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

[Syed1.]

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.

You think we can potentially expect a block 4 and a block 5 sometime down the road?


Personally I think we need a heavy 4.5 gen fighter to take us through the 2020s before Azm comes online. Obviously arranging the finances for procurement is another matter.

 

[Cookie Monster]

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

Plz see the post of the member I quoted and the whole convo leading back to Ziaulislam. He mentioned an engine with enhanced thrust...and some other member(possibly SQ8? can't recall) as well. It went something like this(paraphrasing here)...

Ziaulislam: Adding CFTs adds more weight...and an engine with a higher thrust would be necessary to compensate.
Trango: The same engine currently carries the same amount of fuel in drop tanks(implying that there will be no change since the weight carried is the same).
Me: The weight doesn't remain the same...the weight increases bcuz the only reason CFTs would be used is if additional hardpoints are needed to carry more payload(otherwise the current setup works fine with drop tanks and there is no need for CFT). If CFTs are used then there will be additional payload on those now freed up hardpoints(hence more overall weight)...and since the thrust has remained the same without an engine upgrade...this lowers the thrust to weight ratio.

So all that discussion of being able to jettison drop tanks which u can't do with CFTs is pointless in the sense that it's not the topic of discussion.

...still that's not to say that I don't appreciate ur insights...any knowledge is indeed valuable.

 

[Cookie Monster]

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

I'll just address this separate from that other discussion...
"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."
I would wager that most defense enthusiasts know that CFT are situation/mission specific. No one is arguing in favor of making those a permanent thing...but just an added option to make JF17 more versatile.

"The other correction is that the aircrafts consume upto 1/3 of their fuel during takeoff contrary to your statement."
Taking ur word at face value here(no time to dig through materials right now)...thanks for that correction.

"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."
I'm aware of this...one of my coworkers was an ex US Navy Pilot...learned much during many discussions with him.

"In this case CFTs would in this case possibly cause less drag than a drop tank."
CFTs don't always add to the drag...sometimes they can even add to the lift...it is highly dependent on the overall aerodynamics of the CFT and the jet. If I recall correctly...I think that is the case with the super hornet.

 

[denel]

Without AESA this aircraft is pretty much block 2

It is wrong to call it block 3 then

the fbw is different; that is major differentiator between 2 and 3/2B,

 

[White and Green with M/S]

I'll just address this separate from that other discussion...
"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."
I would wager that most defense enthusiasts know that CFT are situation/mission specific. No one is arguing in favor of making those a permanent thing...but just an added option to make JF17 more versatile.

"The other correction is that the aircrafts consume upto 1/3 of their fuel during takeoff contrary to your statement."
Taking ur word at face value here(no time to dig through materials right now)...thanks for that correction.

"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."
I'm aware of this...one of my coworkers was an ex US Navy Pilot...learned much during many discussions with him.

"In this case CFTs would in this case possibly cause less drag than a drop tank."
CFTs don't always add to the drag...sometimes they can even add to the lift...it is high dependent on the overall aerodynamics of the CFT and the jet. If I reca correctly...I think that is the case with the super hornet.

I think sir wing area is too small that JFT can carry CFT over the wings, just my 2 cent sir

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

You think we can potentially expect a block 4 and a block 5 sometime down the road?


Personally I think we need a heavy 4.5 gen fighter to take us through the 2020s before Azm comes online. Obviously arranging the finances for procurement is another matter.

If the PAF opts for J-10CE? Then no, I think they'll probably cap their JF-17 induction to the 188 already planned (or maybe push it to 200).

 

[KaiserX]

If the PAF opts for J-10CE? Then no, I think they'll probably cap their JF-17 induction to the 188 already planned (or maybe push it to 200).

PAF has always maintained that they expect at least 250 JF-17 minimum. Not to mention the 100+ expected foreign orders to come in the next few years. We still have 200+ Mirages/F-7s that are due to replacement in the coming decade. I expect the JF-17 take make up for the bulk of these replacements as well as additional J-10CEs. There are further improvements that can be made to the thunder in the form of HMD, 3D vectoring engines, CFT, information warfare. I def expect a 3.5/4 block version.

Down the line the next successor to the JF-17 is the FC-31. The FC-31 is based off the JF-17 (2 RD-93s, Stealthier design).

 

[ziaulislam]

I think T/R ratio is still to low to carry CFT onboard because of extra equipment, not giant leaps in term of thrust

20% is a gaint leap

Without AESA this aircraft is pretty much block 2

It is wrong to call it block 3 then

Without aesa, 4xFBW, rd93ma, new flight system & 1 hardpoint

If the PAF opts for J-10CE? Then no, I think they'll probably cap their JF-17 induction to the 188 already planned (or maybe push it to 200).

So 400 fighter requirement number, will that go down

I think sir wing area is too small that JFT can carry CFT over the wings, just my 2 cent sir

See FCK-1

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So 400 fighter requirement number, will that go down

The PAF generally doesn't commit to new platforms unless it plans to buy 90+ units in the long-run.

The F-6/A-5 and F-7P/PG are obvious examples, but look at the higher cost aircraft too:

• 96 Mirage III/5s (before the used airframes)
• 40 + 71 F-16A/B Block-15s (before Pressler)
• 55 + 20 F-16C/D Block-52+ (before Earthquake)
• 188 JF-17s (and possibly more later)

I don't think this rule would change for an off-the-shelf fighter now. It wouldn't make sense given the large upfront cost of inducting a new platform. If the PAF opts for the J-10CE, then I think it will aim to purchase at least 90 until the NGFA comes online. That route will definitely take resources away from any further JF-17 development.

 

[FuturePAF]

the fbw is different; that is major differentiator between 2 and 3/2B,

Any indication they made adjustments to the landing brakes along with implementing the FBW, such that the parachute/drag chute can be removed and a GaN based Jamming “pod” be put in its place. It would also be good for an enhanced RWR and help guide munitions in the rearward quadrant. Such as the mini-missile self-defense weapon planned for the Tempest stealth fighter.

Future air-to-air effectors and self-defence systems - EDR Magazine

Although the air-to-air Meteor missile is considered the best weapon of its category, international potential user having repeatedly stated that

www.edrmagazine.eu

The PAF generally doesn't commit to new platforms unless it plans to buy 90+ units in the long-run.

The F-6/A-5 and F-7P/PG are obvious examples, but look at the higher cost aircraft too:

• 96 Mirage III/5s (before the used airframes)
• 40 + 71 F-16A/B Block-15s (before Pressler)
• 55 + 20 F-16C/D Block-52+ (before Earthquake)
• 188 JF-17s (and possibly more later)

I don't think this rule would change for an off-the-shelf fighter now. It wouldn't make sense given the large upfront cost of inducting a new platform. If the PAF opts for the J-10CE, then I think it will aim to purchase at least 90 until the NGFA comes online. That route will definitely take resources away from any further JF-17 development.

Perhaps the Block III was as far as the PAF wanted to go for the JF-17. The next step might have been to developed a reduced signature JF-17, and that would be an all together new design.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Perhaps the Block III was as far as the PAF wanted to go for the JF-17. The next step might have been to developed a reduced signature JF-17, and that would be an all together new design.

Yep and a redesign like that would need serious money. For the PAF, the next developmental milestone is AZM, so if it needs a bigger fighter in the interim, it can get the J-10CE.

 

[FuturePAF]

Yep and a redesign like that would need serious money. For the PAF, the next developmental milestone is AZM, so if it needs a bigger fighter in the interim, it can get the J-10CE.

Considering the PAF still has over 100 planes it needs to replace, committing to ToT and shifting to the production of the J-10CE might be the most prudent option. Although the J-10CE will need to have its RCS reduced as much as possible, to be competitive for the long term.

 

[Shabi1]

If the PAF opts for J-10CE? Then no, I think they'll probably cap their JF-17 induction to the 188 already planned (or maybe push it to 200).

There was a interview couple of years back from someone in PAF and on prospects of beyond block 3. He said there will be future variants but we will be seeing new JF-17s replacing earlier builds. So plausible that even though production numbers will be more, actual in service units would be capped as you are predicting.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Considering the PAF still has over 100 planes it needs to replace, committing to ToT and shifting to the production of the J-10CE might be the most prudent option. Although the J-10CE will need to have its RCS reduced as much as possible, to be competitive for the long term.

I think the next big PAC project would be AZM. So, either we continue producing the JF-17, or roll it up and start moving PAC towards AZM (while in the meantime acquiring another fighter like J-10CE). Or, PAC keeps up with the JF-17.

There was a interview couple of years back from someone in PAF and on prospects of beyond block 3. He said there will be future variants but we will be seeing new JF-17s replacing earlier builds. So plausible that even though production numbers will be more, actual in service units would be capped as you are predicting.

That's plausible. We shouldn't forget potential export users either.

For some countries, the JF-17 might be a way to get a custom air warfare solution if they're willing to pay for the design and integration work. This could be of interest to Azerbaijan and Argentina.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

See FCK-

Just tested not operational with FCK-1