What's new

JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

If they wanted to keep the same frame, why block 3 is more than 3 years late? Even then they will produce only two in 2020.
I guess the new AESA radar is not going to be off the shelf and I guess customization and source code ownership matters have factored into it ... resulting in an in-house development cum customization of sorts. Then there is the new full 3 axis FBW (or FBO courtesy @messiach ) system, which changes the very handling of the platform. Also there is the question of composites ... extensive use to reduce empty weight. All these things added to a newer more powerful EW suite and avionics ... has very much resulted in a new fighter ... underneath the apparently the same air frame.
 
. .
It depends on which block of F-16s are you comparing JF-17 with. F-16 block 60 will be better than JF-17 block 3.
True. But that is a UAE specific fighter. We are not going to get it. We might get Block-70/72 but not the Block-60. But even if we do. We won't get AIM-120D. PL-15 considerably outdistances AIM-120C-7. So under the circumstances we are not getting anything from the west that might give us a decided edge to offset the otherwise conventional disparity with India.

Not unless there is a major policy shift in the west.
 
.
It depends on which block of F-16s are you comparing JF-17 with. F-16 block 60 will be better than JF-17 block 3.
Category is different Medium and light and block 3 has state of art tech (2019) tech, whereas F-16 block 60 has technology of late 90s early 2000
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I guess the new AESA radar is not going to be off the shelf and I guess customization and source code ownership matters have factored into it ... resulting in an in-house development cum customization of sorts. Then there is the new full 3 axis FBW (or FBO courtesy @messiach ) system, which changes the very handling of the system. Also there is the question of composites ... extensive use to reduce empty weight. All these things added to a newer more powerful EW suite and avionics ... has very much resulted in a new fighter ... underneath the apparently the same air frame.

Lockheed Martin had already started working on the advance technology for 6th generation fighter jet while working on the enhancement tech for F-22.

Companies usually do the design and development work on block 2 while block 1 is in production, and design and development work on block 3 while block 2 is in production.
It seems from the pictures that block 3 is work in progress and Pakistan is totally dependent on Chinese for design and development work. It’s time for us to work with Turkey and Italy on AZM project and do all the design and development work in house.
 
Last edited:
. .
Category is different Medium and light and block 3 has state of art tech (2019) tech, whereas F-16 block has technology of late 90s early 2000
Category is different Medium and light and block 3 has state of art tech (2019) tech, whereas F-16 block has technology of late 90s early 2000

Wrong, F-16 is proven platform. Even F-16 block 60 can beat JF-7 block 2 and 3.
 
. .
I see it this way, we are using J-20 avionics, the bear that China has to offer !!!
HMD, HUD, and probably a matter chinese engine soon !!!
HUD only from J-20 and as for avionics its to early to assume that they comes from J-20 but most probably from J-10C
Azam will be nothing but an advancement of FC-31.... so lets be realistic, personally i am disappointed with the looks of JF-17 man other than nose it is Block 2, i saw few members in the thread were insisting to make JFT a 5th gen fighter ... come on .. it has its design limitations, but keeping in mind its competitors like F16 or Grippen or other aircrafts of its league, its frame look like old timer.... anyways its solving its purpose so we have to keep in mind its attributes rather than its beauty ......
its main upgrades is under the skin, we already knows block 3 will have total avionics+Radar (AESA) upgrades with minimal structural Changes
Wrong, F-16 is proven platform. Even F-16 block 60 can beat JF-7 block 2 and 3.
battle proven is ridiculous term when we get our first F-16 in 83, F-16 was also not battle proven and this goes same to our JF-17 and brother these are in different category don't compare JF-17 block 3 to F-16 version and block 3 can be compare to JAS 39 GRIPEN NEG and Taiwanese CHUNK KUE
 
.
Hi,

There is enough information out there to build an F35---. The only thing is 'how close can you get to the abilities of this aircraft--internal & external'---that is the whole issue---that is the question---.

Are you taking about Chinese or Pakistan? If you are taking about pakistan, we can build one with 3D printer but not the one that can fly. Even Turkey can NOT build F-35 with their advance aviation industry. We think just because we assisted Chinese with design work and assembly Jf-17, we can build advance technology without the help from the external source.
 
Last edited:
.
The ground clearance is better in this Block-III.

RAAD can be delivered with this.

View attachment 596451
The issue with Ra'ad isn't the clearance only, but that its horizontal stabilizers would interfere with the landing gears (see @JamD's study). Best course is to basically make a new variant of the Ra'ad without those issues -- and then even Block-1/2 can carry it.
 
.
It's 50or 4th Ge-50 chance for both. AESA radars PL-15 and Meteor has leveled the playing field for both.


I heard this criticism from you before in another thread. Care to expand, why the quality of B version is low ?

