JF-17 PFX program

[Dalit]

Can anyone confirm? To me, JF-17 block 3 already has so many changes that it can easily be mistaken with JF-17 PFX.

 

[PakAl]

I know we are in a forum and almost any idea can be shared but one must be rational and not each and every fancy idea is equally realistic.

So please ask yourself:

- Does Pakistan has the capabilities to "enlarge" the JF-17 to a "medium sized" fighter?
- Does such a type make any sense between the JF-17 and the J-10CE and maybe "soon" J-31?
- can Pakistan afford its development on its own?

IMO all three points can only be answered with a negative reply!

So what all this fuss about a larger JF-17? It's almost as Pakistan wants to repeat the Indian way by enlarging the Tejas Mk.1 to Mk.2! It makes no sense at all.

But hey, I'm just a military analyst and have no clues at all even more so since some think I'm at best an evil spy who only wants anything bad for Pakistan!

I don't see it myself aswell but if you think about it, if the older Jf17s and f16s need to be retired after 2030s then what will be paf plan, paf will not buy 300 J10cs, before we thought it will be more jf17 block 3s to replace the older planes but alot of members are saying we will go for a larger jf17 (pfx), which will give more range, weaponary etc.

I would save the money and go for 150 J10cs, 150 Jf17 block 3s, 36 F16s, 50 J31s with wingman drones (once ready ofcourse). A larger Jf17 will be a new design, so a new plane and will not be better than a medium weight J10Cs.

 

[SaadH]

It's not about to start again but to refute to illogical stuff:

"Basically a larger JF17" is unlikely, in fact IMO impossible since it makes no sense. Why should Pakistan "a larger JF17"? Better would be one with more local content, better sensors, maybe more Turkish or international content and being able to be produced totally in Pakistan but surely not larger.

Larger is not always better!

Larger is better in terms of future growth. With a smaller frame, you are limited to what subsystems you can add, not to mention the inherent advantages of a large airframe, range, load. With a larger frame PAF may well be bringing the capabilities of a J-10/F-16 sized fighter inhouse, instead of being at the mercy of american or chinese whims respectively.

 

[silicon0000]

I know we are in a forum and almost any idea can be shared but one must be rational and not each and every fancy idea is equally realistic.

So please ask yourself:

- Does Pakistan has the capabilities to "enlarge" the JF-17 to a "medium sized" fighter?
- Does such a type make any sense between the JF-17 and the J-10CE and maybe "soon" J-31?
- can Pakistan afford its development on its own?

IMO all three points can only be answered with a negative reply!

So what all this fuss about a larger JF-17? It's almost as Pakistan wants to repeat the Indian way by enlarging the Tejas Mk.1 to Mk.2! It makes no sense at all.

But hey, I'm just a military analyst and have no clues at all even more so since some think I'm at best an evil spy who only wants anything bad for Pakistan!

Assuming the news I've heard about the PFX is accurate, I have a few hypotheses. But these are just my personal thoughts, based on publicly available information, and may be inaccurate.

1. Potential for a Localized JF-17 Variant: China is no longer interested in carrying forward the JF-17 program and wants to relinquish its primary role in the JF-17 program, allowing Pakistan to take over major responsibilities. This could lead to the development of a localized JF-17 variant, potentially named the PFX.

1. PAF's Satisfaction with JF-17: The PAF appears generally satisfied with the JF-17's performance, except for its weapon carrying capacity (that's what I read in some places). Increasing the JF-17's size and equipping it with a more powerful engine could address this limitation.

1. Proposed PFX Configuration: A slightly enlarged JF-17-type jet, equipped with the WS13 IPE or WS19 engine, could be a viable solution. This would align with the J31/35 program, potentially leading to future commonalities of engine.

1. Financial Considerations: Regarding your queries, while financial constraints are a significant challenge for Pakistan, the country has historically managed to overcome such obstacles. Therefore, I would not discuss financial aspects. Just want to tell you that Pakistan can manage it. Don't worry.

1. PFX's Relationship to Other Projects: Regarding the JF-17, J10C, and J31/35 points, I would say the PFX should be viewed as an evolution of the JF-17, similar to the JF-17 Block 4. Don't expect radical changes, but rather incremental upgrades, primarily driven by the more powerful engine and potential Turkish contributions. Localization will be the biggest achievement in this case.

1. PFX Relation to J10C & J31/35: The planned acquisition of J-10C and J-31/35 aircraft will likely proceed as scheduled and is probably unrelated to this project.

1. Potential Capabilities and Collaborations: Regarding the capabilities point, it's not like Pakistan can't do anything. The country's experience with the Mirage, JF-17, and AZM programs, combined with collaborations with China and Turkey, could support the development of the PFX and help in overcoming obstacles where needed. Pakistan's relationships with China and Turkey could also provide access to advanced systems and technologies required for development.

1. Developmental Timelines: That's my major concern. Do we have enough time required for the development of the PFX? Frankly speaking, this localization decision is too late and should have been made 10 years ago or at the time of Block-3 development. But luckily, Pakistan's main adversary is India. Still, it's my major concern.

Last but not least, Again I say these are just my assumptions and can be wrong.

 

[Oscar]

IMO... The best case scenario will be a concept on paper that'll be offered to potential buyers to invest in. However, I don't think the saner minds at AHQ have the stomach to deal with any original fighter development work.

This isn't to say there isn't any interest in developing something...but I suspect there's more interest in UCAVs than crewed jets. UCAVs are cheaper, more disposable, and more scalable (enabling a continual production run rather than one with a cap, like JF-17).

And that is the missing component of “bite off only as much as you can chew” - there are only so many projects to pursue successfully.

There is a lot more going on in the UCAV front which ties into PFX work.

 

[Dalit]

I don't see it myself aswell but if you think about it, if the older Jf17s and f16s need to be retired after 2030s then what will be paf plan, paf will not buy 300 J10cs, before we thought it will be more jf17 block 3s to replace the older planes but alot of members are saying we will go for a larger jf17 (pfx), which will give more range, weaponary etc.

I would save the money and go for 150 J10cs, 150 Jf17 block 3s, 36 F16s, 50 J31s with wingman drones (once ready ofcourse). A larger Jf17 will be a new design, so a new plane and will not be better than a medium weight J10Cs.

It makes perfect sense. The J-10C is essentially the new F-16 for the PAF, serving as its premier fighter. Although the PAF is diversifying at an enormous rate with the induction of multiple aircraft, at one point, the PAF was stuck with the American F-16. We shouldn’t forget that, for a very long time, the PAF had no options at its disposal. That has finally changed today, as China has provided the PAF with solid alternatives. The Western countries weren't willing to provide Pakistan with any fighter jets. It is a big transformation.

I have to agree with @Deino here, though. I don’t expect big changes in the JF-17 PFX airframe. For that to happen, the PFX would have to be a totally different aircraft and JF-17 only in name.

 

[Quwa]

And that is the missing component of “bite off only as much as you can chew” - there are only so many projects to pursue successfully.

There is a lot more going on in the UCAV front which ties into PFX work.

Going back to an old Pakistani defence concept... What the armed forces don't talk about may be more important than what they present.

There's a lot of noise about the PFX, yet in the background, NASTP works on loitering munitions, miniature ALCMs, and indigenizing ALCM tech (like miniature turbojets), and partners with a big UAV company (Baykar).

IMO...there's more at play behind a UCAV program than there is for some crewed fighter, even a JF-17-related one. However, because the PAF has not made some big show about it (e.g., by releasing some conceptual UCAV design and giving it a name), it's not getting attention.

This could be intentional... We could, one day, 'suddenly' see a UCAV test flight out of nowhere.

 

[TAC]

Can anyone confirm? To me, JF-17 block 3 already has so many changes that it can easily be mistaken with JF-17 PFX.

Personally I wouldn’t give this any credit. In short is typical clickbate nonsense created out of nothing, with no real insights. They just take a snippet of news, exaggerate it x100 and present it as fact.

 

[HRK]

People are forgetting that

- Airframe dimensions of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet jets are not the same

- Same is the case with Swedish Saab JAS 39 and Gripen-E jets.

- Both jets saw growth in their size with the 'change of their respective engines which were more powerful than the earlier engines"

- We all know the the botel neck of JF-17 jet is the modest weapon carrying capability due to the modest jet engine & it's airframe size.

- We all know JF -17 will supposedly receive the Chinese engine which provides more power than the current RD-93 engine

- We all know that as per the Pakistan & China work share agreement, China had agreed to increase the share of TOT of manufacturing technologies with every block of JF-17 and eventually by the end of program Pakistan had to have 100% manufacturing technologies related to JF-17.

- We all know that China have already established Electronic Lab, Avionics Lab, Testing & Integration Lab, AESA Radar Technology and some other technologies under the program.

- We all know that it was Pakistan which was not increasing it's share in manufacturing due to cost advantage and less capability to absorb the technologies till the end of Blk-II manufacturing.

- We all know that as per agreement for JF -17 between China & Pakistan; Pakistan had to order only 150 jets while as per non-binding clause China had to order around 200 jet which China never ordered due doctrine shift and change in it's requirements

- Therefore after the end of production of Block-III jets if we do not receive the big export orders it would not only end the JF-17 program but also end our nascent aviation Industry.

- Could we allow it ????

- J-10 or J-31 could fullfil this need of our aviation Industry???

- How many J-10s or J-31 could we afford to import ????

These are the answers of many questions raised by some over PFX hope the get the logic, need and the reason of PFX or anyother similar fighter jet program for our nascent Aviation Industry which in Owen by PAF itself, and the failure of our nascent aviation Industry would be counted as the "Failure Of PAF".

Keep in mind PAF promotes JF -17 as epitome of it's professionalism and technological achievement in the field of aviation; therefore please try to answer "Could PAF allow a stigma on flagship program and to it's own reputation???"

 

[Quwa]

People are forgetting that

- Airframe dimensions of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet jets are not the same

- Same is the case with Swedish Saab JAS 39 and Gripen-E jets.

- Both jets saw growth in their size with the 'change of their respective engines which were more powerful than the earlier engines"

- We all know the the botel neck of JF-17 jet is the modest weapon carrying capability due to the modest jet engine & it's airframe size.

- We all know JF -17 will supposedly receive the Chinese engine which provides more power than the current RD-93 engine

- We all know that as per the Pakistan & China work share agreement, China had agreed to increase the share of TOT of manufacturing technologies with every block of JF-17 and eventually by the end of program Pakistan had to have 100% manufacturing technologies related to JF-17.

- We all know that China have already established Electronic Lab, Avionics Lab, Testing & Integration Lab, AESA Radar Technology and some other technologies under the program.

- We all know that it was Pakistan which was not increasing it's share in manufacturing due to cost advantage and less capability to absorb the technologies till the end of Blk-II manufacturing.

- We all know that as per agreement for JF -17 between China & Pakistan; Pakistan had to order only 150 jets while as per non-binding clause China had to order around 200 jet which China never ordered due doctrine shift and change in it's requirements

- Therefore after the end of production of Block-III jets if we do not receive the big export orders it would not only end the JF-17 program but also end our nascent aviation Industry.

- Could we allow it ????

- J-10 or J-31 could fullfil this need of our aviation Industry???

- How many J-10s or J-31 could we afford to import ????

These are the answers of many questions raised by some over PFX hope the get the logic, need and the reason of PFX or anyother similar fighter jet program for our nascent Aviation Industry which in Owen by PAF itself, and the failure of our nascent aviation Industry would be counted as the "Failure Of PAF".

Keep in mind PAF promotes JF -17 as epitome of it's professionalism and technological achievement in the field of aviation; therefore please try to answer "Could PAF allow a stigma on flagship program and to it's own reputation???"

IMO we must reframe our thinking:

Aerospace Industry =/= Crewed Fighter.

Yes, the end of the JF-17 program would be a hard pill to swallow, but to those who are aware, sustaining a crewed fighter program in lieu of an actual industry base was never going to be a thing.

If by the end of the JF-17 program we could not initiate gas turbine, composite, advanced steel, electronics, and other key industries, then it would be impossible to create a successor unless we repeat the JF-17 (by importing all of the critical inputs from abroad, outsourcing design work to a foreign OEM, etc).

By that point, we wouldn't progress at all, just repeat the same thing over and over.

Rather, we should ask, "What does it take for us to build critical industries?"

The answer is to start at a more modest level whereby the critical inputs are much, much more attainable for our local industry.

Help our industry generate growth by doing what they can do today and, in turn, drive them to invest in more advanced areas by gradually elevating the technical expectations.

So, for example, instead of continuing with some crewed fighter program (e.g., PFX), our aviation industry should pivot to UCAV technology.

We don't need to start at some large and highly complex UCAV. Rather, we can start with a small loyal wingman UCAV -- e.g., 3-4 ton MTOW max.

It's OK for this UCAV to be flawed...e.g., so what if it doesn't have cutting-edge stealth materials, it's small and meant to be disposable. So what if it can't maneuver well, it's meant to carry out just a few tasks. So what if it's slow due to a less powerful engine... and so on.

I guarantee you that it'd be much easier for our nascent in-house design teams to produce a viable UCAV design than a crewed NGFA or even a PFX. NESCOM, for example, has an awareness of the tech (flight controls, for example) and has a grasp of the fundamentals via ALCMs.

Likewise, it'd be easier for the domestic industry to provide work (and lower the costs) as inputs like composites, steel, etc., shouldn't be as high-tech or cutting-edge as those for a NGFA.

Yes, for a superficial mind, the UCAVs won't look or sound as impressive as PFX or AZM. However, we want to escape superficial thinking...

...The war planners in India will understand that Pakistan gaining the ability to mass-produce a UCAV by deeply leveraging its public and private sector industry is a huge threat.

Moreover, as the private sector grows on the back of UCAV V1 orders, NASTP and/or NESCOM can start designing a more complex V2, and then a V3, and so on. Over a period of 15-20 years, you'll see that the industries we lacked for an NGFA (like aviation grade steel, composites, and possibly even gas turbines) will start appearing.

It's at THAT point we start designing a crewed fighter (6th or 7th-gen).

 

[JamD]

Recently someone I know visited NASTP and they got a small briefing re- PFX.
(Azm is dead more or less) PFX is very real and well underway, it is rather PAF's mainstay program right now and for the foreseeable future. PAF claims that no chinese help is being used in it unlike the JF program. Additionally paf claims to have hired a massive new engineer team to do the development locally. Instead of developing a new fighter jet from scratch they will take the matured enough JF BLK3 and make a "New" fighter based on that.

I am pretty sure that is an accurate account. There is no doubt that NASTP has been hiring people like crazy. I've also mentioned several times PAF's wariness with the Chinese so no surprise that the Chinese are not involved.

No, a new fighter based on the JF17. Essentially sort of how Super Sabre led to JF17, PAF is trying to develop something further from the JF17.

Dekho bhai meney Jo suna wo bata diya. Mano ya na mano aapki Marzi. Secondly you cannot compare both Azm with PFX. Azm was developing a new twin engine Fighter from scratch, PFX is developing a new single engine fighter based on already existing single engine fighter.

From what you and others are saying there seems to me more "buy-in" into the PFX than ever was with Azm. For starters the number of people working on PFX is easily much greater than the number working on Azm ever were.

Unfortunately, this is where my optimism ends.

IMO... The best case scenario will be a concept on paper that'll be offered to potential buyers to invest in. However, I don't think the saner minds at AHQ have the stomach to deal with any original fighter development work.

This isn't to say there isn't any interest in developing something...but I suspect there's more interest in UCAVs than crewed jets. UCAVs are cheaper, more disposable, and more scalable (enabling a continual production run rather than one with a cap, like JF-17).

And that is the missing component of “bite off only as much as you can chew” - there are only so many projects to pursue successfully.

There is a lot more going on in the UCAV front which ties into PFX work.

I have come to believe that PAF top command does not understand what it takes to design and manufacture an aircraft. I am basing this off many many interactions with people leading projects like Azm and having received NASTP presentations myself. I hate to use a cliche but it seems like the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the success of the JF-17 has led the PAF high command to believe that they can do it on their own - they forget that JF-17 was essentially a design led by, certified by, manufacturing designed by the Chinese and some portion of manufacturing was transferred to PAC. So they really believe that they can design, certify, and manufacture a modern jet. They are not being evil, just ignorant.

For the readers who are wondering what PAC is missing:
- Industrial base:
Materials of quality that can serve as input to the aircraft. You can't be importing machined Aluminum parts from China for your jet.
Know how on setting up jigs/production lines and how to manage them for fighter-jet production. The kinds of tests and processes that must be done to ensure quality.
-Certification base
No this is not about getting a fake paper license. It is about making sure that the design that you have can actually perform its function over the aircraft's lifespan. Small coupons to large assemblies are tested rigorously over hundreds of thousands of cycles in facilities that have dedicated machines.
-Design base
People who have actually designed fighter-jets before and know the common design mistakes that can happen. There are SO SO many poor design decisions that can be made and that can only be known through experience since they are not in books. There's a reason that Turkish Aerospace got BAE engineers even though they've been license-producing F-16s and designed/built the Hurjet. You can't just have 200 PhDs from universities making fighter jets for you. You need PhDs with actual aircraft design experience.

All of the above takes a TONNE of money and decades of time to build. Unless PAF is the world's greatest secret keeper, none of the above are present in Pakistan. Consequently, any PF-X attempt will fall flat face first into these obstacles. Azm didn't even get a chance to get to that stage of failure - maybe PF-X will.

Going back to an old Pakistani defence concept... What the armed forces don't talk about may be more important than what they present.

There's a lot of noise about the PFX, yet in the background, NASTP works on loitering munitions, miniature ALCMs, and indigenizing ALCM tech (like miniature turbojets), and partners with a big UAV company (Baykar).

IMO...there's more at play behind a UCAV program than there is for some crewed fighter, even a JF-17-related one. However, because the PAF has not made some big show about it (e.g., by releasing some conceptual UCAV design and giving it a name), it's not getting attention.

This could be intentional... We could, one day, 'suddenly' see a UCAV test flight out of nowhere.

I don't know how intentional that is. I think they've just thrown everything at a wall, hoping something will stick. UCAVs and loitering munitions might stick due to the help of the new partner Baykar. Recall PAF's earlier UCAV efforts were garbage.

Who knows the PAF/Baykar combo might push our SPD folks to pick up their game too.

IMO we must reframe our thinking:

Aerospace Industry =/= Crewed Fighter.

Yes, the end of the JF-17 program would be a hard pill to swallow, but to those who are aware, sustaining a crewed fighter program in lieu of an actual industry base was never going to be a thing.

If by the end of the JF-17 program we could not initiate gas turbine, composite, advanced steel, electronics, and other key industries, then it would be impossible to create a successor unless we repeat the JF-17 (by importing all of the critical inputs from abroad, outsourcing design work to a foreign OEM, etc).

By that point, we wouldn't progress at all, just repeat the same thing over and over.

Rather, we should ask, "What does it take for us to build critical industries?"

The answer is to start at a more modest level whereby the critical inputs are much, much more attainable for our local industry.

Help our industry generate growth by doing what they can do today and, in turn, drive them to invest in more advanced areas by gradually elevating the technical expectations.

So, for example, instead of continuing with some crewed fighter program (e.g., PFX), our aviation industry should pivot to UCAV technology.

We don't need to start at some large and highly complex UCAV. Rather, we can start with a small loyal wingman UCAV -- e.g., 3-4 ton MTOW max.

It's OK for this UCAV to be flawed...e.g., so what if it doesn't have cutting-edge stealth materials, it's small and meant to be disposable. So what if it can't maneuver well, it's meant to carry out just a few tasks. So what if it's slow due to a less powerful engine... and so on.

I guarantee you that it'd be much easier for our nascent in-house design teams to produce a viable UCAV design than a crewed NGFA or even a PFX. NESCOM, for example, has an awareness of the tech (flight controls, for example) and has a grasp of the fundamentals via ALCMs.

Likewise, it'd be easier for the domestic industry to provide work (and lower the costs) as inputs like composites, steel, etc., shouldn't be as high-tech or cutting-edge as those for a NGFA.

Yes, for a superficial mind, the UCAVs won't look or sound as impressive as PFX or AZM. However, we want to escape superficial thinking...

...The war planners in India will understand that Pakistan gaining the ability to mass-produce a UCAV by deeply leveraging its public and private sector industry is a huge threat.

Moreover, as the private sector grows on the back of UCAV V1 orders, NASTP and/or NESCOM can start designing a more complex V2, and then a V3, and so on. Over a period of 15-20 years, you'll see that the industries we lacked for an NGFA (like aviation grade steel, composites, and possibly even gas turbines) will start appearing.

It's at THAT point we start designing a crewed fighter (6th or 7th-gen).

If only the PAF high command could read this and not suffer from delusions of granduer.

 

[Oscar]

I am pretty sure that is an accurate account. There is no doubt that NASTP has been hiring people like crazy. I've also mentioned several times PAF's wariness with the Chinese so no surprise that the Chinese are not involved.

From what you and others are saying there seems to me more "buy-in" into the PFX than ever was with Azm. For starters the number of people working on PFX is easily much greater than the number working on Azm ever were.

Unfortunately, this is where my optimism ends.




I have come to believe that PAF top command does not understand what it takes to design and manufacture an aircraft. I am basing this off many many interactions with people leading projects like Azm and having received NASTP presentations myself. I hate to use a cliche but it seems like the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the success of the JF-17 has led the PAF high command to believe that they can do it on their own - they forget that JF-17 was essentially a design led by, certified by, manufacturing designed by the Chinese and some portion of manufacturing was transferred to PAC. So they really believe that they can design, certify, and manufacture a modern jet. They are not being evil, just ignorant.

For the readers who are wondering what PAC is missing:
- Industrial base:
Materials of quality that can serve as input to the aircraft. You can't be importing machined Aluminum parts from China for your jet.
Know how on setting up jigs/production lines and how to manage them for fighter-jet production. The kinds of tests and processes that must be done to ensure quality.
-Certification base
No this is not about getting a fake paper license. It is about making sure that the design that you have can actually perform its function over the aircraft's lifespan. Small coupons to large assemblies are tested rigorously over hundreds of thousands of cycles in facilities that have dedicated machines.
-Design base
People who have actually designed fighter-jets before and know the common design mistakes that can happen. There are SO SO many poor design decisions that can be made and that can only be known through experience since they are not in books. There's a reason that Turkish Aerospace got BAE engineers even though they've been license-producing F-16s and designed/built the Hurjet. You can't just have 200 PhDs from universities making fighter jets for you. You need PhDs with actual aircraft design experience.
All of the above takes a TONNE of money and decades of time to build. Unless PAF is the world's greatest secret keeper, none of the above are present in Pakistan. Consequently, any PF-X attempt will fall flat face first into these obstacles. Azm didn't even get a chance to get to that stage of failure - maybe PF-X will.


I don't know how intentional that is. I think they've just thrown everything at a wall, hoping something will stick. UCAVs and loitering munitions might stick due to the help of the new partner Baykar. Recall PAF's earlier UCAV efforts were garbage.

Who knows the PAF/Baykar combo might push our SPD folks to pick up their game too.

If only the PAF high command could read this and not suffer from delusions of granduer.

@Deino here’s the definitive situation.

But at the end, whether those illusions of grandeur stem from duty to country or personal branding is the real question IMHO

 

[TAC]

Struggle to understand why they would be wary of the Chinese. Very long list of everything China has done for Pakistan & especially for the PAF. To not take their help when it’s available is just nuts if true.

 

[Quwa]

@Deino here’s the definitive situation.

But at the end, whether those illusions of grandeur stem from duty to country or personal branding is the real question IMHO

The PAF has an inverted marketing problem.

The point of marketing is to be able to sell the product...

In the PAF...marketing is TELLING the factory what the product should be...and then goes ahead with marketing said product before it even exists.

 

[mythbuster]

Over analysis leads to inertia ....tie up your lungis and get into the field