What's new

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

The Accountant

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 13, 2016
7,467
18
8,777
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Sorry, this is what is in the document, In fact from that document:
Mig-29SMT = 6sqm
Su-30SM = 10sqm
Su-35 = 9sqm
Su-34 = 10smq
J-16 = 3sqm

In any case the FRP says " (data might not reflect true weapon system performances)", so in reality the information is not that helpful
Higher than traditionally designed dual engine mig 29 su35 and equivallent to su30. Seems like error.

Phsically not possible.
 

CHI RULES

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2015
1,845
5
1,531
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Agreed but the legacy Mig21s, mig 29s and MKIs may continue to have these problems. So 70-80% of their fleet will need upgrading. I am not sure what they will do in this regards although I know they were after changing some communication equipment on their platforms urgently. One of the reasons qouted for the efficacy of the MKI was its multi vendor provision of hardware which then did not communicate with each other. There may still be issues of integration of ground radars into the C41. My knowledge remains limited in these spheres so please feel free to rectify that which I have written incorrectly.
Regards
A
Sir the discussion about JF17 block 3 is incomplete without discussing capabilities of it's adversaries. As per available data IAF after previous skirmish as learned the lessons and they were already taking some steps and some are added once.
1. Rafale induction with low RCS/Spectra
2. Su30 spares stockpile and improvement in combat availability of SU30s up to 70% or above. Upgrade program for AESA radars/ next gen tech is under review.
3. Upgrade program of Mig 29s and their upgrades equivalent to Mig 35 in some aspects.
4. Secured communication system for fleet.
5.Capable BVR deals with Israel, France and Russia.
6. Improvement in SAMs i.e better version of Barack, starstreak production, S400 deal etc.
7. Upcoming AESA radars for major fleet portion resultant jamming shall be difficult unlike past.
(Tejas not discussed specifically as they are so far look to be in second tier for IAF)

PAF has got challenges and they should launch JF17 block 3 capable version at least to counter Rafales/upgraded enemy jets in A2A future encounters within own air space. ( As well either upgrades for existing F16s up to V standards or acquisition of block 72 should be in plans if possible otherwise should go for other available option for medium term)
 

The Raven

FULL MEMBER
Mar 31, 2020
383
3
833
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Seems PAF was never interested in it

Jf17 philosophy is maximum cost saving..

I think that philosophy has translated even in block3
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an indigenous IRST located on the LDP hardpoint on the Block III.
 

denel

PROFESSIONAL
Jul 12, 2013
5,454
-3
8,935
Country
South Africa
Location
South Africa
We can argue cost but not IRST capability
Every modern jet has taken IRST and 360 degree MWS including fighters like gripen

Anyway the key confirmation i am waiting on is rd93ma


I wonder how the cockpit will workout
For comparison look at grpen E cockpit
I would be interested if HMDS solution is there as part of this. That remains a key requirement but we dont hear anything along that track
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
3,642
18
4,429
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Sir the discussion about JF17 block 3 is incomplete without discussing capabilities of it's adversaries. As per available data IAF after previous skirmish as learned the lessons and they were already taking some steps and some are added once.
1. Rafale induction with low RCS/Spectra
2. Su30 spares stockpile and improvement in combat availability of SU30s up to 70% or above. Upgrade program for AESA radars/ next gen tech is under review.
3. Upgrade program of Mig 29s and their upgrades equivalent to Mig 35 in some aspects.
4. Secured communication system for fleet.
5.Capable BVR deals with Israel, France and Russia.
6. Improvement in SAMs i.e better version of Barack, starstreak production, S400 deal etc.
7. Upcoming AESA radars for major fleet portion resultant jamming shall be difficult unlike past.
(Tejas not discussed specifically as they are so far look to be in second tier for IAF)

PAF has got challenges and they should launch JF17 block 3 capable version at least to counter Rafales/upgraded enemy jets in A2A future encounters within own air space. ( As well either upgrades for existing F16s up to V standards or acquisition of block 72 should be in plans if possible otherwise should go for other available option for medium term)
To counter such a modernization of the IAF, the PAF will have to look at how other nations are dealing with a similar threat. The upgrades being made to the Eurofighter to deal with A2A and Sam threats is one area to observe; EW. The second is Turkey’s EW and attack Drones that can do many of the task a manned aircraft would otherwise do.

Secure comms/datalinks is going to be an arena that will make a break a battle or even a war, as we saw in Feb’19. Better Knowledge of the enemy’s C4ISR and how to degrade it while properly defending our own will also be crucial.
 
Last edited:

Jungibaaz

RETIRED MOD
Jul 4, 2010
7,611
93
15,505
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
On the JF-17, that 10m^2 figure is wrong and also misleading for various reasons. First off I don't think it's remotely likely that the JF-17 has anywhere close to the radar return observed on large Russian twin engines designed in an era where RCS management was of less concern. The RCS of an aircraft is neither a static value, it totally varies depending on angle of observation. Frontal aspect RCS is probably much lower for JF-17 than the sides. Same is the case with other aircraft if you look at their RCS scattering charts at 90 and 270 degrees.

If we look at the contributors to RCS from an aircraft, you'll know a little why these singular value are no good for anything other than superficial analysis:



And when radars say the range for a fighter size target (3 or 5m^2) detection range is x km. They are giving you the maximum range at which a target presenting the stated RCS would be detected. The range is also a function of the power output of the radar, the size of the antenna, the gain, and the minimum detectable signal that is above a certain threshold SNR.

With JF-17, we're looking at a smaller aircraft, higher composite usage vs legacy Russian fighters, so possibly lower specular return, sleeker airframe with fewer gaps and kinks meaning less travelling/surface wave and diffraction return, concealed engine blades in frontal aspect that reduces frontal aspect rcs. It's also much smaller, that should contribute to less return even assuming and holding all other variables equal. JF-17 is not designed or intended to be LO, so when if we compare it to other fighters of this class I think it would compare reasonably well or perhaps favourably.

However, even this is just my guess, actual spectral analysis and simulations need to be run on it:


Even then we can't really model for how good the rcs management of the aircraft is vs others when considering diffraction, travelling waves and other returns due to characteristics such as discontinuities and gaps in between surfaces, the return from materials, cockpit, as well as pylons and antennas poking out of the surface.
 

aziqbal

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 26, 2010
2,362
9
4,552
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I am very pro-nuclear weapons

not because I would like to ever see them being used but the policy of deterrence through strength is one which has worked for Pakistan so far

so for Block III I hope we test a air launched version of a nuclear capable cruise missile

this would ensure we have home grown platforms that can delivery a nuclear warhead from land, sea and air

fully indigenous platforms like Ballistic Missiles + JF17 Block III + Hangor Class/MILDEN should all have this capability
 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
12,081
-19
11,446
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Missile range is how far a missile can travel, which depends on a number of factors including the firing platforms speed, height, AOA, Air density, etc. It has nothing to do with the size of the target.

The size of the target matters only for radar detection, which is not dependent on the missile's radar, rather targeting platforms' radar. IF the targeting platform (AEWAC or Fighter) can locate and lock the target and the missile can reach that distance, it can theoretically kill the target at its max range regardless of the size of the target.


That 150km is for fighter sized aircraft as they can manoeuvre easily to bleed energy of the missiles 250km is for tankers Aew&c transport aircraft..... it is safe to assume that PL 15 is better or equal to Aim 120D in terms of range because it pushed the Americans to go for Aim 260 or they could have simply upgraded the Aim 120D....... also newer versions of KLJ7A were developed like the one with 3 arrays and the new engine RD 93MA will give more power so the radar range could be more than 170km but not revealed officially .........
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 1, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom