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

[raja786]

World is movin towards 5th gen and u are waiting for Blk 4. Blk 3 took much years and Blk 4 is going to make more. 6th gen prototype will be out by different countries when we will take out prototype of our 4.5 gen

Your post just makes me laugh. World can move to 7th gen all we care. We have to stand on our own feet and keep our friends close. You learn to crawl walk and run we are crawling now my brother wait for rest.
There are many factors in play to develop the country we had corrupt people in power long story...times are changing and changing fast Alhumdulilla.
Main point of everything is will power and stand on HAQ. We have seen in past and just recently in Afghanistan. Your so called 6th gen products failed against will power and stand on truth.
Come back to Allah and trust yourself, trust your own sword dont look at everything shiny.
It's all good you guys talk about many view points but stop putting down your own weapon and talk low. If you dont like it your choice and your opinion keep it to your self. Dont ever talk low about my country men or its arsenal.
We are the Men We are the fighters We only We give blood to our country. Inshallah this will carry on until we put a full stop on kufir. We are the protector of Allah's Deen, We are the blessed Sons of Prophet. We are the one who will do Gazwa e Hind, these are our weapons these are our swords so never talk low.
Admin/Mods put a rest on negative posts we dont want people's personal bullshit here.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

It won't fall in the american saying---'if it looks good it will fly good'---but it will do the job and do it very well---.

And I understand where you coming from---. A design has to be pleasing to the eye.

What do you think about the Phantom---the A6---the A7---the A10's---ugly as fck---but so functional.

Then how about the F104---beautiful sleek and slender---but then a WORTHLESS aircraft---.

The diameter of the Rd93 is larger than those of the Pratt & whitney and GE engines in the same class---plus they are lighter in weight and more powerfull.

So a sleeker fuselage would have been possible with these engines as compared to the RD93---.

The comparison of modified race cars does not hold good-.

The only function that is of primary concern in a aircraft now is---its RCS---its radar capability---its BVR missile capability---its ability to evade missile---carry smart weapons and a better delivery system.

It is a new conundrum for an old fighter pilot---who posed next to the sleek and beautiful aircraft---.

Paf has introduced something new and revolutionary back into the fighter aircraft business---ie---beauty is only skin deep---what is inside counts the most---aesthetics are secondary---ability and capability are primary---.

The aesthetics of an aircraft can also reflect the nature of the country. In China, aesthetics are of efficiency, standardization and progress (J-10), in the US it's about dominance and conquest, and in Europe, leaving something to remember.

You could say the JF-17 is a reflection of "grit and grind." It isn't the prettiest, but it looks like a gunfighter or seasoned trooper. It fights in numbers, but does not need to swarm to win, just good weapons and tactics.

 

[mingle]

excellent point but many people here only wants "Ameriki asla" , Such a slavish mind .

It's salvish mind its weapon by herself ask airforce and Army or Navy.

 

[alikazmi007]

We all knew what type of avionics will be included in Block III, more or less. What I want to know and super anxious to find out if the Block III will come with PL-15E. There have been speculations about it at best. This missile will be a game-changer for us.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

We all knew what type of avionics will be included in Block III, more or less. What I want to know and super anxious to find out if the Block III will come with PL-15E. There have been speculations about it at best. This missile will be a game-changer for us.

Whats the difference between PL 15 AND PL 15E?

 

[Rank]

about your this BS post, I guess only Pakistani engineer knows design / weight,... you dumb if that's the case then the V stab of F18 F16 and every aircraft having two diff versions (single and dual) would be different.. I have never seen any aircraft in the world like this shit masterpiece which has two different types of vertical stabilizer for countering weight LOL whata BS logic!



From the beginning when you poorly design anything and just to justify that blender saying... oh if the aircraft can shoot down, it serves the purpose lol what kind of logic is that?

No one saying to make aircraft like F22 (in terms of look and feel), the point is there is a reason why the modern aircraft having completely different aesthetics and aerodynamic design.

You can modify Honda Civic up to 1000HP... you can modify Supra up to 1000HP... there is a huge difference btw both.... One is specifically designed for racing and another one is actually modified (wanna be sport car). Both cars having a similar hp, performance (again avionics and all) perhaps the design of the Supra giving extra edge (the shape matters) which you call it "Aesthetics". The aerodynamics of the Supra provides a greater edge as compared to the honda civic. The body of the car, the way engineers designed from the beginning is actually accommodating the future modifications.. you don't need to change the design of V STAB (spoiler) of the Supra (best ever BS logic I've ever heard in my life) to counter Supra weight... You can though change the spoilers which don't even affect the car performance because of its overall design.

Hi,

It won't fall in the american saying---'if it looks good it will fly good'---but it will do the job and do it very well---.

And I understand where you coming from---. A design has to be pleasing to the eye.

What do you think about the Phantom---the A6---the A7---the A10's---ugly as fck---but so functional.

Then how about the F104---beautiful sleek and slender---but then a WORTHLESS aircraft---.

The diameter of the Rd93 is larger than those of the Pratt & whitney and GE engines in the same class---plus they are lighter in weight and more powerfull.

So a sleeker fuselage would have been possible with these engines as compared to the RD93---.

The comparison of modified race cars does not hold good-.

The only function that is of primary concern in a aircraft now is---its RCS---its radar capability---its BVR missile capability---its ability to evade missile---carry smart weapons and a better delivery system.

It is a new conundrum for an old fighter pilot---who posed next to the sleek and beautiful aircraft---.

Paf has introduced something new and revolutionary back into the fighter aircraft business---ie---beauty is only skin deep---what is inside counts the most---aesthetics are secondary---ability and capability are primary---.

I always admire ur posts ur knowledge and u know that. I agreed to that extend (BVR/RCS) but if these are the only major factors then there was no need of spending millions and billions of dollars on the design dept. I again support my argument “Design” or anyone call it aesthetics. The aircraft is poorly designed because of the lack of understanding about the future requirements. I am talking about with in the spectrum of the design (many call it aesthetics here).

After the mature final prototype of SU, F18, F15, F16, you have never seen any aerodynamic or Vstab changes from past many decades rather just an extension of CFTs or a minor changes. Thats the advantage of excellent mature design again aesthetic. Chinese continuously done changes in all of their aircrafts which is another factor or one of the factor which unsatisfy the customer. Avionics upgrades are very specific to aircraft capabilities, aerodynamics (aesthetics) of the aircraft is more towards the air combat performance in air battle Maneuverability, loop, stability, agility etc).

Hope you get my point

The aesthetics of an aircraft can also reflect the nature of the country. In China, aesthetics are of efficiency, standardization and progress (J-10), in the US it's about dominance and conquest, and in Europe, leaving something to remember.

You could say the JF-17 is a reflection of "grit and grind." It isn't the prettiest, but it looks like a gunfighter or seasoned trooper. It fights in numbers, but does not need to swarm to win, just good weapons and tactics.

Thanks for summarizing my perspective.

 

[jupiter2007]

China have many AESA radars for themselves.. Our AESA radar is late because they are making export version of it..

Are you saying that Chinese intentionally delayed B3 due to their incompetence?
Now we are hearing that B4 designed is on the table, is JF-17 becoming like Tejas?
So much talk for last 5 years that B3 is going to have stealth feature and advance gadgets. Let’s hope that final product of B3 will have all the Bells and whistles Which were promised.
And yes, making fighter plane is not like making lassi but when project is delayed for 3 year one wonders what changes were made.

 

[MastanKhan]

I always admire ur posts ur knowledge and u know that. I agreed to that extend (BVR/RCS) but if these are the only major factors then there was no need of spending millions and billions of dollars on the design dept. I again support my argument “Design” or anyone call it aesthetics. The aircraft is poorly designed because of the lack of understanding about the future requirements. I am talking about with in the spectrum of the design (many call it aesthetics here).

After the mature final prototype of SU, F18, F15, F16, you have never seen any aerodynamic or Vstab changes from past many decades rather just an extension of CFTs or a minor changes. Thats the advantage of excellent mature design again aesthetic. Chinese continuously done changes in all of their aircrafts which is another factor or one of the factor which unsatisfy the customer. Avionics upgrades are very specific to aircraft capabilities, aerodynamics (aesthetics) of the aircraft is more towards the air combat performance in air battle Maneuverability, loop, stability, agility etc).

Hope you get my point




Thanks you summarized my perspective.

Hi,

I agree with you whole heartedly---. You know that the the JF17 design was under extreme duress---the twin seater was a later addition due to customer demand---. Otherwise the Paf was happy with a single seater---.

The engine played a very large part in the design of the aircraft---.

If as suggested the original design was 25% larger than the current design and due to the lack of the 'right' power plant available---it got compressed---and possibly that is where the bulkiness is coming from---.

In due time people will learn how good this design is---with the side intakes and bumps----it is so different than what shows on the market in general---but most of those aircraft except for the stealth models---were not build persay for a low low RCS--.

All the conventional Twin tails were right in your face kind of designs---no care about the RCS---. The single engine were more sleek and slender---. With the availability of modern alloys that were lighter thinner and stronger and power plants that were slimmer and lighter but more powerful---the west was able and capable of producing more aesthetically pleasing aircraft---.

Now it was all well and good if the USAF had not turned around and refurbished an old B52 to a modern strike platform---. Now who could call the b52 an ugly aircraft---almost everyone---but if you look into its capabilities---it would out do many strike aircraft growler type aircrafts and air superiority fighter---why---because of the 21st century technology installed in it with 21st century weapons---.

The modern fighter aircraft has just become a conduit of delivery of a 21st century weapon helped thru 21st century electronic gadgets---and its shape is subservient to the mindset of the designing team.

Now for issues with quality of the end product---that is a different item---that is about quality control---.

The aesthetics of an aircraft can also reflect the nature of the country. In China, aesthetics are of efficiency, standardization and progress (J-10), in the US it's about dominance and conquest, and in Europe, leaving something to remember.

You could say the JF-17 is a reflection of "grit and grind." It isn't the prettiest, but it looks like a gunfighter or seasoned trooper. It fights in numbers, but does not need to swarm to win, just good weapons and tactics.

Hi,

Damn---I wish I could think like you young people and use metaphors like---"grit & Grind"---" "a true gunfighter of the old west "---.

Indeed---" just good weapons & tactics---"---remember these words of your ---. Paf has added a new paragraph to fighter aircraft building---. Looks will only take you so far---it is what is inside of you that will make you carry the day---.

Remember that gold saying---" Drive is for show Putting is for dough "---.

China have many AESA radars for themselves.. Our AESA radar is late because they are making export version of it..

Hi,

Indeed china has many an aesa radars---and many have glitches that you may not know of and I don't want to elaborate---. Plus they are larger and no issues with cooling space and power supply---.

JF17 otoh---needs a smaller radar with cooling ability and using lesser power---and functioning 100%---100% of the time---. Not an easy task---.

 

[pkd]

Hi,

I agree with you whole heartedly---. You have to understand that the the JF17 design was under extreme duress---the twin seater was a later addition due to customer demand---. Otherwise the Paf was happy with a single seater---.

The engine played a very large part in the design of the aircraft---.

If as suggested the original design was 25% larger than the current design and due to the lack of the 'right' power plant available---it got compressed---and possibly that is where the bulkiness is coming from---.

In due time people will learn how good this design is---with the side intakes and bumps----it is so different than what shows on the market in general---but most of those aircraft except for the stealth models---were not build persay for a low low RCS--.

All the conventional Twin tails were right in your face kind of designs---no care about the RCS---. The single engine were more sleek and slender---. With the availability of modern alloys that were lighter thinner and stronger and power plants that were slimmer and lighter but more powerful---the west was able and capable of producing more aesthetically pleasing aircraft---.

Now it was all well and good if the USAF had not turned around and refurbished an old B52 to a modern strike platform---. Now who could call the b52 an ugly aircraft---almost everyone---but if you look into its capabilities---it would out do many strike aircraft growler type aircrafts and air superiority fighter---why---because of the 21st century technology installed in it with 21st century weapons---.

The modern fighter aircraft has just become a conduit of delivery of a 21st century weapon helped thru 21st century electronic gadgets---and its shape is subservient to the mindset of the designing team.

Now for issues with quality of the end product---that is a different item---that is about quality control---.

As long as the final Block-III aircraft outperforms/outguns our rivals/adversaries in the following benchmarks, it perfectly serves its Raison D'etre:

1. Aircraft RCS
2. BVR Range
3. ECM / Jamming
4. Radar range and technology (AESA/PESA/Pulse Doppler) First Look and Kill Cpability
5. Network Centric Warfare

In short we only need best electronics on our aircraft.
If all the above parameters are checked, we are fine. Rest is all BS

 

[Cash GK]

Hi,

It won't fall in the american saying---'if it looks good it will fly good'---but it will do the job and do it very well---.

And I understand where you coming from---. A design has to be pleasing to the eye.

What do you think about the Phantom---the A6---the A7---the A10's---ugly as fck---but so functional.

Then how about the F104---beautiful sleek and slender---but then a WORTHLESS aircraft---.

The diameter of the Rd93 is larger than those of the Pratt & whitney and GE engines in the same class---plus they are lighter in weight and more powerfull.

So a sleeker fuselage would have been possible with these engines as compared to the RD93---.

The comparison of modified race cars does not hold good-.

The only function that is of primary concern in a aircraft now is---its RCS---its radar capability---its BVR missile capability---its ability to evade missile---carry smart weapons and a better delivery system.

It is a new conundrum for an old fighter pilot---who posed next to the sleek and beautiful aircraft---.

Paf has introduced something new and revolutionary back into the fighter aircraft business---ie---beauty is only skin deep---what is inside counts the most---aesthetics are secondary---ability and capability are primary---.

Beautiful woman n White cloths are heard to manage

 

[MastanKhan]

Beautiful woman n White cloths are heard to manage

Hi,

Yessir indeed---" anyone can have a beautiful woman---but not everyone can keep a beautiful woman "---.

 

[pkd]

Hi,

Yessir indeed---" anyone can have a beautiful woman---but not everyone can keep a beautiful woman "---.

27th Feb tells us that no body is interested in the sob story of swagging, Sleek, Smarmy deer chased by Bulky fat Hungry hounds.
It only take gangoos to write an ode and eulogize the twerks in the final moments of a fateful aircraft

 

[LKJ86]

Why didnt we used J 10C's AESA and put on our Thunder? Thats way we have gotten Block 3 way before

Do you think the nose of JF-17 is as big as that of J-10C?

 

[Bilal.]

Do you think the nose of JF-17 is as big as that of J-10C?

Are KLJ and LKF GAN based AESA?

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Wrong, F-16 is proven platform. Even F-16 block 60 can beat JF-7 block 2 and 3.

F-16 is a medium-weight fighter and JF-17 Thunder is a light-weight fighter.

You don't suppose Pakistan should have 500 F-16s only in its inventory and there's no need for light-weight fighters (which is currently around 400 aircraft)?