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

[White and Green with M/S]

We need matured tech for jf17 block 3 so we got it from china but we want our own tech for azm.
azm tech need some test bed that test bed will be Jeff.
Aesa radar,aam,ew,ecm, other sub systems are in development phase.
We are seeking assistance and collaboration from anyone in the whole wide world be it america ,french,italy,sweden,turkey,china,russia just anyone.

why do you think that its a such a easy task, its a long and complex project project AZM will not have first flight of 2028-2030 and will induct in mid 2030 in my best guestimates, and this thread is not for PROJECT AZM but for block-3 development so can you stick to the topic please???

 

[Nasr]

I didn't like it before, but I'm starting to understand the PAF's approach of controlling costs to this more aggressive degree. Basically, they could have spent more to add more features and capabilities, but if the gains are marginal improvements (versus closing fundamental gaps), then why take on the cost?

It's better to focus on getting the fundamental capabilities for the lowest cost possible. In the case of the Block-3, the main outcomes were an AESA radar, VLRAAM integration, an ECM kit, and HMD/S. I think the HMD/S is the only area the PAF is willing to spend money on because it offers a net-new capability in the form of HOBS AAM. The only reason why it can't is because there are no options at this time.

Basically, if there's any money left for further improving the Block-3, it's reserved for the HMD/S (be it from China, Europe, or Israel via 3rd parties). That's the only missing capability gap.

In addition to what you've already stated, to have greater capabilities, it would mean aircraft design alteration to the degree of F/A-18 E Super Hornet. Where the latter is larger (to a noticeable extent) than its predecessor, the F/A-18 C Hornet. Cost of design alteration have a knock-on effect on manufacturing, machine tooling and so on. A light weight Thunder is more agile, with an improved performance RD-93MA engine, incorporated with AESA/PL-15 combo and an enhanced ECM, in the hands of Pakistan Air Force pilots, gives us optimal capability without the cost liability.

 

[Qmjd]

why do you think that its a such a easy task, its a long and complex project project AZM will not have first flight of 2028-2030 and will induct in mid 2030 in my best guestimates, and this thread is not for PROJECT AZM but for block-3 development so can you stick to the topic please???

We are not inventing the 5th gen bird or it's technologies.
We are just following the guidelines of 5th gen fighter.
West ,china ,russia has matured tech for their 5th gen birds we are humbling-ly asking them to help us in 5th gen project azm that's it.
Uncle sam has invented 6th gen bird and now china can follow the guidelines for their 6th gen bird and we only want 5th gen.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

We are not inventing the 5th gen bird or it's technologies.
We are just following the guidelines of 5th gen fighter.
West ,china ,russia has matured tech for their 5th gen birds we are humbling-ly asking them to help us in 5th gen project azm that's it.
Uncle sam has invented 6th gen bird and now china can follow the guidelines for their 6th gen bird and we only want 5th gen.

stick to the topic, this is not project AZM thread if you wanna post on project AZM you can go to this thread
Project "AZM" : STEALTH AMBITION Project | Pakistan Defence

and don't derail this thread, thanks bro

 

[Cookie Monster]

Again engine yet the same engine is carrying the extra fuel with drop tanks

Simple math problem...for the same X amount of engine thrust...
Case 1) No CFT...total payload hanging on the hardpoints(including the drop tanks filled with fuel)...as is the case right now.
Case 2) Fuel carried in CFTs(assume the same amount of fuel as in case 1), opening up the hardpoints previously used for drop tanks to carry additional payload(like bombs, missiles, pods)...thus the overall take off weight has been increased bcuz additional weight is hanging on these freed up hardpoints...which reduces thrust to weight ratio as compared to case 1.

The only way what u wrote would make sense is if fuel was carried in CFTs and the hardpoints freed up from using drop tanks were not utilized to carry anything...which is pointless...bcuz then there was no need to free up the hard points in the first place if nothing was to be carried by them.

 

[ARMalik]

I'm sure the US is going to raise a stink with China on this issue. I actually don't think the Chinese can even export such a system to us, hence AZM may well be a ploy to get the capability without the US being able to cleanly pin it on Beijing.

Bilal, I am not exactly sure what made you think that US has any influence on China?? For example, Why would the US be in South China sea with three aircraft carriers trying to stop China if it had any influence on China? Another example, China circling India; Did US stopped China via its influence? Did US stop China for its 5G advancements? Or China buying Russian S-400? Or the Trade war between US and China? Or China adpoting counter measures to US sanctions? China can export anything they want, and to anyone they want, and there is nothing US can do about it. And I am not saying this just for the sake of it but I am authentically saying this.

China to slap countermeasures on unjustified extraterritorial application of foreign laws amid US bullying sanctions - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

China to slap countermeasures on unjustified extraterritorial application of foreign laws amid US bullying sanctions

 

[Trango Towers]

Simple math problem...for the same X amount of engine thrust...
Case 1) No CFT...total payload hanging on the hardpoints(including the drop tanks filled with fuel)...as is the case right now.
Case 2) Fuel carried in CFTs(assume the same amount of fuel as in case 1), opening up the hardpoints previously used for drop tanks to carry additional payload(like bombs, missiles, pods)...thus the overall take off weight has been increased bcuz additional weight is hanging on these freed up hardpoints...which reduces thrust to weight ratio as compared to case 1.

The only way what u wrote would make sense is if fuel was carried in CFTs and the hardpoints freed up from using drop tanks were not utilized to carry anything...which is pointless...bcuz then there was no need to free up the hard points in the first place if nothing was to be carried by them.

Oh dear.....oh dear..

You know bro it not even worth discussing if this is your thinking

 

[Cookie Monster]

Oh dear.....oh dear..

You know bro it not even worth discussing if this is your thinking

Plz do explain I'm all ears if u have devised a way to carry the same amount of fuel in the CFT(that is currently carried in drop tanks)...while also using the freed up hardpoints(that previously had drop tanks) to load up additional payload...and somehow not reducing thrust to weight ratio.

 

[Trango Towers]

Plz do explain I'm all ears if u have devised a way to carry the same amount of fuel in the CFT(that is currently carried in drop tanks)...while also using the freed up hardpoints(that previously had drop tanks) to load up additional payload...and somehow not reducing thrust to weight ratio.

I am not going to go into it in detail as yiu can work that out.

1. Take off weight is always way below max lift
2. As the aircraft flies the used fuel decreases the weight carried.

The rest you are smart enough to work out

 

[Xone]

I am not exactly sure what made you think that US has any influence on China??

US has enormous pressure on Pakistan economically with the help of IMF like institutions. Having indigenous basic setup will keep free from any technology transfer restrictions.
China does not want to set precedence for US to do this for its ally like India in first place. China maintains a balance of Power in Subcontinent by providing Pakistan without taking the blame of proliferation of such sensitive tech.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I am not going to go into it in detail as yiu can work that out.

1. Take off weight is always way below max lift
2. As the aircraft flies the used fuel decreases the weight carried.

The rest you are smart enough to work out

The same two principles apply with or without CFT...u haven't added/elaborated on the discussion at hand by listing those two things.

U were saying that the same engine(without any upgrades to the thrust) currently carries the fuel in the drop tanks...and if that same fuel was carried in CFTs instead...the outcome would be the same.
...I replied saying that the outcome wouldn't be the same bcuz the hardpoints(that previously carried the drop tanks) that will be freed up by using CFTs will be used to carry additional payload. So in conclusion the total weight that the aircraft has to take off with has been increased...on that same thrust...
...which reduces thrust to weight ratio. The only way ur statement would make sense would be if the hardpoints that were freed up...were not utilized...in which case there was no point of CFTs to begin with.

Also as for number 2...we are not discussing the entire flight here...just the take off portion...during which the fuel consumed can be almost considered negligible.

It's just a simple yes or no...which will bring the whole argument to a conclusion...do u agree that the thrust to weight ratio will be decreased or not?

 

[ARMalik]

US has enormous pressure on Pakistan economically with the help of IMF like institutions. Having indigenous basic setup will keep free from any technology transfer restrictions.
China does not want to set precedence for US to do this for its ally like India in first place. China maintains a balance of Power in Subcontinent by providing Pakistan without taking the blame of proliferation of such sensitive tech.

I disagree. You fellows have it completely wrong. China is NOT there to maintain a balance of power in the Sub-continent. It is actually DISRUPTING it. China does not follow US/Western philosophy of balance. China has its own philosophy which is much older than then any Western civilization. Here is just one example.

China helps Pakistan Upset Military Balance against India

 

[FuturePAF]

IF we see the picture closely, few things will be clear
1st about radar.
2nd Height of the aircraft is taller than bk-01 & bk-02, which Ra'ad ALCM can be integrated in the future.
3rd Pl-15 will be too bigger for wings of bk-03, which will look weird.
4th no Irst will be integrated.
5th still no sign of RD-93MA most probably.
View attachment 704505
View attachment 704507

Also, with the shift to full FBW allowing the plane to slow down faster upon landing, and thus eliminated the need for a parachute drag chute, freeing up room for a jamming pod to be built in it place. The possible design change near the tail seems to indicate that IMHO.

with a GaN AESA based jammer it could also be used as a radar to give data to help the pilot use the PL-10E against targets with the right tactics; enemy planes or possibly even enemy missiles fired at the plane.

I really hope they have added a towed decoy to this plane as well. It may be added to a wingtip pylon similar to the Eurofighter or an underwing pylon like the F-16.

 

[SQ8]

I didn't like it before, but I'm starting to understand the PAF's approach of controlling costs to this more aggressive degree. Basically, they could have spent more to add more features and capabilities, but if the gains are marginal improvements (versus closing fundamental gaps), then why take on the cost?

It's better to focus on getting the fundamental capabilities for the lowest cost possible. In the case of the Block-3, the main outcomes were an AESA radar, VLRAAM integration, an ECM kit, and HMD/S. I think the HMD/S is the only area the PAF is willing to spend money on because it offers a net-new capability in the form of HOBS AAM. The only reason why it can't is because there are no options at this time.

Basically, if there's any money left for further improving the Block-3, it's reserved for the HMD/S (be it from China, Europe, or Israel via 3rd parties). That's the only missing capability gap.

It all comes down to the same calculus which is being missed by many as you may have noticed - the PAF’s primary adversary isn’t airplanes, its a combined system. Whatever limited resources they have are to be applied not in single airplanes but the entire system that responds to that of the IAF. The block-III is not revolutionary but evolutionary so in essence on its own it can with trained pilots kill anything the IAF brings into the air with a high potential but also break through the IAF’s system.

Having the PL-15 allows it to take long range pot shots from altitude with a high PK forcing IAF assets to bleed energy defending against them -while they do that other PAF assets can move in to take out those assets - or hundreds of other scenarios.
however, it can also carry a useful load of standoff PGM’s - be refueled mid-air and then be able to perform air interdiction missions with perhaps a Viper escort.

The HOBs is really the key equation that was missing but it will get there - because the PAF demonstrated that while post merge will be deadly for the PAF as the IAF loves to keep training for it, just getting to it is going to be harrowing. Which is why while the PAF was beung decried for not investing in a HOBs for the JF, they were rightly focused on the BVR fight to outgun the IAF there. TvC equipped aircraft with supermaneuverability basically took their extra weight either down with them or ran away.

 

[araz]

The same two principles apply with or without CFT...u haven't added/elaborated on the discussion at hand by listing those two things.

U were saying that the same engine(without any upgrades to the thrust) currently carries the fuel in the drop tanks...and if that same fuel was carried in CFTs instead...the outcome would be the same.
...I replied saying that the outcome wouldn't be the same bcuz the hardpoints(that previously carried the drop tanks) that will be freed up by using CFTs will be used to carry additional payload. So in conclusion the total weight that the aircraft has to take off with has been increased...on that same thrust...
...which reduces thrust to weight ratio. The only way ur statement would make sense would be if the hardpoints that were freed up...were not utilized...in which case there was no point of CFTs to begin with.

Also as for number 2...we are not discussing the entire flight here...just the take off portion...during which the fuel consumed can be almost considered negligible.

It's just a simple yes or no...which will bring the whole argument to a conclusion...do u agree that the thrust to weight ratio will be decreased or not?

There are other factors at play. In case of an engagement with the enemy you jetison the droptanks which reduces both weight and drag. You cannot do that with CFT. Therefore the weight and drag( irrespective of how irrelevant) persists. The other correction is that the aircrafts consume upto 1/3 of their fuel during takeoff contrary to your statement. This factor is countered by a take off with less fuel but aerial refuelling soon after so that you are ready for the mission having consumed the maximum fuel and then replenishing it by aerial refuelling. In this case CFTs would in this case possibly cause less drag than a drop tank. The advantage of a hardpoint ready for a weapon cannot be emphasised in this case.
A
Iam no expert by any means so feel free to get the mqtter confirmed by an airforce man.
Regards
A