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

[The Eagle]

Couple of those posts were intended to avoid such posting which may cause derailing the discussion and lowering the quality as well.

Regards,

 

[ziaulislam]

Whatever weight benefit would have been would have more than taken up by the new AESA radar..

Why do you new AESA radar is heavier. Especially since it is GaN based it is probably similar in weight and power usage as the one before it

 

[Irfan Baloch]

View attachment 708530
Jeff with CFT. Its an edited picture but still looks real enough

is it planning to go to Washington or a round trip around the globe? with CFTs and 3 more external fuel tanks?
not to forget the in flight probe available for air refueling.

 

[ziaulislam]

is it planning to go to Washington or a round trip around the globe? with CFTs and 3 more external fuel tanks?
not to forget the in flight probe available for air refueling.

We have barely 3-4 air refueluers
With CFTs the jf17 will carry around 3300 kg of fuel still giving it far less range than the f16s


Currently
With two external fuel tanks and 2 hard points for weapons the rane is barely 1000km
Barely enough to strike northern india without doing anything in central or eastern india

The role of CFTs is more in sense of less penalty to airdynamics and opening up more hardpoints for ammunition. If PAF deems them useful aerodynamically then looking at f16 you will be able to use all four hardpoints and central fuel tank instead of just two hardpoints and two fuel tanks

 

[Akh1112]

Couple of those posts were intended to avoid such posting which may cause derailing the discussion and lowering the quality as well.

Regards,

how much lower can quality drop? you already have members passing off information from their backside as fact.

 

[MIRauf]

We have barely 3-4 air refueluers
With CFTs the jf17 will carry around 3300 kg of fuel still giving it far less range than the f16s


Currently
With two external fuel tanks and 2 hard points for weapons the rane is barely 1000km
Barely enough to strike northern india without doing anything in central or eastern india

The role of CFTs is more in sense of less penalty to airdynamics and opening up more hardpoints for ammunition. If PAF deems them useful aerodynamically then looking at f16 you will be able to use all four hardpoints and central fuel tank instead of just two hardpoints and two fuel tanks

You don't need to send fighter / bomber package to bomb 1000+ miles away, you are not fighting Iraqi Armed forces, the survivability of the package will go down as it travels further inland in the Indian airspace. You have CMs and BMs for that job. This is not 1965 where B-57 could travel 300+ miles to deliver the payload and return back to the base, intact.

If JF-17s ever ends up matching the F-16s weapon / range capabilities aka "F-16 of the East," you would want it to be as good as F-15 and so on.

You are 100% correct about limited number of Air to air Refueling tankers, more are needed, however only PAF can answer as to why more are not inducted / planned.

"PS: Sorry, didn't mean to write the thesis on it, just couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes."
-- .. .-.

 

[The Eagle]

how much lower can quality drop? you already have members passing off information from their backside as fact.

This is an open forum inviting open discussion. Facts or not, can be addressed with counter arguments. The mention of quality means to avoid flood of doctored pictures, low quality PSed photos, non credible YT videos that are created for only rating or click baits. Quality of information being discussed comes after variety of arguments. Opinion, arguments, debate, information, news etc are different things.

 

[ziaulislam]

You don't need to send fighter / bomber package to bomb 1000+ miles away, you are not fighting Iraqi Armed forces, the survivability of the package will go down as it travels further inland in the Indian airspace. You have CMs and BMs for that job. This is not 1965 where B-57 could travel 300+ miles to deliver the payload and return back to the base, intact.

If JF-17s ever ends up matching the F-16s weapon / range capabilities aka "F-16 of the East," you would want it to be as good as F-15 and so on.

You are 100% correct about limited number of Air to air Refueling tankers, more are needed, however only PAF can answer as to why more are not inducted / planned.

"PS: Sorry, didn't mean to write the thesis on it, just couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes."
-- .. .-.

Current package /jf17 with just two hard points & two fuel tanks used cant even go 500km(1000km radius) that is less then 300 miles???!!!

 

[ziaulislam]

You can check the official chinese presentation on this
Endurance max 3 hrs with 3 fuel tanks 3000km range
Air to air mode 2 fuel 2 bvr=1000km range
Air to ground mode 3 fuel +2000kg payload= 1000km(500km radius)

If CFTs are feasible you can swap thr central fuel tank with weapons or simply go with central fuel tank and do away with two high drag under wing fuel tanks (especially if you have increased internal fuel
CFTs will be especially useful for PN coverage where the current configuration is 2x2 with 1 fuel pod

This however depends upon two factors
The engine upgrade
And feasibility of CFTs after wind tunnel studies

 

[Marker]

Current package /jf17 with just two hard points & two fuel tanks used cant even go 500km(1000km radius) that is less then 300 miles???!!!

