What's new

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

what I’ll say is, my guess is that this is not a joint venture, simply because of it was, PAC wouldn’t have tried to source components from a third party, rather, they’d have contacted their partner, in this case either turkey or China to source components, instead of releasing a public tender for them. While yes, tenders can be ‘tailored’ to certain vendors, I’ll cast a doubt on that being the situation here.

the domestic aesa is however not a license production of the klj-7a rather, an indigenous design (based off of my guess and the info I have), with ir being worked on mostly alone, and having components that can’t be produced domestically, be sourced from abroad,I.e t/r modules.

@JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) does this sound/look right?
You are discussing around an area that is a technical blindspot for me. @Signalian can (and should: ) ) respond to this in a much better way.

I do not know the capabilities of APF, nor would I understand them if knew them. But a tender appearing and disappearing could also mean a program that failed to take off. I understand that you need specialized RF circuits to run behind the TR modules, which don't seem too out of reach (in my layman opinion). You would probably also need to write software to run this radar, and considering how AESA shines in the different modes it can work in, I would imagine that this would be one of the hardest parts to get right (and then test in the air). But I could be entirely wrong.
 
You are discussing around an area that is a technical blindspot for me. @Signalian can (and should: ) ) respond to this in a much better way.

I do not know the capabilities of APF, nor would I understand them if knew them. But a tender appearing and disappearing could also mean a program that failed to take off. I understand that you need specialized RF circuits to run behind the TR modules, which don't seem too out of reach (in my layman opinion). You would probably also need to write software to run this radar, and considering how AESA shines in the different modes it can work in, I would imagine that this would be one of the hardest parts to get right (and then test in the air). But I could be entirely wrong.

Another interesting thing I noticed was some stuff related to radar design in one of the modp yearbooks, then the following year this came out.

what my suspicion was that this is sort of a ‘testbed’, even though pac had confirmed an aesa was under development for the jf-17, uav’s and other applications.
 
Don't let the 0.5 point difference fool you. J-10C has a different flight envelope & that really matters a good deal. If PAF can not look for more F-16 aircrafts then the only logical choice is J-10CE. JF-17 Block III will struggle against a mixed strike package. Having J-10CE will ensure that IAF would think a hundred times before committing to an adventure. Also, do remember that any future Chinese A2A missiles would readily be integrated on J-10CE, while JF-17 would need a more lengthy integration period. The only deal-breaker would be lack of significant financing help in acquiring J-10CE keeping in view current state of Pakistan's economy.
I can try to guess several advantages that the J10CE will have over our existing fleet:
1. I don't know why I didn't think about this properly before, nor has it been discussed on pdf to the best of my knowledge but the J10CE is going to be PAF's first platform that has an IRST. I think that's significant. It might even be useful in an Indo-Pak scenario at relatively short ranges for targeting (and identification of the target so we might actually have video of a miniawacs getting hit next time :p:).
2. The J10CE will obviously have superior kinematic performance. So a PL15 launched from a J10CE will be more lethal than the same missile launched from a JF17 because the J10CE is flying faster and higher (under ideal and equal conditions of course).
 
Y
Yeah. I think the decision to acquire the J-10CE is to minimize gaps while investing in the TFX. The PAF isn't taking an FGFA for granted -- it's still a loose variable. In fact, I doubt that the first tranche of TFX (assuming it materializes) would even capable of strike (to the degree the PAF needs) because it was not the intended role. The Turks had the F-35 for that role, so the TFX was more of a general purpose fighter to replace the F-16s. The reality changed, so a strike-focused TFX variant is probably on the roadmap, but 'when' is a big question.
You believe that the Turks will get F-35 after the S-400 ?
 
You may remember that you and I have had a debate on this subject and I was of the opinion that although upgrades would happen the planes would not entirely be akin to newer block 3s. It seems that you were right and I was wrong.
Regards
A

Well we'll see if that also includes structural changes like the LDP hardpoint under the starboard intake, or whether it will be Block III avionics standard only. The PAF always stated from the outset that each successive Block would be an iterative upgrade, and those upgrades can be easily applied retrospectively to previous blocks. In that sense, Block III is nothing more than an upgraded Block II, and therefore the same upgrade package can be applied to previous block aircraft.
 
By the look and shape of it with the possibility of liquid cooling pipe; seems like a bit molded for an adjustment per airframe and then connect the same with Heat Exchange Unit (HEU) placed behind the plate that holds AESA antenna in front of it. Assumingly, heat exchanger unit does have in & out connections to redirect cold & heat in process to maintain temperature. Those in/out connections will be located with heat exchange unit and not directly with front AESA antenna. AESA antenna heat is being exchanged with HEU itself.
I understand this No cooling system directly goes to Antenna but HEA .... but for this what I was observing is that pipe seems not going to the compartment in the nose section behind the Radar Antenna where HEU for AESA cloud possibly be placed.

So the question is IF the said pipe is not attached with HEU than it is connected to which other component ..... ???

Keep in mind this arrangement is same as we have seen on JF-17 Bravo as well and in latest picture first time shows an unidentified component or LRU just below cockpit as shown in the below attached pic

2P-80B (620)[5-9-2021]-2e-1a.jpg


my take on this is simple IF it is not HEU then there is a possibility of this component is part of new Environmental Control Unit (ECU) .... which in past was rumored to include OBOG as well
 
my take on this is simple IF it is not HEU then there is a possibility of this component is part of new Environmental Control Unit (ECU) .... which in past was rumored to include OBOG as well

Yes... that can be as I have no information about that.

Keep in mind this arrangement is same as we have seen on JF-17 Bravo as well and in latest picture

Just a silly question. What if we are missing the point of space management which might have resulted in the lack of same pipe on the port side of Airframe? Asking as some members with knowledge may jump into discussion. Because the same arrangement could have been used for some different purpose as you said about ECU for OBOGs.
 
so, IMO tfx was as risky, you know how I felt about the tfx not too long ago, I think my piece is still on quwa?, the project seemed doomed also, major suppliers were dropping out, the Turks were in political turmoil, they hadn’t dedicated any significant share of funding towards it, I had more hope for azm than I did tfx, so I completely understand why it may not have been selected at the time. I still am somewhat skeptical about it, just less so after seeing their press release and rather realistic expectations, unlike someone *cough cough* ex acm who was going off on a tangent about directed energy weapons and allah jaane aur kya. So I think the real advantage in tfx lies in its somewhat, relatively underwhelming expectations(vs the f35), which could mean we do actually see it come to fruition, then developed further eventually.
At the risk of lengthening the off-topic discussion, let me say that Turkish struggle was exactly what suited Pakistan. You join a struggling program and commit resources after negotiating an advantageous position to create a good bargain. I have always agreed with @Quwa on his contention that a much better course of action would have been to join an active program rather than marching alone into the unknown.

Pakistan severely lacks industrial base & technical know-how; the culture (both government & most private industry) is hostile to innovative thinking; army officers make policy & expect cushy jobs after retirement & get their way anyway & however. We have insular thinking where civilians (thought-leaders, politicians, policy-makers, industrialists, engineers, scientists, etc...) are irrelevant. How can a civilian like me hope to contribute anything meaningful? There simply is no avenue available.

While this is the situation in Pakistan, India has invested in indigenous programs & learnt via their mistakes (Tejas, Dhruv, missile tech, etc...) and established a well-staffed infrastructure in partnership with business leaders.

Case in point: when I was at Georgia Tech in early-mid nineties, two of the senior professors of fiber science were Indian - Dr. Satish Kumar & Dr. Desai (?). There were at least two Indians completing their PhDs in high performance composite materials, while I was the lone Pakistani who took a few courses in composites. There were a number of Pakistani students studying Electrical / Electronic engineering, Civil Engineering (not Structures, but water resources :-\ ), a couple of students were studying Environmental Engineering also. There were none in aerospace (GA Tech was nationally ranked #3 in AE), and one airforce officer in Industrial & Systems Engineering (GA Tech was ranked #1). Most fat Colonels were enrolled in Civil Engineering & took their sweet time getting their PhDs while their wives worked, earned, & saved. Except two people, I do not know of a single person associated with Army or PAF who made any positive contribution after their subsequent return to Pakistan - the lone exception from the Army being Dr. Shoaib who completed his PhD in good time & was well-regarded among us. In short, for the resources spent what was the outcome?

JF-17 could be the success that leads us to expecting miracles because we generally got it right this one time. PAF is the only airforce that manufactures its own aircraft via PAC. Is it realistic to expect that PAF by itself can create a whole top-notch industry? I don't think so. JF-17 taught us the value of partnering with someone & that should be the lesson learned here, not the notion that PAF can (or should) do it all. There is no aircraft that can do it all, & there is no organization that can be everything to everyone. Unless there is a partnership with own civvies and our international friends, there is precious little hope.
 
Last edited:
Don't let the 0.5 point difference fool you. J-10C has a different flight envelope & that really matters a good deal. If PAF can not look for more F-16 aircrafts then the only logical choice is J-10CE. JF-17 Block III will struggle against a mixed strike package. Having J-10CE will ensure that IAF would think a hundred times before committing to an adventure. Also, do remember that any future Chinese A2A missiles would readily be integrated on J-10CE, while JF-17 would need a more lengthy integration period. The only deal-breaker would be lack of significant financing help in acquiring J-10CE keeping in view current state of Pakistan's economy.

How can you compare the J-19C flight envelope with Block 3 which hasn't been seen in full action yet?
 
How can you compare the J-19C flight envelope with Block 3 which hasn't been seen in full action yet?
Delta-canard, TWR, Radar, IRST, payload, range - its not just envelope, though that would be decidedly different due to its being a delta-canard.
 
Delta-canard, TWR, Radar, IRST, payload, range - its not just envelope, though that would be decidedly different due to its being a delta-canard.

Delta-canard is no magic. The flight envelope is determined by a combination of:

1. Aerodynamics
2. Ability of airframe to handle stresses
3. Ability of engine to produce thrust

You can take an airframe that is not optimized for a certain maneuver, and simply brute force through engine power as long as the airframe can handle the stress (and obviously the pilot as well). The canard par of the Delta-canard tries to remove the limitations introduced by the delta, thus achieving a balance that works as required in a range of aerodynamic scenarios. You can take a clipped delta and achieve exactly the same through engine power. There is no intrinsic advantage in the delta-canard configuration of J-10C. The same is true of TWR with an uprated engine.

The radar in Block 3 can either be backed by a larger AEWACs, or distributed aperture techniques can be used to leverage the radars of a formation of Block 3s. The payload can also be distributed. As for the range, deep strikes can be achieved through stand-off weapons and MRBMs. There is simply no good argument that goes in favor of J-10C. If the previous chief of the entire PAF sees nothing in it, there has to be a reason.
I doubt this new plumbing arrangement is related to liquid cooling of AESA radar as posted in the quoted post above, but I think there is a possibility we are seeing arrangements related to OBOG system as previously rumoured for Bravo and Blk-III .....

View attachment 776829

Gentlemen comment about the possibility ....

That pipe is tunneling inwards, to come out in the middle like this:

1631291996495.png
 
B with liquid cooling pipe?
View attachment 776813

The frontal nose of B-s is completely different from the frontal nose of Block 3s as we recently saw. The Bs continue the solid frontal panel seen in previous blocks, whereas Block 3 has a square opening in front.
only thing I am skeptical about liquid cooling is the absence of second part of plumbing of liquid cooling cycle .... I mean there must be 2 pipes 1 one to take liquid into heat exchanger and the other part to take the heated liquid out

View attachment 776819

Plz also Note Plumbing Arrangement is not entering into nose section but tilting downward.

View attachment 776815

It is possible that the single metallic pipe covers twin tubes inside.
 
Delta-canard is no magic. The flight envelope is determined by a combination of:

1. Aerodynamics
2. Ability of airframe to handle stresses
3. Ability of engine to produce thrust

Oh, my bad. I thought Aerodynamics of JF-17 were much different than J-10C because of totally different design. I apologize for my error. I also apologize for not realizing that their respective TWR was exactly the same.

You can take an airframe that is not optimized for a certain maneuver, and simply brute force through engine power as long as the airframe can handle the stress (and obviously the pilot as well). The canard par of the Delta-canard tries to remove the limitations introduced by the delta, thus achieving a balance that works as required in a range of aerodynamic scenarios. You can take a clipped delta and achieve exactly the same through engine power. There is no intrinsic advantage in the delta-canard configuration of J-10C. The same is true of TWR with an uprated engine.

Scratch my apology above about TWR of both JF-17 & J-10C. Now I must upgrade my apology because I just realized that JF-17 has a much superior TWR & in fact it would run circles around J-10C & the space shuttle by virtue of having a TWR of 2.15.

As for the range, deep strikes can be achieved through stand-off weapons

Yes. J-10C can not have more range than JF-17, since it is Chinese. Therefore there is absolutely no advantage in using it with SOWs either. My bad.

Seriously dude, do you live to argue?

Here, ponder on this verse of poetry by Ghalib. Seems he wrote it for you:
Vehm-e-ghair.jpg
 
Oh, my bad. I thought Aerodynamics of JF-17 were much different than J-10C because of totally different design. I apologize for my error. I also apologize for not realizing that their respective TWR was exactly the same.



Scratch my apology above about TWR of both JF-17 & J-10C. Now I must upgrade my apology because I just realized that JF-17 has a much superior TWR & in fact it would run circles around J-10C & the space shuttle by virtue of having a TWR of 2.15.



Yes. J-10C can not have more range than JF-17, since it is Chinese. Therefore there is absolutely no advantage in using it with SOWs either. My bad.

Seriously dude, do you live to argue?

Here, ponder on this verse of poetry by Ghalib. Seems he wrote it for you:
View attachment 776921

I live to call out B.S. wherever I see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom