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

[arjunk]

Does PN operate JF-17s or only Mirages?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Does PN operate JF-17s or only Mirages?

Neither. PAF is solely responsible for maritime strike and cover roles at the moment, JF-17 serves in this role, I don’t think mirages do anymore (JF has access to more advanced ASHMs). However this may be subject to change given how rapidly PN is upgrading itself.

 

[Deino]

Here the most recent image in full size!

 

[spectregunship]

Although I do like to see JF B3 prototype's new pictures every time.... how ever..... I am tired of this flights and testing and speculations and what not... they better bring it out in the open now with at least some fighter in operational livery...

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Although I do like to see JF B3 prototype's new pictures every time.... how ever..... I am tired of this flights and testing and speculations and what not... they better bring it out in the open now with at least some fighter in operational livery...

They're not building these for you.

 

[m52k85]

View attachment 771811
View attachment 771810

Interesting...

Compare the fuel tank clearance relative from the ground.

Blk 2 is yet to touch down. Notice fuel tank clearance, height of landing gear struts.
View attachment 771793

Blk 3 has just touched down, yet the landing gear shows higher ground clearance. Landing gear struts look longer.

View attachment 771794

Dazzler, you can not judge clearance from the Blk-2 that has not touched down since it is less of an head on angle than the Blk-3 picture, however its a good clear picture to count components and their relative lengths.

The blk-2 that has touched down is at a similar head on angle to the blk-3, so a simple clearance comparison is more appropriate.

Another confounding factor could be 'weight on wheels'. At the moment of touch-down, there is minimum weight on back wheels, since the aero-lift surfaces are still generating lift, as the plane slows down more lift is transfered to the back wheels until the front touches down. However given that the white touch down tire "smoke" is visible in both pictures, for simplicity we can ignore this factor and just say both pictures are taken a similar moment after touch down.

Put together these two comparisons make it clear that the landing gear in Blk-3 is no longer than in Blk-2.

@Deino hence the comparison is useful.

 

[Bossman]

Does PN operate JF-17s or only Mirages?

Neither, their is a dedicated PAF JF17 squadron that provides maritime support to PN.

 

[Deino]

Dazzler, you can not judge clearance from the Blk-2 that has not touched down since it is less of an head on angle than the Blk-3 picture, however its a good clear picture to count components and their relative lengths.

The blk-2 that has touched down is at a similar head on angle to the blk-3, so a simple clearance comparison is more appropriate.

Another confounding factor could be 'weight on wheels'. At the moment of touch-down, there is minimum weight on back wheels, since the aero-lift surfaces are still generating lift, as the plane slows down more lift is transfered to the back wheels until the front touches down. However given that the white touch down tire "smoke" is visible in both pictures, for simplicity we can ignore this factor and just say both pictures are taken a similar moment after touch down.

Put together these two comparisons make it clear that the landing gear in Blk-3 is no longer than in Blk-2.

@Deino hence the comparison is useful.

Maybe this helps ... posted already some time ago and even if maybe not 100% in identical position, it was the best I could find. Anyway, at least IMO it clearly shown, there are no major external differences and especially no taller gear.

 

[Yasser76]

Maybe this helps ... posted already some time ago and even if maybe not 100% in identical position, it was the best I could find. Anyway, at least IMO it clearly shown, there are no major external differences and especially no taller gear.

View attachment 772317

True, but nevertheless it will be easy to ID a Block III due to different RWR/MAWS locations and APU air intake on tail. Small but still visible external difference. From a front on view the new HUD gives it away but imagine these maybe retrofitted on earlier models

 

[Deino]

True, but nevertheless it will be easy to ID a Block III due to different RWR/MAWS locations and APU air intake on tail. Small but still visible external difference. From a front on view the new HUD gives it away but imagine these maybe retrofitted on earlier models

Agreed and indeed, there are several subtle but important differences to a Block 2, anyway at least I cannot see none of these mentioned "high-hope changes" like a wider span, larger wing, CFT-attachments, bigger intake and different engines and also not the often claimed higher/taller landing gear.

 

[Yasser76]

Agreed and indeed, there are several subtle but important differences to a Block 2, anyway at least I cannot see none of these mentioned "high-hope changes" like a wider span, larger wing, CFT-attachments, bigger intake and different engines and also not the often claimed higher/taller landing gear.

Yes, I think those kind of changes were just fanboy dreams and of course would require much longer dev time, new engines and software. My gut feeling is that the Block III will be the last reiteration of Thunder. The programme is coming close to competing it's goal of giving PAF cheap and lightweight fighters to replace the F-7 and to a lesser extent the Mirages.

I suspect money and resources will now go into a high end Mirage replacement (for missions the JF-17 cannot do as effectively) and eventually an F-16 replacement. There is only ever going to be some much capbility you will get out of a fighter the size and engine of JF-17.

Unsure if the solution will be just AZM of a combination of J-10C/P and AZM.....

 

[DJ_Viper]

Just wait for a "small" skirmish with our neighbour, they loosing a Rafale, a Su 30MKI and a Mirage 2k, PAF/Chinese will be selling JF-17s as hot cakes.

While I agree with the notion that JFT's market will hit the sky if it downed a Rafale tbh, but the reality is, Pakistan - India days of hostility are over and done with. India has China in mind and nowhere does it focus too much on Pakistan outside of propaganda. So I doubt the PAF will see the IAF head on again as it stands.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Here the most recent image in full size!

View attachment 772294

Thanks!

I did some pixel counting to compare this pic with that of B2 (attached). The screenshot of Excel file summarizes my findings:

1. B3 wing span is more.
2. B3 total height is more.
3. There is certainly a difference in Landing Gear configuration, with slight difference of height probable.
4. B3 inlet may be slightly larger, though the difference indicated could be due to measurement error (which is ~2%).

The differences are small, but significant enough to be noted. @messiach is probably right after all, though one might have expected greater difference.

 

[Deino]

Thanks!

I did some pixel counting to compare this pic with that of B2 (attached). The screenshot of Excel file summarizes my findings:

1. B3 wing span is more.
2. B3 total height is more.
3. There is certainly a difference in Landing Gear configuration, with slight difference of height probable.
4. B3 inlet may be slightly larger, though the difference indicated could be due to measurement error (which is ~2%).

The differences are small, but significant enough to be noted. @messiach is probably right after all, though one might have expected greater difference.

Wow ... good work my friend! Can't wait for more and better images in order to better compare.

 

[arjunk]

Wow ... good work my friend! Can't wait for more and better images in order to better compare.

Unrelated but I have a request for you.. Please perma ban anyone who even says the word "J-15" ever again,