Azerbaijan Pakistan sold JF-17C Block-III worth 1.6 billion USD to Azerbaijan

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,494
Reactions
111 19,247
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Azerbaijan does not have many options, in an Ideal world Azerbaijan would acquire F-16s, as its two closest defense partners(Turkey and Pakistan) also use F-16s, so there is extensive familiarity and Turkish origin F-16 munitions and sensors could be ported over.

Unfortunately, The Armenian lobby will not allow the US congress to approve any sales of US aircraft, nor will it allow any aircraft with US engines or subcomponents to be sold to Azerbaijan. So the F-16, Gripen, Korean T-50 are all off the table. The French will obviously not sell Azerbaijan a Rafale, so thats off the table. The UK might want to sell the Eurofighter, but Germany will in al likelihood be opposed and block. The Tejas India would refuse(not that Azerbaijan would buy either way), plus it has a US Engine. Other various aircraft producers also either use US engines or their fighters are still in development, so not yet viable.

This leaves only 2 options Russia and China. While Azerbaijan operated the Mig-29 and has significant familiarity with Russian Aircraft due to soviet part, this is not exactly the ideal solution b/c of proximity and reliance on Russia, particularly with the regional politics, Russia would be hesitant to sell anything that would change the balance of power between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as potentially being a liability if any tension with Azerbaijan happened. Azerbaijan would also be reliant on Russia for support of any platform.

So the only logical answer left is CHINA. As of right now, China has two options for aircraft available for export. the JF-17 Block 3 and the J-10C.

Both are good choices with their own unique upsides. If money were not an issue, between these 2, the J-10C would be the perfect choice, as its in the same class as the F-16s that Turkey flies, and many munitions can be ported over.

The JF-17 Block 3, while not as capable as the J-10C, provides incredible capabilities when you factor in the price point. While it doesn't have the payload capacity of the J-10C, it has many similar sensors and weapons packages.

Good to see you here hyperman.
 

zio

Well-known member
Messages
331
Reactions
4 469
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Azerbaijan doing right for fighters of pakistan origin,but they purchase from turkey nothing except some uavs and munutions of it,no one cannot say that Turkey could not sell military goods,we are aware of it,I hope one day they will understand who was the friend Russia,Israel,Belarus,Sırbistan,but it would be too late.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,869
Reactions
11,994
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Azerbaijan doing right for fighters of pakistan origin,but they purchase from turkey nothing except some uavs and munutions of it,no one cannot say that Turkey could not sell military goods,we are aware of it,I hope one day they will understand who was the friend Russia,Israel,Belarus,Sırbistan,but it would be too late.
What do you mean by this post?
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,869
Reactions
11,994
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Maybe that Azerbaijan doesn’t buy much from Turkiye. I kind of agree with that.
So,what do you think we can offer them better then others(needed equipment)?
Azerbaijan needs fighter jets,we cant offer those for now.
We have turned the Azerbaijani Army into a NATO doctrine force,sent all kinds of equipment.

Read this,

Conclusion​


The technologies of Turkish and Israeli origin used in the 2020 war in NK are associated with the automation of targeting and attacking functions. Such features made these weapons a relatively low-cost yet significant threat to Armenia, which did not possess them. The Turkish-Azerbaijani military plan in NK was based on Soviet and American origin doctrines adopted by Turkish experts considering modern technologies.


With constant monitoring and procurement analysis of Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia would not have much chance because traditional procurement analysis is no longer relevant since states can purchase “all-inclusive” packages. The survey experts believe that Azerbaijan was much better prepared for the war than its enemy because its spending on weapons was more meaningful than Armenia, and its planning was more thorough. With the “all-inclusive” package purchase, Azerbaijan saved time and effort on studying the experience of war in the Middle East since Turkey carried out all this work. According to Borchert et al., there is a new trend, called “War as a Service” – a modern political and strategic business model that stimulates military power transfer on a government-to-government basis.[27] For the current case study, the term “all-inclusive” was used because it included a package of services delivered by Turkey, to which Azerbaijan owes the victory and for which it certainly paid.



 

I_Love_F16

Contributor
France Correspondent
Messages
765
Reactions
10 1,594
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
So,what do you think we can offer them better then others(needed equipment)?
Azerbaijan needs fighter jets,we cant offer those for now.
We have turned the Azerbaijani Army into a NATO doctrine force,sent all kinds of equipment.

Read this,

Conclusion​


The technologies of Turkish and Israeli origin used in the 2020 war in NK are associated with the automation of targeting and attacking functions. Such features made these weapons a relatively low-cost yet significant threat to Armenia, which did not possess them. The Turkish-Azerbaijani military plan in NK was based on Soviet and American origin doctrines adopted by Turkish experts considering modern technologies.


With constant monitoring and procurement analysis of Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia would not have much chance because traditional procurement analysis is no longer relevant since states can purchase “all-inclusive” packages. The survey experts believe that Azerbaijan was much better prepared for the war than its enemy because its spending on weapons was more meaningful than Armenia, and its planning was more thorough. With the “all-inclusive” package purchase, Azerbaijan saved time and effort on studying the experience of war in the Middle East since Turkey carried out all this work. According to Borchert et al., there is a new trend, called “War as a Service” – a modern political and strategic business model that stimulates military power transfer on a government-to-government basis.[27] For the current case study, the term “all-inclusive” was used because it included a package of services delivered by Turkey, to which Azerbaijan owes the victory and for which it certainly paid.




So we did send them a lot of things … Interesting.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,451
Reactions
30 4,295
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
What would happen in case of İran-Azerbaidjan -Türkiye conflict? Pakistan would supply Azerbaijan with fighters which has Russian engines, Chinese avionics, weapons.

So China would support those fighters, if Azerbaijan were in war against Iran?


Zengezur Operation is likely next conflict in the middleeast.

İf Azerbaijan buys some used Israeli F-16I SUFAs, it will be best solution.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,869
Reactions
11,994
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
What would happen in case of İran-Azerbaidjan -Türkiye conflict? Pakistan would supply Azerbaijan with fighters which has Russian engines, Chinese avionics, weapons.

So China would support those fighters, if Azerbaijan were in war against Iran?


Zengezur Operation is likely next conflict in the middleeast.

İf Azerbaijan buys some used Israeli F-16I SUFAs, it will be best solution.
And you think Iran would risk alienating Türkiye?
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,451
Reactions
30 4,295
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
And you think Iran would risk alienating Türkiye?
İt depends on different factors.

If Zangazur corridor ignites in Iran separatist movement, or if Azerbaijan and Türkiye desire to liberate south Azerbaijan, İran will do everything for its national security.


I have a feeling that there might be a war which would make happy both Israel and USA.
 
Last edited:

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,738
Reactions
85 17,664
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
İt depends on different factors.

If Zangazur corridor ignites in Iran separatist movement, or if Azerbaijan and Türkiye desire to liberate south Azerbaijan, İran will do everything for its national security.


I have a feeling that there might be a war which would make happy both Israel and USA.
Even if some kind of standoff occur with Iran, it will be a short time show of deterrence with limited damage. I don't think Iran will risk going into an all out war with Turkiye, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Short time standoff, global powers intervention, negotiations, back to status quo.

The problem will be the asymmetric response of Iran that can continue for years which will target Turkish and Azerbaijani interests all around the Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia.
 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
Regarding the possibilities of integrating Turkish weapons and avionics (which would basically mean replaing the Chinese counterparts) onto Jeff, can the Pakistani members, or any memebrs in general in the know teach me some details regarding the cooperative framework between Pakistan and China in the JF-17 program?

Such as, are their disclosed information regarding what each countries and its respective industrial representitives are allowed to do with the technology and aircraft? Detailed workshare figures?

All I know is that the development cost of the first version of the aircraft was split almost half and half by the Pakistani and Chinese, and that the original workshare agreements specify a 58% share of airframe structure to be produced by PAC and the rest being supplied from China as SKD. Though this leaves out workshare of avionics.

Since Aselpod is integrated onto Jeff, I can definitely see that the doors are open for the foreign stores and external equipments to be integrated, but if the framework agreements doesn't allow for it, I can't see a version of Jeff of which the current Chinese avionics are replace by a similar equipment of another country.

For example, the Korean government, KAI and LM have outlined the details of how to classify technologies used and created for and by the KTX-II program when they developed the T-50 and its variants. It classified technical datas into two classes (program data and background data) and have treated them differently.

For example, the F-16 SW documents and source codes used for the development were obviously defined as propery of LM, and was the Korean government and KAI had no rights to it. This applied to all "background data" provided by LM for the program. Same appies for the background data that were created by KAI prior to the program. LM had no right to it. It was also defined that LM(provided background data would only be used for the development of T-50 and its varriants, and nothing else.

Conversely, the Korena government had rights to the program data created during the KTX-II program, and granted rights to use to KAI.

There are more details to the framework agreement of the KTX-II program detailing what exactly are these datas and where they could be used, but I think one could see how the relationship between KAI and LM was very similar to that between PAC and CAIC.

As such, I am very certain that there would've been framework agreement between the Pakistani and Chinese government, PAC and CAIC detailing the ownership of IP and data, the rights to use them, where it could be used, as well as detailed workshare agreements etc. If any of these infos are public like in the case of T-50, we might be able to discuss if integrating Turkish avionica into JF-17 would be possible or not.

Though, as I've said above, I don't think such framework agreement would've left the room for the Pakistani part to take full control of the program.
 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
Regarding the possibilities of integrating Turkish weapons and avionics (which would basically mean replaing the Chinese counterparts) onto Jeff, can the Pakistani members, or any memebrs in general in the know teach me some details regarding the cooperative framework between Pakistan and China in the JF-17 program?

Such as, are their disclosed information regarding what each countries and its respective industrial representitives are allowed to do with the technology and aircraft? Detailed workshare figures?

All I know is that the development cost of the first version of the aircraft was split almost half and half by the Pakistani and Chinese, and that the original workshare agreements specify a 58% share of airframe structure to be produced by PAC and the rest being supplied from China as SKD. Though this leaves out workshare of avionics.

Since Aselpod is integrated onto Jeff, I can definitely see that the doors are open for the foreign stores and external equipments to be integrated, but if the framework agreements doesn't allow for it, I can't see a version of Jeff of which the current Chinese avionics are replace by a similar equipment of another country.

For example, the Korean government, KAI and LM have outlined the details of how to classify technologies used and created for and by the KTX-II program when they developed the T-50 and its variants. It classified technical datas into two classes (program data and background data) and have treated them differently.

For example, the F-16 SW documents and source codes used for the development were obviously defined as propery of LM, and was the Korean government and KAI had no rights to it. This applied to all "background data" provided by LM for the program. Same appies for the background data that were created by KAI prior to the program. LM had no right to it. It was also defined that LM(provided background data would only be used for the development of T-50 and its varriants, and nothing else.

Conversely, the Korena government had rights to the program data created during the KTX-II program, and granted rights to use to KAI.

There are more details to the framework agreement of the KTX-II program detailing what exactly are these datas and where they could be used, but I think one could see how the relationship between KAI and LM was very similar to that between PAC and CAIC.

As such, I am very certain that there would've been framework agreement between the Pakistani and Chinese government, PAC and CAIC detailing the ownership of IP and data, the rights to use them, where it could be used, as well as detailed workshare agreements etc. If any of these infos are public like in the case of T-50, we might be able to discuss if integrating Turkish avionica into JF-17 would be possible or not.

Though, as I've said above, I don't think such framework agreement would've left the room for the Pakistani part to take full control of the program.
Continuing from this, details about the development cost and workshare agreement for the block 2 and 3 aircrafts seemse to be very scarce. Can someone fill me in here as well? On top of that, are there any indigenous efforts to develop critical avionics?

For example, T-50 and ita varriants in the beginning were controlled by LM supplied mission computers and FBW system, which were later replaced by indigenous systems, that were developed separately from KTX-II program (also making them not subject to IP and data ownership and usage agreements of KTX-II program).

I've read somewhere thay early on in the program, Pakistanis have decided to separate avionics development and integratiom from the airframe design and development program, which again, is remarkably similar to what Kore did with KTX-II. If so, I coukd see the possibility of Pakistani indigenous (or joint program with Turkiye for) avionics develeolment as well, though as with other parts of the program, detailed infos are scarce.


Sadly, most surface level info in the web are either Pakistani or Indiam chauvinist trolls being trolls, and Chinese and Pakistank forums with relevant threads are dozens of pages long, which I'm quite certain I wouldn't fin much informarion about the things I am looking for.

So if possible, I would be very grateful if you share what you know with me and others in the forum.

@Bilal Khan(Quwa)
@VCheng
@Kaptaan
@Waz
@Fatman17
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,451
Reactions
30 4,295
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Short time standoff, global powers intervention, negotiations, back to status quo.

Si vis pacem para bellum:)

Deterrence will come from your inventory.


As you now NATO praised our relationship. I don't know if Israel would sell SOUFAs to Azerbaijan since they are Jews:))))
 

Bilal Khan(Quwa) 

Active member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
73
Reactions
3 228
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Continuing from this, details about the development cost and workshare agreement for the block 2 and 3 aircrafts seemse to be very scarce. Can someone fill me in here as well? On top of that, are there any indigenous efforts to develop critical avionics?

For example, T-50 and ita varriants in the beginning were controlled by LM supplied mission computers and FBW system, which were later replaced by indigenous systems, that were developed separately from KTX-II program (also making them not subject to IP and data ownership and usage agreements of KTX-II program).

I've read somewhere thay early on in the program, Pakistanis have decided to separate avionics development and integratiom from the airframe design and development program, which again, is remarkably similar to what Kore did with KTX-II. If so, I coukd see the possibility of Pakistani indigenous (or joint program with Turkiye for) avionics develeolment as well, though as with other parts of the program, detailed infos are scarce.


Sadly, most surface level info in the web are either Pakistani or Indiam chauvinist trolls being trolls, and Chinese and Pakistank forums with relevant threads are dozens of pages long, which I'm quite certain I wouldn't fin much informarion about the things I am looking for.

So if possible, I would be very grateful if you share what you know with me and others in the forum.

@Bilal Khan(Quwa)
@VCheng
@Kaptaan
@Waz
@Fatman17
Unfortunately, information of this depth isn't available in public channels. That said, I do think a 'rearrangement' may be on the cards over the next several years.

There's a 'JF-17 PFX' program (likely 'Pakistan Fighter Experimental'). I theorize that the PFX could be the PAF's play to bring the entire JF-17 production line in-house as it would be the most assured and economical way of supporting the PAF's JF-17 fleet in the long-term, especially through the 2030s and beyond.

Basically, with the J-10CE and J-31, AVIC has no need to market the JF-17. Originally, it had envisioned the JF-17 as a good replacement for MiG-21 and F-7-type aircraft, but the market has not resonated in the way AVIC or the PAF expected. In actuality, not a lot of countries need a fighter like the JF-17, and the ones that do - i.e., South Korea and India - have developed their own. It's a niche requirement. However, if there was any additional scope in the market, I think KAI has largely taken it over with the FA-50, which offers air forces that high-technology, low-cost multirole fighter solution while still aligning with Western technology and concepts.

For AVIC, the market opportunity likely rests on promoting high-capability solutions like the J-10CE and J-31, for which ITAR-free options are few and far between. States like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, etc., will likely prefer those solutions as it'll give them next-gen fighter capabilities at a competitive price.

So, for AVIC, the JF-17 is likely bordering on deadweight. Thus, I think talks may be happening between AVIC and the PAF to transfer the entire JF-17 program to PAC. There's no loss for AVIC as the PAF is firmly committed to the J-10CE, committed to the J-31, and is rumoured to be negotiating for the L-15B. So, transferring the JF-17 to Pakistan won't result in AVIC losing future sales in the PAF; quite the opposite.

Thus, I think a lot of what you're saying could ultimately happen, but through a JF-17 that is entirely built in Pakistan (with AVIC as more of a subcontractor for supplying necessary know-how and engineering support). 'JF-17 PFX' could potentially involve the development of a domestic flight control system, mission computers, HMI, and other inputs.

Despite their faults, the PAF leadership likely senses that their ability to import big-ticket items - esp. fighters - will get more constrained in the coming years. Thus, they need a locally sourced fighter that leverages as many domestic inputs as possible. As they already have a start with the JF-17, it makes sense to build upon it by pursuing a turnkey manufacturing element plus, with time, indigenously sourced critical inputs.

TLDR: There's a 'JF-17 PFX' initiative that may reflect some of the ideas you've raised, and the contractual or IP-sharing roadblocks may be gone in a few years with AVIC selling its share in the JF-17 to the PAF so that PAC can manufacture the entire jet and manage the whole program independently.
 
Last edited:

Fatman17

Committed member
Messages
286
Reactions
9 588
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Continuing from this, details about the development cost and workshare agreement for the block 2 and 3 aircrafts seemse to be very scarce. Can someone fill me in here as well? On top of that, are there any indigenous efforts to develop critical avionics?

For example, T-50 and ita varriants in the beginning were controlled by LM supplied mission computers and FBW system, which were later replaced by indigenous systems, that were developed separately from KTX-II program (also making them not subject to IP and data ownership and usage agreements of KTX-II program).

I've read somewhere thay early on in the program, Pakistanis have decided to separate avionics development and integratiom from the airframe design and development program, which again, is remarkably similar to what Kore did with KTX-II. If so, I coukd see the possibility of Pakistani indigenous (or joint program with Turkiye for) avionics develeolment as well, though as with other parts of the program, detailed infos are scarce.


Sadly, most surface level info in the web are either Pakistani or Indiam chauvinist trolls being trolls, and Chinese and Pakistank forums with relevant threads are dozens of pages long, which I'm quite certain I wouldn't fin much informarion about the things I am looking for.

So if possible, I would be very grateful if you share what you know with me and others in the forum.

@Bilal Khan(Quwa)
@VCheng
@Kaptaan
@Waz
@Fatman17
Pakistan manufactures 50% of the JF-17 avionics which started in 2010 and I'm quite certain that the ratio has increased. HST I'll try and get more details about it.
 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
Unfortunately, information of this depth isn't available in public channels. That said, I do think a 'rearrangement' may be on the cards over the next several years.

There's a 'JF-17 PFX' program (likely 'Pakistan Fighter Experimental'). I theorize that the PFX could be the PAF's play to bring the entire JF-17 production line in-house as it would be the most assured and economical way of supporting the PAF's JF-17 fleet in the long-term, especially through the 2030s and beyond.

Basically, with the J-10CE and J-31, AVIC has no need to market the JF-17. Originally, it had envisioned the JF-17 as a good replacement for MiG-21 and F-7-type aircraft, but the market has not resonated in the way AVIC or the PAF expected. In actuality, not a lot of countries need a fighter like the JF-17, and the ones that do - i.e., South Korea and India - have developed their own. It's a niche requirement. However, if there was any additional scope in the market, I think KAI has largely taken it over with the FA-50, which offers air forces that high-technology, low-cost multirole fighter solution while still aligning with Western technology and concepts.

For AVIC, the market opportunity likely rests on promoting high-capability solutions like the J-10CE and J-31, for which ITAR-free options are few and far between. States like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, etc., will likely prefer those solutions as it'll give them next-gen fighter capabilities at a competitive price.

So, for AVIC, the JF-17 is likely bordering on deadweight. Thus, I think talks may be happening between AVIC and the PAF to transfer the entire JF-17 program to PAC. There's no loss for AVIC as the PAF is firmly committed to the J-10CE, committed to the J-31, and is rumoured to be negotiating for the L-15B. So, transferring the JF-17 to Pakistan won't result in AVIC losing future sales in the PAF; quite the opposite.

Thus, I think a lot of what you're saying could ultimately happen, but through a JF-17 that is entirely built in Pakistan (with AVIC as more of a subcontractor for supplying necessary know-how and engineering support). 'JF-17 PFX' could potentially involve the development of a domestic flight control system, mission computers, HMI, and other inputs.

Despite their faults, the PAF leadership likely senses that their ability to import big-ticket items - esp. fighters - will get more constrained in the coming years. Thus, they need a locally sourced fighter that leverages as many domestic inputs as possible. As they already have a start with the JF-17, it makes sense to build upon it by pursuing a turnkey manufacturing element plus, with time, indigenously sourced critical inputs.

TLDR: There's a 'JF-17 PFX' initiative that may reflect some of the ideas you've raised, and the contractual or IP-sharing roadblocks may be gone in a few years with AVIC selling its share in the JF-17 to the PAF so that PAC can manufacture the entire jet and manage the whole program independently.
Oh wow, I think those are some interesting assumptions.

Though, only going by what is actually known, it already is interesting that a program of sort called PFX exists. We'll be able to figure out what it is and how much it coincides with your guess in the coming years. Thanks for the heads up.

Pakistan manufactures 50% of the JF-17 avionics which started in 2010 and I'm quite certain that the ratio has increased. HST I'll try and get more details about it.
Okay, that's some actual figures I've not found anywhere else. Thanks for the info. If that started in 2010, then it must have been part of the original agreement with the Chinese. I wonder what that 50% actually consists of. To me it's quite surprising, since that would be something what the Pakistani government could greatly boast about because as we all know, avionics ain't easy. If you can find details, I'd very much like to ask for your kindness to share. Thanks again.
 
Top Bottom