What's new

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

Did you know that in early 2000, a team from LCA project got in touch with a key figure in thunder project and requested him to have a look at how it was taking shape so fast?

AVM Shahid Latif (the then project director of JF-17) was the person and they did get nothing except for introduction with Team. Furthermore, I assume that those (Indians) were actually entities involved in Program and not the official Indians directly.
 
Shahid Latif was the person and they did get nothing except for introduction with Team. Furthermore, I assume that those (Indians) were actually entities involved in Program and not the official Indians directly.

Shows how desperate they were.

Some points on KLJ-7A side array version..

- Can track fighter size target over 200kms away

- Can cover 300 degree and act as a AEWC system/ guide assets to a designated target(s)
 
Shows how desperate they were.

Except for the demeaning & Indian trolls over the Internet, Jf-17 is in-fact our pride & recognition in Fighter Jets club. Interestingly, PAF is the only Air Force that was involved in designing a Jet as such. Block-III is going to wreck havoc for them psychologically as well viz a viz their lower standard of even licensed production let alone Tejas. However, not the topic here so I wouldn't continue.
 
Except for the demeaning & Indian trolls over the Internet, Jf-17 is in-fact our pride & recognition in Fighter Jets club. Interestingly, PAF is the only Air Force that was involved in designing a Jet as such. Block-III is going to wreck havoc for them psychologically as well viz a viz their lower standard of even licensed production let alone Tejas. However, not the topic here so I wouldn't continue.

True..

Those who know their stuff, know that works, and not to be taken lightly.
 
Some points on KLJ-7A side array version..

- Can track fighter size target over 200kms away

- Can cover 300 degree and act as a AEWC system/ guide assets to a designated target(s)

Yes. Post got lengthy without any thought to re-read. Except for the 60 degree of center of tail, 3 arrays KLJ7A covers the whole surrounding in given range.
 
Except for the demeaning & Indian trolls over the Internet, Jf-17 is in-fact our pride & recognition in Fighter Jets club. Interestingly, PAF is the only Air Force that was involved in designing a Jet as such. Block-III is going to wreck havoc for them psychologically as well viz a viz their lower standard of even licensed production let alone Tejas. However, not the topic here so I wouldn't continue.

I would say, JF-17 only needs to bring down one SU-30MKI or one Mirage 2000-V......that will be the end IAF for good.
You will not see them again in the air.
 
Yes. Post got lengthy without any thought to re-read. Except for the 60 degree of center of tail, 3 arrays KLJ7A covers the whole surrounding in given range.

I think both mechanical as well as 3 array provide same capabilities , one using mechanical drive based other without it

Not sure if there is cost difference but no mechanical drive means less wear and tear and potential higher availability

Time will tell
 
I think both mechanical as well as 3 array provide same capabilities , one using mechanical drive based other without it

Not sure if there is cost difference but no mechanical drive means less wear and tear and potential higher availability

Time will tell

I may also assume as much as you observe such findings however, to me it is like single array beam has to take more load to cover large area as compare to dedicated Arrays for front & side ways. Moreover, there may be slightly increase of coverage in regard to 3 Arrays AESA radar for front & sideways as compare to one front facing Array KLJ&A. I can be wrong too but there is not much to dig or share in this regard.

Interestingly, 3 Array KLJ7A AESA radar is in comparison with one on SU-57 to say the least hence, JF-17 Block-III which may counter Rafale along with other assets in arena, seems to be candidate to have it. The question arises that why will they pitch two different shape/capable AESA for JF-17 Block-III if they have same performance parameters?
 
I may also assume as much as you observe such findings however, to me it is like single array beam has to take more load to cover large area as compare to dedicated Arrays for front & side ways. Moreover, there may be slightly increase of coverage in regard to 3 Arrays AESA radar for front & sideways as compare to one front facing Array KLJ&A. I can be wrong too but there is not much to dig or share in this regard.

Interestingly, 3 Array KLJ7A AESA radar is in comparison with one on SU-57 to say the least hence, JF-17 Block-III which may counter Rafale along with other assets in arena, seems to be candidate to have it. The question arises that why will they pitch two different shape/capable AESA for JF-17 Block-III if they have same performance parameters?
IMHO The 3 Array is superior in most regards.
1. More TR modules.
2. Mechanical steering will always take time. Modules facing either side are already facing that direction and hence no time needed to steer.
3. You can detect and track on both sides of the AC simultaneously.
4. The field of view will be much larger for 3 array as the side arrays are perpendicular to the main array. Mechnical steering will never be able to rotate the single main array to such an extreme angle.

Of course there are downsides:
1. 3 array will be more expensive.
2. 3 array will have more power and cooling requirements.
3. Modification of the structure will be necessary as the side arrays are placed well behind the main array. For the JF-17 this means the aluminum panels here:
upload_2019-8-31_12-39-28.png

would have to be replaced with composite panels and the internal structure modified to accommodate the internal electronics. Unless of course I've completely misjudged the 3-array radar's size and the entire thing is supposed to fit inside the existing radome but I doubt that is the case.
EDIT:
4. The 3-array's main array is angled slightly upwards (I am assuming this radar is focused on A2A engagements). I believe this will limit how well the radar can track ground targets and perform SAR scans of the ground (especially while flying low). I suspect the single array option would be better as a multirole (A2A and A2G) radar.
 
I think both mechanical as well as 3 array provide same capabilities , one using mechanical drive based other without it

Not sure if there is cost difference but no mechanical drive means less wear and tear and potential higher availability

Time will tell
There has been some talk of distortion of radar towards the areas where the side arrays and central array overlap. However Iam sure PAF will test things thoroughly before adopting any radar. The possibility of in house development/assembly opens up so many doors it is unimaginable. Think of all the other applications and uses in areas where are are curently short.
A
 
Last edited:
No radome (nose cone) is same as up coming Block-3 and we have the options air cooled radar presented by China on 2018 Zuhai airshow we can fit LFK AESA with our B1/B2 with ease, and where do you hear that JF-17 block-1/2 need a heat exchangers for AESA @Alpha BeeTee
By heat exhangers I meant heat exchanging medium i.e liquid cooled. Blk2s and 1s can't have those liquid cooled AESA models.
 
Back
Top Bottom