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

[Umar27]

Why poor? PAF F17Bs are destined to be EW growlers, I'm convinced of that.

I would say Prowlers atleast but not growlers wont be space to add Anti Radiation and BVR Missiles like the growers. JF-17 isnt large enough to accommodate all those things.

Then theres the issue of range too

 

[salman-1]

Paf does not want big Airframe changes, as it means the assembly plant jigs and designs have to go through again, requiring millions of Rs for fancy touches. The Lockheed only changed the internal manufacturing techniques to Honey com design for a stronger Airframe and extended its life to 12000 hrs. The outer structure was never changed much to keep the assembling and manufacturing plant same. I am sure its interior will be totally different and has a better Airframe life. I am more keen and expecting to see the anotomy of the plane with better utilisation of space. Take the example of Grippen E. Only by shifting landing gear they created more space for fuel and weapons point. I hope as planned a side stick is there like the F16s. More meneurability than before and better punch with new weaponry.

 

[Trango Towers]

Timeline establishment by PAF themselves. Block 3 was supposed to go in production by 2016 -2017. It was delayed due to design work by Chinese.According to 2018 article it supposed to be full production by 2019 or 2020 but recently we were told that JF-17 B3 will go into Limited production in 2020.
I wonder what design work they had to do. They have all the technology that they have already developed for J-10, J-31, J-20 and J-11/16. They didn’t make any changes to frame. Let’s hope they have added more composite material to reduce the weight. Had they enlarge the nose, they would have been able to add larger more powerful Radar with IRST and other gadgets.

i think making a fighter plane is like making lassi.

 

[YeBeWarned]

For some members, take a chill pill guys .. Only if Air crafts were design on Forums ,or if the engineers take every fan made CGI into consideration but this is not how things work in real life . Honestly it makes me sick when i hear some members here challenge our and Chinese Engineers without showing any credentials themselves . You guys really think that PAF and PAC, and CAC employee their Chahche and Phuppi ke larke in key designing Position ? Do you have any idea the standards of PAF engineers ? America/west se Graduation ker li bas apne aap ko Khuda samajne lage .

 

[graphican]

i think making a fighter plane is like making lassi.

A well-designed fighter jet on top of being functionally balanced does look visually balanced as well. Call J-20 a unique design, but it does not look balanced and aesthetically pleasing, but F-22 and F-16. I call this "design maturity" and this comes over time.

Ah God! Since you mentioned lassi, I wanna take some! Not sure if I have yogurt in the fridge at 2:35 am in the morning. (Update, found yogurt and made a good glass of lassi. Thanks for reminding about it.)

 

[Rank]

View attachment 596526

Isnt a brand new coming out of factory.... we have bought many new F16s ... see the first build construction quality of every F16 which Pakistan received.

 

[NA71]

A well-desinged fighter jet on top of being functionally balanced does look visually balanced as well. Call J-20 a unique design, but it doesn't look balanced and aesthetically pleasing, so is F-22 and F-16. I call this "design maturity" and this comes over time.

Ah God! Since you mentioned lassi, I wanna take some! Not sure if I have yogurt in the fridge at 2:35 am in the morning.

This argument is true....Look at the Tornadoes (Old design but still very aesthetically pleasing) or latest Grippens...aesthetically crafted master piece .

 

[Rank]

Well after blabbering about design u atleast accepted u dont know anything about design and meant asthetics. Soon u will accept u know nothing and are just a troll.

Trust me I know many things more than many keyboard warriors like you on this forum... Mr Fighter Jet expert, when you know nothing about anyone, don't jump into every debate...

 

[maverick1977]

I would say Prowlers atleast but not growlers wont be space to add Anti Radiation and BVR Missiles like the growers. JF-17 isnt large enough to accommodate all those things.

Then theres the issue of range too

How did you reach that conclusion ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

 

[Rank]

Why u blabber about something u have no idea about? Vertical stabalizers depend on the balance and weight distribution. Even a dumb kid would know the B has different weight distribution hence different stabalizer. The vertical stabalizer also produces lift at speeds and is hence designed for optimal performance.

about your this post, I guess only Pakistani engineer knows design / weight,... if that's the case then the V stab of F18 F16 and every aircraft having two diff versions (single and dual) would be different.. I have never seen any aircraft in the world like this shit masterpiece which has two different types of vertical stabilizers for countering weight LOL whata BS logic!

As per design, aesthetic, looks stuff... Every art/design person ought to know "Form Follows Function" theory may not be the most beautiful or eye catching but it has long been proved as the most "efficient" way of design where that is required.

From the beginning when you poorly design anything and just to justify that blender saying... oh if the aircraft can shoot down, it serves the purpose lol what kind of logic is that?

No one saying to make aircraft like F22 (in terms of look and feel), the point is there is a reason why the modern aircraft having completely different aesthetics and aerodynamic design.

You can modify Honda Civic up to 1000HP... you can modify Supra up to 1000HP... there is a huge difference btw both.... One is specifically designed for racing and another one is actually modified (wanna be sport car). Both cars having a similar hp, performance (again avionics and all) perhaps the design of the Supra giving extra edge (the shape matters) which you call it "Aesthetics". The aerodynamics of the Supra provides a greater edge as compared to the honda civic. The body of the car, the way engineers designed from the beginning is actually accommodating the future modifications.. you don't need to change the design of V STAB (spoiler) of the Supra to counter its weight... You can though change the spoilers which don't even affect the car performance because of its overall design.

I am not an expert in designing the aircraft nor you're expert in ANYTHING related to the aircraft I'm 100% sure like many on this forum. If I ask this what is the JHMCS and what was the history of its development from where they've got the idea of? trust me except the basics and common general information, nobody knows what was the background and which kind of tech had been utilized initially and how many changes have been done to develop that thingy. Did you know that what is multi-model interaction background which was later implemented in the US Aircraft flight deck? I am a Certified HCI expert from MIT-CSAIL, Certified in Experience Design from NYU, Visual Interface expert from CALARTS with 14 years of experience and here kids are telling about what is the fucking "AESTHETICS" and what is the difference btw Aesthetics, Aerodynamics and all? Its obvious you won't become an expert in every category of the design but you got "COMMON SENSE" of aesthetics which is not just aesthetics after spending 15 years in the industry. The design of anything always designed based on the requirement of the system. Here the requirement was not SELLING this aircraft or might that was not initial intention or lack of vision.. it is not an int contender... avionics is not the only thing in today's world... anyone can grab and integrate from anywhere...

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Why didnt we used J 10C's AESA and put on our Thunder? Thats way we have gotten Block 3 way before

 

[Riz]

Why didnt we used J 10C's AESA and put on our Thunder? Thats way we have gotten Block 3 way before

China have many AESA radars for themselves.. Our AESA radar is late because they are making export version of it..

 

[Deino]

 

[Maxpane]

View attachment 596570

beautiful picture.

 

[MastanKhan]

Trust me I know many things more than many keyboard warriors like you on this forum... Mr Fighter Jet expert, when you know nothing about anyone, don't jump into every debate...

Hi,

It won't fall in the american saying---'if it looks good it will fly good'---but it will do the job and do it very well---.

And I understand where you coming from---. A design has to be pleasing to the eye.

What do you think about the Phantom---the A6---the A7---the A10's---ugly as fck---but so functional.

Then how about the F104---beautiful sleek and slender---but then a WORTHLESS aircraft---.

The diameter of the Rd93 is larger than those of the Pratt & whitney and GE engines in the same class---plus they are lighter in weight and more powerfull.

So a sleeker fuselage would have been possible with these engines as compared to the RD93---.

The comparison of modified race cars does not hold good-.

The only function that is of primary concern in a aircraft now is---its RCS---its radar capability---its BVR missile capability---its ability to evade missile---carry smart weapons and a better delivery system.

It is a new conundrum for an old fighter pilot---who posed next to the sleek and beautiful aircraft---.

Paf has introduced something new and revolutionary back into the fighter aircraft business---ie---beauty is only skin deep---what is inside counts the most---aesthetics are secondary---ability and capability are primary---.