What's new

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

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
4,289
19
5,284
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
A higher thrust will open doors to improvements like CFTs
With current engine or even rd93ma that wouldnt be a feasible option

Dry thrust is around 57about 15% higher then baseline model
While wet is around 94

More important is increase fuel effiency and life
Considering the outreach by the Russians, we should be trying to get ToT for the RD-93MA to build it under license. It will create a baseline engine capability, so that we are able to always field fighters. Even if, eventually, we pick the WS-19 (probably by 2030 at the earliest) to power future JF-17 variants, we should be able to create a foundation in this domain and support a minimal independent capability.
 

Abramar

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Dec 30, 2020
8
0
23
Country
Pakistan
Location
Kuwait
Didn't the ACM mention in the Alan Warnes article that the block 3 would have increased payload? This kind of hints at a new engine.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,239
71
13,548
Why am I getting the feeling as paf is getting half baked blk3
I do not think block3 is half baked. Design and other parameters are locked much before acrual assembly so it cannot be that you have changes on going while manufacturing is ongoing.
What has happened previously is that if a certain component production has been delayed then that component is actually not incorporated till half way through and once tech becomes available it is incorporated and changes made block wise. We have previoualy seen this in block 2 IFR and block 2B as-well.
So qhat are the possibilities causing delays? Is there an actual delay or is production where it was scheduled to be all along?
I do agree that we are a year behind with block 3. The reasons could be:
A. Engine availability.
B. Problems/ tweeeking of AESA.
C. HMCS.
D. Other adjustments like the 3 axis FBW etc. These may require readjustments only but testing following readjustments takes time
It seems the likelihood is engine availability for block 3. The RD93MA is still either in SBP or being manufactured. PAF could incorporate normal RDs and wait forcthe MA but this approach will be wasteful. So probably there is a slight delay of a year while the Russians manufacture and supply the MA. The HMCS may also be delayed but since it is plug and play the effect should not be as far reaching.
My thoughts on the matter.
A
 

Trango Towers

BANNED
Oct 29, 2016
15,841
-6
17,513
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
man why reply to others in aggressive manner ....

He raised a question, as it is due, due to the hype created for JF-17 blk-III but now when the real upgrades about blk-III get reported through official or semi official sources then some people[most of the fan boys] feel in the same way this member felt ....

Not everyone is following JF-17 rigorously, so my friend rather to reply them aggressively its better we explain them briefly and at least try to promote comradeship among Pakistani posters.
Because people are sick of the negative loser thought process that only gora sahib stuff is any good. Change your thinking.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
4,289
19
5,284
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
If the Block III has a significant weight reduction; down to an empty weight in the area of ~14,000 lb (from its current 14,520 lb) and a Max take off weight of ~31,000 lb (from its current 29,700 lb) with a 110 kn WS-19 engine it would be in the same performance class as the original YF-16 powered by the f100 engine, a design optimized for dogfighting and one of the most agile designs out there. TWR would be amongst the best for a 4th Gen design, and would be more than a match for any 4th Gen platform in the IAF.

Currently with its underpowered engine it is more akin to the F-16/79. Great design limited by a weak engine.

RD-93:
Dry thrust 11,100 lb
max thrust 18,300 lb
Ref: https://www.uecrus.com/eng/products/military_aviation/rd93/

J-79
Dry thrust 11,900 lb
Max thrust 18,500 lb



It’s the pilot skills, sensors and weapons that makes the JF-17 formidable, but with an engine upgrade it would be equal to the F-16. It would also be the most poetic way to end the F-16 saga in the history of the PAF.

A follow on design, with all the same internals as a Block III JF-17 plus a nose mounted IRST, but optimized to be a reduced RCS and electronic signature design (4 BVR and 2 WVR internal) could really sell in the hundreds or even thousands for those nations having western stealth fighters on their borders. The WS-19 engine could open up new options for the new “Non-aligned” countries.
 
Last edited:

syed_yusuf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 20, 2006
1,388
0
904
I do not think block3 is half baked. Design and other parameters are locked much before acrual assembly so it cannot be that you have changes on going while manufacturing is ongoing.
What has happened previously is that if a certain component production has been delayed then that component is actually not incorporated till half way through and once tech becomes available it is incorporated and changes made block wise. We have previoualy seen this in block 2 IFR and block 2B as-well.
So qhat are the possibilities causing delays? Is there an actual delay or is production where it was scheduled to be all along?
I do agree that we are a year behind with block 3. The reasons could be:
A. Engine availability.
B. Problems/ tweeeking of AESA.
C. HMCS.
D. Other adjustments like the 3 axis FBW etc. These may require readjustments only but testing following readjustments takes time
It seems the likelihood is engine availability for block 3. The RD93MA is still either in SBP or being manufactured. PAF could incorporate normal RDs and wait forcthe MA but this approach will be wasteful. So probably there is a slight delay of a year while the Russians manufacture and supply the MA. The HMCS may also be delayed but since it is plug and play the effect should not be as far reaching.
My thoughts on the matter.
A
It is better to delay and have full functionality. Have a fighter that can stand up to rafel with full spectrum of capabilities. If we have waited so many years one more year is just nothing provided the end product is top notch with Al bells and whistles.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,239
71
13,548
It is better to delay and have full functionality. Have a fighter that can stand up to rafel with full spectrum of capabilities. If we have waited so many years one more year is just nothing provided the end product is top notch with Al bells and whistles.
The problem remians none of us know what the actual ground realities are and what the delays if any are. Without that info this is all conjecture without any solid grounds on which to base them.
A
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
791
0
794
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The problem remians none of us know what the actual ground realities are and what the delays if any are. Without that info this is all conjecture without any solid grounds on which to base them.
A
People don't understand that thandars is incremental program from start. It will evolve in each block or sub block, they want everything to be integrated in block 3 even there wishes too.
Every fighter jet evolved during couse of time
 

Yujiro

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Apr 24, 2021
12
0
7
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
As expected PG will go first followed by reduction in mirages or replacement via another plateform
Seems block IIIB will be coming with next 20 order seems things are running slower then expected

I will surprise PAF giving up jf17 now since it put so much effort in block3
With no f16 coming even if PAF inducts 250jf17s it will still have a force of around 320..short of 400 aircrafts..so minimim 200-250 will be procured
Any idea of what will be done with the PG's and mirages? Can they be made into fast target practise drones. Or unmanned and sent in unusual formations as a decoy swarm tactic for the enemy to highlight high value SAM targets
 

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
5,621
5
8,771
Country
China
Location
United States
If the Block III has a significant weight reduction; down to an empty weight in the area of ~14,000 lb (from its current 14,520 lb) and a Max take off weight of ~31,000 lb (from its current 29,700 lb) with a 110 kn WS-19 engine it would be in the same performance class as the original YF-16 powered by the f100 engine, a design optimized for dogfighting and one of the most agile designs out there. TWR would be amongst the best for a 4th Gen design, and would be more than a match for any 4th Gen platform in the IAF.

Currently with its underpowered engine it is more akin to the F-16/79. Great design limited by a weak engine.

RD-93:
Dry thrust 11,100 lb
max thrust 18,300 lb
Ref: https://www.uecrus.com/eng/products/military_aviation/rd93/

J-79
Dry thrust 11,900 lb
Max thrust 18,500 lb



It’s the pilot skills, sensors and weapons that makes the JF-17 formidable, but with an engine upgrade it would be equal to the F-16. It would also be the most poetic way to end the F-16 saga in the history of the PAF.

A follow on design, with all the same internals as a Block III JF-17 plus a nose mounted IRST, but optimized to be a reduced RCS and electronic signature design (4 BVR and 2 WVR internal) could really sell in the hundreds or even thousands for those nations having western stealth fighters on their borders. The WS-19 engine could open up new options for the new “Non-aligned” countries.
I don’t think there is plan to incorporate the WS-19, which is a next generation medium thrust engine, onto the JF-17. Best case scenario WS-13 will be incorporated but there is a hurdle with this since Pakistan is happy with Russian engines and didn’t equip the JF-17 with them. You need to fly a new engine in service with a large number of fighters to figure out all the problems.
 

denel

PROFESSIONAL
Jul 12, 2013
6,337
1
10,758
Country
South Africa
Location
South Africa
Considering the outreach by the Russians, we should be trying to get ToT for the RD-93MA to build it under license. It will create a baseline engine capability, so that we are able to always field fighters. Even if, eventually, we pick the WS-19 (probably by 2030 at the earliest) to power future JF-17 variants, we should be able to create a foundation in this domain and support a minimal independent capability.
To build engines, you need to have supporting industries; those are none existent.

I will suggest you read on Bilal's post; he has done an excellent job of highlighting the malaise and provided recommendations; you dont do TOT when you have no foundations.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
4,378
9
5,627
I don’t think there is plan to incorporate the WS-19, which is a next generation medium thrust engine, onto the JF-17. Best case scenario WS-13 will be incorporated but there is a hurdle with this since Pakistan is happy with Russian engines and didn’t equip the JF-17 with them. You need to fly a new engine in service with a large number of fighters to figure out all the problems.
WS19 is in the same category as F414 which is being installed in similar category fighters. It would make a lot of sense to have WS19 on JF17.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
791
0
794
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Any idea of what will be done with the PG's and mirages? Can they be made into fast target practise drones. Or unmanned and sent in unusual formations as a decoy swarm tactic for the enemy to highlight high value SAM targets
They will be stocked as backups aircrafts.
 

syed_yusuf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 20, 2006
1,388
0
904
The problem remians none of us know what the actual ground realities are and what the delays if any are. Without that info this is all conjecture without any solid grounds on which to base them.
A
That is absolutely correct. Let's hope for the best.
 

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
5,621
5
8,771
Country
China
Location
United States
WS19 is in the same category as F414 which is being installed in similar category fighters. It would make a lot of sense to have WS19 on JF17.
You need to make modifications to the airframe first. Engine change is not as simple as plug and play. When China installed WS-10 on the J-11B they had to modify the inlets.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom