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

[Keysersoze]

Hi @Keysersoze

I don't think you remember me but I joined this forum briefly in 2007-2008 with another nickname which I forgot but if my memory serves me correct weren't you also a Mod at one point and ex-British Military? I could be confusing you with someone else.

Yup thats me. Unfortunately a lot of members changed their names so I don't remember Who is who.

 

[PakFactor]

Good question.

@messiach @JamD @airomerix please look at this picture, how difficult would it be to add a hardpoint to the intake ribs for light loads, like the below to older blocks? Do you think the whole aircraft will have to be disassembled or is it something that can be done in final assembly like the upgradation of Bs with AESA? Thanks.

View attachment 777910

P.S to me it looks impossible to upgrade current Blk 1 and 2s to include the additional hardpoint as it has been done here. Reason: Notice, unlike the other ribs that are separate pieces this final rib is one contiguous piece for both sides, like a knuckleduster for 3 fingers. And before someone says, just drill two holes into it, also notice, the final rib on both sides are not the same, the one with the hardpoint has additional metal pieces running in it, probably to strengthen it.

This one is for Pods only? Not actual weapons?

I'm thinking Pod if it was for actual weapon's the hard points would be vertical adjacent along the fuselage.

Yup thats me. Unfortunately a lot of members changed their names so I don't remember Who is who.

Yeah, I think I was DragonKing or something like that
But it's been so long and only reason I recalled yours because it was an odd forum nickname.

 

[The Eagle]

After the ban he can still come back?

I don't see any problem once unbanned. He can however reach Mod(s) Incase of any issue.

wondering how difficult and expensive it is to add to older blocks via mod ?

Difficult indeed. Tear up skin, reach to skeleton to drill holes, all the plumbing or wiring, installing required ECU/Processor/Relevant Computing into other place which requires more tasking and energy, so the economy and in the end, the question arises whether enough to do so to older airframe or why not to concentrate on newer Block-III by raising numbers including default option as such. May be, during overhaul, one can go through such stressful cycle as if there are no more into production.

 

[Keysersoze]

I'm thinking Pod if it was for actual weapon's the hard points would be vertical adjacent along the fuselage.


Yeah, I think I was DragonKing or something like that
But it's been so long and only reason I recalled yours because it was an odd forum nickname.

Dragonking786 I remember lol

 

[khanasifm]

This one is for Pods only? Not actual weapons?

If it can carry 236 kg aselpod or Chinese 280 kg pod then I am sure if needed can carry a mark 82 as well though it will not

typical ground attack for jf across border is single centerline drop tanks plus underwing two pylonsfor A2g and remaining under wing And wing tip for aam it will be very short say 250-300 unless it’s a package with its own dedicated a2g and a2a assets than two under wing drops with a2g and only wingtip a2a

 

[PakFactor]

Dragonking786 I remember lol

Yup that was me

 

[Aesterix]

I finally got watch the full program. Regarding the serials, as off 2nd Sep:

3P10 and 3P09 are in sub-assembly (fwd fuselage taking shape. Notice in 2nd pic the "cockpit walls" are almost 20 cm thick - an A4 page is resting on them - this lends further credence to the fuel tank theory since its more than the critique of them being only a couple of cms thick):

View attachment 777860

(cockpit in inverted position visible in the far side of picture, the A4 sheet rests where the popular pipes will later be installed, 5 brownie points if you can spot the additional hardpoint):
View attachment 777861

(3P09 in foreground and 3P10 in background)
View attachment 777862

(3P09 wings, also labelled as 7th aircraft - implying 2 prototypes/ examples were built in China - this serial convention is similar to that observed with Bs)
View attachment 777865

3P07 and 3P08 fuselage sections not seen in any shot.

3P07 wing jiggs:
View attachment 777868



3P05 and 3P06 most likely (mid fuselage section visible on the rightside likely goes with 3P09 almost complete front section):
View attachment 777869


3P03 and 3P04 are in final assembly:

View attachment 777859
@Pakistan Space Agency

Looks like we are on schedule to have a good many ready by year end, maybe even the 12 originally planned for this year i.e. upto 3P014

I counted 3 in the final assembly area, where 3P-04 is present, there are another 3x Thunder single seaters and 2x B.

 

[Legio XI The Ironclads]

If it can carry 236 kg aselpod or Chinese 280 kg pod then I am sure if needed can carry a mark 82 as well though it will not

typical ground attack for jf across border is single centerline drop tanks plus underwing two pylonsfor A2g and remaining under wing And wing tip for aam it will be very short say 250-300 unless it’s a package with its own dedicated a2g and a2a assets than two under wing drops with a2g and only wingtip a2a

It could also be due to aero dynamic issues such as unsafe weapon separation / release.
A POD wouldn't be an issue because its not going anywhere.

 

[The Eagle]

This one is for Pods only? Not actual weapons?

