JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

Be dazzled said:
Serbian Fulcrum carrying cm400akg for real. We made it famous alright
View attachment 184620
Click to expand...
The MiG-29 and CM-400AKG are not compatible.

Some on Chinese social media have suggested that China may export the PLAAF's external fire control system (referring to the PLAAF's original Russian Su-30/35 fighters using Chinese-made weapon payloads). This external fire control system would allow Russian and even Western fighter jets to use Chinese missiles.

If the system is confirmed to be exportable, then the PAF's F-16 fighters would have the opportunity to use the PL-15 missile (ignoring political factors for now), but some of the PL-15's advanced functions might be limited.
 
Michael said:
The MiG-29 and CM-400AKG are not compatible.

Some on Chinese social media have suggested that China may export the PLAAF's external fire control system (referring to the PLAAF's original Russian Su-30/35 fighters using Chinese-made weapon payloads). This external fire control system would allow Russian and even Western fighter jets to use Chinese missiles.

If the system is confirmed to be exportable, then the PAF's F-16 fighters would have the opportunity to use the PL-15 missile (ignoring political factors for now), but some of the PL-15's advanced functions might be limited.
Click to expand...
QQ20260310-213500.png
 
Michael said:
The MiG-29 and CM-400AKG are not compatible.

Some on Chinese social media have suggested that China may export the PLAAF's external fire control system (referring to the PLAAF's original Russian Su-30/35 fighters using Chinese-made weapon payloads). This external fire control system would allow Russian and even Western fighter jets to use Chinese missiles.

If the system is confirmed to be exportable, then the PAF's F-16 fighters would have the opportunity to use the PL-15 missile (ignoring political factors for now), but some of the PL-15's advanced functions might be limited.
Click to expand...
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Michael said:
The MiG-29 and CM-400AKG are not compatible.

Some on Chinese social media have suggested that China may export the PLAAF's external fire control system (referring to the PLAAF's original Russian Su-30/35 fighters using Chinese-made weapon payloads). This external fire control system would allow Russian and even Western fighter jets to use Chinese missiles.

If the system is confirmed to be exportable, then the PAF's F-16 fighters would have the opportunity to use the PL-15 missile (ignoring political factors for now), but some of the PL-15's advanced functions might be limited.
Click to expand...
F-16s cannot use the PL-15 in basic functions
- I am sure something is being lost in translation as you are actually now contradicting your own posts in which you talked about so called source code(which was also false).
The PL-15 requires radar data in the format it excepts OR datalink data to be able to at least know which target to go after.

For this, the F-16 needs full integration protocol in its fire control system to provide the specific radar track data or two-way datalink updates the PL-15 demands during mid-course guidance. Without that software and hardware compatibility, the missile can’t receive proper targeting info post-launch. This means the missile either flies a ballistic path relying only on its terminal active radar (severely range-limited, no mid-course correction for maneuvering targets), or it outright fails to launch because the F-16’s Stores Management System (SMS) won’t release it without valid handoff data.

Compare to something plug-and-play like Turkey’s Bozdoğan: it uses standard NATO MIL-STD-1760/1553 interfaces already wired into every F-16 pylon, so it’s just software tables for envelopes and symbology with no proprietary Chinese datalink headaches.

Hypothetical OEM support for F-16 PL-15 integration would provide a Weapon Integration Document Package with MIL-STD-1760 pinouts, 1553 messages, datalink specs, and launch envelopes which go into a tape that Lockheed would provide to update the F-16 mission computer with the data.

In contrast, the CM-400AKG is a fire-and-forget ballistic missile with INS/GPS and simple terminal seeker; it needs only basic pylon power and release cues (like dumb bombs or APKWS), so it works on MiG-29 or F-16 with minimal SMS tables and no mid-course datalink or track handoff. There is no issue of “compatibility” for the Mig-29 as you claim so long as a tablet interface can provide any initial launch parameters.
 
Oscar said:
F-16s cannot use the PL-15 in basic functions
- I am sure something is being lost in translation as you are actually now contradicting your own posts in which you talked about so called source code(which was also false).
The PL-15 requires radar data in the format it excepts OR datalink data to be able to at least know which target to go after.
Click to expand...
Regarding the "source code" issue in our previous discussion, I've already explained it. This is a typical background bias.
We often omit a lot of explanation when chatting. In our common usage, "source code" level usually refers to high-level permissions involving access to the source code, not submitting the source code to a user.

Regarding the issue of weapon integration for fighter jets, L1-L4 is an analysis method.
L1: Launch Integration
L2: Fire Control Integration
L3: Mid-course Data Link Integration
L4: Networked / System Integration

Sometimes, it's also divided into L1-L5.
L1: Mechanical Carriage
L2: Electrical Release
L3: Fire Control Integration
L4: Networked Weapon Integration
L5: System-of-Systems Integration

I usually prefer the L1-L4 classification method.

The ICD you mentioned is an internationally accepted method. In cross-system weapon integration (fighter jets and armaments are not in the same system):

L1: ICD may not be needed at all.
L2: Without an ICD, functionality is limited.
L3: An ICD is required. The higher the ICD's authorization level, the more complete the functionality and performance.
L4: Obtaining full ICD permissions is a prerequisite. However, even with full ICD permissions, full capabilities cannot be achieved.
To achieve full Level 4 capability, an organization with "source code level" operational authority must be involved in weapon adaptation.

To date, there are no real-world examples of cross-system integration of fighter jets and weapon systems globally that have reached Level 4. Even with the extremely close relationship between the US and Israel, Israel has been unable to achieve this level of capability in its domestically produced weapons on US-made fighter jets.

Fighter jet exporting countries typically remove Level 4 weapon integration capabilities from the hardware when exporting their aircraft.

Since the 2010s, China has been undertaking large-scale system-of-systems construction across its entire military. Since then, the vast majority of its weapon systems have incorporated system-of-systems operational thinking into their design phase. This logic is deeply rooted in the entire Chinese weapon system.

Note: "System-of-systems warfare" is a US military term. When I type "体系化作战" into Chinese, the translation software automatically translates it as "System-of-systems warfare." However, the two are not entirely the same; their thought processes are very different.
The JF-17 series fighter jets are a global exception. Its underlying core logic is a Chinese system, its surface is similar to the Western NATO system, and its operating habits and functions are entirely designed according to the logic of PAF.

It is feasible to directly control the launch of PL-15 air-to-air missiles from an F-16 fighter jet via an external hardpoint system, bypassing the F-16's fire control system and mission computer. However, some of its advanced functions would be unavailable.
However, we can use other platforms (other Chinese fighter jets, AWACS aircraft, UAVs, etc.) to perform mid-course guidance.
This is purely a technical analysis. Pakistan itself does not need to adopt this approach. The political environments in Pakistan and China are also unlikely to allow for this solution.
Oscar said:
In contrast, the CM-400AKG is a fire-and-forget ballistic missile with INS/GPS and simple terminal seeker; it needs only basic pylon power and release cues (like dumb bombs or APKWS), so it works on MiG-29 or F-16 with minimal SMS tables and no mid-course datalink or track handoff. There is no issue of “compatibility” for the Mig-29 as you claim so long as a tablet interface can provide any initial launch parameters.
Click to expand...
The CM-400AKG isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be.

The CM-400AKG, known as the "万能弹(all-purpose missile)" by Chinese military enthusiasts, possesses a variety of warheads designed for different purposes. The requirements for the launch and control platforms differ significantly depending on the warhead used. When the control capabilities of the fighter jet's launch platform are limited, it can also be guided and controlled via a Chinese-style UAV system.

Based on currently available information, the CM-400AKG has three publicly disclosed warheads:

Blast-Fragmentation – This warhead has the lowest technical requirements for the launch platform. (L1)
Pentation HE – This warhead has moderate technical requirements for the launch platform. (L2)
Passive Radar – This warhead has moderate to high technical requirements for the launch platform. (L2-L3)
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
Regarding the "source code" issue in our previous discussion, I've already explained it. This is a typical background bias.
We often omit a lot of explanation when chatting. In our common usage, "source code" level usually refers to high-level permissions involving access to the source code, not submitting the source code to a user.

Regarding the issue of weapon integration for fighter jets, L1-L4 is an analysis method.
L1: Launch Integration
L2: Fire Control Integration
L3: Mid-course Data Link Integration
L4: Networked / System Integration

Sometimes, it's also divided into L1-L5.
L1: Mechanical Carriage
L2: Electrical Release
L3: Fire Control Integration
L4: Networked Weapon Integration
L5: System-of-Systems Integration

I usually prefer the L1-L4 classification method.

The ICD you mentioned is an internationally accepted method. In cross-system weapon integration (fighter jets and armaments are not in the same system):

L1: ICD may not be needed at all.
L2: Without an ICD, functionality is limited.
L3: An ICD is required. The higher the ICD's authorization level, the more complete the functionality and performance.
L4: Obtaining full ICD permissions is a prerequisite. However, even with full ICD permissions, full capabilities cannot be achieved.
To achieve full Level 4 capability, an organization with "source code level" operational authority must be involved in weapon adaptation.

To date, there are no real-world examples of cross-system integration of fighter jets and weapon systems globally that have reached Level 4. Even with the extremely close relationship between the US and Israel, Israel has been unable to achieve this level of capability in its domestically produced weapons on US-made fighter jets.

Fighter jet exporting countries typically remove Level 4 weapon integration capabilities from the hardware when exporting their aircraft.

Since the 2010s, China has been undertaking large-scale system-of-systems construction across its entire military. Since then, the vast majority of its weapon systems have incorporated system-of-systems operational thinking into their design phase. This logic is deeply rooted in the entire Chinese weapon system.

Note: "System-of-systems warfare" is a US military term. When I type "体系化作战" into Chinese, the translation software automatically translates it as "System-of-systems warfare." However, the two are not entirely the same; their thought processes are very different.
The JF-17 series fighter jets are a global exception. Its underlying core logic is a Chinese system, its surface is similar to the Western NATO system, and its operating habits and functions are entirely designed according to the logic of PAF.

It is feasible to directly control the launch of PL-15 air-to-air missiles from an F-16 fighter jet via an external hardpoint system, bypassing the F-16's fire control system and mission computer. However, some of its advanced functions would be unavailable.
However, we can use other platforms (other Chinese fighter jets, AWACS aircraft, UAVs, etc.) to perform mid-course guidance.
This is purely a technical analysis. Pakistan itself does not need to adopt this approach. The political environments in Pakistan and China are also unlikely to allow for this solution.

The CM-400AKG isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be.

The CM-400AKG, known as the "万能弹(all-purpose missile)" by Chinese military enthusiasts, possesses a variety of warheads designed for different purposes. The requirements for the launch and control platforms differ significantly depending on the warhead used. When the control capabilities of the fighter jet's launch platform are limited, it can also be guided and controlled via a Chinese-style UAV system.

Based on currently available information, the CM-400AKG has three publicly disclosed warheads:

Blast-Fragmentation – This warhead has the lowest technical requirements for the launch platform. (L1)
Pentation HE – This warhead has moderate technical requirements for the launch platform. (L2)
Passive Radar – This warhead has moderate to high technical requirements for the launch platform. (L2-L3)
Click to expand...
Respectfully:

As discussed before these LEVELS DO NOT EXIST in any official or unofficial mechanism. Perhaps it is a LLM hallucination but NO MANUFACTURER or global standards talk to these level and I see no reason to discuss something I don’t consider valid other than a personal concept for you.
It is also irrelevant information to the discussion because it adds nothing to the actual technical issue here.

The rest of your post seems also tangential to me so I am not sure where we are losing context but in the end PL-15 cannot be used natively with F-16 and is essentially a waste if used with a tablet. The CM-400 can be used with any jet capable of carrying it with safe separation with a tablet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 26 (members: 2, guests: 24)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top