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

[Armchair]

Airomerix, missed your posts. Would love to get your view on the new JF17 and what it can bring to real world scenarios.

He is just a poor guy who knew since Feb 27 that 221 sqn of IAF has lost an su 30.

A poor guy who introduced the concept of AMRAAM lofting on PDF despite heavy opposition of some members (a mod included).

A poor guy who tries so hard to clean up the misinformation which sometimes comes through intentional or unintentional means.

Professionally, i hold a masters degree is something i cant tell and that i have practically worked very closely on JF-17s and some other systems.

I hope it is good enough.

 

[Syed_Adeel]

but block-2/1/3 can't be compare with F-16, who is comparing JF-17 and F-16 is really stupid, because they both sits in different classes/categories[/QUOTE]

My dear you need to understand that different category doesnt mean that they are not comparable. category has influence on range and payload and upto an extent speed.

Just think practically that in case of war jf17 and f16 will be our front role fighters and both will be performing same duties and facing heavy weight SU30s and by the way f16 was also light weight earlier.

in case of BVR, EW, Situational awareness, Ground and surface attack roles they are quite similar infact JF17 in PAF has edge because for f16s we donot have long range SOW/ALCMs.

So saying that this comparison is stupid is itself stupid (on a lighter note ).
I suggest you to watch the complete video to know more details

 

[Umar27]

The purpose of growlers is not to carry missiles but jamming equipment, they fly under the cover of fighters carrying BVR AAMs.

Growlers can carry both missiles and jammers.

Since it is large enough to carry both but not JF-17

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Jf17 cant be compared to f16s as f16 is a killing machine. Plus one is light weight and other is medium weight with better quality technology. This is why I try to compare it to Gripen as they in the same weight class.

If Jf17 is better than our block 15s or mirage 5 then on February 2019 we would have used jf17s to shoot Indian jets but instead it was the 1980s f16s and 1960s mirage 5.

I have already mentioned that different category impacts the range/payload and speed some times. Ew capabilieties are same in both and JF17 has higher edge because vast range of weapons is available to us unlike f16 case.

Regarding 27 Feb, how do you know that jf17 were not there ? infact Indians also claim in their maps that JF17 were also there with f16, now it was f16 fortune that Abhinandan fell pre to f16 and not jf17 but it doesnt matter.
Both were there and JF17 is our prime fighter now so dont underestimate it.

For details please watch complete video.

 

[Umar27]

How did you reach that conclusion ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

What i mean is after carrying fuel tanks and required amount if jammers will their be any hardpoints left for bvr or arm missiles.

Growlers are large enough to carry all three but not JF-17
Infact Growlers are having range issues too now

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-for-its-ea-18g-growlers-cut-back-their-range

 

[Windjammer]

Up close and more revealing.

 

[El Observer]

Up close and more revealing.

Intakes are definitely wide.

 

[araz]

I am a product designer and produce products frequently... which sometimes are good and at other times, not so good. Here are some golden principles I collected over the year and live my life on;

• Produce a product so you could design it.
• It's ok to be wrong, it's ok to make mistakes.
• Permit yourself to be wrong 144 times. Save yourself from your criticism before trying this much.
• Dua karta jaa, chalta jaa. (Keep praying, keep walking.)

Its ok to be weak, its ok to produce bad JF-17 (if you think it is bad), its ok to be wrong, it's ok to make mistakes - but keep praying, keep working, keep on doing, keep on marching. The only obligation upon us is obligation of trying... success is nevertheless a gift given to you by Allah - and it is never in your hand.

It's OK to make design blunders as it is part of your learning process. How else would you design something great if you didn't produce not-great products as well? What matters is that you keep working on your blunders. And we are doing it Alhamdolillah. Have faith.

It is a great post and worthy of a positive rating. A basic principle is that our own products bring independence. We have been financially better in the mid to late 50s but were we strong? I would say no. We became strong when we realized we could not be dependent on the West or anyone else for that matter and need to find our own way. JFT has opened a door for us in the aviation indusatrry which is a great stART. Our product may be good but we have to strive to make it better. We can only take little steps till we learn to walk and then fly. A few tumbles here or there will not matter.
A

No China offer us J-10 in past and recently C for Pakistan but Pakistan is not convince to buy J-10C, in block-3 there are many system of block-3, so Pakistan thinks there no need for buying J-10 and block-3 is almost on the par with J-10C with exception of range and payloads


oh bhai, there political and corruption in our roots and we still have not any visionary leader, Turkey are untied and we are divided,and by the way who wants to give you their latest tech without $$$$, MORE MONEY HAVE A LOTS OF HONEY

It is not just abut money. we need the basics to set up and take off from. We need Fabtech basis for complete air frame developmentas @messiach keeps reminding us. There are multiple factors including time money expertise and infrastructure development.
Please also remember that nations are invatriably divided initially.If you look at Turkey as well through their history they have been divided.It needs a visionary leader who unites divided factions under a banner to make a nation. When you start achieving success others take lead and join the movement till you have one nation with one voice and ambition moving in a direction. Till now we have not had a visionary leader after Jinnah( I will stand by this statement)! IK is showing glimpses of having a vision and when he achieves success you will have the nation backing him. This is how you achieve success. However in order to progress he needs to be at the helm for 2-3 terms to establish his vision, cut out the dross from within and bring up visionary people who will look after the nation rather than filling up their own pockets.
A

 

[mhacsan]

Block 3 is intended to match the Gripen NG. You will see in the coming years how block 3 is modified with additional goodies.

Block 4 is still on the drawing board. And if anyone tells you what block 4 is envisioned with is lying. The information shared on Block 4 is strictly on need to know basis.

Well in WVR how B3 can match Grippen NG when its thrust to weight ratio is considerably less and is not as agile as Grippen? even if the weight reduced/or increased engine performance by 10% ( read somewhere) it still lags behind in engine performance, only way if it can if it has a better short range misslie then Grippen NG and better tactics(later can be relied upon but not former). BVR fight will all depend upon Radar and BVR missile and i don't think Chinese technology has reached to the level of Westren Technologies let alone surpassing it.

Secondly, even if the composites are introduced and the weight of the JF17 has been brought down. Given the Aesa, PL 15, Avionics (next generation equipment but heavy compared to predecessors) etc will add up and negate the weight difference achieved using composite in terms of thrust to weight ratio then how the JF will achieve better thrust to weight ratio?

All in all Jf17 for me is success as long as it does the job in the air for it is designed for. you dont expect a carpenter to come up with a mechanical car.

lastly, quietly i have been following your post sine 27 Feb. and found you to be very credible and always thought you have someone very close in Airforce.

 

[Falcon26]

Up close and more revealing.

mare those intakes on the spine?

 

[araz]

Blind having an argument over color of the sky


90% of the posters here do not possess the requisite knowledge, training, education to participate in an informed discussion regarding planes let alone fighter planes. A simple question regarding fluid dynamics will have them stumped. Hence I do not participate in the circle jerk being exhibited on this thread since the first pics of the BLK 3 came out. I'm glad there are other folks out there who hold the same opinion as I do.


It is however fun to see the mental breakdown of the fan boys who were expecting Blk 3 be twin of F-22


JF-17 Blk3 is a good plane, and definitely will form the backbone of our airforce, but it is no 4.5+ Gen monster.

It is a pity you dont participate. If you have aequate knowledge and can share it you must do so and discuss your point of view. Keeping mum in a corner is not the answer. It is your duty to teach the masses of folks who come here rather than sitting snug in a corner and taking pot shots, like your post above. We are all here to learn and we are all patriots who want to see our country and the AF progress.
A

also note that first 14 JFTs will be equipped with KLJ-7As while remaining will have other model....

What is the source of this information please.
A

 

[airomerix]

Well in WVR how B3 can match Grippen NG when its thrust to weight ratio is considerably less and is not as agile as Grippen? even if the weight reduced/or increased engine performance by 10% ( read somewhere) it still lags behind in engine performance, only way if it can if it has a better short range misslie then Grippen NG and better tactics(later can be relied upon but not former). BVR fight will all depend upon Radar and BVR missile and i don't think Chinese technology has reached to the level of Westren Technologies let alone surpassing it.

Secondly, even if the composites are introduced and the weight of the JF17 has been brought down. Given the Aesa, PL 15, Avionics (next generation equipment but heavy compared to predecessors) etc will add up and negate the weight difference achieved using composite in terms of thrust to weight ratio then how the JF will achieve better thrust to weight ratio?

All in all Jf17 for me is success as long as it does the job in the air for it is designed for. you dont expect a carpenter to come up with a mechanical car.

lastly, quietly i have been following your post sine 27 Feb. and found you to be very credible and always thought you have someone very close in Airforce.

Gripen NG is entirely a different aircraft and JF-17 is not meant to compete it in anyway. My response was to someone in terms of sophistication or maturity of the technology.

1) JF-17s agility is exactly what air staff requirement entails. We are not looking for more agility. The airframe g/load factor is 9 already hence the discussion is not warranted.

2) Engines are specific to an aircraft type. We cannot assume that an F-15 has a better engine compared to Su30 just because it produces more thrust or its service cycles are greater than Su-30's engine. Gripen's engine is a powerful one, good for Gripen. However, JF-17's engine does the job well. The margin of improvement is there and we are getting there. Achieving a TWR of 1 is not even a practical requirement as someone mentioned earlier. We are way past that.

3) Chinese weaponry is still untested and its performance figures on paper are mind-boggling. If launched under the right conditions, the results will be astonishing (this is what tests show). The reason we go gaga over western weaponry is due to the widespread availability of their performance metrics and marketing gimmicks. The recent DCS flight simulator reveals some features of SD-10 and people are going crazy after it. And mind you, we did not even release the entire blue print to the firm working on JF-17 for DCS.

In a nutshell, the block 3 is meant to do what Block 52's are doing for PAF. It is about time when we will hear stories of Block 52's being beaten by Block 3's in A2A war games.

I find it interesting and sometimes sad that people are getting disappointed over the damn shape of the aircraft Ofcourse people were expecting twin engine, twin tail with 12 hardpoints. But it was never the requirement.

 

[gOtHmOG]

Disappointment in the new model is childish and can be easily attributed to a lack of knowledge therefore no reason to feel down @airomerix . AESA and the new weapons brought to bear upon the enemy in such numbers bring a decisive edge to the battlefield. Coupled with and IRST(my personal wish-list ) and a souped-up EW suite I'd say PAF has outdone itself. Expecting a medium weight 4.5 Gen aircraft for a nascent industry is plain naivety.

 

[mhacsan]

Gripen NG is entirely a different aircraft and JF-17 is not meant to compete it in anyway. My response was to someone in terms of sophistication or maturity of the technology.

1) JF-17s agility is exactly what air staff requirement entails. We are not looking for more agility. The airframe g/load factor is 9 already hence the discussion is not warranted.

2) Engines are specific to an aircraft type. We cannot assume that an F-15 has a better engine compared to Su30 just because it produces more thrust or its service cycles are greater than Su-30's engine. Gripen's engine is a powerful one, good for Gripen. However, JF-17's engine does the job well. The margin of improvement is there and we are getting there. Achieving a TWR of 1 is not even a practical requirement as someone mentioned earlier. We are way past that.

3) Chinese weaponry is still untested and its performance figures on paper are mind-boggling. If launched under the right conditions, the results will be astonishing (this is what tests show). The reason we go gaga over western weaponry is due to the widespread availability of their performance metrics and marketing gimmicks. The recent DCS flight simulator reveals some features of SD-10 and people are going crazy after it. And mind you, we did not even release the entire blue print to the firm working on JF-17 for DCS.

In a nutshell, the block 3 is meant to do what Block 52's are doing for PAF. It is about time when we will hear stories of Block 52's being beaten by Block 3's in A2A war games.

I find it interesting and sometimes sad that people are getting disappointed over the damn shape of the aircraft Ofcourse people were expecting twin engine, twin tail with 12 hardpoints. But it was never the requirement.

Thank you for the reply, For me i will go for performance rather than looks. as far engine is concerned, i always thought TWR of 1 or little above (while loaded) can give it better performance in dogfight - given JF 17 carry limited BVR missiles, there is always a chance that JF will endup in dogfight unless pilot is willing to leave the fight midway for rearmament. Also Dodging a BVR missile is possible - seen in DCS world, so more probability in aggressive role one end up in dogfight.

Can you please also inform how WS13 Chinese engine doing? seems like it still has alot miles to catch up!

you previously said in one if your post that during 27 feb skirmish, two of the Jf17 equipped with Aesa was busy jamming Indian radars and you also denied informing about the one chosen in B3 (probably the same the one used in skirmish), can you please elaborate what performance parameters PAF has set for it's Aesa, either be Chinese (most likely) or any other?

There is also talk of F16 block 70/72, can B3 compete and beat F16 B 70/72. i guess JF 17 Block 4 will match in performance to Rafael.

 

[Darth Vader]

Gripen NG is entirely a different aircraft and JF-17 is not meant to compete it in anyway. My response was to someone in terms of sophistication or maturity of the technology.

1) JF-17s agility is exactly what air staff requirement entails. We are not looking for more agility. The airframe g/load factor is 9 already hence the discussion is not warranted.

2) Engines are specific to an aircraft type. We cannot assume that an F-15 has a better engine compared to Su30 just because it produces more thrust or its service cycles are greater than Su-30's engine. Gripen's engine is a powerful one, good for Gripen. However, JF-17's engine does the job well. The margin of improvement is there and we are getting there. Achieving a TWR of 1 is not even a practical requirement as someone mentioned earlier. We are way past that.

3) Chinese weaponry is still untested and its performance figures on paper are mind-boggling. If launched under the right conditions, the results will be astonishing (this is what tests show). The reason we go gaga over western weaponry is due to the widespread availability of their performance metrics and marketing gimmicks. The recent DCS flight simulator reveals some features of SD-10 and people are going crazy after it. And mind you, we did not even release the entire blue print to the firm working on JF-17 for DCS.

In a nutshell, the block 3 is meant to do what Block 52's are doing for PAF. It is about time when we will hear stories of Block 52's being beaten by Block 3's in A2A war games.

I find it interesting and sometimes sad that people are getting disappointed over the damn shape of the aircraft Ofcourse people were expecting twin engine, twin tail with 12 hardpoints. But it was never the requirement.

DCS every other BVR was nerfed by Devs.
SD-10 wasnt,
JEFF is one of the few 4.5 Gen properly developed aircraft in this game which is not the case for many other aircraft that doesn't mean they lack anything