What's new

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

By decreasing the aircraft dry weight using composites
Except confirming productiou of JF-17A, RD-93MA and PL-15 are speculations though much wanted.
By the looks of it RD-93MA has to happen otherwise how power requirements of AESA RAADR and weight heavier missiles will be met.
 
.
I don't see any hype except that everyone is calculating the best possible timeframe which can be based upon the production strength. Since you are asking for a timeline, I had to reply which may not sound very clear.

It depends how PAF planned to induct Block-III. Like, PAC may produce couple of birds and hand them over to PAF ASAP for all the validation....or.... if PAF has already done the homework given the reason as we don't have any news in public domain; we might see a total time frame of 2 years starting from now for almost an active squadron. You can make a best guess by looking at induction of Block-B as well as when the First B variant was handed over. It all depends now how PAC & PAF has planned to strengthen the fleet and raise new SQN. For me, we have two years time frame set to see operational Block-III.

so if I read correctly 2 years for an operational BLK3? ... like end 2022

in my mind handed over == operational...

seems a lot of time still then... I think Chinese already created and tested prototype in early this year..
this pace considering chinese r&d seems smwht slow.. ofcourse not comparing India here
 
.
so if I read correctly 2 years for an operational BLK3? ... like end 2022

in my mind handed over == operational...

seems a lot of time still then... I think Chinese already created and tested prototype in early this year..
this pace considering chinese r&d seems smwht slow.. ofcourse not comparing India here

Let me rephrase it for first operational one. PAC can produce one in a month test flight it and hand over and then PAF will further check it. Operational here means, you are looking at almost a squadron strength in 2 years. I can be wrong too but remember that Thunder is not an all new bird for PAF. R&D is already done and now it is in production. Hope you get it.
 
.
Let me rephrase it for first operational one. PAC can produce one in a month test flight it and hand over and then PAF will further check it. Operational here means, you are looking at almost a squadron strength in 2 years. I can be wrong too but remember that Thunder is not an all new bird for PAF. R&D is already done and now it is in production. Hope you get it.

ohk was not able to comprehend from post...

a full squadron of BLK3... that means around 16-20 planes deployed ... pretty impressive then...

I guess a solid fighter under paf's kitty
 
.
ohk was not able to comprehend from post...

a full squadron of BLK3... that means around 16-20 planes deployed ... pretty impressive then...

I guess a solid fighter under paf's kitty

It can be done or it may be less in numbers but a final product. The first year production rate can be slower due to a gape being created by pandemic which will take some time to cover but let's see. However, since it says production so the rest of the work is already done and as Block-B is already in numbers with PAF, the training aspects will be addressed in these couple of areas. I am calculating just a smart move and it is just my opinion.
 
. .
As I recall, air frame modification have been done in the past to existing aircraft. The South Africa "Cheetah" was a modification of the Mirage fighter. We are talking subtle changes to the air frame, not dramatic ones. So it isn't outside the realm of possibility that Blocks 1 &2 wouldn't be able to be brought to full Block-lll standards.

Logically speaking, an air force such as Pakistan Air Force, would not build a 100 plus fighter-jets, and not be able to modify it to the new Block standard, if it's only a partial one. From a monetary point of view, that would not make any sense at all, given the continuous harping on about "budgetary limitations".

One wouldn't think that Pakistan Air Force could make such a blunder, given the historical experiences the air force has been through. From the given impression, Pakistan Air Force prides itself for "excellence in acquisition" of all hardware and software in its inventory. Lest we forget how the Pakistanis stunned the Swedes, who declared all Erieyes damaged during the terrorist attacks in 2012, as write offs. They (Pakistanis) repaired the damaged air frames, at a competence level, admitted and recognized by the Swedes.

So no, I do not think there would be any compromise of any sort when upgrading the Block-ls/lls to Block-lll standard. Other than that, all I can say is that we have to wait and see what happens. Since 2021 onwards, all focus will be on manufacturing Block-llls. Once they conclude the batch construction, they could initiate for upgrade of Block-1/2 in batches.
 
.
We will have to treat such an upgrade in different manners. One cannot call it an upgrade for everything that Block-III. Indeed, we will be looking at upgraded Block-III from Block-II in quality area and especially in the areas of Radar & weapons to the most of extent. Since, airframes are different, therefore, the then older Block-II will not be a 100% Block-III but one can count on the same level in the ring once all hell broke lose. Remember, Thunder design was frozen year(s) ago but it had the quality of adaptation from day one hence, we saw an upgrade of Block-I to Block-II. I hope you got my point that I wish I could express more openly but not at the moment.

The Airframe has the flexibility, therefore, you may have noticed that how Thunder's development & evolution has been coined in the same terms of F-16 fighting falcon baseline & then even we expect a viper upgrade despite the airframe being the older one. Conclusively & for a layman like me, as I am still learning certain things, most of aspects & criteria are never told nor shared to the world at all.