You can check the official chinese presentation on this
Endurance max 3 hrs with 3 fuel tanks 3000km range
Air to air mode 2 fuel 2 bvr=1000km range
Air to ground mode 3 fuel +2000kg payload= 1000km(500km radius)

If CFTs are feasible you can swap thr central fuel tank with weapons or simply go with central fuel tank and do away with two high drag under wing fuel tanks (especially if you have increased internal fuel
CFTs will be especially useful for PN coverage where the current configuration is 2x2 with 1 fuel pod

This however depends upon two factors
The engine upgrade
And feasibility of CFTs after wind tunnel studies

Combat range and maximum range are two different set of specifications.

Maximum range means ferry range from point of origin A to point of destination B.

However combat range is the maximum distance between base of origin and the target. This distance is always less than half of maximum range or ferry range.

Maximum range of Jf-17 is 3500 km with three external tanks.

Combat range is around 1350 km. Combat range also depend on mission profile and the payload the aircraft carry. Therefore JF-17 can be used as a strike aircraft and can reach at least 900 to 1000 km inside Indian territory to neutralize a target more than 1000 km away (depending on the range of weapon used).

At present most of the IAF forward bases are inside 1000 km radius.

 

[ziaulislam]

Combat range and maximum range are two different set of specifications.

Maximum range means ferry range from point of origin A to point of destination B.

However combat range is the maximum distance between base of origin and the target. This distance is always less than half of maximum range or ferry range.

Maximum range of Jf-17 is 3500 km with three external tanks.

Combat range is around 1350 km. Combat range also depend on mission profile and the payload the aircraft carry. Therefore JF-17 can be used as a strike aircraft and can reach at least 900 to 1000 km inside Indian territory to neutralize a target more than 1000 km away (depending on the range of weapon used).

At present most of the IAF forward bases are inside 1000 km radius.

Offical presentation on block 1 can be seen on you tube
With three fuel tanks and just two hardpoint the radiius is merely 500km

We can therefore hit only areas around 400km from boarder or 500km with stand off weapons..that too with maximum fuel load rather then ammunition load. thats about it

 

[MIRauf]

Current package /jf17 with just two hard points & two fuel tanks used cant even go 500km(1000km radius) that is less then 300 miles???!!!

Again, why would you want to travel deep inside someones airspace in age of SoW, CM and BMs ? With 2 BVR AAMs, "4 BVR AAMs if rumor of dual rack is true" two tanks, JF-17 got enough juice to perform CAP or escort duty even if taking off from Peshawer, if on strike then enough juice to perhaps ingress 30/50 miles in Indian Airspace if needed be, not sure why though, launch the SoW and bug out and let the escorts worry about BVR sluging match. Think package, package, package.

"PS: Sorry, I didn't mean to write thesis on this, however I couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes"
-- .. .-.

 

[ziaulislam]

Again, why would you want to travel deep inside someones airspace in age of SoW, CM and BMs ? With 2 AAMs, two tanks, JF-17 got enough juice to perform CAP or escort duty even if taking off from Peshawer, if on strike then enough juice to perhaps ingress 30/50 miles in Indian Airspace if needed be, not sure why though, launch the SoW and bug out and let the escorts worry about BVR sluging match. Think package, package, package.

"PS: Sorry, I didn't mean to write thesis on this, however I couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes"
-- .. .-.

because india can strike anywhere in your country, you want to have the ability to hit back, also you would want to be able to avoid their common line of defense as well for strikes

JF17 is very short legged, everyone knows this

 

[Dazzler]

This was the rejected version of klj-7A.

Not much difference.

KLJ-7 120 kg
KLJ-7A 150KG
Aircooled AESA 149kg

 

[Tempest II]

- Rcs mentioned is totally wrong
- 93 series is solely for thunder, MA for blk 3.
- AVIC pic shows the final config/ production model
- pl-15 bvr, 10e is wvr
- some changes were incorporated
- HMDS is there but not shown
- klj-7 aesa but with undisclosed improvements
- EW/MAWS is quite sophisticated

MA is literally indistinguishable from baseline 93. Even the nozzle looks the same.l

Which RCS are you saying is wrong?