EW subsystems - it told CAC and did not provide any further information.

When it integrated weapons locally - it already has blanket permission to do what it wants without needing to inform CAC unless it needs technical assistance.

What subsystems it installs it had the relationship with those respective manufacturers directly - which is why I also told you regarding Russian engineers being involved with PAC directly and CAC stepping back.

It is all defined within the working contract and relationship.

CAC, as the design organization for the JF-17, is bound by agreement to open up the JF-17's weapons interface, allowing the PAC to use a variety of weapons provided by non-Chinese weapons suppliers, as well as allowing the PAC to install a variety of non-Chinese subsystems. This is normal business behavior.

The JF-17 program does not have much strategic significance for the current CAC. It still has some commercial value to CAC, but not much. Based on the friendly relationship between the two sides, CAC basically will not object to PAC's request.

So CAC doesn't mind fading out the JF-17 program if PAC can take care of everything by itself. Even if PAC does not notify CAC at some point, CAC will not protest.
However, the resistance comes when the PAC needs to request the CAC's assistance if there are problems with the integration of certain other subsystems. At the same time, if PAC needs CAC to provide some core technologies to be used to support third-party subsystems, it will also encounter great resistance. Of course, if PAC wants to get more advanced technology from CAC to upgrade JF-17, the intervention of the third partner is also a huge resistance.

 

[Oscar]

CAC, as the design organization for the JF-17, is bound by agreement to open up the JF-17's weapons interface, allowing the PAC to use a variety of weapons provided by non-Chinese weapons suppliers, as well as allowing the PAC to install a variety of non-Chinese subsystems. This is normal business behavior.

The JF-17 program does not have much strategic significance for the current CAC. It still has some commercial value to CAC, but not much. Based on the friendly relationship between the two sides, CAC basically will not object to PAC's request.

So CAC doesn't mind fading out the JF-17 program if PAC can take care of everything by itself. Even if PAC does not notify CAC at some point, CAC will not protest.
However, the resistance comes when the PAC needs to request the CAC's assistance if there are problems with the integration of certain other subsystems. At the same time, if PAC needs CAC to provide some core technologies to be used to support third-party subsystems, it will also encounter great resistance. Of course, if PAC wants to get more advanced technology from CAC to upgrade JF-17, the intervention of the third partner is also a huge resistance.

Which comes to the actual point - PAC can do all the avionics or weapons modifications it needs even involving third party(to CAC) Chinese,Turkish or South African(done already) suppliers without directly needing CAC assistance or involvement.

Enough trust has been established and as you rightly pointed out JF-17 is of smaller commercial concern to CAC in general.

However, to the overall topic of thread - PAC does NOT have the capability to create a “new” fuselage without assistance from a more experienced provider - be it CAC or TAI or otherwise.

 

[MastanKhan]

Looking at this thread day by day, I am now hoping for whatever PAC is trying to do with PFX, they should do it fast and provide concrete data (anything!!!!), because this is getting SO confusing, that you either start believing everything or not believing everything at all.

Next we know, someone's going to share a blog from 4chan claiming PFX is going to be a automated 6th Gen fighter shooting lasers and having a FTL (Faster Than Light) engines for travelling through space.

Hi,

You would know that CONFUSION is the KEY to make the enemy run in circles---trying to find 'demons' where there are none---.

At the end of the day---PFX will resolve some very simplistic upgrades on the JF17 BLK3's

 

[Umar]

Hey, bro.
I don't know how Pakistanis feel about JF-17 ownership. The information I can see is as follows:

The intellectual property of JF-17 is jointly owned by PAC and CAC. That is the JF-17 brand, the JF-17 airframe and the main system.
The subsystems of the JF-17 are owned by their respective providers. For example: the third generation HMS helmet of the JF-17 B3 belongs to Luoyang Guangdian; the engine belongs to Russia; the KLJ-7A radar belongs to CETC ...... They do not belong to either PAC or CAC.

This means that any matter against the JF-17 needs to be agreed upon by both the PAC and the CAC. If PAC wants to use Pakistan's own manufactured radar in JF-17. Or use any other country's radar, it requires CAC's consent. If Pakistan wants the technology for the KLJ-7A radar, the CAC cannot provide it either. Pakistan has to go to CETC for negotiations. Of course, CAC can help PAC establish channels of communication with CETC.

So, your point is not valid. Unless PAC buys out all intellectual property rights of JF-17.

My understanding is that Pakistan used China’s defence industry to build Pakistan-first Aircraft. China never showed intentions to induct JF-17 and their Air Force refused any chance of inducting JF-17 in the Chinese flag 20 years ago. I mean Pakistan built JF-17 with Chinese help similar to how iPhone is produced in China.

our relationship with China in the late 90s and early 2000s was unbelievably close so the terms and conditions are almost non-existent. Pakistan can technically take this project to any direction and try to indigenise or involve another partner without any consent of the Chinese government/air force.

We are partners indeed and China makes profit from the export version of JF-17 but it is primarily a for-Pakistan Aircraft with the help of Chinese defence industries.

 

[studsmart]

i think PFX is going to be a blk4 JFT that will be 4.5++ with a new engine, avionics upgrade etc etc ... the pic floating around with stealth-type aircraft is just an artist vision not real

my be by blk 4 PAF will get 100% airframe local production ... new engine could be RD-93MA or WS13/21

 

[Umar]

i think PFX is going to be a blk4 JFT that will be 4.5++ with a new engine, avionics upgrade etc etc ... the pic floating around with stealth-type aircraft is just an artist vision not real

my be by blk 4 PAF will get 100% airframe local production ... new engine could be RD-93MA or WS13/21

It is block 4. The Air Force officers at ideas 2024 confirmed that it was 4.5 gen. We will upgrade the radar, avionics, engine and other parts to make it closer to 4.5 gen. The focus will be manufacture locally and up to certain extent indigenously.

Pakistan is not ready for fifth generation aircraft neither do we have funds for it so we will buy a couple of them from China.

 

[MastanKhan]

i think PFX is going to be a blk4 JFT that will be 4.5++ with a new engine, avionics upgrade etc etc ... the pic floating around with stealth-type aircraft is just an artist vision not real

my be by blk 4 PAF will get 100% airframe local production ... new engine could be RD-93MA or WS13/21

Hi,

If someone has the video of the air force officer in the ideas 2024---it will bring more claity to what the upgrades will be.

 

[Umar]

Hi,

If someone has the video of the air force officer in the ideas 2024---it will bring more claity to what the upgrades will be.

It will confuse you as they demonstrated non-existant design of PFX. It looks like 5th generation fighter but as the officer mentioned, it will be 4.5gen so a slight upgrade to JF-17

 

[mythbuster]

There's no room left for any upgrades in JF 17 ....it has reached it's saturation point .....PFX will be a new platform , no ifs and buts about it .

 

[.44 Magnum Lever Action]

I don't think "PFX" is going to happen. Seems too unrealistic looking at all the arguments in an ubiased manner. Block 3 is the most anyone would have thought beyond their wildest imagination coming out of this FC-1 thingy. Let's be realistic. It already sort of qualifies as 4.5 generation in block 3 configuration. Especially for the simple way they are used. Why would they need upgrade it further lol.

 

[Bentley777]

I don't think "PFX" is going to happen. Seems too unrealistic looking at all the arguments in an ubiased manner. Block 3 is the most anyone would have thought beyond their wildest imagination coming out of this FC-1 thingy. Let's be realistic. It already sort of qualifies as 4.5 generation in block 3 configuration. Especially for the simple way they are used. Why would they need upgrade it further lol.

Still it needs better engines i think rest are covered or very less remaining.

 

[.44 Magnum Lever Action]

Still it needs better engines i think rest are covered or very less remaining.

That little bit of difference won't be a quantum leap over the current one, and it will cost a lot more. If it's Chinese then it will definitely cost more to maintain it as well. In which environment is the Jeff currently operating in which it can't do it's mission? What the air force needs to do is bring them all to block 3 standard and quit pandering to the fan boys. If PFX happens I hope it is at least a domestic J-10C or some Death Star unmanned Turkish fighter. I think the air force is good with the Jeff saga. First bring all Jeff to block 3 standard then make a Christmas wish list imho.

 

[Bentley777]

That little bit of difference won't be a quantum leap over the current one, and it will cost a lot more. If it's Chinese then it will definitely cost more to maintain it as well. In which environment is the Jeff currently operating in which it can't do it's mission? What the air force needs to do is bring them all to block 3 standard and quit pandering to the fan boys. If PFX happens I hope it is at least a domestic J-10C or some Death Star unmanned Turkish fighter. I think the air force is good with the Jeff saga. First bring all Jeff to block 3 standard then make a Christmas wish list imho.

I just mentioned what can be done better in block 3 which makes it jf17 block 4 and room for improvement which includes new engine and may be new aesa radar it has nothing to do pfx. Pfx program is for late 2040s and early 2050s and it obligatory to go this way for PAF other wise PAC has no future in true sense for future.