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

[The Eagle]

This guy is ex paf AND IS SUGGESTING jft having11 hpS, mach 2 speed . IF this is the case then we definitely do not need more J10s.
A

I will be surprised for the 11 HPs. Even if we calculate by the claimed numbers, that might include the already gun on one chin. So, the calculation will make sense with 4 on each wing, 1 center line and 2 on both chins.

Otherwise, 3 hard points on each wing with Dual Ejector Rack for BVR that makes it 4 weapons on each, 1 center line and both chins including the gun which will summarily make it 11 and seems plausible.

 

[araz]

While this guy is ex PAF, I’m not willing to believe these specs off the bat. I’m not an expert, nor am I privy to any inside information that this guy may have. However these two claims do not sound credible, where would they find the space and capacity for these extra hardpoints? Only way it would remotely be possible is if there were two pod hardpoints instead of one under the intakes, and the count is made to include two dual ejector pylons. That makes 7 + 2 pod + 2 extra from dual ejectors.

Even then the mach 2 max speed claim is questionable. Unless we see the DSI bump configuration changed in a meaningful way or some other major intake modification, I don’t see this happening. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be a big requirement.

I could be wrong, but what we’ve seen doesn’t indicate any of this. As for J-10, it’s a delta wing configuration, lower wing loading, with a bigger engine and its medium weight, we can’t upgrade our way to a medium weight strike variant JF-17, it’s design limited. J-10 should manage strike a whole lot better, and unlike block III, the advanced tech needed for survivability is probably already there and sufficiently mature, vs having to wait and integrate, then tweak, with the block III.

Also, J-10B/C should in practice not have a max speed of mach 2 either. Both JF and J-10 are limited to Mach 1.6-1.8 due to DSI configuration.

I had highlighted his suggestion as I too am sceptical about it. Perhaps he is naively pointing to the possibility of DERs so the numbers of BVRs carried can double. The Mach2 business doe s not make sense to me either, and why would PAF want the speed to be higher when it has knowingly limited it with the DSI on the JFT. Incidentally the J10 has also gone down the same route. So why is there a need for speed now????
A

 

[The Eagle]

I have moved the posts here for revival & continuation of Block-III discussion.

 

[The Eagle]

I had highlighted his suggestion as I too am sceptical about it. Perhaps he is naively pointing to the possibility of DERs so the numbers of BVRs carried can double. The Mach2 business doe s not make sense to me either, and why would PAF want the speed to be higher when it has knowingly limited it with the DSI on the JFT. Incidentally the J10 has also gone down the same route. So why is there a need for speed now????
A

We had a speculative discussion about the DSI/Intake difference in new Block, on the day when first picture of Block-III maiden flight was shared. I am not yet sure to say the same again but we can still make some ideal comparison if it makes any difference on the point of enhanced speed given the DSI/Intake limitation.

and the last picture...

May be someone with same angle picture can make a comparison. I am repeating and sharing these points merely to give it a try as an exercise for discussion of possibility as what the Ex PAF said in above video.

 

[araz]

We had a speculative discussion about the DSI/Intake difference in new Block, on the day when first picture of Block-III maiden flight was shared. I am not yet sure to say the same again but we can still make some ideal comparison if it makes any difference on the point of enhanced speed given the DSI/Intake limitation.

View attachment 712351

View attachment 712352



and the last picture...

View attachment 712350

May be someone with same angle picture can make a comparison. I am repeating and sharing these points merely to give it a try as an exercise for discussion of possibility as what the Ex PAF said in above video.

View attachment 712356

He said the block 3 is bigger. That alone makes his assertions doubtful. There does not appear to be any increase in the wing span which would allow the space for the 4th under wing HP. THE Last point is if we have DERS is there any need to have a 4th HP under wings. However cannot say anything if they have tried a concealed set of missiles along the lines of the silent eagle. This remains my "bongie" so take it for what it is worth.
A

 

[Black.Mamba]

I am not aviation nor JF17 expert however I have scaled and adjusted both the images and from my prior experience in some other fields, I can only say that "the bump near the inlet is bigger and longer" and "the angle of the inlet opening is also different, wider/more airflow".
There will of-course be some variation because of two different picture angles however I did calculations on my end, the following gif is just for illustrative purpose only. Kindly discard if it is completely B.S

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Most F-16s don't have that system as its just recently been rolled out in the USAF. I also don't think the JF-17 has it. The first Thunder crashed was controlled flight into terrain I believe.
Another point is, its a huge safety plus and would certainly would have been marketed with such a feature besides the usual "its so cheap" mantra.

I used to play Novalogic F-16 back in late 90s and the game had that
"pull up , pull up female warning" or terrain terrain warning. I saw the same in some American documentaries about US fighter pilots flying F-16s. so I assumed that system was installed long ago on older blocks and its nothing secretive to deny Pakistani models.
I guess the collusion question is raised due to recent crashed suffered by PAF.
and the discussion might move to the tragic crash of PAF Pilot last year I learnt that PAF pilots disable some safety features for the sake of some maneuvers that create extreme Gs and the pilot couldn't recover the plane in time and died.


yes I despise the "cheap mantra". pitched by PAF leadership and its marketing team. I think this is why the GCC has firmly decided never to come close to it since anything "cheap" with aviation specially with military aviation is associated with low quality and unreliability. Fighter jets are premium items not a bargain bucket off season sales clearance products.

its so misplaced and counterproductive when the main selling pitch should be its great performance and its diversity of roles in its class.