Similarly, we can expect an air-cooled LKF-601E (AESA) for older blocks given the limitation due to size of nosecone but on the same time it doesn't limits the aircraft to perform lesser than the newly built Block-III with KLJ7A AESA Radar. On one point you have a shortcoming in specific bird but on other hand, you have an alternate solution to compensate the shortcoming and in this scenario, putting it simply, remember the netcentric capability. For this point alone, at-least I am very sure that Pakistan is far ahead than the adversary and despite being a rich spending, IAF needs years to catch-up with PAF that already excelling more.

In couple of years or plus 1/2, we will see a totally different structure of Pakistan Armed Forces and especially in Electronics related area. I can imagine a flying castle. In'Sha'ALLAH.


IF AN UPGRADE IS DONE, I don't see it ending up in short like that. Though, it may have a different gadget beneath the skin with differently told specs etc but still, in the end with a different game plan, tactics & deployment; the end result will be a totally upgraded Block-III fleet. That mark will always remain there as the airframe will be quoted as an older block but capability wise, nothing different or short of punch.

Do we know the final AESA type in the Block III? I wasn't aware this had been confirmed to be the KLJ7A? In addition, there were reports of an air-cooled version of the KLJ7A as well, and if an air-cooled version is chosen for the Block III, then retrofitting the same radar to Block I/II aircraft wouldn't be an issue, especially given the fact that the AESA radars have been tested on earlier Block I testbeds.

Although it would be technically possible to rebuild Block I/II airframes to Block III standard (as an example, the first Gripen NG prototype was built using a previous C version airframe), it might not be worth it financially. But in any case, an MLU type upgrade of Block I/II airframes is most likely in my view, which would include extending the structural life beyond the stated 4,000hours, similar to the Falcon Up and Star upgrades for the Vipers, along with upgrading the avionics and weapons to Block III standard.
 
.
Do we know the final AESA type in the Block III? I wasn't aware this had been confirmed to be the KLJ7A? In addition, there were reports of an air-cooled version of the KLJ7A as well, and if an air-cooled version is chosen for the Block III, then retrofitting the same radar to Block I/II aircraft wouldn't be an issue, especially given the fact that the AESA radars have been tested on earlier Block I testbeds.

Although it would be technically possible to rebuild Block I/II airframes to Block III standard (as an example, the first Gripen NG prototype was built using a previous C version airframe), it might not be worth it financially. But in any case, an MLU type upgrade of Block I/II airframes is most likely in my view, which would include extending the structural life beyond the stated 4,000hours, similar to the Falcon Up and Star upgrades for the Vipers, along with upgrading the avionics and weapons to Block III standard.
I would agree with your assumption. We might have an MLUed version if and when the technology gets cheaper and the upgrade seems viable. However full conversion of Block 2 to 3 will not be possible in my humble opinion as you have highlighted. The Chinese progress in radar and avionics is at a speed where we may find things getting cheaper in 5 years time as newer more easily made hardware gets developed and newer more better materials come to light. So no one can predict what is going to happen in 5 years.
A
 
Last edited:
.
I would agree with your assumption. We might have an MLUed version if and when the technology gets cheaper and the upgrade seems viable. However conversion of Block 2 to 3 will not be possible in my humble opinion. The Chinese progress in radar and avionics is at a speed where we may find things getting cheaper in 5 years time as newer more easily made hardware gets developed and newer more better materials come to light. SO no ne can predict what is going to happen in 5 years.
A

Araz, I might be missing something, but I don't follow the logic of your argument. If you're saying the Chinese are developing radar and avionics at a rapid pace, allowing for more sophisticated equipment at lower cost, then surely that makes an upgrade of earlier blocks more viable, not less likely? As the PAF have demonstrated, they get the most out of their aircraft, like the Mirages, and the JF-17s will be with the PAF for a considerable time given the investment PAC/PAF have made. I'm not saying the Block I/II airframes will be completely rebuilt to Block III standard, like Gripen C airframes being rebuilt to NG standard, but some structural upgrades to extend the life and integration of AESA, HMD, and a dedicated LDP station is certainly realistic in my view.
 
. .
Do we know the final AESA type in the Block III? I wasn't aware this had been confirmed to be the KLJ7A? In addition, there were reports of an air-cooled version of the KLJ7A as well, and if an air-cooled version is chosen for the Block III, then retrofitting the same radar to Block I/II aircraft wouldn't be an issue, especially given the fact that the AESA radars have been tested on earlier Block I testbeds.

KLJ7A is the most probable selection but, the whole argument is based upon what the quoted member suggested in first place. The retrofitting aspect can be considered as you suggested however, there's another spanner that WE can have our own home grown solution with the help of friends indeed. How things may unfold, can only be told by the time but not now. Both the radars from Chinese OEM have their own leverages & capabilities and PAF is not compromising for anything less than the topnotch options.
 
. . . .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom