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

[Dreamer.]

It is not an issue of readability or making it hard for you, but to stress the point that publications spend a lot of resources to do these types of stories that are revenant to readers. Majority of publications are in the red, especially publications focused on targeted audiences such as defense. These publications depend on membership subscriptions to generate such stories. By posting their materials on the open web, we are not only cheating out subscribers who pay monthly membership fees but also undermine future stories of relevancy to this forum.

Please don’t take it personal or anything towards you. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Yeah I do understand where you're coming from. However your sense of humour matches that of the moderators here.

 

[The Eagle]

Yeah I do understand where you're coming from. However your sense of humour matches that of the moderators here.

You are not getting it all and continuously noting.it like some humor. This platform respects the copyrights and without putting into any other sense. Please abide by the rules and so the moral obligations.

Regards,

 

[Dreamer.]

You are not getting it all and continuously noting.it like some humor. This platform respects the copyrights and without putting into any other sense. Please abide by the rules and so the moral obligations.

Regards,

Did I violate any copyrights?

Issuing a thread ban on the other JF-17 thread for a harmless joke, then you talk about rules and moral obligations. I have never violated either.

I did not want to say this , which is why I didn't use the name before. But if the "platform" really respects copy rights it would delete post at first sight rather than first giving it 'like' , then deleting it after reminded by another member. Hope you don't take it personally.

 

[The Eagle]

Did I violate any copyrights?

Issuing a thread ban on the other JF-17 thread for a harmless joke, then you talk about rules and moral obligations. I have never violated either.

This is how someone thinks being of righteous everytime. AFM is paid content and sharing.such pics publicly is a copyright.

Thread ban for unnecessarily derailing and making fun of serious warning.

Regards,

 

[aliyusuf]

Now this is saying the real thing has come out with a 65% greater range = 274.5km.

That would be 247.5km.

 

[luciferdd]

That would be 247.5km.

IMO,250KM is hard to reach.We can see the air-cooled LKF601E's Rated power is ≤11KW，it means each TR modular will reach 10w~12w in air-cooled mode and a Similar TR modular will rise to higher(maybe 14W~15W) in liquid-cooled mode,but old RD-93 engine will hard to supply such electric power to it and maybe even new RD-93MA can't make it too.

 

[aliyusuf]

IMO,250KM is hard to reach.We can see the air-cooled LKF601E's Rated power is ≤11KW，it means each TR modular will reach 10w~12w in air-cooled mode and a Similar TR modular will rise to higher(maybe 14W~15W) in liquid-cooled mode,but old RD-93 engine will hard to supply such electric power to it and maybe even new RD-93MA can't make it too.

PAF finds RD-93 adequate for now. Both for flight performance and supporting a 1000+ TRM's AESA.

 

[FuturePAF]

Are Block III JF-17s getting the “Have Glass V” Treatment? With just the use of RAM paint, an F-16’s RCS was reduced 76%, so if the same can be done for the JF-17, it could presumably make a nearly equal significant difference depending on the properties of RAM paint available to the PAF.

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about doing just that

www.key.aero

Reference for 76% figure (12:45-13:40)

 

[Jf-17 block 3]

Are Block III JF-17s getting the “Have Glass V” Treatment? With just the use of RAM paint, an F-16’s RCS was reduced 76%, so if the same can be done for the JF-17, it could presumably make a nearly equal significant difference depending on the properties of RAM paint available to the PAF.

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about doing just that

www.key.aero

Reference for 76% figure (12:45-13:40)

AFM mentioned it’s going to add RAM to Jf-17s

 

[GumNaam]

PAF finds RD-93 adequate for now. Both for flight performance and supporting a 1000+ TRM's AESA.

so KLJ7A has at least 1000 TRMs? I've heard upwards of 1200TRMs similar to the J10Cs.

 

[applesauce]

so KLJ7A has at least 1000 TRMs? I've heard upwards of 1200TRMs similar to the J10Cs.

how is a smaller radar set going to have the same number of TRM as a larger set? and how it is going to be powered by a smaller engine if it did?
not like they're from different countries or at different tech levels.

 

[aliyusuf]

so KLJ7A has at least 1000 TRMs? I've heard upwards of 1200TRMs similar to the J10Cs.

The bulkiest part of the AESA radar is the TRM housing dish/antenna. If that many TRMs could be housed inside the nosecone of the Thunder then wouldn't it have been easier to just use the J-10C radar with a few modifications? Why did we go through such a long arduous process finding the best possible AESA solution? A new AESA radar was made as per the suitability of operation within the power and space parameters available on the Thunder.

 

[Danish Moazzam]

I have one observation that everyone i feel is missing out.

We are constantly debating that RD-93 will not be able to power the Aesa at full capacity but we overlook the fact that it is an Aesa radar which can switch the number of modules required and can also regulate the power requirement.

Please understand the scenario below:

Jet 1 is in scanning mode looking for threat in the airspace will it be on full military power with after burners? no it will be on a much lower power demand. we are talking about the time that the radar will be using maximum power. SO yes the Engine will have lots to spare for the radar.

it will be a formation flight and not solo so only one jet or a part of the package will be looking for long range threats and relaying info to the other planes. that is when they will not be in AEWAC cover

when the threat is nearer to the jet it can reduce the power to aesa radar and use elsewhere because then the long range power requirement will not be critical.

So an engine that the airforce has trust on and has been reliable so far with good turnaround time, it will not be disregarded easily

 

[Tempest II]

That would be 247.5km.

Sorry. My dyslexia showing.

Thanks for the correction. I have corrected the post.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Everyone is too obsessed with the antenna portion of the radar, so much so that other important aspects as backend processing (hardware and algorithm) are neglected.