Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
The rumor is the WS13 is externally identical to the RD93, so it is impossible to independently verify those claims. I think that is very 'convenient' for the people spreading these rumors, so that naturally causes me to be cautious with the rumors.
I would've like to see the WS-13 Taishan with certain exterior changes. Not so much superficial, rather something more functional. In particular, the petals of the engine, be more on the lines of (not the same) WS-10 Taihang's. Considering that this is a Chinese engine, it would be prudent to distinguish what is Chinese, from what is Russian. Also, it gives the aircraft, powered by the WS-13 Taishan engine, a more identifiable look.
How recent was the news? As I have already mentioned, PT06 was last seen flying on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only. I must admit that I have not been keeping a close watch on the JF17 program lately, but I would have expected to have heard about such a test. How reliable is this news you heard?
Posted by Magnus of Pakistani Defense Forum,
Ottomh, I remember chatter about the PAF asking for an increase in the max warload, but that was more about clearing the centerline hardpoint for a C802 so the JF17 could carry 3 missiles each. I do not recall anything on beefing up the wings or additional hard points (there just doesn't seem to be room tbh).
If they did request that, then it does make sense. Since the JF-17 Thunder is to become the work-horse of Pakistan Air Force, it would require greater flexibility in performing various missions. A smaller payload, limits the fighter-jet's ability to conduct a variety of missions. For instance, a smaller payload, reduces the fighter-jet's ability to carry more weapons at a greater range, as three hard-points would already be used by drop-tanks for range. Which in turn limits the fighter-jet from carrying more weapons.
Re-designing the wing-size to make it larger and upgrading the wings with stress-wires to carry a greater payload, are aspects that the experts at CAC would like to explore with PAC personnel. This would not only allow the fighter-jet to take full advantage of the future block-upgrades, but also reflect the necessity of the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong to have a more powerful, efficient and durable power-plant, such as the WS-13 Taishan engine.
I haven't seen any pictures to show JF17s with twin missile racks, although they have had twin bomb racks for some time now, and if the PAF is interested, it should be a relatively straight forward and quick task to clear the JF17 for twin missile racks like those recently seen on J10s.
Indeed, I haven't seen it either. But as you said, using the same twin-rack for Air-to-Air Missiles, as used on the J-10, would give the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiolong the ability to carry a greater missile payload, for Air-Superiority missions.
I assume you are talking about a canted nose? If so, then possibly they may redesign the radome, but not necessarily as it is perfectly feasible to add AESA radar without a canted nose as the F18E, Japanese F2 and F15 have shown. Adding a canted nose would be advantageous as that would increase the array size, but it's not a deal breaker if the nose isn't redesigned. But it is a relatively minor and straight forward mod that it shouldn't really even be an issue.
Now that you make the point, I have to say, I do agree.
As you mentioned F/A-18 Super Hornet, I couldn't help but recalling the background on this fighter-jet. The Super Hornet was derived from it's original variant, the F-18 A/C/B/D Hornet. The aircraft's over all design and shape remains the same in the Super Hornet, but what the US Navy did achieve was to increase the size, fuel capacity, range and payload of the aircraft type.
What are the chances that CAC and PAC might look into that, as a future variant of the JF-17/FC-1. This would not only increase the fighter-jet's marketing, but also lock in prospective customers and we may actually have our first international military deal with one of the countries around the world?
WRT the timeframe, well I think that is rather dependent on the PAF based on their requirements and budgets. If they had the funds, they could have commissioned one of China's top radar firms to custom design them a set and that will be available in the shortest amount of time possible and build exactly to their specs. But I think the PAF prefers to have radar makers pitch designed to them, and that will take longer as the firms will have to front the cost themselves to build prototypes, and will also be mainly focused on PLAAF contracts, so any AESA they pitch to the PAF will likely be a scaled down version they have pitched to the PLAAF for the J10B, which might not be ideal for the PAF.
I hope that it happens in due time. People don't realize the amount of work, research, data-analysis and testing that goes into developing and manufacturing a fighter-jet.
However, the J31 programme might be a big boost to the JF17's AESA aspirations, since the AESA for the J31 should be a similar size as one that would fit the JF17, so the PAF might get a pick of AESAs designed from the ground up for a fighter like the JF17 instead of being a scaled down version of a larger design.
Indeed, I hope it does. At the moment, Pakistan Air Force's priority is the JF-17 Thunder and after that, the J-10B Dragon. The latter would be able to give Pakistan Air Force the AESA edge it needs, initially. And once the development, manufacturing and upgrades gradually start to integrate into the JF-17s. Then we would see a fleet wide use of AESA radars in Pakistan Air Force.
If the PAF is happy with a scaled down radar, 2015-17 is entirely reasonable, and may prove to be conservative, but if they want a radar developed for the J31, they may have to wait longer.
So long as Pakistan Air Force is able to thwart aggression from the enemy, defend it's airspace and achieve Air-Dominance over it's airspace. I don't see why Pakistan Air Force wouldn't be happy with a scaled down version of the AESA radar.
