What's new

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

Low picture quality, so it may just be pixels, but unfortunately it looks like there's no F-35/J-20 style display. The 2 distinct "bumps" behind the left and right MFDs of previous blocks are sort of visible in block III too. Of course, this is a prototype and is subject to change

1629988839522.png

1629988969167.png
 
. . .
Hopefully, with the slightly increased wingspan, we'll see the Dual Racks. I for one can't wait to see that (not in DCS, of course)
 
.
Yes, and surely not to forget that small cooling intake on the vertical fin's base and eventually a wider spine, but these are far from major structural.
Could be the addition of an APU or jamming pod where the drag chute use to be
 
Last edited:
. .
What stopping us to believe that JF-17 is such a ill design that it cant be changed or cant be upgraded like other 4 G fighters in the world…….
Anyone please tell me if BLK3 can fire ASHMs and RAAD cruise missiles in current condition??
 
Last edited:
.
Totally agree with this, I respect Messiachs knowledge and they’ve been right in the past, but as it stands there’s absolutely nothing pointing to these changes, even if we compare the highest quality photographs available, there’s no changes at All.
The person worked on FC-1 project so she knows what she's saying based on available pics. Everything she said about the project turned out to be true.

What are your credentials?

Same goes for you @Deino
View attachment 773219


So... .what's that under the wing?
Green panel for storing extra fuel.
 
.
The person worked on FC-1 project so she knows what she's saying based on available pics. Everything she said about the project turned out to be true.

What are your credentials?

Same goes for you @Deino

Green panel for storing extra fuel.
My credentials so far are working eyes. I respect messiach and you for being knowledgeable posters but not everything she and you have said has turned out to be true. Wether that’s because the end product is different, because of intentional throw off Or because of mistakes that everyone can make, it’s not up to me to decide, but I’ve read much of the history of this forum and there’s many claims that never came true.
I’ve not outright denied anything still out of that same respect, maybe we will see it come true, I hope the same but so far, as 95% of the others on this forum are saying too, many of which also happen to be very knowledgeable, there are no visible changes. And I stand by that.
Deino can defend himself. i do not need to speak for him.
 
.
The person worked on FC-1 project so she knows what she's saying based on available pics. Everything she said about the project turned out to be true.

What are your credentials?

Same goes for you @Deino

To admit - and I hope I made it clear with my pre-text: I never claimed to know more than her, I deeply respect her knowledge and credentials, BUT - and that's IMO important to note! - when she claims, she sees certain things like a wing with different aspect ratio, a greater span, wider whatever and NOTHING on any of the few know images hints towards this, then I keep this as a liberty of having an own opinion, I have some daubs and I raise them.

When - as requested - she can show this and prove, the wing is different, the fuselage wider and so on, then it's fine, I accept, thank and even apologise but a critical question should never be rated an insult and please accept that I only believe things I see since regardless who anyone is, no-one is fault-free, not me and maybe not even she.

Therefore again, I see none of her claimed details and changes on any of the known images and as it seems others too, which are most interested to learn. As such please believe me, that I have no intention to insult, but to learn.

And concerning my credentials ... at least I'm reporting for Jane's, authored for Jamestown and RUSI and this:

1629996615349.png


If you rate this as nothing, then it's fine and I must accept it, but both my boss at Jane's and my publisher always tell me to prove, prove by images, measurements and at best official documents. This is something often enough most difficult for Chinese systems and as such I see the JF-17 at least as partially Chinese.
Only to accept "a certain member says so" is not my style; not as an offense but to be cautious and given my reputation at these think tanks and academies, I think it was not the worst way!

Sincerely.
 
.
HUD in the first pt looks similar to the one fitted in l15
Screenshot_2021-08-26-21-44-32-06.jpg

Screenshot_2021-08-25-23-27-44-65.jpg

The recent one looks different, and its not illuminated green.
Screenshot_2021-08-26-21-43-37-38.jpg

HUD in the first pt looks similar to the one fitted in l15
Screenshot_2021-08-26-21-44-32-06.jpg

Screenshot_2021-08-25-23-27-44-65.jpg

The recent one looks different, and its not illuminated green.
Screenshot_2021-08-26-21-43-37-38.jpg

Fair enough @Deino and @iLION12345_1

We agree to disagree and let the democracy prevail.
 
.
The person worked on FC-1 project so she knows what she's saying based on available pics. Everything she said about the project turned out to be true.

What are your credentials?

Same goes for you @Deino

Green panel for storing extra fuel.
School teacher:-)

Simple image pixel anaylsis will suggest change in dimention small but still there
 
.
Pfahahaha,

"Multiple MAWS are for redundancy"

once a man told me, ‘yes, messiach knows what she’s talking about, but she also talks a lot of shit to throw people off, you just have to filter yourself to know what is true and what is not.’


this is hilarious, I can’t wait for you kids to be super disappointed while your lord and saviour messiach disappears after

Read about S740 IIR MAWS.
 
.
With all due respect to members trying to do pixel mapping and grainy image comparisons, it's a futile exercise. The pixel-mapped pictures unless taken from very similar angles, at the same fuel and aircraft load will not give you any concrete information.

We do not know which type of surface the aircraft is on, air pressure in the tires (whether the picture was taken in hot or cold weather conditions) or the fuel load of the aircraft. There's literally no way, you'd get any details right doing these comparisons. This will only spread misinformation.

What can be done is to look out for obvious changes to the structure of the aircraft, compare it with the Bravo version of Block II and then see if something might have changed or not.
 
.
...
Fair enough @Deino and @iLION12345_1
We agree to disagree and let the democracy prevail.

Thanks a lot for your understanding, but in one detail I must contradict. It is not democracy that should prevail, only facts should matter.

If we would start a democratic survey or poll on "is Deino a stupid German, who knows nothing on Chinese military aviation and the PLA's orbat, systems and structure since some certain senior member at the PDF are untouchable", then I'm pretty sure I won't do well, but that won't change the facts.

I am also aware that this insistence on evidence and sources is seen as annoying, intrusive, disruptive and maybe even arrogant, yes, I get on some peoples' nerves here, but I can only assure you that this is not my intention.
I want to learn and know. Knowing that there is something I can't prove or confirm is driving me crazy. For example, I know that J-20s are in service within the 1st Air Brigade in Anshan, I even have a photo, but I am not allowed to publish it ... that really gets me down!

So please see it as an expression of a personal idiosyncrasy paired with cultural otherness, but certainly not as malicious arrogance or "wanting to know better".
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom