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

[Akh1112]

A lot of internal plumbing was redone to accomodate the AESA. Additionally the block 3 will have 3 a is FBW and you cannot change that in block 1and 2. Those are a few of the changes which I remember. Even if an AESA is chosen for block 1and2 it will have to be air cooled one due to space limitation.
A

And thats where the LK601E comes into play.

 

[The Raven]

A lot of internal plumbing was redone to accomodate the AESA. Additionally the block 3 will have 3 a is FBW and you cannot change that in block 1and 2. Those are a few of the changes which I remember. Even if an AESA is chosen for block 1and2 it will have to be air cooled one due to space limitation.
A

Not true, there's no technical reason why earlier Block I and II aircraft can't be upgraded to Block III standard. The PAF have repeatedly stated that this has always been the case with the programme.

 

[Readerdefence]

Not true, there's no technical reason why earlier Block I and II aircraft can't be upgraded to Block III standard. The PAF have repeatedly stated that this has always been the case with the programme.

Hi may be the Q is it feasible to upgrade blk1 & 2 or specifically blk1 coz I think the money on bringing those at par with blk3 may be to invest to have another blk 3 or something related with blk 4 just a thought
Your input please
Thank you

 

[araz]

Not true, there's no technical reason why earlier Block I and II aircraft can't be upgraded to Block III standard. The PAF have repeatedly stated that this has always been the case with the programme.

Articles as far back as 2012 quoted what I have said. The rest maybe a case of financial viability. Lets wait and see. To give an example, early block F16s cannot be upgraded to block 52 COMPLETELY. They even have different number of Hardpoints. Capability maybe upgraded to that level. I think it was khalid Mehmood (forget his rank) who mentioned this fact back on 2012 on one of the first articles on JFT.
A

 

[aliyusuf]

Not true, there's no technical reason why earlier Block I and II aircraft can't be upgraded to Block III standard. The PAF have repeatedly stated that this has always been the case with the programme.

If that were the case then why go thru all the trouble of creating a new fighter block inside out? To go thru making new prototypes and going thru extensive testing to stabilize the product? Why go thru all that trouble? May have just gone thru continuing with Block-II production with the new goodies ... requiring much less testing and stabilizing?

So yes, Block I and II can be upgraded with AESA and stuff, but maybe not the same level of AESA and stuff as Block-III perhaps?

 

[Armchair]

With PAF limited funds, Block IIIs will be first built with AESA. Only after this is complete will they think of putting AESAs on Block I and II, perhaps during their scheduled overhaul.

 

[capricorn5192]

If that were the case then why go thru all the trouble of creating a new fighter block inside out? To go thru making new prototypes and going thru extensive testing to stabilize the product? Why go thru all that trouble? May have just gone thru continuing with Block-II production with the new goodies ... requiring much less testing and stabilizing?

So yes, Block I and II can be upgraded with AESA and stuff, but maybe not the same level of AESA and stuff as Block-III perhaps?

May be because PAF wants to use their life/airframe life and then after that they will be upgraded.

My 2 cents

 

[The Raven]

Hi may be the Q is it feasible to upgrade blk1 & 2 or specifically blk1 coz I think the money on bringing those at par with blk3 may be to invest to have another blk 3 or something related with blk 4 just a thought
Your input please
Thank you

There won't be a "Block IV" specifically, and while further new built Block III airframes after the first 50 can't be discounted, the PAF would clearly like to have more than just 50 AESA equipped fighters. There's no indication yet whether we could be able to upgrade our Vipers with AESA, that all depends on politics. That then leaves the only solution to upgrade Block I and II aircraft. In fact, upgrading the earlier blocks would make the most financial and technical sense, because there has already been considerable sunken cost investment made in terms of allowing the overhaul and rebuild of the JF-17s, similar to what we're doing with the Mirages. Given that the JF-17s will be with the PAF for the next 25-30 years or so, the PAF has always said that the JF-17s will undergo successive "MLU" type upgrades, adding additional capability to the aircraft. Of course, this is all contingent on funding, as with anything.

If that were the case then why go thru all the trouble of creating a new fighter block inside out? To go thru making new prototypes and going thru extensive testing to stabilize the product? Why go thru all that trouble? May have just gone thru continuing with Block-II production with the new goodies ... requiring much less testing and stabilizing?

So yes, Block I and II can be upgraded with AESA and stuff, but maybe not the same level of AESA and stuff as Block-III perhaps?

No. Have a look at every major fighter development programme, and you will see a similar approach. Did General Dynamic/Lockheed Martin jump straight to the Block-50/52 after the Block-15? All major fighter development programmes have successive iterations of more advanced aircraft, which require prototype testing, qualification, and validation stages to integrate new avionics, weapons, radar, sensors, and other capabilities. That then allows earlier production versions to be upgraded to the latest production standard. Again, take a look at the Viper, we have upgrade early Block-15 OCU models to Block-50 standard, that's a huge upgrade in terms of capability, avionics, radar, and weapons. The V standard takes that even further and incorporates an AESA, which if available to the PAF, I'm sure they would upgrade their A/B models to. The same can be done with the JF-17, take earlier block versions and add capability. Again, take a look at another example, what the South Africans and Israelis have done with the Mirage family, a second generation fighter and upgrading to such an extent (wings, front fuselage, engine, avionics, radar, weapons) that it essentially becomes a completely new third generation fighter aircraft, or what the PAF have done with the ROSE mirages. When it come to upgrading, there is a considerable amount we can do.

 

[araz]

With PAF limited funds, Block IIIs will be first built with AESA. Only after this is complete will they think of putting AESAs on Block I and II, perhaps during their scheduled overhaul.

I think network centricity is the priority rather than an AESA upgrade. PAF has a record of not changing software unless it is unavoidable.
For instance it was necessary to upgrade the radar on the block 15 to the52 one as the earlier radar lacked the range to effectively use the C5s. However the OCUs acquired from Jordan have not been upgraded as they retain the capability. Circumspect use of resources remains a priority in a cash constrained environment. AESA and Non AESA radars can be used if multiple platforms use the capability of netcentricity. So in my humble opinion AESA upgrade for Block 2s is low on the priority list of PAF.
A

 

[ziaulislam]

IMO it will probably make more sense to build more b3 rather than upgrading older ones..

Prior issue was we arent able to build the airframes but that isnt an issue with JF

 

[aliyusuf]

...we have upgrade early Block-15 OCU models to Block-50 standard

Only up to the the level of sensors, avionics and type of munitions they can carry.
They don't have the same loiter time of the Block-52+
They don't have the same engine nor engine-power as the Block-52+
They don't have the same RCS
They don't have the same range nor combat radius of the Block-52+
They can't carry CFT like the Block-52+
They can't carry as much weapons or fuel as the Block-52+

JF-17 Block-III on the level of weapons systems, avionics, sensors, FCS and EW-suite, has been re-designed internally to take on the best of the best of the adversary. The level of re-construction required to bring the earlier Blocks to the Block-III level would be illogically cost and time prohibitive.

But that is not to say that can't be upgraded to a near capability level to the Block-III on many aspects.

 

[The Raven]

The JF-17 fleet has been networked with Link-17, but the issue facing the PAF is the burgeoning threat of an ever expanding AESA equipped IAF fleet - the Rafales, the "Super-30" upgrade, and the future versions of the Tejas, as well as possible upgrades to the Mirage 2000 and Mig-29, means that only 50 AESA equipped JF-17s won't be enough, and there's no certainty whether the Viper fleet will be upgraded. Upgrading earlier block JF-17s with AESA would be a relatively cost effective solution, especially as average unit prices of AESA radars declines further ahead.

Only up to the the level of sensors, avionics and type of munitions they can carry.
They don't have the same loiter time of the Block-52+
They don't have the same engine nor engine-power as the Block-52+
They don't have the same RCS
They don't have the same range nor combat radius of the Block-52+
They can't carry CFT like the Block-52+
They can't carry as much weapons or fuel as the Block-52+

JF-17 Block-III on the level of weapons systems, avionics, sensors, FCS and EW-suite, has been re-designed internally to take on the best of the best of the adversary. The level of re-construction required to bring the earlier Blocks to the Block-III level would be illogically cost and time prohibitive.

But that is not to say that can't be upgraded to a near capability level to the Block-III on many aspects.

Erm, no. Your argument is fallacious, and comparing apples to oranges. The internal changes to the Block-III vs Block-I/II are not to the same extent as say Block-15 OCU F-16s and Block-50/52, which spanned a significant amount of time and advances in technology within that time. The Block-III is an iterative upgrade, and while there has been greater use of composites and a slight increase in internal fuel, there's no change in engine, RCS, range or loiter time. The most significant changes were only ever meant to be in terms of avionics, radar, sensors, and EW, which can be readily retrofitted to earlier block aircraft.

 

[ARMalik]

The JF-17 fleet has been networked with Link-17, but the issue facing the PAF is the burgeoning threat of an ever expanding AESA equipped IAF fleet - the Rafales, the "Super-30" upgrade, and the future versions of the Tejas, as well as possible upgrades to the Mirage 2000 and Mig-29, means that only 50 AESA equipped JF-17s won't be enough, and there's no certainty whether the Viper fleet will be upgraded. Upgrading earlier block JF-17s with AESA would be a relatively cost effective solution, especially as average unit prices of AESA radars declines further ahead.

There is no doubt that the earlier JF-17 Block-1 and 2 are easier and quicker to upgrade with AESA and other EW upgrades. Radars, Avionics, etc are simply plug and play. Internal structural modifications required are again very minor. The only items that requires more attention is the power management. But these days with so many options/solutions available for better power management, again it picking the best solution suited for new requirements.

 

[aliyusuf]

Erm, no. Your argument is fallacious, and comparing apples to oranges. The internal changes to the Block-III vs Block-I/II are not to the same extent as say Block-15 OCU F-16s and Block-50/52, which spanned a significant amount of time and advances in technology within that time. The Block-III is an iterative upgrade, and while there has been greater use of composites and a slight increase in internal fuel, there's no change in engine, RCS, range or loiter time. The most significant changes were only ever meant to be in terms of avionics, radar, sensors, and EW, which can be readily retrofitted to earlier block aircraft.

Actually you brought in the comparison of the Block-15 MLU to the Block-52+ into the discission and I quoted you.
Block-III will be a significant jump in capability compared to Block-II & I. Wait till it enters service.
It's a jump in capability cannot be feasibly instilled on earlier Blocks simply via a cost effective MLU.
That is why we are having a separate Block i.e. Block-III.
Otherwise we could have carried on with the improvements on Block-II and called it Block-III or whatever.
We already have 61/62 Block-II's.
Retrofitting same level of changes on Block-I & II will be cost & time prohibitive ... it might be perhaps be more feasible to go for more Block-IIIs instead.
Even there are structural strength differences between Block-II & Block-I, which are not that minimal. Block-II has a heavier payload than Block-I.
We can agree to disagree I guess.

 

[The Raven]

Actually you brought in the comparison of the Block-15 MLU to the Block-52+ into the discission and I quoted you.
Block-III will be a significant jump in capability compared to Block-II & I. Wait till it enters service.
It's a jump in capability cannot be feasibly instilled on earlier Blocks simply via a cost effective MLU.
That is why we are having a separate Block i.e. Block-III.
Otherwise we could have carried on with the improvements on Block-II and called it Block-III or whatever.
We already have 61/62 Block-II's.
Retrofitting same level of changes on Block-I & II will be cost & time prohibitive ... it might be perhaps be more feasible to go for more Block-IIIs instead.
Even there are structural strength differences between Block-II & Block-I, which are not that minimal. Block-II has a heavier payload than Block-I.
We can agree to disagree I guess.

I used the Viper example in terms of avionics, radar, and subsystems, I made not mention of airframe differences, engines, RCS, fuel, range, and loiter time, that was you. I have yet to see what the "significant jump" in capability will be in Block-III vs Block-I/II, other than avionics, radar, and sensors. The airframe and engine are essentially the same. Simply calling it a different "Block" doesn't necessarily imply that there is a significant difference in capability. Again, I suggest you have a look at the iterative changes made to the Viper during its lifetime, which were identified by different blocks. I think people are getting hung up on all this "Block" nomenclature, and are simply assuming that just because the PAF has chosen to call it "Block-III", that immediately must mean that implies a significant upgrade in terms of capability, when in actual fact, that's far from the case. For example, the difference between Block-I and Block-II aircraft was updated avionics software and IFR capability (even then only to later production Block-II airframes). In terms of the PAF, the "block" terminology is being used to identify specific production runs, not necessarily to identify capability.