You are showing a systematic use of specious reasoning, that is based on deriving assertions that suit your purposes from arguments that have no relevance to the claims made. You come across as narcissistic, who doesn't just have a wish to prove himself, but a fetish to achieve intellectual superiority over others and derive comfort by insulting them. I have now seen this behavior from you over multiple threads. In detail:
The Block III aircraft have been upgraded with a new electronic warfare system based on the version on the J10-C, which includes, amongst other elements, the S740 airborne missile approach warning system using improved infrared MAWS as apposed to the UV based MAWS in Block I and II aircraft. See link below.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-01-02/more-thunder-chinas-air
You need to provide proof of the following assertions you have made earlier:
1. There is an EW system installed on the tail of Block 3.
2. This EW system needs air cooling.
3. This cooling is provided through the opening seen on the base of the tail in Block 3.
So far, you have provided no such proof. The website you have linked is not a proof of anything. What is written on that website is only an opinion that is not backed by any official or credible sources.
You seem to be hung up on making things EMP resistant as if that's the be all and end all. The FBW and databus changes were made to improve flight dynamics, save weight, free up internal space for the AESA, and improve mission computer performance and weapons integration. Are you saying the primary aim of improving the avionics was simply to make it EMP resistant? I don't think the PAF expects the indians to develop an EMP weapon any time soon. Of more importance is making the datalinks, radar, and weapons jam proof, for which you don't need EMP shielding. The PAF have been routinely rebuilding mirages, including complete rewiring, so not sure why you think this is beyond the capability of the PAF for JF-17.
I am not 'hung up' on anything. You are losing the plot here. Let us revisit my assertions:
I - The block 3 has undergone substantial upgrades which makes it infeasible to upgrade Block 1 and 2 to be exactly equivalent to Block 3.
II - An example of these upgrades is the installation of a fibre optic data bus.
III - This new data bus gives Block 3 capabilities that cannot be replicated easily in Block 1 and 2, an example being increased resistance to EMP attacks.
Now, you have made the following incorrect assertions regarding changes to FBW and data bus:
1. Free up internal space for the AESA - The AESA components are at the nose of the aircraft, whereas the physical connections of FBW databus run through the main body. This is completely irrelevant.
2. Improve mission computer performance - The interface between the silicon based mission computer and the fibre optic based data bus is a known point of bottleneck. The databus has nothing to do with the mission computer. What you are probably trying to say is the changes provide higher data rates.
Then there is the utterly amateurish assertion that since PAF can rewire the Mirage, it can replace copper wiring in Block 1 and 2 with fibre optics. First of all, let's be very clear - by spending enough money anything can be done. We need to look at what it takes to change copper wiring into fibre optic wiring.
Fibre optic is a very sensitive material that is prone to damage by a range of environmental factors such as temperature, vibrations, and humidity. This necessitates special cladding which changes the dimensions of the wiring when compared to copper. Throughout the length and breadth of the aircraft, space is allocated at design time in a very precise manner taking into account the dimensions of the wiring. This changes the entire internal mass distribution within the aircraft. This is what
@araz referred to whom you rebuked with impertinence. There is a reason why Block 3 took years to finalize. It has undergone internal changes that take years to design, test and validate. Changing Block 1 and Block 2 to this configuration is not simply a matter of stripping out some wires and replacing them with new wires.
The comparison with the Kfir is completely relevant because it demonstrates the very real problems of changing an engine for any given airframe, particularly in terms of heat dissipation management. Coincidentally, IAI made no real changes to the intakes of the Mirage III for the Kfir. Again, the fin base intake on Block III is too small for any engine cooling.
First of all, let's do some approximate calculations. Let us approximate the opening on the base of the Block 3 tail by a circle which is 7 inches in diameter. This gives it a surface area of 0.087 sq ft (approx.) The diameter of RD-93 is 3.41 ft (using online calculator to convert mm to ft)
http://www.uecrus.com/eng/products/military_aviation/rd93/
which leads to a radius of 1.7 ft. Of this, let us discard 0.7 ft for the engine shaft and housing. Of this, let us assume an arc of 3 pi / 4 radians is actually exposed to incoming air on each side. This annular region has an area of (3 pi / 8) * ((1.7)^2 - 1) = 2.23 sq ft on each side of the engine. From the above link, the RD-93 has a bypass ratio of .49. If x is the surface area of the by pass air intake, and y is the surface area to the opening of the compressor, then x/y = 0.49 and x + y = 4.45, which gives y = 3 sq ft (approx) and x = 1.45 sq ft (approx). Note that I am probably over-simplifying a very complex engine geometry here. By this computation, the inlet at the base of tail comprises approx 6% of the by pass intake. At supersonic speeds, due to pressure variance, the air intake from the small opening can go up to 12% of the entire by-pass air flow. Does this seem like a small opening to you? Your amateurish brain cannot comprehend the apples to oranges nature of the comparison you are drawing with the Kfir.
So the Mirage III has enough internal space for an AESA, but earlier block JF-17s don't?! How did you come up with that conclusion?!
I merely said if someone wants to install an AESA radar, the Mirage has the internal volume. I did not specify which type of AESA (air cooled vs liquid cooled).
The Block I and II aircraft will not be getting an MLU any time soon, that's not what I claimed. The PAF have always hinted about the clear production and development path of the JF-17, with iterative block upgrades which can be applied to earlier airframes. Some time back, an early Block I JF-17 was sent to China for overhaul, as a pattern aircraft.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china-overhauls-pakistan-air-force-jf-17-fighter-jet/
And the PAF has already setup a separate MRO facility for overhaul of JF-17, which can be used further down the road if they choose to apply an MLU type upgrade in the future.
https://www.janes.com/article/91686...rst-locally-overhauled-jf-17-thunder-aircraft
In addition, the JF-17 has been claimed to have an airframe life of around 4,000 hours, and as they are likely to be around for some time in PAF service, an "MLU" type extension of their lifetime isn't unrealistic, similar to what has been done with the Vipers. The same approach will be applied to Block II aircraft. The PAF likes to get as much life out of its assets as it can, this is amply demonstrated by the Mirages.
You need to justify why such an overhaul or MLU would make Block 1 and 2 exactly equivalent to Block 3. None of what you have written above is being disputed. Why are you going off on a tangential rant? And finally, your janes.com link is not even working. Did you copy/paste it from another website without checking?