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

[Alpha BeeTee]

Time passes and things change. In my view, JF-17 is no longer just a replacement of Mirages, A-5s, & F-7s. Its a platform, and a pretty good one that fits PAF doctrine very well.

All of your statements above are opinions, not facts. You are basically thinking out loud and needed a nudge to make you realize that JF-17 is not being hyped or made to be something that it is not. Its just that you think of it in those terms.

PAF does not own anything that could be termed a brute. A brute would cost a lot more to own & operate. JF-17 is a brute-killer. I hope you read the Hush Kit interview of JF-17 pilot. The lowly, small, & non-brute JF-17 locked on SU-30s across the LOC many times. So, being small and having a nasty punch is actually a good thing. We need medium weight fighter to compensate, but do not underestimate JF-17 & the unique mix of features it brings.

Look, PAF has a certain budget and Pakistan has a certain size of economy. Is it possible to afford expensive brutes in the current circumstances? In the past Pakistan had assistance due to its joining the Western camp against the USSR & its allies. WoT made it easier to procure F-16s and suitable armament. But that is past and can not be counted upon. China has done enough favors and it is time to come to terms with stark realities. Continuing to pump resources to maintain a certain parity vis-a-vis Indian forces will mean continuing to neglect HDI (Human Development Index) and to keep making Pakistan's economic, strategic, & social situation worse. Remember that everything boils down to strength of institutions (not just army) & productivity. Spending on defense does not help us improve either. Take a look at Turkey to understand this.

The best course of action for Pakistan is to maintain deterrence by promising unacceptable losses on the enemy if attacked. JF-17 helps us do this very well (in addition to saving on foreign exchange, earning via export, & improving strategic importance by creating useful linkages). For the next few years we must focus on JF-17 & its future iterations (Block-IV) and build local industry & expertise. This would provide multiple dividends in future.

Thanks for detailed response.

However, I would still say that we are loosing that minimum deterrence capability fast with the induction of newer platforms in India i.e Rafale and s400. And for that, medium category fighters are required in the short term. All of this is just to maintain that minimum detrrence. Being at par with India is a dream that is far from being realized and nobody is chasing that dream either.

JF-17 program will progress and project Azm will kick in as well in the future but a dire need for a stop gap solution cannot be forgotten. On that we see no visible activity from the PAF.

 

[Mrc]

Thanks for detailed response.

However, I would still say that we are loosing that minimum deterrence capability fast with the induction of newer platforms in India i.e Rafale and s400. And for that, medium category fighters are required in the short term. All of this is just to maintain that minimum detrrence. Being at par with India is a dream that is far from being realized and nobody is chasing that dream either.

JF-17 program will progress and project Azm will kick in as well in the future but a dire need for a stop gap solution cannot be forgotten. On that we see no visible activity from the PAF.

Medium fighters with larger RCS WILL b obsolete soon.

The newer platform must have built in stealth .

J31 is the best candidate in my opinion

Ef typhoon f 15 and F16 are cold war giants. Tech has evolved since

 

[Chak Bamu]

but a dire need for a stop gap solution cannot be forgotten. On that we see no visible activity from the PAF.

Herein lies the hook that catches fish.

India's triumph is not in having a large army or superior hardware. It lies in molding Pakistan's default thinking that we must invest urgently in our defense. Our army, by the virtue of being in control of the decision-making process, has (unwittingly?) ensured that Pakistan continues to suffer from poor HDI, while all other countries invest in HDI & improve their economies, strategic weight, & standards of living.

India may well commit communal suicide, but is India's failure Pakistan's success?

I can see the writing on the wall very clearly. Can you?

Back on topic: JF-17 provides the best investment & return on investment for multiple reasons. The success must be built upon and not squandered by chasing expensive hardware that provides only an illusion of safety for a limited time, and nothing else.

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

Herein lies the hook that catches fish.

India's triumph is not in having a large army or superior hardware. It lies in molding Pakistan's default thinking that we must invest urgently in our defense. Our army, by the virtue of being in control of the decision-making process, has (unwittingly?) ensured that Pakistan continues to suffer from poor HDI, while all other countries invest in HDI & improve their economies, strategic weight, & standards of living.

India may well commit communal suicide, but is India's failure Pakistan's success?

I can see the writing on the wall very clearly. Can you?

Back on topic: JF-17 provides the best investment & return on investment for multiple reasons. The success must be built upon and not squandered by chasing expensive hardware that provides only an illusion of safety for a limited time, and nothing else.

Talking about the need of a stop gap medium range platform does not mean that one is ignoring the realities you mentioned. Our financial constraits are too obvious to be ignored. You yourself mentioned in a previous comment that a medium range platform is found wanting. That's my only point and that is where PAF is not (visibly) making any move.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Talking about the need of a stop gap medium range platform does not mean that one is ignoring the realities you mentioned. Our financial constraits are too obvious to be ignored. You yourself mentioned in a previous comment that a medium range platform is found wanting. That's my only point and that is where PAF is not (visibly) making any move.

Notice the choice of my words in the post that you are alluding to. I said that a medium weight fighter is needed to compensate. This does not mean that we are severely lacking in one. We do have F-16 that showed us its worth earlier this year.

With small size & AESA radar & a capable missile, JF-17 can go toe to toe with any other and an adversary may not want to find out the exact strength of the combo. If enemy understands that Pakistan is not a simple walk-over and that it would cost it dearly to attack Pakistan, there is deterrence. The real weakness is in having a weak HDI.

 

[denel]

Notice the choice of my words in the post that you are alluding to. I said that a medium weight fighter is needed to compensate. This does not mean that we are severely lacking in one. We do have F-16 that showed us its worth earlier this year.

With small size & AESA radar & a capable missile, JF-17 can go toe to toe with any other and an adversary may not want to find out the exact strength of the combo. If enemy understands that Pakistan is not a simple walk-over and that it would cost it dearly to attack Pakistan, there is deterrence. The real weakness is in having a weak HDI.

I do concur, what is interesting if discussions for used F-16s approval have even occurred; if i read correctly EAF was discarding its older f-16s. + Jordan. TAI MLU brings in sizeable fleet. Again, we have said it is all about TiT's approval.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The best case scenario for the JF-17 (which it's approaching) is serving as a defensive wall. It's all about the need to stop whatever comes from India with sufficient numbers and contemporary technology. So, with the Block-3, that means deploying AESA radars and long-range AAMs in sizable numbers.

But logic dictates that if that's enough to stop India from entering, then surely, whatever IAF has is also enough to stop the PAF from doing much, if any, damage in India. And herein lies the need for another, and heavier, fighter.

The F-16s are solid air-to-air assets, and if (as the PAF hopes) it can upgrade them to V-standards, they'll form one half of the 'offensive punch'. The US will never allow them to carry SOWs, and while the Mirages are good, they still don't have as much payload as newer designs. The PAF first settled on buying FC-20s for the role, and then its fiscal crunch forced it out of those (and 18 optional Block-52+). All things held equal, I'd say the PAF would push for the J-10CE, but though AVIC is marketing it, Alan Warnes said the PLAAF isn't really approving its export.

So, we're basically left with trying to use JF-17s in the SOW role, especially with ALCMs and heavier PGBs, and Project Azm.

 

[The Eagle]

The best case scenario for the JF-17 (which it's approaching) is serving as a defensive wall. It's all about the need to stop whatever comes from India with sufficient numbers and contemporary technology. So, with the Block-3, that means deploying AESA radars and long-range AAMs in sizable numbers.

But logic dictates that if that's enough to stop India from entering, then surely, whatever IAF has is also enough to stop the PAF from doing much, if any, damage in India. And herein lies the need for another, and heavier, fighter.

The F-16s are solid air-to-air assets, and if (as the PAF hopes) it can upgrade them to V-standards, they'll form one half of the 'offensive punch'. The US will never allow them to carry SOWs, and while the Mirages are good, they still don't have as much payload as newer designs. The PAF first settled on buying FC-20s for the role, and then its fiscal crunch forced it out of those (and 18 optional Block-52+). All things held equal, I'd say the PAF would push for the J-10CE, but though AVIC is marketing it, Alan Warnes said the PLAAF isn't really approving its export.

So, we're basically left with trying to use JF-17s in the SOW role, especially with ALCMs and heavier PGBs, and Project Azm.

In my view, the possibilities for any platforms be it V or J-10CE, will be clarified once we can calculate true capability of JF-17 Block-III. I didn't mean from AF point of view but in fact I mean from observers prospective. What if I say that planned tech & goals set seems to be beyond expected to Block-III while, other plans are in place. A couple of options are however available and we may be weighing the outcome before any decision. All I see that PAF wants to exhaust Evey option before going to next, to avoid any mistake of past.

 

[ziaulislam]

The best case scenario for the JF-17 (which it's approaching) is serving as a defensive wall. It's all about the need to stop whatever comes from India with sufficient numbers and contemporary technology. So, with the Block-3, that means deploying AESA radars and long-range AAMs in sizable numbers.

But logic dictates that if that's enough to stop India from entering, then surely, whatever IAF has is also enough to stop the PAF from doing much, if any, damage in India. And herein lies the need for another, and heavier, fighter.

The F-16s are solid air-to-air assets, and if (as the PAF hopes) it can upgrade them to V-standards, they'll form one half of the 'offensive punch'. The US will never allow them to carry SOWs, and while the Mirages are good, they still don't have as much payload as newer designs. The PAF first settled on buying FC-20s for the role, and then its fiscal crunch forced it out of those (and 18 optional Block-52+). All things held equal, I'd say the PAF would push for the J-10CE, but though AVIC is marketing it, Alan Warnes said the PLAAF isn't really approving its export.

So, we're basically left with trying to use JF-17s in the SOW role, especially with ALCMs and heavier PGBs, and Project Azm.

If what you say is true(J10 not on offer) than PAF should have forseen it in 2015 and should had changes done to jf17 within its design scope..

that is increase in fuel capacity, increase in hard point to 8, possible CFT if not possible hard point to 10, new engine be it rd93ma or chinese or western and work on new long range stand off weapon..the above will not cost more than working on jf17 B version

6 years was even time from for jf17 zero to limited production(1999-2005)..there is no reason why block 3 couldnt have been modified accordingly

if you are not going to get a Chinese jets and f16s been out of picture its logical approach to modifiy jf17 for the above..i am surpised why would PAF overlook this and just go for simple Avionivs/radar upgrade only..

LCA mk1,2 might be better example of what IAF wants to achieve

 

[denel]

If what you say is true(J10 not on offer) than PAF should have forseen it in 2015 and should had changes done to jf17 within its design scope..

that is increase in fuel capacity, increase in hard point to 8, possible CFT if not possible hard point to 10, new engine be it rd93ma or chinese or western and work on new long range stand off weapon..the above will not cost more than working on jf17 B version

6 years was even time from for jf17 zero to limited production(1999-2005)..there is no reason why block 3 couldnt have been modified accordingly

if you are not going to get a Chinese jets and f16s been out of picture its logical approach to modifiy jf17 for the above..i am surpised why would PAF overlook this and just go for simple Avionivs/radar upgrade only..

LCA mk1,2 might be better example of what IAF wants to achieve

I am sure, there will be further evolutions of JF-17 with Block 3 being the core foundation.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

What we need for the JF17 Thunder program is

JF17 BLOCK IV
​

• 3%-5% Scaled up "Thunder" Block IV, A pure Air to Air Bird
• Bigger Internal fuel capacity, instead of CFT because the fuselage is larger /longer
• Two more SD-10 and 1 External Fuel Tank carried in the middle of the plane's body
• The bigger size will also mean a higher height from the ground would also mean the ability to carry certain ammunition which is traditionally used with Mirage

• The Cockpit will obviously become bigger so it could technically fit bigger screens larger displays for pilots for better awareness of battlefield in air
• EW pods can be carried on this platform

For scale Up

a) Wings would need to be scaled up
b) Tail would be scaled up
c) Fuselage would be made wider/longer

Scaled up Fuselage could be attained from China, while the wings and tail I suppose we could design in Pakistan

Majority of the Nuts and bolts would remain the same, as I stated before the Avionics Package could remain the same as Block III but in theory, we could field larger displays for pilots


Increased Weight :

With the enlargement of plane's wings and fuselage, the weight of craft would increase and perhaps we would need a better engine then what we have on JF17 Block I

• Dealing with more weight Plane's larger parts
• Extra weight of fuel (Internal)
• Extra weight for 2 more SD-10

The engine would have to be a lot more powerful then the block I engine


Assembly of Block IV:
Their would-be minimum training involved as putting together the plane would be almost identical to existing process

I case of new engine, addition to the plane, that would be the only new portion for engineers to learn

The electrical wirings might need to be slightly longer as the length of the plane might be longer
so minor adjustments

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If what you say is true(J10 not on offer) than PAF should have forseen it in 2015 and should had changes done to jf17 within its design scope..

that is increase in fuel capacity, increase in hard point to 8, possible CFT if not possible hard point to 10, new engine be it rd93ma or chinese or western and work on new long range stand off weapon..the above will not cost more than working on jf17 B version

6 years was even time from for jf17 zero to limited production(1999-2005)..there is no reason why block 3 couldnt have been modified accordingly

if you are not going to get a Chinese jets and f16s been out of picture its logical approach to modifiy jf17 for the above..i am surpised why would PAF overlook this and just go for simple Avionivs/radar upgrade only..

LCA mk1,2 might be better example of what IAF wants to achieve

The J-10A is available, that's been on AVIC's export catalogue for years. The main question is regarding the J-10CE.

 

[PakShaheen79]

The best case scenario for the JF-17 (which it's approaching) is serving as a defensive wall. It's all about the need to stop whatever comes from India with sufficient numbers and contemporary technology. So, with the Block-3, that means deploying AESA radars and long-range AAMs in sizable numbers.

But logic dictates that if that's enough to stop India from entering, then surely, whatever IAF has is also enough to stop the PAF from doing much, if any, damage in India. And herein lies the need for another, and heavier, fighter.

The F-16s are solid air-to-air assets, and if (as the PAF hopes) it can upgrade them to V-standards, they'll form one half of the 'offensive punch'. The US will never allow them to carry SOWs, and while the Mirages are good, they still don't have as much payload as newer designs. The PAF first settled on buying FC-20s for the role, and then its fiscal crunch forced it out of those (and 18 optional Block-52+). All things held equal, I'd say the PAF would push for the J-10CE, but though AVIC is marketing it, Alan Warnes said the PLAAF isn't really approving its export.

So, we're basically left with trying to use JF-17s in the SOW role, especially with ALCMs and heavier PGBs, and Project Azm.

Now, I am little puzzled on whose word we must take. AVIC or Alan Warnes? But even if it is the case, PAF can approach PLAAF diplomatically to ask it to reassess the threats faced by PAF in larger balance of power equation emerging in the region due to Indo-US strategic partnership. I think real worries of PLAAF is related to US personnel on PAF bases and they getting a peek into J-10CE. If that's the case, PAF can propose a similar program we have with the Americans to keep F-16s away from Chinese eyes.

Having said that, I strongly feel that keeping in mind the size of Indian land mass, PAF need a strategic bomber program of some sort. Now, PAF might never be able to joint programs like H-20 but PAF can float idea of a smaller scale platform with enough fuel to hover over India at very high altitude for few hours. We can say our own Mini B-2 Program.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Now, I am little puzzled on whose word we must take. AVIC or Alan Warnes? But even if it is the case, PAF can approach PLAAF diplomatically to ask it to reassess the threats faced by PAF in larger balance of power equation emerging in the region due to Indo-US strategic partnership. I think real worries of PLAAF is related to US personnel on PAF bases and they getting a peek into J-10CE. If that's the case, PAF can propose a similar program we have with the Americans to keep F-16s away from Chinese eyes.

Having said that, I strongly feel that keeping in mind the size of Indian land mass, PAF need a strategic bomber program of some sort. Now, PAF might never be able to joint programs like H-20 but PAF can float idea of a smaller scale platform with enough fuel to hover over India at very high altitude for few hours. We can say our own Mini B-2 Program.

No one is 100% correct, but I trust Alan Warnes. He speaks to the PAF more than anyone else (at least in the public domain) and, to an extent, even AVIC officials trust him with details they won't write on pamphlets and stuff.

 

[PakShaheen79]

No one is 100% correct, but I trust Alan Warnes. He speaks to the PAF more than anyone else (at least in the public domain) and, to an extent, even AVIC officials trust him with details they won't write on pamphlets and stuff.

Fair enough! But has he ever gave the reasons why PLAAF is against the export of J-10CE. That's what actually matters in the end.