What's new

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

I think the Indian version of Rafale is latest block and most modern electronics on Rafale including 2005 developed 2012 service RBE2AA AESA. It is good and improve Rafale so much. Then Meteor missile as well. This fighter will be very difficult to challenge for PAF unless block 3 can be service in 2 times higher numbers with PL-15 full range and support with F-16 52 and AIM-120C at least.


Not working on, already done since PL-15 and PL-x is clearly in the photo having a second seeker sensor unit coming out of top. Usually it is active radar or half active radar at least and infrared. More important than having extra infrared is jamming resistance. The modern missiles have much better jamming resistance than old ones. Old ones basically are useless against any advanced country's more modern fighters and equipment.

Good to know it’s in service on the PL-15. And if as you say the single band seekers are useless, even more reason the current seekers on the SD-10 should be upgraded to a dual band seeker.

As far as the Rafale goes, indeed it is a formidable threat, but one which, with intimate knowledge of the enemy fighter and its weapons systems, a EW suite could be prepared to allow a fighter to have some level of self protection. Flying in a formation of Fighters could be dedicated EW variants of the twin seat JF-17 with advanced modern detection sensors and jamming pods, similar to the American Next generation jammer, would make it even more likely the enemy would have to come in close to ensure a high probability of a kill, opening it up to being shot down by the PL-15. The key factor may in deed be the electronics and their algorithms.

 
Last edited:
.
Good to know it’s in service on the PL-15. And if as you say the single band seekers are useless, even more reason the current seekers on the SD-10 should be upgraded to a dual seeker.

Dual seeker is not more important than modern seeker and jamming resistance. Dual seeker advantage can be completely useless in most situations. It is also more expensive and definitely takes more space and weight on missile.

If SD-10 wants upgrades for modernizing it should be with new seeker that is better than old one in tracking and jamming resistance. Or something like smaller and lighter but also cheaper while returning same or slightly better performance than older one.

PL-15 is much better than PL-12 because of longer range from higher energy. Of course the seeker is also much more modern. Upgrading SD-10 can not give similar improvement in range. It is not a good substitute for PL-15 is range is required. Indian Rafale will have quite modern electronic warfare and very good range missile Meteor and Rafale is small radar signature even compared to pretty small JF-17.
The advantage of Chinese industry and culture of development is that we do not restrict some capability because it is considered too good or expensive if it is possible to deliver. For example with communication between fighter where maybe just one block 3 operate with radar on non-LPI if PAF side has no command AEWC to support. Then this one communicates target and picture information with other block 3 nearby.

Something like this if is possible to deliver for controlled cost, China will especially for Pakistan. It is not considered too much or too difficult unless it really is depending on some very complex and expensive equipment.

So for both sides Rafale and block 3, their radars if good enough to support Meteor and PL-15 which I'm sure is minimum ability already, then the rest is okay for long range fight. The Meteor has longer range than PL-15 but PL-15 has more modern seekers. Rafale can carry much more fuel and much more missiles than block 3 and fuel is energy for staying in fight and avoiding missiles. PAF may need at least two block 3 for each Rafale.

But Rafale's close range fighting is superior and Meteor has longer range than PL-15 so total advantage is still with Rafale. Pakistan needs AZM to beat it completely or if before AZM, needs to target Rafale base with cruise missile and ballistic missile for those long away and with artillery for those close to Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
.
Oh please, your post is literally full of adjectives. Let us talk facts. So, how many 4th gen aircraft has it shot down in combat that were flown by well trained pilots? Against which technologically advanced adversary has it been tested in a dense EW environment? And what happens when the enemy radar simply out ranges it?

I do not want to trivialize it in any manner. It is an adversary that needs to be respected. But respectfully, Pakistan can come up with better in combination with the Chinese. And that's what we need to remember.
AESA is as much as software as hardware

A layman example is an apple vs samsung

A paper samsung may have better specs but an iphone is so well optimized that outperforms it

France simply has worked longer on AESA radar then chinese and have the luxury of testing it against USA something chinese lack
Perhaps the Block 3A variants will feature a built in IRST or field the RD-93MA engine.

If it does go for the IRST as a standard feature (Freeing up the chin hard point for a dedicated self protection jammer) , coupled with the LPI GaN AESA Radar and the sensor fusion to merge the tracks from both to go along with it, I hope they update the seekers on the SD-10 into a “Dual Band Seeker” and maybe modify the ends of the missiles to have TVC nozzles.

It may sounds far fetched, I know, but it seems, from a reputable source, the Chinese are working on dual band seekers on long range missiles. So why not modify the SD-10.


This technology is already fielded on the Israeli Stunner missile and there is speculation for an Air to Air version for some time now.

Compare to weight time block3 was a disapointemt in terms of how much we know.

Tells you how hard PAF(or rather the chinese) is working to get a good product out

But as PAF & IAF knows by now first see and first shoot is the key

IAF is working on its own BVR ...question is what are we doing
 
.
AESA is as much as software as hardware

A layman example is an apple vs samsung

A paper samsung may have better specs but an iphone is so well optimized that outperforms it

France simply has worked longer on AESA radar then chinese and have the luxury of testing it against USA something chinese lack

The Americans wouldn't parade their top secret stealth systems for testing, no matter who the ally is. The Chinese on the other hand are utilizing intelligence, hacking, and research to learn as much as they can about American system - their very existence depends on it.

You are right, a large part of AESA is beamforming and the quality of the beam determines the ability of the radar. But AESA and beamforming have recent advancements and the Chinese are on top of those recent advancements. Check out the posts by @serenity above.

The French have also integrated the radar with weapons and EW through machine learning and AI. Again, the designer of JF-17 declared information warfare as top priority a few years ago. And PAC has formed an AI centre as well.

Insha Allah, PAF's edge will be in maintaining first shoot, first kill by having extended range combined with top notch software. And then there are the Turkish inputs as well. You should understand that Turkey, Pakistan, and China is an axis whose immediate neighbors - India and Greece - will field Rafale in anger against them. We are not alone in the world facing the Rafale threat.
 
. .
Dual seeker is not more important than modern seeker and jamming resistance. Dual seeker advantage can be completely useless in most situations. It is also more expensive and definitely takes more space and weight on missile.

If SD-10 wants upgrades for modernizing it should be with new seeker that is better than old one in tracking and jamming resistance. Or something like smaller and lighter but also cheaper while returning same or slightly better performance than older one.

PL-15 is much better than PL-12 because of longer range from higher energy. Of course the seeker is also much more modern. Upgrading SD-10 can not give similar improvement in range. It is not a good substitute for PL-15 is range is required. Indian Rafale will have quite modern electronic warfare and very good range missile Meteor and Rafale is small radar signature even compared to pretty small JF-17.
The advantage of Chinese industry and culture of development is that we do not restrict some capability because it is considered too good or expensive if it is possible to deliver. For example with communication between fighter where maybe just one block 3 operate with radar on non-LPI if PAF side has no command AEWC to support. Then this one communicates target and picture information with other block 3 nearby.

Something like this if is possible to deliver for controlled cost, China will especially for Pakistan. It is not considered too much or too difficult unless it really is depending on some very complex and expensive equipment.

So for both sides Rafale and block 3, their radars if good enough to support Meteor and PL-15 which I'm sure is minimum ability already, then the rest is okay for long range fight. The Meteor has longer range than PL-15 but PL-15 has more modern seekers. Rafale can carry much more fuel and much more missiles than block 3 and fuel is energy for staying in fight and avoiding missiles. PAF may need at least two block 3 for each Rafale.

But Rafale's close range fighting is superior and Meteor has longer range than PL-15 so total advantage is still with Rafale. Pakistan needs AZM to beat it completely or if before AZM, needs to target Rafale base with cruise missile and ballistic missile for those long away and with artillery for those close to Pakistan.

Against a stealthy Rafale employing SPECTRA, we might need a multistatic solution comprising multiple AESA radars. They would rely on LPI to avoid detection by SPECTRA.
Yep, China even can steal something that USA doesn't have.:-)

As an example, China has been leaking information that their VHF radars tracked an American F-22


Similarly there have been multiple incidents of Chinese hackers getting hold of sensitive stealth documents.
 
. .
Dual seeker is not more important than modern seeker and jamming resistance. Dual seeker advantage can be completely useless in most situations. It is also more expensive and definitely takes more space and weight on missile.

If SD-10 wants upgrades for modernizing it should be with new seeker that is better than old one in tracking and jamming resistance. Or something like smaller and lighter but also cheaper while returning same or slightly better performance than older one.

PL-15 is much better than PL-12 because of longer range from higher energy. Of course the seeker is also much more modern. Upgrading SD-10 can not give similar improvement in range. It is not a good substitute for PL-15 is range is required. Indian Rafale will have quite modern electronic warfare and very good range missile Meteor and Rafale is small radar signature even compared to pretty small JF-17.
The advantage of Chinese industry and culture of development is that we do not restrict some capability because it is considered too good or expensive if it is possible to deliver. For example with communication between fighter where maybe just one block 3 operate with radar on non-LPI if PAF side has no command AEWC to support. Then this one communicates target and picture information with other block 3 nearby.

Something like this if is possible to deliver for controlled cost, China will especially for Pakistan. It is not considered too much or too difficult unless it really is depending on some very complex and expensive equipment.

So for both sides Rafale and block 3, their radars if good enough to support Meteor and PL-15 which I'm sure is minimum ability already, then the rest is okay for long range fight. The Meteor has longer range than PL-15 but PL-15 has more modern seekers. Rafale can carry much more fuel and much more missiles than block 3 and fuel is energy for staying in fight and avoiding missiles. PAF may need at least two block 3 for each Rafale.

But Rafale's close range fighting is superior and Meteor has longer range than PL-15 so total advantage is still with Rafale. Pakistan needs AZM to beat it completely or if before AZM, needs to target Rafale base with cruise missile and ballistic missile for those long away and with artillery for those close to Pakistan.

May be a naive question: Can any block/version of J-10 overcome the limitations of JF-17 against Rafales?
If Yes, how and on what parameters J10 can cope with Rafales?
If No, do Chinese have an export variant of any aircraft which can take up the Rafales challenge?
 
.
As an example, China has been leaking information that their VHF radars tracked an American F-22
I'm pretty sure F-22s don't fly around in stealth configuration except in mainland USA for military purpouses. They purpousely increase their RCS with a little attatchment normally.
 
.
GENTLEMEN.
A few observations.
A. Please deal with each post with due considerations at least amongst our own brothers( Obvious exceptions being smelly Indian vermin posters and exclude the few non biased outside/Indian posters). Berrating someone for posting an alternate point of view is not a nice thing. SO PLEASE DEAL WITH EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT.
B. The Rafale vs JFT/J10 debate/will linger on. No one knows what the Rafale's true capabilities in battle will be. The same holds true for JFT/J10. However we have seen a rafale taking down a 22. Things move on and I am sure PAF and PLAAF want to ensure they get the best possible solution against the Rafale. PAC is constantly at work and the fact that only 30 block3s have been ordered MAY mean that this is still work in progress. We have a 10 year advantage over the RBE series AESA so hopefully PAF/PAC has done its home work.
Thank you.
A
 
.
GENTLEMEN.
A few observations.
A. Please deal with each post with due considerations at least amongst our own brothers( Obvious exceptions being smelly Indian vermin posters and exclude the few non biased outside/Indian posters). Berrating someone for posting an alternate point of view is not a nice thing. SO PLEASE DEAL WITH EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT.
B. The Rafale vs JFT/J10 debate/will linger on. No one knows what the Rafale's true capabilities in battle will be. The same holds true for JFT/J10. However we have seen a rafale taking down a 22. Things move on and I am sure PAF and PLAAF want to ensure they get the best possible solution against the Rafale. PAC is constantly at work and the fact that only 30 block3s have been ordered MAY mean that this is still work in progress. We have a 10 year advantage over the RBE series AESA so hopefully PAF/PAC has done its home work.
Thank you.
A
I am saddened to see you use such language.
 
.
completely wrong article Project Director of JF-17 Shaid Latif himself many time told that JF-17 have nothing to do with Super-7 or J-7 series in fact Super-7 was was a failure and was abandoned, but when he took charge of the project he shifted the baseline concept from J-7 to F-16 [PAF only had blk-15 F-16 at that time], Chinese counterpart severely objected on it & it took him a good amount of time to make Chinese agreed to the new Project and name of the new project was not decided till then so initially they used the name of old project Super- 7 and it is from this point where all the confusion arise related to JF-17 relation to Super-7.

Name FC-1 or JF-17 was decided at much later stage.
 
Last edited:
. .
I am saddened to see you use such language.
The rude and the disruptive do not get any respect in my books. I have immense respect for some unbiased posters but not the ones that come in disrupt every thread. I am sorry you have felt saddened and it was not my intention. I hope I have made my position clearer.
Kind regards
A
 
.
Yep, China even can steal something that USA doesn't have.:-)

Yes. Our positron collider that is built in 2035 was later developed into a time warping machine which allow our engineers to copy from future. They then seed the information through 5G tower to past. This is already common information because secret is exposed :p:
Against a stealthy Rafale employing SPECTRA, we might need a multistatic solution comprising multiple AESA radars. They would rely on LPI to avoid detection by SPECTRA.


As an example, China has been leaking information that their VHF radars tracked an American F-22


Similarly there have been multiple incidents of Chinese hackers getting hold of sensitive stealth documents.

Spotting F-22 is actually not too difficult with certain types of high frequency radars. Not all of them but it is still useless to provide accurate target information for missile. Better way was to use many similar types of these radars and develop a way to improve the information they collect into a clear target for missile guidance. Chinese scientists say this was already done but it relies on many radar units all operating in this overlap method.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom