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

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

We should consider options for Pylon based EW from Leonardo, considering their experience working on EW equipment for the Eurofighter.

https://www.terma.com/media/105019/4868_pbl_pylon_screen.pdf
https://www.terma.com/press/news-20...6-electronic-combat-integrated-pylons-system/
https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/air/airborne-systems/airborne-ew


Considering budget constraints, the PAF may have to pick and choose certain systems per airplane and fly formations with the right mix of sub-systems needed to do the mission, keeping in mind the dynamic work of EW.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/breaki.../electronic-warfare-youre-doing-it-wrong/amp/

I think we might have trouble acquiring the DRFM tech (still), but the compact encasing is interesting. I think the PAF could look at using Terma's suite with an available DRFM (there's a source), and apply to the JF-17.

 

[FuturePAF]

I think we might have trouble acquiring the DRFM tech (still), but the compact encasing is interesting. I think the PAF could look at using Terma's suite with an available DRFM (there's a source), and apply to the JF-17.

If the Italians won’t do it we can go to the Turks and the Chinese to make their own take on EW integrated pylons with the required DRFM capabilities

 

[Armchair]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the JF-17 Block 3 already has DRFM capability. I'll also go out on a limb and speculate DRFM capability is / will be done in house in Pakistan.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the JF-17 Block 3 already has DRFM capability. I'll also go out on a limb and speculate DRFM capability is / will be done in house in Pakistan.

Yep Block-III has it, but probably so does Block-II via pod.

 

[Indos]

Yep Block-III has it, but probably so does Block-II via pod.

Do you know the engine used in JF 17 Block 3 ?

 

[FuturePAF]

Do you know the engine used in JF 17 Block 3 ?

Most likely RD-93MA. what ever it is, I hope that it allows the JF-17 exceed the TWR of the Mirage 2000, so that second hand aircraft like the Mirage 2000 don’t take market share from planes like the JF-17, even if a Block II variant is being sold to Air Forces looking for a “high value for their dollar” purchase.

 

[Armchair]

Most likely RD-93MA. what ever it is, I hope that it allows the JF-17 exceed the TWR of the Mirage 2000, so that second hand aircraft like the Mirage 2000 don’t take market share from planes like the JF-17, even if a Block II variant is being sold to Air Forces looking for a “high value for their dollar” purchase.

Mirage 2000 has a lot less drag, is a far more aerodynamically less draggy design. It will always have an advantage against the JF-17 because of that, even if you did increase thrust. The other side of the equation for thrust is drag.

 

[aliyusuf]

aerodynamically less draggy design

That only helps in flight in straight line.
After weapons loadout, that streamline design becomes less telling.
Also stream line design doesn't guarantee or add anything to maneuverability.
Thrust matters during non linear maneuvers, especially in the vertical axis.

 

[Armchair]

That only helps in flight in straight line.
After weapons loadout, that streamline design becomes less telling.
Also stream line design doesn't guarantee or add anything to maneuverability.
Thrust matters during non linear maneuvers, especially in the vertical axis.

Greater drag will impact you in all parameters. Whether maneuvering or not, to greater or lesser extent.

Adding load is air frame drag + load drag. Which makes the point moot.

The point I concede is gaining energy quickly, which is also a function of spool up time. You could have an engine that has theoretically higher thrust but takes a long time to spool up. So again, the issue becomes murky.

The general point is that thrust alone cannot be seen. Drag has to be considered.

 

[The Raven]

Greater drag will impact you in all parameters. Whether maneuvering or not, to greater or lesser extent.

Adding load is air frame drag + load drag. Which makes the point moot.

The point I concede is gaining energy quickly, which is also a function of spool up time. You could have an engine that has theoretically higher thrust but takes a long time to spool up. So again, the issue becomes murky.

The general point is that thrust alone cannot be seen. Drag has to be considered.

Do you have the drag coefficients of the JF-17 and the Mirage 2000 to back up your claims? Although the Mirage 2000 will have greater nose pointing authority, in a sustained turn rate, the JF-17 will outperform the drag from the large delta of the Mirage 2000.

 

[aliyusuf]

Greater drag will impact you in all parameters

A delta design is not optimized for all parameters. It is so for the straight line flight and lower wing loading. That is why it is good in instantaneous maneuvers and not so much on sustained maneuvers ... because it bleeds energy due to excessive drag in non-linear motion.

 

[FuturePAF]

Mirage 2000 has a lot less drag, is a far more aerodynamically less draggy design. It will always have an advantage against the JF-17 because of that, even if you did increase thrust. The other side of the equation for thrust is drag.

I understand that. While I would hope they would redesign the plane to decrease the drag further, it is more likely that the design will stay as it is and incremental engine improvements will be the most likely way to increase the Thrust/Drag.

While we purchase from amongst engines that are available, If in the future, PAF switches from the RD-93 to a Chinese engine, it should insist (have a requirement) the engine have enough thrust to exceed the Thrust/Drag of the Mirage 2000. Similar to the development of the GE 414 Engine. Currently at 22,000lb at max thrust but the EPE is at nearly 24,000lb max thrust and future growth is projected at up to 26-28,000 lb max thrust.

http://pds24.egloos.com/pds/201112/12/24/f0082824_4ee4d2f80971f.jpg

 

[Indos]

Greater drag will impact you in all parameters. Whether maneuvering or not, to greater or lesser extent.

Adding load is air frame drag + load drag. Which makes the point moot.

The point I concede is gaining energy quickly, which is also a function of spool up time. You could have an engine that has theoretically higher thrust but takes a long time to spool up. So again, the issue becomes murky.

The general point is that thrust alone cannot be seen. Drag has to be considered.

That is right. F35 has better thrust than KFX/IFX but with KFX/IFX design it has less drag that make the plane has more speed than F35.

 

[Armchair]

I understand that. While I would hope they would redesign the plane to decrease the drag further, it is more likely that the design will stay as it is and incremental engine improvements will be the most likely way to increase the Thrust/Drag.

While we purchase from amongst engines that are available, If in the future, PAF switches from the RD-93 to a Chinese engine, it should insist (have a requirement) the engine have enough thrust to exceed the Thrust/Drag of the Mirage 2000. Similar to the development of the GE 414 Engine. Currently at 22,000lb at max thrust but the EPE is at nearly 24,000lb max thrust and future growth is projected at up to 26-28,000 lb max thrust.

http://pds24.egloos.com/pds/201112/12/24/f0082824_4ee4d2f80971f.jpg

I'm much less bothered about max thrust. I'm interested in the abysmal and ludicriously outdated military power of the RD-93 series. I don't think that can be fixed without a complete redesign.

 

[araz]

Mirage 2000 has a lot less drag, is a far more aerodynamically less draggy design. It will always have an advantage against the JF-17 because of that, even if you did increase thrust. The other side of the equation for thrust is drag.

That maybe true, but in the trans sonic flight patterns where most encounters will happen, if on the merge as soon as the M2 turns it will bleed energy due to the same design characteristics. So tactics will dictate what happens in a patrticular encounter. There will now be additional factors like AWACS, EW, and other factors to consider. The advantage will be minimal in the BVR range and there also the range of the SD10 exceeds the MICA. I do not take any credit away from the French avionics and missiles but I think the Chinese have caught up and surpassed them. The M2Ks remain a very potent platform but they have lagged behind in the last encounter. If IAF adopts a similar strategy of using them for A2G roles like the M3/5s then they will definitely perform well, as their flight characteristics suit that sort of role.

Greater drag will impact you in all parameters. Whether maneuvering or not, to greater or lesser extent.

Adding load is air frame drag + load drag. Which makes the point moot.

The point I concede is gaining energy quickly, which is also a function of spool up time. You could have an engine that has theoretically higher thrust but takes a long time to spool up. So again, the issue becomes murky.

The general point is that thrust alone cannot be seen. Drag has to be considered.

But is it not true that the Delta designs are only good for the straight and hi run. On lo and slow they lose out to Non Delta conventional designs. Was this not the reason for incorporating

That is right. F35 has better thrust than KFX/IFX but with KFX/IFX design it has less drag that make the plane has more speed than F35.

Modern day fighters do not rely on speed anymore. This is not a race .Speed may have its advantages in certain profiles but very few.
A