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

[denel]

I think the mention of PL-10 disappointed you. You are not the only one hoping for Denel goodies like A-Darter and Raptor-III on JF-17 Block-3. Anyways, this is merely a social media post.

I was wondering if the Chinese will offer a PL-15 export version at this time. The only analogue to the PL-15 I have heard of is AIM-260 (under development).

never give up hope

 

[Akh1112]

There were planes to acquire French HMD for Block-III. It didn't materialize ?

Well, i dont see why the TopOwl wouldnt get selected, we will find out once it is made public as there are only a handful of HMDS in service right now.

 

[Dreamer.]

Well, i dont see why the TopOwl wouldnt get selected, we will find out once it is made public as there are only a handful of HMDS in service right now.

Politics, probably.

 

[Akh1112]

Politics, probably.

I have explained this before, Pakistan already uses TopOwl, France and Pakistan have reasonable relations too, Thales produces the FCS for the Al-Khalid, there is no reason we cant get the TopOwl.

 

[imadul]

@messiach this is what the people want from Blk 3.


The world is moving to using drones to lessen the risk on manned fighters. So, basically, the drones will operate as decoys, AAM carriers, EW jammers, etc to stress enemy radars, sustain losses, and if possible start the SEAD process, after which the manned fighters enter. I think there is a decent chance we'll see either PAC or ID come up with a loyal wingman drone (PAC has a gen 1 target drone while ID is working on its gen 2).

Something like Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie from Gremlin drone swarms programs. It costs 3 million which is cheap for an attritionable UCAC. Still such UCAVs be good enough to engage in A2A fight and not just play targeting practice for enemy AF and AD systems.

 

[Dreamer.]

I have explained this before, Pakistan already uses TopOwl, France and Pakistan have reasonable relations too, Thales produces the FCS for the Al-Khalid, there is no reason we cant get the TopOwl.

Politics changes over time. Pakistan already uses F-16 but can't get even used ones at the moment. France is too close to india at the moment.

Anyway its just my guess.

 

[Saifullah]

Budget cuts, updation in plans due to non availability of many things which were once available in near past. Sadly the Blk3 has lost few promising things in the process of development. Single piece MFD, voice controls and an 'average' HMD being three primary ones as far as Cockpit is concerned.

Single Piece MFD: Hardware is available but needs a good chunk of code rewritten. Could be done easily in house. In house code development can be done with very insignificant amount. If they put the effort in.

Voice Controls: can be developed in house not a big deal, with insignificant amount. Btw i hope these commands are only for cruising.

HMD: Definen average ?, if the average-ness is not the result of Hardware it will be overcome if the ask for it in contract. Other route is buy complete system and work on it in house by keep updating the system.

Before people jump on me. These are not out of the world systems which can't be developed. I have seen brilliant Pakistanis who can do all the things above mentioned if there is some one who understand how to get these things done. Pakistanis are working in every big IT companies of the world with Pakistani degrees. Work of very good standard is already being done in Pakistan in few companies, so the skill is there if some wana use it, but I highly doubt these kind of programs can be done under AVM though.

 

[StormBreaker]

Single Piece MFD: Hardware is available but needs a good chunk of code rewritten. Could be done easily in house. In house code development can be done with very insignificant amount. If they put the effort in.

Voice Controls: can be developed in house not a big deal, with insignificant amount. Btw i hope these commands are only for cruising.

HMD: Definen average ?, if the average-ness is not the result of Hardware it will be overcome if the ask for it contract. Other route is buy complete system and work on it in house by keep updating the system.

It’s quite surprising as to how “VOICE CONTROLS” are considered something very “Hardly achievable” while it is just a matter of some months to develop a proper cockpit level system for such purpose.

 

[Saifullah]

It’s quite surprising as to how “VOICE CONTROLS” are considered something very “Hardly achievable” while it is just a matter of some months to develop a proper cockpit level system for such purpose.

I mean integration of a homemade weapon to the aircraft is considered an achievement, So....
I hope you understand what i am trying to say.

 

[StormBreaker]

I mean integration of a homemade weapon to the aircraft is considered an achievement, So....
I hope you understand what i am trying to say.

Because that is an achievement, any smallest goal one completed is a achievement. What matters is how you express it to in terms of relevancy

 

[StormBreaker]

Integration of homemade system with your own aircraft is not an ACHIEVEMENT. It's a routine work, developing or improving a weapon system is an achievement.
Hope you get what i am trying to say.

I am sorry, but once again after going through the dictionary, i would like to affirm my stance.

Achievement is any goal you were trying to complete and did it successfully. It can be brushing your teeth, baking pizza, getting shot down and having FANTASTIC TEA.

You are confusing Achievement with Innovative success or invention.

If PAF sets its goals to integrate a homemade system, notes it down on checklist, completed the goal and ticks it off, that is an ACHIEVEMENT because you have ACHIEVED your goal.

What i pointed out earlier about voice controls is that it is not “HARDLY ACHIEVABLE”. Give a heavy time for about 8-10 months (speaking in terms of software dev’t), you will have a proper basic but highly usable Voice Control system developed and integration is another timespan of (depends on the compatibility with weapons system and central controlling system software framework), if they are similar/same, not more than 3-5 months including On-ground testing, else it will take time of about 7 months.

I have a belief, in terms of Software section of these fighters/systems, the more time you invest, the more functional and highly reliable system you produce, ESPECIALLY THE EW SYSTEMS. Producing an EW system requires extensive background knowledge of history of these systems and electromagnetic spectrum. For example - You take a time of 2 months, you create a basic EW system with basic commands and methods. You take 2 more months, the software becomes better than earlier. You take another 8 months, you will have a software nothing like the older one. It is all about Permutations and combinations. More possibilities you note down and implement in the system, more LETHAL it becomes.

I have no doubts in our software devs and coders. They can come up with world leading systems in defence if they really understand what the world is using instead of using historic old languages.

 

[rAli]

When did we loose the ELINT asset? Are you referring to the KA 350 crash earlier in the year? @araz

 

[messiach]

Wait for further flights.

Here: https://www.weibo.com/3061210763/Ilw13bjX4

Any idea when we might see a physical prototype or are you not more informed about the project than the rest of us are?

What is the source of this radical statement.

F-7 which is the basis of JF-17 centre fuselage, also happens to have a slanted VS.

 

[StormBreaker]

Wait for further flights.



What is the source of this radical statement.

I am sorry but apparently, they seem quite similar however, the statement i put was solely to check out what the person had to respond and criticize me but he failed to...

 

[Akasa]

Wait for further flights.

Wait, further flights? What do you mean by that, the J-35 has already flown?