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

[The Raven]

sorry you have no idea....JF17 from the onset is modular.
what is the reason block 1 and 2 cannot be upgraded to block 3. care to enlighted us please

This is what I have been trying to get across, and what the PAF envisioned right from the start of the JF-17 programme, an open architecture platform which can be readily upgraded as technology advances and becomes available, this is what the PAF set out to do. Consider how during the early stages of the development, back in the late 1990s when we had sanctions imposed after nuke tests, the late ACM Mushaf Ali Mir decided to decouple the development of the airframe from the avionics, with a modular "plug and play" architecture. In retrospect, that was a brilliant move, as that meant advanced avionics could be retrofitted with relative ease during the aircraft's lifetime, which we're seeing today.

 

[Trango Towers]

This is what I have been trying to get across, and what the PAF envisioned right from the start of the JF-17 programme, an open architecture platform which can be readily upgraded as technology advances and becomes available, this is what the PAF set out to do. Consider how during the early stages of the development, back in the late 1990s when we had sanctions imposed after nuke tests, the late ACM Mushaf Ali Mir decided to decouple the development of the airframe from the avionics, with a modular "plug and play" architecture. In retrospect, that was a brilliant move, as that meant advanced avionics could be retrofitted with relative ease during the aircraft's lifetime, which we're seeing today.

bro i have it from the horses mouth. Air marshall Shahid Lateef is a personal friend who initiated the JF17 program. I am also an aerospace engineer and we have had discussions on this. you are spot on with your info. i don think there is any need to convince these people.

 

[araz]

sorry you have no idea....JF17 from the onset is modular.
what is the reason block 1 and 2 cannot be upgraded to block 3. care to enlighted us please

I have expressed an opinion and followed it up with reasons and examples. You are welcome to disagree and let time prove myself right or wrong.
The inlet and redesigning of the frontal section plus rejigging of the various bits which were changed plus change of centre of gravity of the plane for which there are extensive 2 years testing plus removal of all the pulleys and installation of FBW would be time and finance prohibitive and PAF cannot take platforms out of circulation for upto a year for changes which will give it minor benefits only. AESA and other software upgradations could be done depending on availability and need which currently I do not see happening.
I come here to learn and transfer whatever I have learnt on to others. At the end of the day this is an opinion forum and I reserve a right to hold an opinion. Please feel free to continue on.
Regards
A

bro i have it from the horses mouth. Air marshall Shahid Lateef is a personal friend who initiated the JF17 program. I am also an aerospace engineer and we have had discussions on this. you are spot on with your info. i don think there is any need to convince these people.

Modular has its own limitations. To give you an example from the 16s on which the JFT Philosophy was based block 15s may be upgradable but the cost in money and time may not have been worth it. So the next best thing which PAF did was to upgrade radar and software to 52 level but left the rest of the plane as such. So no CFTs. no increased hardpoints. Loitering time remains what it was.
In PAF another example was of 7p and Pgs. If it was financially and logistically possible all Ps would have been converted to Pgs. So the question remains why PAF did not do so in spite of serious constraints of the Ps over Pgs in an environment where we were not getting anything else. Mirage Cheetah transformation may have been a good example of cost vs benefit point of view.
So in short there are examples where upgrades have not been done due to various reasons.
A

 

[The Raven]

I have expressed an opinion and followed it up with reasons and examples. You are welcome to disagree and let time prove myself right or wrong.
The inlet and redesigning of the frontal section plus rejigging of the various bits which were changed plus change of centre of gravity of the plane for which there are extensive 2 years testing plus removal of all the pulleys and installation of FBW would be time and finance prohibitive and PAF cannot take platforms out of circulation for upto a year for changes which will give it minor benefits only. AESA and other software upgradations could be done depending on availability and need which currently I do not see happening.
I come here to learn and transfer whatever I have learnt on to others. At the end of the day this is an opinion forum and I reserve a right to hold an opinion. Please feel free to continue on.
Regards
A


Modular has its own limitations. To give you an example from the 16s on which the JFT Philosophy was based block 15s may be upgradable but the cost in money and time may not have been worth it. So the next best thing which PAF did was to upgrade radar and software to 52 level but left the rest of the plane as such. So no CFTs. no increased hardpoints. Loitering time remains what it was.
In PAF another example was of 7p and Pgs. If it was financially and logistically possible all Ps would have been converted to Pgs. So the question remains why PAF did not do so in spite of serious constraints of the Ps over Pgs in an environment where we were not getting anything else. Mirage Cheetah transformation may have been a good example of cost vs benefit point of view.
So in short there are examples where upgrades have not been done due to various reasons.
A

I'm not sure I can explain to someone who thinks the JF-17 uses "pulleys", how much there is wrong with what you've said. Just to correct you on 1 point, amongst the many, the current block I/II JF-17s already use FBW - digital in pitch, and analogue FBW in roll and yaw. The block III uses digital FBW in all three axis.

 

[Safriz]

I'm not sure I can explain to someone who thinks the JF-17 uses "pulleys", how much there is wrong with what you've said. Just to correct you on 1 point, amongst the many, the current block I/II JF-17s already use FBW - digital in pitch, and analogue FBW in roll and yaw. The block III uses digital FBW in all three axis.

Hi,
Both Digital and analogue FBW may use cables and pullies to actually move the flight control surface.
Could be a backup system .
Analogue FBW has electrical sensors such as potentiometer, to sense flight control surfaces actual position . Digital FBW has electronic sensors.
Both type of FBW are assistive computer and algorithm . Which helps in making the aircraft more stable in flight by making automatic decisions about positioning of flight control surfaces.
But to actually move the flight control surfaces, pulleys may be used in addition to hydraulic actuator or just as a redundant system if hydraulic system fails.
I am not saying that JF-17 uses pulleys and I don't know. But just because an air craft has digital or analogue FBW doesn't mean it is or is not using Pulleys and wires , or the other way round.

 

[The Raven]

Hi,
Both Digital and analogue FBW may use cables and pullies to actually move the flight control surface.
Could be a backup system .
Analogue FBW has electrical sensors such as potentiometer, to sense flight control surfaces actual position . Digital FBW has electronic sensors.
Both type of FBW are assistive computer and algorithm . Which helps in making the aircraft more stable in flight by making automatic decisions about positioning of flight control surfaces.
But to actually move the flight control surfaces, pulleys may be used in addition to hydraulic actuator or just as a redundant system if hydraulic system fails.

Flight control surfaces are moved by actuators, not pulleys, and as you say, whether analogue or digital.

 

[Mrc]

we need to pump out block 3... we need to build numbers and quickly

 

[Safriz]

Flight control surfaces are moved by actuators, not pulleys, and as you say, whether analogue or digital.

Can be either system, or actuators with pulleys as backup.
Again I am not saying that's the case with thunder, but there

 

[Trango Towers]

I have expressed an opinion and followed it up with reasons and examples. You are welcome to disagree and let time prove myself right or wrong.
The inlet and redesigning of the frontal section plus rejigging of the various bits which were changed plus change of centre of gravity of the plane for which there are extensive 2 years testing plus removal of all the pulleys and installation of FBW would be time and finance prohibitive and PAF cannot take platforms out of circulation for upto a year for changes which will give it minor benefits only. AESA and other software upgradations could be done depending on availability and need which currently I do not see happening.
I come here to learn and transfer whatever I have learnt on to others. At the end of the day this is an opinion forum and I reserve a right to hold an opinion. Please feel free to continue on.
Regards
A


Modular has its own limitations. To give you an example from the 16s on which the JFT Philosophy was based block 15s may be upgradable but the cost in money and time may not have been worth it. So the next best thing which PAF did was to upgrade radar and software to 52 level but left the rest of the plane as such. So no CFTs. no increased hardpoints. Loitering time remains what it was.
In PAF another example was of 7p and Pgs. If it was financially and logistically possible all Ps would have been converted to Pgs. So the question remains why PAF did not do so in spite of serious constraints of the Ps over Pgs in an environment where we were not getting anything else. Mirage Cheetah transformation may have been a good example of cost vs benefit point of view.
So in short there are examples where upgrades have not been done due to various reasons.
A

You have valid points. However I will refer you to the mirage rebuild factory. Its doesnt take a year to strip a mirage and refit it. The same applies to other fighters. You have used the term centre of gravity. How is the loading of the air frame so altered that the COG shift is so significant that major structural changed are required? Pulley and FBW....you make jf17 sound like the wright brothers experiment. Come on yaar.

Ok anyways it's almost iftar time. I bid you farewell and a good day.

 

[Safriz]

You have valid points. However I will refer you to the mirage rebuild factory. Its doesnt take a year to strip a mirage and refit it. The same applies to other fighters. You have used the term centre of gravity. How is the loading of the air frame so altered that the COG shift is so significant that major structural changed are required? Pulley and FBW....you make jf17 sound like the weight brothers experiment. Come on yaar.

Ok anyways it's almost iftar time. I bid you farewell and a good day.

Both Thunders in the picture are block 2 , but clearly different in materials used.

From what I can see , Block - 2 after serial numbers 2P-50 are same physical structure as block 3.
Earlier jets are different and may be too expensive to convert

 

[nomi007]

F / A-18F Block III

Don't be confused it Hornet Bk-03
I hope Our Bk-03 will also have wide led panel

 

[Imran Khan]

F / A-18F Block III
View attachment 632123 View attachment 632122

Don't be confused it Hornet Bk-03
I hope Our Bk-03 will also have wide led panel

why wide LED they watch movies on it ?

 

[MastanKhan]

Can be either system, or actuators with pulleys as backup.
Again I am not saying that's the case with thunder, but there

Hi,

I believe they are small electric motors at each individual location gear driven

Flight control surfaces are moved by actuators, not pulleys, and as you say, whether analogue or digital.

Hi,

Would an 'actuator' not be acting like a solenoid---in and out---.

The gear driven would be like having any setting from a start point to the end point---.

Please clarify---.

 

[Trango Towers]

Both Thunders in the picture are block 2 , but clearly different in materials used.

View attachment 632042

View attachment 632043

From what I can see , Block - 2 after serial numbers 2P-50 are same physical structure as block 3.
Earlier jets are different and may be too expensive to convert

No one has seen block 3? Have you? So how do u know structurally this block 2 is same as block 3??
Because different Panels colours are seen doesn't mean different material. However on block 2 theh started to use composites to reduce the weight somewhat. But the design is the same pretty much
.

 

[Safriz]

No one has seen block 3? Have you? So how do u know structurally this block 2 is same as block 3??
Because different Panels colours are seen doesn't mean different material. However on block 2 theh started to use composites to reduce the weight somewhat. But the design is the same pretty much
.

Pannel colours show the material used and that effects structural strength and CG.
After Thunder Block-2 serial number 2P-50 same material panels were used in same place on all Thunders including the B version and Block -3.

Note the same panels in same place on B and III