JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[Taygibay]

Those nasty arse hinges... Why! Oh why?!?!

Calm down mate, at least they're inside!
Plus, you can't tie a canopy down with
shoe laces and paper clips, those things
are relatively heavy and under stress.

And the pilot doesn't see them in flight.
As long as the outside is smooth as in ...

Resemblance B Series for me looks a lot like sparrow

Fine by me as long as its RCS is that
of one too or below.

Have a fun day all, Tay.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

but its this is just your thought PAF badly needs a dedicated deep penetration strike/CAS/attack jet after retirement of A-5, so who knows that JF-17B major customers will be PAF, in another thread @Rohail Asif sir said that blk-3 will be based on JF-17B, and first 22 of blk-3 will twin seater @!eon

For block 3 they might have finalized its designed, only when JF-17B came into being and that too after some one else demand which I already told you in some other thread few days back.

 

[somebozo]

The plane looks pregnant!

 

[Maxpane]

The plane looks pregnant!

Sir it will give birth to block 3

 

[Windjammer]

The plane looks pregnant!

All depends on camera angles besides, the JF-17 is one of those aircraft that looks more impressive in the air than on ground.

 

[Clutch]

Calm down mate, at least they're inside!
Plus, you can't tie a canopy down with
shoe laces and paper clips, those things
are relatively heavy and under stress.

And the pilot doesn't see them in flight.
As long as the outside is smooth as in ...



Fine by me as long as its RCS is that
of one too or below.

Have a fun day all, Tay.

The are outside! Why oh why! .
.

 

[araz]

According to a PAF officer interview in 2015, twin seater is not requirement of Pakistan or China. It was actually customer demand.

See how quickly they will change their tune if the project is a success and the B turns out to be good for ceftain roles.
A

 

[LKJ86]

See how quickly they will change their tune if the project is a success and the B turns out to be good for ceftain roles.
A

IMO, the development of JF-17 is lack of long-term planning.

 

[araz]

IMO, the development of JF-17 is lack of long-term planning.

For a plane with an expected life of 35 /40 yrs, in an environment of change of generations, with a niche which does not exist in the market and without any current competitors, why do you say that?
A

 

[LKJ86]

For a plane with an expected life of 35 /40 yrs, in an environment of change of generations, with a niche which does not exist in the market and without any current competitors, why do you say that?
A

No offence, just my personal feeling.

 

[araz]

No offence, just my personal feeling.

I simply wanted to know why you made a statement. You have the right to hold an impression I just wanted to know why?
A

 

[YeBeWarned]

Almost as beautiful as F-16's and F-18 ... those who are calling it a ugly fighter are ugly themselves ..

 

[TOPGUN]

Its not all about the beauty rather the work the fighter is meant for and can produce , now if the fighter had great looks it would be too pretty for you guys and now a fighter that is our own too call is to ugly etc ... wake up people its a fine looking fighter and will do great work needed for our PAF.

 

[araz]

Almost as beautiful as F-16's and F-18 ... those who are calling it a ugly fighter are ugly themselves ..

No it is not! It is a bit fat and podgy. However looks arent everything and it is our baby and a huge step for a country like Pakistan..
A

 

[Dreamer.]

While looks can matter somewhat, it is the functionality that matters most. And while it is normal to find comments about looks of a plane on an aviation/defence forum, this thread here is in an ignoble league of its own!

The JF-17 aircraft (all models) have never been the beauty contest winners of the aircraft universe, but neither are they the worst looking aircraft in service today or in history (anyone heard of the frogfoot?). The JF-17B also while not awesome looking is NOT an ugly aircraft. It is simply a decent/average looking guy (plane ) , not handsome but certainly not ugly.

Really some members here are the limit! Sometimes I think that they wouldn't settle for anything less than the Star trek Voyager! Then I read threads like this and realize they would consider it ugly.