Still not what I am looking for: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p28-293761.xml

When asked about data links to tie F-16s to JF-17s, Qamar says Pakistan is working to develop its own solution. “We have Link 16 on the F-16s. We will not fiddle with Link 16 and not have direct linkages [between the JF-17s] with the F-16” He says an indigenous tactical data link is being worked on. It will send information from the JF-17 to a ground station where there will be an interface, he says, adding there will be a short delay, and then the information will be sent to the F-16s.

Erieye will not data link to chinese types in PAF service according to official reports, so any control between the JF-17 and Erieye fleet will be voice only. On the other hand the PAF is inducting the ZDK-03 AWACS which will have a datalink capability with their Chinese types.

No, the PAF said they Erieye will link with some other interface (ground control centre) with will in turn link with the JF-17. It will not be voice only.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/jf17interview.html

A ‘tactical data link’ system, which will be integrated with the other air-borne and ground-based sensors, will also be available to provide comprehensive ‘situational awareness’ to the pilot. The aircraft will also be equipped with IRSTS, CLDP, and Helmet Mounted Display to provide all weather operations capability in all types of environments.

My thinking is, it is just a start. I foresee the numbers at least doubling 2-3 years. They are just trying to induct slowly, manage the finances and also cause less panic!

I would not call it “point defence” when it has a ROA of 1,200km, which is more than the Gripen.

The RD-93 on offer is based on the RD-33, Series 3. Note the brochure says “modenised RD-33” and “98kN”.

Here is a very old article that I came across yesterday and found it very interesting. It is from here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%202730.html

I am thinking both side have not stood still and while there has been changes, I am thinking “not much” relatively speaking.

As far as Italian avionics are concerned, I’ve only seen it mentioned in that story no where else so I can’t comment on it, but then why again is PAC Kamra license manufacturing KLJ-7 sets?
The Italian avionics were used on PT-1 including Grifo S-7 but were dropped.

I believe the Falcon S7 radar being offered by the Chinese (here http://www.catic.com.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=928&columnid=2123&cpid=1656&columnType=102&likeType=list&ckw=AR&language=US ) is very likely a version of Grifo S7, I guess being offered as an alternative to the KLJ-7. A lot of F-7s were sold with Grifo radars (e.g. Namibia and Bangladesh). They could follow the same formula for the FC-1.

If you consider that for the first batch of JF-17, we are talking of 50 planes, the manufacturing (assembly) is likely very manual by relatively highly skilled techinicians. It is not mass production. I therefore believe making say 60 radars (with 10 spares) and switching to 50 or 100 of another type will not be that difficult.

Just my thinking!

92 km for 3 sq m target.Nothing at all to brag about.J 10 is a “okay” aircraft.Flankers (Indian and Chinese) are better.Even M2K with RDY is far better.

KLJ-7 and the 92km for 3sqm are for the FC-1/JF-17.