Pakistan Air Force [PAF] News and Discussions

Ananda said:
www.thedrive.com

China’s First Export J-10 Multi-Role Fighters For Pakistan Emerge (Updated)

The long-anticipated Pakistani order for the J-10 is widely seen as a counter to India’s new Dassault Rafale fighters.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Yes seems it is already in several twitter, thus online media put it. @SABRE do you think it is the actual PAF order, or PLAN inventory being loan to PAF first. Just curious as it is very fast delivery. Perhaps PAF got some initial delivery coming from PLAN production batch.

Also if the speculations on those twitter on engine are true, then it is J-10C as Chinese source say this is the version that used WS-10 Taihang.
Click to expand...

It is J-10C, that I am sure of. Buying the previous version defeats the purpose of acquiring these jets. I am unsure about the engine but more than likely it's WS-10. I'll have to do some digging around.
 
Is total # of J-10C (call it first batch) still 36 as many in Pakistan forum and online blogs put ? If Pakistan want to replace all Mirage and F-7, at least need 120 of new fighters.
 
Ananda said:
Is total # of J-10C (call it first batch) still 36 as many in Pakistan forum and online blogs put ? If Pakistan want to replace all Mirage and F-7, at least need 120 of new fighters.
Click to expand...

My hunch is that the number of J-10s would increase. Can't say how much though.
 
What data links does the PAF use? I'm assuming the Eriyes are connected to the
F-16s via Link 16 but what about the Chinese fighters?
 
Integrating Link 17 to Eriye and the F-16s would have been problematic integration and certification wise; even assuming that permission was granted. I'm guessing that Link 16 is used for the Eriye/F-16 combo and Link 17 for certain non Western stuff. This would mean that the PAF has 2 data links and would raise the question of how Eriye can ''talk'' to the JF-17s and other non Western assets.

Since we're on the subject of data links it's worth pointing out that Sweden was a data link pioneer. It had data links as far back as the 1960's and was using them more extensively than certain NATO countries during that period. Also, until only about a decade ago [or slightly more] Eriye was offered for export with only a Swedish data link. It was only integrated with Link 16 to make it more appealing for export customers. For that matter Eriye in Swedish service was originally intended to be an airborne sensor hub; linking various sensors together; not as a AEW platform per see. There was an article in Air Forces Monthly on this some years back.
 
Pretty common for armed forces to use multiple data links.

Saab built Link T (link) for Thailand, linking their Erieye systems with the Gripens and other assets (frigates that were upgraded with Saab's 9LV combat systems). Even the Philippines has a mix of Link-P (developed by the Koreans), Link-16 for the F/A-50 and there are plans / group that are researching developing their own domestic, national TDL. Typically, there would be a gateway system to integrate the different links.
 
Last edited:

Major contract for the Indonesian Armed Forces’ Interoperability, Command & Control System – Scytalys

www.scytalys.com www.scytalys.com

This is link from Greece C4ISR contractor Scytalys that working with Indonesian MinDef to build multi gate link system. I have put this link in Indonesian thread some time ago. Put it in here shown how militarybsystem vendors working on centralise interoperability framework for various multi link system.

In some way, many financial institutions (as example) with wide operation network already done similar way on developing various system interconnected. If commercial sectors vendors can integrate many link system, I don't see it will be real trouble for military vendors doing similar thing.

An Indonesian defense blog put this graphic I don't know if this is officials or not, however the concept has similarities with what Scytalys officials site.

FM2AsnoVUAMQo1l.jpeg

So whether Pakistan, Philipines or Indonesia, building multi link system to talk each other is not an impossible thing to do.
 
Ananda said:
So whether Pakistan, Philipines or Indonesia, building multi link system to talk each other is not an impossible thing to do.
Click to expand...

Of that I have no doubt. A key question that remains - for me at least - is how the PAF's Eriye's will be able to talk to both the F-16s and China's fighters, given it's unlikely that Eriye will be fitted with 2 different data links. Also, if say the F-16s have Link 16 and the Chinese fighters a different data link, how do both 'talk'?

I understand that there are technical.solutions to enable different day links to ''talk'' to each other but the ideal solution would be for all the PAF's fighters to be linked to Eriye, ground based radar and each other via a common data link.
 
STURM said:
understand that there are technical.solutions to enable different day links to ''talk'' to each other but the ideal solution would be for all the PAF's fighters to be linked to Eriye, ground based radar and each other via a common data link.
Click to expand...

That's where the Multi Gateway Link System coming from. That's already common in Banking system, as many Banks build their system from various vendors that not all of them using uniform link system or even similar data languages. However by through multi gateway link system, those multiple systems can talk each other. Similar thing can be build also on Defense.

That's where vendors like Scytalys coming from. Yes it means different link system can only talk with each other through this multi gateway. It will create some lag, but we are only talk on seconds in here.

If you procured your system from various vendors, the difference of link system will happen. It is impossible to ask each vendors to build their systems using uniform link. That can not happen in commercial worlds let alone on defense worlds. So they are using the second best way, by building multi gateway system to integrate their overall systems into one network.
 
Ananda said:
That's where the Multi Gateway Link System coming from. That's already common in Banking system, as many Banks build their system from various vendors that not all of them using uniform link system or even similar data languages. However by through multi gateway link system, those multiple systems can talk each other. Similar thing can be build also on Defense.

That's where vendors like Scytalys coming from. Yes it means different link system can only talk with each other through this multi gateway. It will create some lag, but we are only talk on seconds in here.

If you procured your system from various vendors, the difference of link system will happen. It is impossible to ask each vendors to build their systems using uniform link. That can not happen in commercial worlds let alone on defense worlds. So they are using the second best way, by building multi gateway system to integrate their overall systems into one network.
Click to expand...
So with other words, it should be possible for a Saab 2000 AEW&C to communicate with F-16, JF-17 and Mirage V or CN235-220MPA with 737-2X9 Surveiller, F-16, T-50, Rafale and Su-27/30?
 
Sandhi Yudha said:
should be possible for a Saab 2000 AEW&C to communicate with F-16, JF-17 and Mirage V or CN235-220MPA with 737-2X9 Surveiller, F-16, T-50, Rafale and Su-27/30?
Click to expand...

Technically it will all depend on how good the Multi Gateway Link system they are building. No doubt the more systems have similarities in basic languages, the easier it will be. The Gateway basically the centralised system that interprete and convert each system language, in order to talk to each other.

So without the gateway, each systems actually still not able to talk with each other. The gateway that feeding them on information from one link to another. In someway (this is what I got from my IT vendors), the gateway is kind of Star Trek Universal Interpretator (he's a bit of scifi geek, just like me ;)). Each link system actually talk through the gateway, and not directly. That's why I said before, there will be some lags. However good gateways will make the lags only in split seconds.
 
Last edited:
Ananda said:
Technically it will all depend on how good the Multi Gateway Link system they are building. No doubt the more systems have similarities in basic languages, the easier it will be. ...
Click to expand...
Language doesn't matter. What matters is that they have common interfaces. Consider this: you make a phone call, or send an email, to someone in another country. It'll go through multiple systems en route, & there is no agreement on the languages they're programmed in or how they work internally. The data interfaces are very strictly controlled though: they absolutely have to work together.

And when you're abroad, & make a phone call, the local network you connect to will send a bill to your network provider. I used to deal with that stuff for a living. The systems that call, its charging data, etc. would go through used multiple languages, & they sometimes changed, but the data interfaces between the systems of company A in country X & company B in country Y were all the same, thought they went through a big change in the early 2000s. We had to do some rewriting to cope with that.
 
Interesting to see Turkey making in-roads to a client that was traditionally either the US, or China.

Their internal "Azm" program never made much technological or financial sense, and it was always considered PAF to be the eventual customer for the Chinese J-35/FC-31. A reported production line in Pakistan would give them a similar arrangement with the JF-17.

Turkey to engage Pakistan over officially joining Kaan project

The Turkish government has announced that Pakistan may officially join its fifth-generation Turkish Aerospace (TA) Kaan fighter aircraft programme.
www.janes.com
 
koxinga said:
Interesting to see Turkey making in-roads to a client that was traditionally either the US, or China.

Their internal "Azm" program never made much technological or financial sense, and it was always considered PAF to be the eventual customer for the Chinese J-35/FC-31. A reported production line in Pakistan would give them a similar arrangement with the JF-17.

Turkey to engage Pakistan over officially joining Kaan project

The Turkish government has announced that Pakistan may officially join its fifth-generation Turkish Aerospace (TA) Kaan fighter aircraft programme.
www.janes.com
Click to expand...
If the J-35/FC-31 is actually CATOBAR capable then certainly the PLAN would be a major customer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top