What's new

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

What amuses me here is how many on this forum keep asking "why can't JF-17 do this or that?"

All along JF-17 was designed as a F-5/MIG-21/F-7/Mirage III replacement. Not a F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen/MIG-29 replacement.

Capabilities like IFR, BVR, LGBs, etc were never designed for light fighters. The fact JF-17 can do all of these is amazing and puts it leagues ahead of the types it was supposed to replace.

On the IFR probe front, an internal retractable probe (as opposed to a detachable one) takes up precious internal space and you only get these on a few large types F-18, Tornado etc.

The fact such a small fighter will have an AESA and the possibility to launch 4 PL-15s and 2 PL-10s gives us a light fighter with medium fighter capabilities.

Roles such as recce, deep strike, air superiority (as opposed to air defence) are the domain of medium/heavy types such as F-16/J-10/F-15/SU-30.

I find we often mingle light v medium capabilities when talking about JF-17. The plane was designed to help us get rid of F-6/F-7/Mirage III and give us a decent light fighter in affordable numbers, we will probably have close to 190-200 in service by 2025 and a few export orders.

J-10/AZM may well fully replace F-16s by 2030-2035 and I would not be surprised if the JF-17 is the very last light fighter PAF ever operates and switches to medium/large only fleet post 2035-2040
I think the JF-17 -- esp JF-17B and Block-3 -- will be the go-to strike fighter in the 2020s, at least from a SOW-carrying standpoint. One unit could carry two of either IREK (60-100 km), REK-III (120-150 km), C-802A (280 km), HD-1A (280 km) or Ra'ad II (600 km). So, the PAF's poised to really stretch the Thunder's utility to superb lengths.
 
.
I think the JF-17 -- esp JF-17B and Block-3 -- will be the go-to strike fighter in the 2020s, at least from a SOW-carrying standpoint. One unit could carry two of either IREK (60-100 km), REK-III (120-150 km), C-802A (280 km), HD-1A (280 km) or Ra'ad II (600 km). So, the PAF's poised to really stretch the Thunder's utility to superb lengths.
I may be wrong but one JF 17 can carry four SOWs with a centreline fuel tank. No BVRs then though
 
. .
What amuses me here is how many on this forum keep asking "why can't JF-17 do this or that?"

All along JF-17 was designed as a F-5/MIG-21/F-7/Mirage III replacement. Not a F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen/MIG-29 replacement.

Capabilities like IFR, BVR, LGBs, etc were never designed for light fighters. The fact JF-17 can do all of these is amazing and puts it leagues ahead of the types it was supposed to replace.

On the IFR probe front, an internal retractable probe (as opposed to a detachable one) takes up precious internal space and you only get these on a few large types F-18, Tornado etc.

The fact such a small fighter will have an AESA and the possibility to launch 4 PL-15s and 2 PL-10s gives us a light fighter with medium fighter capabilities.

Roles such as recce, deep strike, air superiority (as opposed to air defence) are the domain of medium/heavy types such as F-16/J-10/F-15/SU-30.

I find we often mingle light v medium capabilities when talking about JF-17. The plane was designed to help us get rid of F-6/F-7/Mirage III and give us a decent light fighter in affordable numbers, we will probably have close to 190-200 in service by 2025 and a few export orders.

J-10/AZM may well fully replace F-16s by 2030-2035 and I would not be surprised if the JF-17 is the very last light fighter PAF ever operates and switches to medium/large only fleet post 2035-2040


True!.. However, The JF-program started in 90's was supposedly intended to replace F-7s / A-5s / Mirages.. However by late 90's / early 2000s the Chinese tech did exponential growth. The JF-program benefited from such growth and the focus was shifted from only replacement to add most modern capabilities whatever were available at time. The PAF JF program director on record has told many times that we kept F-16 as a benchmark. JF-program also benefited from AVIC's recent experiences on J-10 during that time. It is true, it has limitations as its "Light" but its not mere replacement, It gave lot of new capabilities.
 
.
True!.. However, The JF-program started in 90's was supposedly intended to replace F-7s / A-5s / Mirages.. However by late 90's / early 2000s the Chinese tech did exponential growth. The JF-program benefited from such growth and the focus was shifted from only replacement to add most modern capabilities whatever were available at time. The PAF JF program director on record has told many times that we kept F-16 as a benchmark. JF-program also benefited from AVIC's recent experiences on J-10 during that time. It is true, it has limitations as its "Light" but its not mere replacement, It gave lot of new capabilities.

I do not disagree, it has more capabilities then perhaps it was originally intended for, and indeed in many aspects (BVR, Anti-ship) it is better than many medium sized fighters. However constantly comparing it to Rafale or F-16 misses the point. the F-16 and J-10 are PAF's medium fighters. When we replace these (with AZM most likely) that is when we can start comparing to Rafale.

In terms of the JF-17, the final Block III version is simply in another league to the Tejas, and it looks likely that by 2025-2027 we will have finally completed JF-17 production, even before Tejas Mark 1A has even entered service! This in addition to it's capability for it's size, it's proven combat record and export wins means JF-17 far exceeded anyone's expectations. Post 2025 it will be very interesting to see what PAF envisions as long term JF-17 and F-16 replacements seperate from AZM, as we cannot equip entire air force with AZM jets most likely
 
.
I do not disagree, it has more capabilities then perhaps it was originally intended for, and indeed in many aspects (BVR, Anti-ship) it is better than many medium sized fighters. However constantly comparing it to Rafale or F-16 misses the point. the F-16 and J-10 are PAF's medium fighters. When we replace these (with AZM most likely) that is when we can start comparing to Rafale.

In terms of the JF-17, the final Block III version is simply in another league to the Tejas, and it looks likely that by 2025-2027 we will have finally completed JF-17 production, even before Tejas Mark 1A has even entered service! This in addition to it's capability for it's size, it's proven combat record and export wins means JF-17 far exceeded anyone's expectations. Post 2025 it will be very interesting to see what PAF envisions as long term JF-17 and F-16 replacements seperate from AZM, as we cannot equip entire air force with AZM jets most likely
True. Comparing JF-17 with medium or heavy weight aircrafts does not make sense. I will not do that. I was only making a point that JF-17 evolved from a concept of replacement of pretty old jets to modern capabilities because of unprecedented chinese technological advancements during its development. Something which was not planned initially.
 
.
Can anybody share Pictures of IAF Officials Checking out Pakistan's JF17? I saw one a month ago cant find that thread again, Please?
 
.
Has anyone ever wondered what it would take to have rear fining missiles. Why has this never been attempted
 
.
Has anyone ever wondered what it would take to have rear fining missiles. Why has this never been attempted
I believe it has been attempted, but to make the missile turn 50g and face back was proven more efficient in the end.
 
.
So I am posting this here, because an F-22 vs JF-17 scenario pushes Thunder to its absolute max. The guy making the video is laughing at the Thunder, but if you look at the flight envelope it is astounding what a light combat aircraft with Russian engines is able to pull off. @SQ8 you have always criticized TVC and its role in modern combat. Checkout what TVC allows the F-22 to achieve here


I wonder if this was a 1 F-22 vs 2 JF-17 fight how it would turn out.
I've heard that the TVC on the F-22 gives it the additional ability to manoeuvre by directing thrust without moving control surfaces as much, it's part of the FCS and signature management system of the aircraft that is designed to minimise movement of control surfaces that might compromise stealth. Then again, if you're already paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a new aircraft with the aim of world-beating capabilities and a huge premium on maintenance is already there, coupled with the fact that 2x F119 produce roughly x4 times the thrust of the RD-93, then we can say that a bit of extra weight, cost and complexity to gain an edge in WVR and for limiting protrusion of control surfaces is perhaps worth it.

For now we've been lagging on HOBS + HMD combo, so TVC seems rightfully nowhere on PAF's list of priorities. A solid JHMCS like HMD and PL-10 with LOAL might completely negate the need for nose authority given by TVC. Also one other factor we need to be aware of, a loaded F-22 flies clean whereas others will have weapons on pylons during a fight, so pound for pound the nose authority given by a TVC F119 is more meaningful, even on a clean aircraft tilting the whole thing along its axis to produce a high AoA will hugely boost drag... do we know what TVC use looks like with a loaded aircraft? Are those fancy cobra, J-turn and falling leaf moves as impressive?

May be TVC could be useful in NGFA given the above? If it is deemed worth the extra capability given the weight, cost, maintenance and integration in the FCS. And given that performance in terms of range and agility aren't too compromised after the added weight and the power requirement (you need power for the hydraulics that will move to direct the thrust of the engine itself), which ofc is easily achieved if you have F-22 which is the world's most agile fighter with tons of spare thrust and the ability to supercruise at mach 1.8. I also read somewhere that aircraft like the F-22 that are designed for supercruise will likely have lower aspect ratio and highly swept wings, and as a result they may need a bid of extra help in the subsonic and low transionic regime where they are comparatively less efficient, and that therefore the extra manoeuvrability can come from the TVC - similar concept to the variable sweep wings of F-14.
 
.
I've heard that the TVC on the F-22 gives it the additional ability to manoeuvre by directing thrust without moving control surfaces as much, it's part of the FCS and signature management system of the aircraft that is designed to minimise movement of control surfaces that might compromise stealth. Then again, if you're already paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a new aircraft with the aim of world-beating capabilities and a huge premium on maintenance is already there, coupled with the fact that 2x F119 produce roughly x4 times the thrust of the RD-93, then we can say that a bit of extra weight, cost and complexity to gain an edge in WVR and for limiting protrusion of control surfaces is perhaps worth it.

For now we've been lagging on HOBS + HMD combo, so TVC seems rightfully nowhere on PAF's list of priorities. A solid JHMCS like HMD and PL-10 with LOAL might completely negate the need for nose authority given by TVC. Also one other factor we need to be aware of, a loaded F-22 flies clean whereas others will have weapons on pylons during a fight, so pound for pound the nose authority given by a TVC F119 is more meaningful, even on a clean aircraft tilting the whole thing along its axis to produce a high AoA will hugely boost drag... do we know what TVC use looks like with a loaded aircraft? Are those fancy cobra, J-turn and falling leaf moves as impressive?

May be TVC could be useful in NGFA given the above? If it is deemed worth the extra capability given the weight, cost, maintenance and integration in the FCS. And given that performance in terms of range and agility aren't too compromised after the added weight and the power requirement (you need power for the hydraulics that will move to direct the thrust of the engine itself), which ofc is easily achieved if you have F-22 which is the world's most agile fighter with tons of spare thrust and the ability to supercruise at mach 1.8. I also read somewhere that aircraft like the F-22 that are designed for supercruise will likely have lower aspect ratio and highly swept wings, and as a result they may need a bid of extra help in the subsonic and low transionic regime where they are comparatively less efficient, and that therefore the extra manoeuvrability can come from the TVC - similar concept to the variable sweep wings of F-14.

I never implied that TVC is something to seek. I just wanted to point out it does indeed help during WVR combat.

Also, fighter jets dump everything from pylons if they need to enter into WVR.

The newer designs seem to be favoring canards for fine control at low speeds. J-10 vs F-22 would be interesting.
 
. .
Any information on Infrared search and track on block 3?
Maybe it’s gonna be an updated variant of this pod moved to the new pylon under the intake.
Maybe based on the IRST from the J-10?

@Quwa
Any Updates?



1641755099521.jpeg

1641755199222.jpeg
 
Last edited:
. .
Question is when will we see new engine on JTF and which one .. RD93ma was seems to be not we past coming block 3

Is it will new block with new engine or something else with surprise
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom