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

[araz]

why you think it not have ground collision avoidance system, it's a modern 4 gen fighter jet???

Yara Tell me one thing. Why do you launch yourself on people so aggressively? You can still ask a question but asking a question in response to a question is not right. He has asked a valid question. Either respond if you have knowledge or let someone else answer him. You become very argumentative which is not right. Even if you disagree present your point of view and agree to disagree and move on.
I hope you will pay heed to what is being requested.
Kind regards
A

Does blk3 or earlier blocks has ground collision avoidance system? Since all code for thunder avionics integration is written by Pakistanis so being a programmer myself it don't look to be a complex system to integrate especially when blk3 is going to be fly by wire on all 3 axis.
With that system train could be fed to jets and could help pilots to take full advantage of geographical features without worrying much to manually control it. The viper accident which happened last year fir 23rd March rehearsals could be avoided by it in case of thunders.
And with it pilots could manoeuvres under bridges and between building too. Something like what we have in cruise missile but within G limit of fighter jets.

You may not be able to get a straight answer to this for some time. The specs of block 3 are yet not announced so like all of us/you will have to wait for your response.
A

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Yara Tell me one thing. Why do you launch yourself on people so aggressively? You can still ask a question but asking a question in response to a question is not right. He has asked a valid question. Either respond if you have knowledge or let someone else answer him. You become very argumentative which is not right. Even if you disagree present your point of view and agree to disagree and move on.
I hope you will pay heed to what is being requested.
Kind regards
A

Was i aggressive to him sir, if i do than sorry, and logic behind that all modern airliner have that system so why JFT haven't this or alternative system???

 

[araz]

Was i aggressive to him sir, if i do than sorry, and logic behind that all modern airliner have that system so why JFT haven't this or alternative system???

Thank you for your post. Actually if I understand things at all the collision avoidance system on the 16s is a fairly recent addition. 5o the best of my knowledge it does not exisg on our 52s. But happy to be corrected.
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

Most F-16s don't have that system as its just recently been rolled out in the USAF. I also don't think the JF-17 has it. The first Thunder crashed was controlled flight into terrain I believe.
Another point is, its a huge safety plus and would certainly would have been marketed with such a feature besides the usual "its so cheap" mantra.

 

[Xone]

JF17 is made by an airforce for the airforce, so what naturally comes in mind is, It should have many more goodies what others planes may lack. Jf17 should surely have collusion avoidance system only if really matters to the pilot,
simple answer is no informations are available in public domain about it.



.

 

[FuturePAF]

Most F-16s don't have that system as its just recently been rolled out in the USAF. I also don't think the JF-17 has it. The first Thunder crashed was controlled flight into terrain I believe.
Another point is, its a huge safety plus and would certainly would have been marketed with such a feature besides the usual "its so cheap" mantra.

Pakistan should look at making that an upgrade to all its current and future JF-17s. It’s a great technical capability for low level low visibility flights, especially at night, and it’s a marketable feature over the competition in the JF-17’s price range.

A towed decoy is also a must, considering the modest investment for a significant capability upgrade, in an evolving threat environment. It’s also an off board sensor that can be quickly updated through software updates to keep up with the latest threats and Allow the pilot to have more tactical options when needing to go defensive.

 

[Salman Baig]

I believe hindrance to system was a absense of all 3 axis fly by wire system. The AI school established recently by PAF might have this one project under them too.

 

[CombatSurgeon]

Most F-16s don't have that system as its just recently been rolled out in the USAF. I also don't think the JF-17 has it. The first Thunder crashed was controlled flight into terrain I believe.
Another point is, its a huge safety plus and would certainly would have been marketed with such a feature besides the usual "its so cheap" mantra.

No CFIT. In fact first JF-17 crashed due to critical structural failure.

 

[Trailer23]

Thank you for your post. Actually if I understand things at all the collision avoidance system on the 16s is a fairly recent addition. 5o the best of my knowledge it does not exisg on our 52s. But happy to be corrected.
A

Well, based on a info page on Lockheed Martin's page, the Auto-GCAS was already on F-16's in 2014.

An incident which involved a Block 42 of the Arizona Air National Guard’s 152nd Fighter Squadron, where the Pilot GLOC'ed , unconscious, recovered and survived.

Source: Lockheed Martin - Auto GCAS Technology

 

[araz]

Well, based on a info page on Lockheed Martin's page, the Auto-GCAS was already on F-16's in 2014.

An incident which involved a Block 42 of the Arizona Air National Guard’s 152nd Fighter Squadron, where the Pilot GLOC'ed , unconscious, recovered and survived.

Source: Lockheed Martin - Auto GCAS Technology

But we bought our 16s in 2006 and delvered in 2009-12. I would be the last one to deny the utility of the system.
A

 

[Trailer23]

But we bought our 16s in 2006 and delvered in 2009-12. I would be the last one to deny the utility of the system.
A

Agreed.

I doubt DoD would've wanted us to have it in the first place. They'd be perfectly happy if we were to crash our birds.

 

[araz]

Agreed.

I doubt DoD would've wanted us to have it in the first place. They'd be perfectly happy if we were to crash our birds.

It is a safety system which adds to the safe record of the platform and increases its chances of sale even more. I dont think there was any benefit in holding it back if it existed. But then this remains my view which may not be correct.
Regards
A

 

[air marshal]

 

[araz]

This guy is ex paf AND IS SUGGESTING jft having11 hpS, mach 2 speed . IF this is the case then we definitely do not need more J10s.
A

 

[Jungibaaz]

This guy is ex paf AND IS SUGGESTING jft having11 hpS, mach 2 speed . IF this is the case then we definitely do not need more J10s.
A

While this guy is ex PAF, I’m not willing to believe these specs off the bat. I’m not an expert, nor am I privy to any inside information that this guy may have. However these two claims do not sound credible, where would they find the space and capacity for these extra hardpoints? Only way it would remotely be possible is if there were two pod hardpoints instead of one under the intakes, and the count is made to include two dual ejector pylons. That makes 7 + 2 pod + 2 extra from dual ejectors.

Even then the mach 2 max speed claim is questionable. Unless we see the DSI bump configuration changed in a meaningful way or some other major intake modification, I don’t see this happening. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be a big requirement.

I could be wrong, but what we’ve seen doesn’t indicate any of this. As for J-10, it’s a delta wing configuration, lower wing loading, with a bigger engine and its medium weight, we can’t upgrade our way to a medium weight strike variant JF-17, it’s design limited. J-10 should manage strike a whole lot better, and unlike block III, the advanced tech needed for survivability is probably already there and sufficiently mature, vs having to wait and integrate, then tweak, with the block III.

Also, J-10B/C should in practice not have a max speed of mach 2 either. Both JF and J-10 are limited to Mach 1.6-1.8 due to DSI configuration.