What's new

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

Not that easy to convert air-cooled to liquid cooling like that. One has to go with replacing.

In that case, Let’s hope the Block III gets a liquid cooled AESA from the start, and we get enough power from the engine. That coupled with some RAM paint and EW gear should even the odds with any potential adversary aircraft.
 
Last edited:
In that case, Let’s hope the Block III gets a liquid cooled AESA from the start, and we get enough power from the engine. That coupled with some RAM paint and EW gear should even the odds with any potential adversary aircraft.
And what about the jhumke that you put on the hardpoints? What will that do to the RCS? Unless you also suggest internal bays for weapons and enough internal fuel/CFTs you will always struggle to maintain pow RCS.
A
 
And what about the jhumke that you put on the hardpoints? What will that do to the RCS? Unless you also suggest internal bays for weapons and enough internal fuel/CFTs you will always struggle to maintain pow RCS.
A
A valid point.

But wouldn't it be beneficial to strive to lower the RCS as much as we can ... in the hope of getting detected as late as possible ... which improves the odds for seeing first and shooting first?
 
A valid point.

But wouldn't it be beneficial to strive to lower the RCS as much as we can ... in the hope of getting detected as late as possible ... which improves the odds for seeing first and shooting first?
The silent eagle is the best example( that we know of) of reducing the RCS of a loaded plane which was not stealth to begin with. JFT may not be big enough/engine powerful enough for that solution. Otherwise the measures quoted earlier may not work. Lastly JFT is a small plane so naturally its RCS would be low due to its size.
A
 
wing blocks
What structures are these, the wings themselves or the place a completed wing attaches on?
r some of the versions of these guidance systems and yes we have the ability to make excellent guidance systems and other firmware/software However, guidance is NOT hardware AESA Radar or other subsystems.

Unless in the past 6 years since I left the country this situation has changed to where we both have fabrication hardware and knowledge base to create this hardware I still see this as a handicap.
Is there any potential to apply any decision science or optimization in these beyond simple rule based logic? Would love to discuss this with you privately, dont want to give too much personal info out on an open forum..
 
And what about the jhumke that you put on the hardpoints? What will that do to the RCS? Unless you also suggest internal bays for weapons and enough internal fuel/CFTs you will always struggle to maintain pow RCS.
A

Lower the RCS as much as possible and perhaps use an external low RCS pod to hold missiles. Sort of like the Su-57 WVR missile pod or the F-18e/f pod or this one for the F-22 (see second picture on page)

 
Even back in August, at least a Trio of Block-3 Thunders were seen near completion.

1641218011327.png
 
Lower the RCS as much as possible and perhaps use an external low RCS pod to hold missiles. Sort of like the Su-57 WVR missile pod or the F-18e/f pod or this one for the F-22 (see second picture on page)

May be possible with a higher thrust engine . Still cost vs benefit exercise may have to be done to see whether the risk is worth taking. Also possibly need CFT to reduce RCS further and reduce drag. I honestly dont know whether this would be possible with a light weight fighter like JFT.
A
 
May be possible with a higher thrust engine . Still cost vs benefit exercise may have to be done to see whether the risk is worth taking. Also possibly need CFT to reduce RCS further and reduce drag. I honestly dont know whether this would be possible with a light weight fighter like JFT.
A

The F-414EPE, designed for the F-18 but also for the Gripen was projected to achieve a 120 kn (26,400 lb) max thrust, per a 2011 Bill Sweetman article. If the Chinese achieve something similar with a variant of the WS-19 down the line it would breath new life into the JF-17 in terms of all the possibilities of adding CFT, etc. considering the demand for a J-35 that matches or beats the F-35 for the PLANAF, it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
 
The F-414EPE, designed for the F-18 but also for the Gripen was projected to achieve a 120 kn (26,400 lb) max thrust, per a 2011 Bill Sweetman article. If the Chinese achieve something similar with a variant of the WS-19 down the line it would breath new life into the JF-17 in terms of all the possibilities of adding CFT, etc. considering the demand for a J-35 that matches or beats the F-35 for the PLANAF, it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
26400lbs will tear the air frame apart. You dont put just any engine into any plane. Just like you dont put a Ferari engine into a Suzuki Mehran.
A
 
26400lbs will tear the air frame apart. You dont put just any engine into any plane. Just like you dont put a Ferari engine into a Suzuki Mehran.
A

It would require a redesign perhaps, possibly a new design, but it maybe worth a new design, considering the possibilities of a small fighter with that much thrust. A design like the FS2020 by SAAB. It could be an effective replacement for the JF-17, because with the Block 3 design we are reaching the limit of its design. The SAAB design could be a cost effective and highly capable replacement, because the original JF-17 (the actual first operational plane) has already gone through an overhaul, and may only have another 15-20 years left in the air frame. Now is the time to think of a workhorse replacement; with the technology developed a good way to share technology developed for Project AZM.

Actually, The SAAB design envisions a 170 kn engine, so we may not need to use the WS-19.

so while we are going for a twin WS-15 class design with Project AZM, we might as well go with a Single engine WS-15 design as a backbone fighter (a medium weight design that maybe of interest to the Chinese, for the PLAAF and/or the export market; and compete against the Su-75 and F-35). It would be a mistake to build another lightweight fighter if our doctrine evolves to be more offensive.

 
Last edited:
you do have a 2000hp smart for2 powered by jet engine.


and many crazy mods,

Well this was on the lighter side, having some excess power can have its merits

26400lbs will tear the air frame apart. You dont put just any engine into any plane. Just like you dont put a Ferari engine into a Suzuki Mehran.
A
 
I have personally seen the CODE for some of the versions of these guidance systems and yes we have the ability to make excellent guidance systems and other firmware/software However, guidance is NOT hardware AESA Radar or other subsystems.

Unless in the past 6 years since I left the country this situation has changed to where we both have fabrication hardware and knowledge base to create this hardware I still see this as a handicap.

Many years ago, a then young PhD in Pakistan told me he has personally seen the details of a certain US missile system. It employs a line camera - a linear placement of sensors - and literally builds an entire image by scanning the scene in front of it line by line.

PAC is slated to start producing the KLJ-7A AESA radar locally. They can certainly place a line of T/R elements (not module) or a single T/R module or a few modules. Let us not forget that missile radar guidance needs to kick in at the very end when the missile is quite close to the target so this radar doesn't need to be very powerful.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom