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

[Marker]

I think if you follow the J10 discussions closely you'll see that the possible J10 buy isn't purely for filling a numbers gap, but about filling a capability gap as well. I have speculated (and informed members have confirmed) that China is withholding PL15 and other tech (even for the JF-17) unless we buy the J10. If it was just a numbers gap, China could have produced additional JF17s for us.

Every inference is based on facts, not on "intuitions".

What facts you are referring, that motivated you and some of "well-informed" members to assume that China is "withholding" PL-15 and other technology for JF-17?

Just to double the payload and slight gain in combat range do not call for induction of a new 4+ gen aircraft. (Please note combat range also depends on payload).

Russian and Chinese engines options installed on J-10C are highly unreliable. Down time and turn around time is high.

Inducting J-10C is a waste of valuable financial resource. However, if China is offering as AID package to defend CPEC, PAF will definitely welcome the kind gesture.

Scarce financial resource available to PAF must be utilized for the following:
1. Upgradation of older JF-17 fleet.
2. Production of JF-17 Block 3s
3. AvRID projects
a) Project Azm
b) Off shoot of JF-17 (twin engine and semi stealth)
c) Drones
d) Stand off weapons of higher range and precision.

 

[JamD]

Every inference is based on facts, not on "intuitions".

What facts you are referring, that motivated you and some of "well-informed" members to assume that China is "withholding" PL-15 and other technology for JF-17?

Sorry I can't give you the kind of facts you want. You can choose to believe what informed members (who have been right about most things) have to say, or not. This is up to you. I don't claim insider info. I am merely trying to make sense of what's happening just like you.

Ignoring all speculation/confirmation I think even you are arguing that it makes no sense to buy the J-10 if its just a numbers game. Then you should ask yourself, why would J-10 come (if it does come)? What I have presented is a plausible explanation. You are welcome to give others.

 

[araz]

I think if you follow the J10 discussions closely you'll see that the possible J10 buy isn't purely for filling a numbers gap, but about filling a capability gap as well. I have speculated (and informed members have confirmed) that China is withholding PL15 and other tech (even for the JF-17) unless we buy the J10. If it was just a numbers gap, China could have produced additional JF17s for us.

I can see where you are coming from. However we did hear from @Bilal Khan 777 that 100 PL15s were brought in as an emergency post 27/02 and integrated on JFTs. So I dont know what to make of the assumption of the chinese denying us PL15s asking us to buy J10s instead. Generally you dont buy a platform for one missile or a solitary ability. PAF if it goes for J10 will have a more tangible reason than that. I look forward to your response so the debate can continue. My scenarios whereJ10s are needed would be:
A. Countering the US reluctance to sell 16s at an appropriate price(by showing an alternate platform which can fill the need).
B. Replacing the mirages when they go in 2025. In which case we will hear of the sale in 2024 as platforms start arriving in 2025.
C. Unexpected delays in Azm/J35s so they cannot be procured and the 16s aren't coming
Regards
A

 

[JamD]

I can see where you are coming from. However we did hear from @Bilal Khan 777 that 100 PL15s were brought in as an emergency post 27/02 and integrated on JFTs. So I dont know what to make of the assumption of the chinese denying us PL15s asking us to buy J10s instead. Generally you dont buy a platform for one missile or a solitary ability. PAF if it goes for J10 will have a more tangible reason than that. I look forward to your response so the debate can continue. My scenarios whereJ10s are needed would be:
A. Countering the US reluctance to sell 16s at an appropriate price(by showing an alternate platform which can fill the need).
B. Replacing the mirages when they go in 2025. In which case we will hear of the sale in 2024 as platforms start arriving in 2025.
C. Unexpected delays in Azm/J35s so they cannot be procured and the 16s aren't coming
Regards
A

I am not a 100% sure of the PL-15 thing which is why I keep emphasizing that it is speculation. More speculation follows:
Also there is the possibility that the PL-15s only arrived after we committed to buy J10s. I think PL-15s are important enough to warrant the buy given the importance of long range BVRs. F16s are not going to stay forever and we need an AIM120 replacement and apparently SD-10 isn't cutting it.

People are tight-lipped about these things so hard to nail down the exact reason. It may be that China wants some fleet commonality with the PAF or wants PAF to "buy-in" to their backbone fighter. It is also possible that China wants us to have J-10s for the same reason US wanted us to have F-16s: It would give them leverage.

I think all three of the reasons you have listed may be true in different extents. We may never know for sure but we can guess.

My scenarios whereJ10s are needed would be:
A. Countering the US reluctance to sell 16s at an appropriate price(by showing an alternate platform which can fill the need).
B. Replacing the mirages when they go in 2025. In which case we will hear of the sale in 2024 as platforms start arriving in 2025.
C. Unexpected delays in Azm/J35s so they cannot be procured and the 16s aren't coming
Regards
A

I think the idea is that all of the above could have been remedied with more JF-17s and its development (munitions included). Again, this is just guesswork as there may be key limitations I am not thinking of.

 

[araz]

Every inference is based on facts, not on "intuitions".

What facts you are referring, that motivated you and some of "well-informed" members to assume that China is "withholding" PL-15 and other technology for JF-17?

Just to double the payload and slight gain in combat range do not call for induction of a new 4+ gen aircraft. (Please note combat range also depends on payload).

Russian and Chinese engines options installed on J-10C are highly unreliable. Down time and turn around time is high.

Inducting J-10C is a waste of valuable financial resource. However, if China is offering as AID package to defend CPEC, PAF will definitely welcome the kind gesture.

Scarce financial resource available to PAF must be utilized for the following:
1. Upgradation of older JF-17 fleet.
2. Production of JF-17 Block 3s
3. AvRID projects
a) Project Azm
b) Off shoot of JF-17 (twin engine and semi stealth)
c) Drones
d) Stand off weapons of higher range and precision.

Whereas I fully agree with your line of thinking I would advise a little gentleness in responding. People on the internet express opinions but not facts. The ones:who are:aware of facts shy away from such fora. If you disagree feel free to do so but in a manner where the debate continues rather than posters become reluctant to contribute. This remains a request.
Kind regards
A

I am not a 100% sure of the PL-15 thing which is why I keep emphasizing that it is speculation. More speculation follows:
Also there is the possibility that the PL-15s only arrived after we committed to buy J10s. I think PL-15s are important enough to warrant the buy given the importance of long range BVRs. F16s are not going to stay forever and we need an AIM120 replacement and apparently SD-10 isn't cutting it.

People are tight-lipped about these things so hard to nail down the exact reason. It may be that China wants some fleet commonality with the PAF or wants PAF to "buy-in" to their backbone fighter. It is also possible that China wants us to have J-10s for the same reason US wanted us to have F-16s: It would give them leverage.

I think all three of the reasons you have listed may be true in different extents. We may never know for sure but we can guess.



I think the idea is that all of the above could have been remedied with more JF-17s and its development (munitions included). Again, this is just guesswork as there may be key limitations I am not thinking of.

Thank you for your remarks. I fully agree that the reasons for J10 buy remain a mystery to all of us. If they do come we wont ever know the reasons for buying them. I agree fleet commonality might cajole PAF into a J10 buy and the Chinese hardly ever sell a platform to the outside world if PAF has not bought it first. In short we have more questions than we have answers. Let us wait and see how things transpire.
Regards
A

 

[araz]

I am not a 100% sure of the PL-15 thing which is why I keep emphasizing that it is speculation. More speculation follows:
Also there is the possibility that the PL-15s only arrived after we committed to buy J10s. I think PL-15s are important enough to warrant the buy given the importance of long range BVRs. F16s are not going to stay forever and we need an AIM120 replacement and apparently SD-10 isn't cutting it.

People are tight-lipped about these things so hard to nail down the exact reason. It may be that China wants some fleet commonality with the PAF or wants PAF to "buy-in" to their backbone fighter. It is also possible that China wants us to have J-10s for the same reason US wanted us to have F-16s: It would give them leverage.

I think all three of the reasons you have listed may be true in different extents. We may never know for sure but we can guess.



I think the idea is that all of the above could have been remedied with more JF-17s and its development (munitions included). Again, this is just guesswork as there may be key limitations I am not thinking of.

Thank you for your remarks. I fully agree that the reasons for J10 buy remain a mystery to all of us. If they do come we wont ever know the reasons for buying them. I agree fleet commonality might cajole PAF into a J10 buy and the Chinese hardly ever sell a platform to the outside world if PAF has not bought it first. In short we have more questions than we have answers. Let us wait and see how things transpire.
Regards
A

 

[Tipu7]

J10 can replace Mirages(I hope and pray it does) like JF17 has replaced F7 and lessened the burden on F16's. so its a wise move and its combat debut can be made by PAF so free marketing too!

J10C cannot serve as one on one replacement of Mirages. It's predominantly an air superiority platform which (if inducted) will probably replace F7PG squadron(s).

The decision to opt for J10C has political, technical and strategic dimensions.

J10C, if acquired, will represent a deeper Sino-Pak relationship which on one axis will show maturity of Chinese state of art product and on other axis will signal to West that Pakistan is not out of options as far as air power is concerned (political dimension); it will be meant to unlock certain technologies for Blk3 (technical dimension) and it will ensure to develop deeper interoperability with Chinese in a given sector against a common enemy (strategic dimension).

 

[ARMalik]

I think if you follow the J10 discussions closely you'll see that the possible J10 buy isn't purely for filling a numbers gap, but about filling a capability gap as well. I have speculated (and informed members have confirmed) that China is withholding PL15 and other tech (even for the JF-17) unless we buy the J10. If it was just a numbers gap, China could have produced additional JF17s for us.

Key word in your post "SPECULATED". Let's leave it at this but there is NO RESTRICTION from China for PL-15 or any other AF missile.

 

[Riz]

I think if you follow the J10 discussions closely you'll see that the possible J10 buy isn't purely for filling a numbers gap, but about filling a capability gap as well. I have speculated (and informed members have confirmed) that China is withholding PL15 and other tech (even for the JF-17) unless we buy the J10. If it was just a numbers gap, China could have produced additional JF17s for us.

Block 3 without PL-15 would be a blunder, It would be worst then teja in capabilities... I would consider this fugly machine a joke

 

[kursed]

Key word in your post "SPECULATED". Let's leave it at this but there is NO RESTRICTION from China for PL-15 or any other AF missile.

Actually, PLAAF was the single biggest impediment in sharing PL-15s with Pakistan, up until very recently. Their concerns have since been resolved.

 

[ARMalik]

Actually, PLAAF was the single biggest impediment in sharing PL-15s with Pakistan, up until very recently. Their concerns have since been resolved.

I think it was more of a 'timing issue' rather than any objection from PLAAF. As you can see now there is advance level interoperability between PAF and PLAAF, and these two are strategic partners.

 

[kursed]

I think it was more of a 'timing issue' rather than any objection from PLAAF. As you can see now there is advance level interoperability between PAF and PLAAF, and these two are strategic partners.

I would refrain from commenting on the interoperability bit. But there was real resistance on the issue of PL-15, it was not speculation. In any case, these issues now stand resolved.

 

[The Eagle]

There was no PL-15 when Pakistan was offered with J-10 for the first time. Remember? Neither the same is an issue at the moment regardless of J-10C possibility into PAF. Please put it to rest. Block-III will fly with all the targeted, aimed & required capabilities in its form which may not be known to most of us. In-fact, there are reasons why PAF went ahead with new Block-III otherwise, there is nothing much of different to a commoners eyes neither PAF will place so much of economy, time & energy for Block-III. The platform is moving forward with intended goals & results that even exceeds the expectations. Lest not downplay Pak-China relations merely in view of an opinion. J-10C for PAF, is not the topic here nor the Block-III has operationalized neither the armament detail is being shared.

Regards,

 

[ziaulislam]

we need 2-3 Kamra like installations across the country, i think Bohlari is being developed as another one

Well i doubt wr are at full production even at kamara..we have produced 24 in yr before so why we at 12/yr?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Block 3 without PL-15 would be a blunder, It would be worst then teja in capabilities... I would consider this fugly machine a joke

read your post again and reconsider how you review and hit the post button.

JF-17 Block production is not based on Tejas benchmark.
until now there are three versions of JF-17, Block 1, block 2 and JF17Bs.. all of them are without PL-15 and not declared a blunder by the PAF leadership.

there are a list of improvement announced in JF-17 and to consider it a joke you will need to defend your corner with reasons more than one liner.