Brother in today's world, quality matters over quantity. Look at the construction of the aircraft. Trust me, no one buys this. I met one of the USAF officers last year. He told me that he thoroughly inspects with his clan. He told me exactly the same thing that boy quality always matters when you go International in today's world. The aircraft has many issues, third-party engine including some aerodynamics (which was interesting), despite all, though the aircraft seems somehow competent again "Somehow" capable to defend the skies against the 3.5 Gen fighters but if you're expecting that your aircraft gonna get order (order doesn't someone rent it out or put order of 2 3 aircraft i.e, Nigeria, Myanmar etc), you have to be very careful in terms of construction quality. The one built-in "China" has better quality as compare to this one (UAE Air show) which is built-in Pakistan. There are many complications because of global power politics, aircraft quality & capability, engine performance and the top of it, military hardware and marketing is indeed a tough job in today's competitive market. This aircraft might take 2+ more decades or even more to get some reasonable older else seems like your airforce core focus was to accommodate replacements (Trust me he doesn't even know that the aircraft was an actual replacement of our 70% of AF fleet (A5/f7). One of my relatives who is working in the Boeing Germany told me exactly the same thing (design flaws, aircraft construction, name of few).

We must understand that the aircraft is POORLY designed (I have heard the similar kind of vibe from even our airforce officers including those who went to the US on different programs and also participated in Red Flag exercises).

Its a general perspective. Now why I don't like, these are some of the points which enhancing my hate for this aircraft but one thing which I believe, not every aircraft become Lockheed F16 and Mig29. These two aircraft designs are a MAJOR factor of its selling point and still rule among all from the past 5 decades. JF17 is pathetically, poorly designed aircraft seems like 70s look and feel and rest the last nail in the coffin "built quality". Not everything is avionics, the US has spent billions of dollars on the designs program of F22, B52, B2, etc same did by the Russians.

The counter-argument against my perspective is pure bullshit and trust me I never respond nor interested if the person doesn't understand the importance of "DESIGN". Usually the counter-response on my criticism on JF17 "If the aircraft serve the purpose......." that's enough for us. We are stuck in this kind of mind-set the reason we are FAILED to sell this aircraft even though there is NO SUCH COMPETITOR at this time of JF17 in the market at this price.

Look at the B version. More like a trainee aircraft (pregnant). No one uses such kind of bulky dual seater shit against the 4.5 5 Gen in the combat theater. The aircraft looks like someone modifying old vintage shit dinky. Imagine, you're extended Suzuki Dabba just to make something like limouse, eek din bas hojani hey ismay 2 X kay baad 4 X ka missile rack laga kar akar kitna modify karlengay isko? lol.

I knew since DAY ONE that DG ISPR lying with the public. Actually he intentionally did that. We are desperate to sell this aircraft that was the core reason of his lies. Guess what, we slowly gradually changed our stance from JF17 to F16 story (a reference to 27 Feb event). You hardly see any prominent information or ref of Jf17 even in the PAF museum about Op Swift. Anyway, the point I'm making is, we have to show and built something which serves the FUTURE. This construction quality and the design won't work in the modern world. You can integrate avionics but aerodynamics, shape, built quality, frame matters a lot.

@MastanKhan
 
Last edited:
.
Are you taking about Chinese or US? If you are taking about us, we can build one with 3D printer but not the one that can fly. Even Turkey can NOT build F-35 with their advance aviation industry. We think just because we assisted Chinese with design work and assembly Jf-17, we can build advance technology without the help from the external source.

Hi,

From where you got the idea that Turkey is more advanced than us in aircraft building---your information is incorrect---.

One would be a fool to build an aircraft 4 or 5th gen by themselves---..

When I talk about building one---it is by default I am including our partner china as the lead partner---all nations who are looking to build a 5th gen aircraft---have partners.

We assisted & learned in the inital stages---but later we became partners in the build---. We are out of that frame and engine overhaul stage---.
 
.
its main upgrades is under the skin, we already knows block 3 will have total avionics+Radar (AESA) upgrades with minimal structural Changes

battle proven is ridiculous term when we get our first F-16 in 83, F-16 was also not battle proven and this goes same to our JF-17 and brother these are in different category don't compare JF-17 block 3 to F-16 version and block 3 can be compare to JAS 39 GRIPEN NEG and Taiwanese CHUNK KUE

  • I don’t know what you are taking about. F-16 as a platform is Battlefield proven that’s why so many countries are still using F-16s.
  • Majority of our F-16s may have been manufactured in 80s but they been upgraded several times and most of them are equivalent to block 50/52.
  • I already know about the classification and weight of the fighters. I was responding to a statement made by someone regarding Jf-17 block 3 is better than F-16s.
 
.
  • I don’t know what you are taking about. F-16 as a platform is Battlefield proven that’s why so many countries are still using F-16s.
  • Majority of our F-16s may have been manufactured in 80s but they been upgraded several times and most of them are equivalent to block 50/52.
  • I already know about the classification and weight of the fighters. I was responding to a statement made by someone regarding Jf-17 block 3 is better than F-16s.
every new fighter jets came out of the factory is not battle proven/ and avionics wise block-3 is better than our F-16 block 52
 
.
Back
Top Bottom