 

[SQ8]

I used to play Novalogic F-16 back in late 90s and the game had that
"pull up , pull up female warning" or terrain terrain warning. I saw the same in some American documentaries about US fighter pilots flying F-16s. so I assumed that system was installed long ago on older blocks and its nothing secretive to deny Pakistani models.
I guess the collusion question is raised due to recent crashed suffered by PAF.
and the discussion might move to the tragic crash of PAF Pilot last year I learnt that PAF pilots disable some safety features for the sake of some maneuvers that create extreme Gs and the pilot couldn't recover the plane in time and died.


yes I despise the "cheap mantra". pitched by PAF leadership and its marketing team. I think this is why the GCC has firmly decided never to come close to it since anything "cheap" with aviation specially with military aviation is associated with low quality and unreliability. Fighter jets are premium items not a bargain bucket off season sales clearance products.

its so misplaced and counterproductive when the main selling pitch should be its great performance and its diversity of roles in its class.

Unfortunately, they are projecting a Pakistani buyer onto everyone else.

A bmw M3 seems cheap to someone who normally purchases a Huracan.

As for the safety system disabling alerts, I shared Kaiser Tufail’s blog with a senior USAF pilot and his comment was “absolutely reckless” and violation of all safety concepts.

 

[GriffinsRule]

I used to play Novalogic F-16 back in late 90s and the game had that
"pull up , pull up female warning" or terrain terrain warning. I saw the same in some American documentaries about US fighter pilots flying F-16s. so I assumed that system was installed long ago on older blocks and its nothing secretive to deny Pakistani models.
I guess the collusion question is raised due to recent crashed suffered by PAF.
and the discussion might move to the tragic crash of PAF Pilot last year I learnt that PAF pilots disable some safety features for the sake of some maneuvers that create extreme Gs and the pilot couldn't recover the plane in time and died.


yes I despise the "cheap mantra". pitched by PAF leadership and its marketing team. I think this is why the GCC has firmly decided never to come close to it since anything "cheap" with aviation specially with military aviation is associated with low quality and unreliability. Fighter jets are premium items not a bargain bucket off season sales clearance products.

its so misplaced and counterproductive when the main selling pitch should be its great performance and its diversity of roles in its class.

There is an altitude warning. However that wont help in the case of an incapacitated pilot. This system will automatically pull the plane regardless of pilot action to avoid a ground collision. I am sure there is more to it, but that is the jist of it.

 

[Khan vilatey]

As per Wikipedia and other publicly available media the jf-17 block 1-2 are being built using an aluminum alloy. This reduces the life of each jf-17 to about 4000 hours as opposed to f-16 block 50s 8000 hours due to use of composites. I would appreciate if folks can answer a few questions

1) how true is this and with the increase in use of composites in block 3 extended the life to say 6000 hours ?

2) can we increase the life of our jf-17 block 1-2 jets by overhaul

3) if the life of these jests is increased can we conduct jf-17 diplomacy by gifting older block 1 units to Bangladesh and Afghanistan, srilanka etc as we did with f-6 and older f-7 s? This might enable us to sell newer units to African and other south Asian countries?

k

 

[HRK]

I am not aviation nor JF17 expert however I have scaled and adjusted both the images and from my prior experience in some other fields, I can only say that "the bump near the inlet is bigger and longer" and "the angle of the inlet opening is also different, wider/more airflow".
There will of-course be some variation because of two different picture angles however I did calculations on my end, the following gif is just for illustrative purpose only. Kindly discard if it is completely B.S

View attachment 712647

is it possible for u to slowdown the changing speed pics as it is difficult to have proper observation at this speed

 

[MAB]

I have noticed that ex PAF officers are not particularly shy of a bit of hyperbole. This seems to be the case here,. Bigger jet, 11 hard points and mach 2 speed seems like quite the stretch especially since the few available pictures show minimal changes to the air frame.

 

[The Eagle]

He said the block 3 is bigger. That alone makes his assertions doubtful. There does not appear to be any increase in the wing span which would allow the space for the 4th under wing HP. THE Last point is if we have DERS is there any need to have a 4th HP under wings. However cannot say anything if they have tried a concealed set of missiles along the lines of the silent eagle. This remains my "bongie" so take it for what it is worth.
A

He is right to the extent that Block-III is bigger given the extended wingspan but I agree that, none of us heard about 4 HPs on each wing so in conclusion, we can agree that it might be about DERs now to be used as standard as never seen before. Secondly, in current configuration and wing loading given the space between HPs, DER seems to be the logical conclusion due to the space between HP 1 & 2 and 6 & 7 based upon root strengthening since Block-II. Conclusively, "Bongie" is not just coming from you Sir but I would have been doing the same or in-fact almost everyone.

I am not aviation nor JF17 expert however I have scaled and adjusted both the images and from my prior experience in some other fields, I can only say that "the bump near the inlet is bigger and longer" and "the angle of the inlet opening is also different, wider/more airflow".
There will of-course be some variation because of two different picture angles however I did calculations on my end, the following gif is just for illustrative purpose only. Kindly discard if it is completely B.S

View attachment 712647

Nothing is useless as long as you are putting efforts into a subject to make a point and worth it. However, can you slow it down a bit.

 

[Black.Mamba]

Here it is, I have slowed and cropped it for a better understanding.
@HRK @The Eagle

 

[Shabi1]

Here it is, I have slowed and cropped it for a better understanding.
@HRK @The Eagle
View attachment 712779
View attachment 712774

Yup intakes slightly different. You can see more of the bump. Must have been enlarged for the newer powerplant and higher speed.