Exactly for the POD so that one on the center or wings, can be free to carry weapon. What would you do to have weapons everywhere on the Aircraft when it can't deploy all of them for desired goal? It is not about total count of weapons in one sortie at all. Doctrine, tactics, your approach towards certain warfare, successful weapon deployment, achieving the desired result, saving cost v/s more benefits, aerodynamic of the Aircraft, flight characteristics and change in weight balance, possible drag V/s maneuverability etc. In my opinion, it is not about one single Hard Point or weapon onto every pylon/HP.

 

[redtom]

Is there any source which can confirm that TRMs of AESA radar for JF-17 are made of GaN or GaA?

The picture says KLJ7A and F-35 radar have the same performance. But the KLJ7A antenna is only 600mm, while the F35's radar antenna is 800mm. Under the same technical conditions, the larger the antenna area, the better the performance of radar. If radar manufacturers weren't bragging, the KLJ7A would probably be GaN.

 

[m52k85]

I counted 3 in the final assembly area, where 3P-04 is present, there are another 3x Thunder single seaters and 2x B.

Yes you are right, the airframe between the two Bs in final assembly is 3P05 (visible in the background):

Nice overoview of subassembly area:

 

[SaadH]

Can anyone comeback to me with rational points why JF-17 cannot be modified and retrofitted with Western engine such as F404 or Rolls-Royce engines. Rolls-Royce engines are modular, more efficient and burns less fuel then any other engines.

The Western engines are more compact than RD-93MA. The length, weight and diameters are not issue here. Mind you, Pakistan still buys vast arrays of Western equipment from France, Sweden, Italy, USA and UK. I want a technical discussion, no political nonsense.

Simply because they are not sanction proof and at the mercy of next mood swing in the western power calculus.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Actually, its not true. Chinese AESA radar uses Gallium arsenide (GaAs) and American uses Gallium nitride (GaN) in their electronics. American radar is capable with connecting high bandwidth encrypted data link, sensor fusions such as AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. An/APG-83 can communicate with off-board systems and can look-back.

Chinese and Russian radars are yet to achieve any DAS and look-back capability. Why do you think Su-30MKI ran from Kashmir? Su-30MKI has no off-board connection and cannot look-back. Su-30MKI had only hope that its Missile Approach Warning (MAW) systems is working and does not malfunction in-flight.

Pakistani F-16 has off-board connection such as Saab Erieye. Pakistani F-16 does not have sensor fusion but Saab Erieye filled the vacuum of sensor fusions for F-16.

In fact, J-20 is equipped with EO/DAS capabilitiy similar on board F-35.

 

[redtom]

Actually, its not true. Chinese AESA radar uses Gallium arsenide (GaAs) and American uses Gallium nitride (GaN) in their electronics. American radar is capable with connecting high bandwidth encrypted data link, sensor fusions such as AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. An/APG-83 can communicate with off-board systems and can look-back.

Chinese and Russian radars are yet to achieve any DAS and look-back capability. Why do you think Su-30MKI ran from Kashmir? Su-30MKI has no off-board connection and cannot look-back. Su-30MKI had only hope that its Missile Approach Warning (MAW) systems is working and does not malfunction in-flight.

Pakistani F-16 has off-board connection such as Saab Erieye. Pakistani F-16 does not have sensor fusion but Saab Erieye filled the vacuum of sensor fusions for F-16.

I checked the news that the US only started preparing to upgrade airborne radars with GaN this year. The first models should be F/A-18. The F-35 is not scheduled to be upgraded until 2025. The US military report in 2016 already mentioned Chinese research in GaN. So there are no Gans currently in service in the US. The KLJ7A is a new product in the last two years, no product is in service, and it is not strange to use GaN. That's about the same amount of time it takes to change into a GaN in the United States.

As for EODAS and datalink etc, I don't think BLK3 has it. But these technologies are already in service on the J20. It's just a question of money. After all, BLK3 opted for a single-array air-cooled radar instead of the better three-array radar.

Can anyone comeback to me with rational points why JF-17 cannot be modified and retrofitted with Western engine such as F404 or Rolls-Royce engines. Rolls-Royce engines are modular, more efficient and burns less fuel then any other engines.

The Western engines are more compact than RD-93MA. The length, weight and diameters are not issue here. Mind you, Pakistan still buys vast arrays of Western equipment from France, Sweden, Italy, USA and UK. I want a technical discussion, no political nonsense.

You don't seem to know that western countries attach many political conditions to exporting weapons. And the Americans forbid their Allies from engaging in technological cooperation with China. Americans have also dropped out of JF17 early.

 

[SD 10]

Can anyone comeback to me with rational points why JF-17 cannot be modified and retrofitted with Western engine such as F404 or Rolls-Royce engines. Rolls-Royce engines are modular, more efficient and burns less fuel then any other engines.

The Western engines are more compact than RD-93MA. The length, weight and diameters are not issue here. Mind you, Pakistan still buys vast arrays of Western equipment from France, Sweden, Italy, USA and UK. I want a technical discussion, no political nonsense.

no need! why would we want to put the entire programme hostage to west!