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

[Armchair]

Only up to the the level of sensors, avionics and type of munitions they can carry.
They don't have the same loiter time of the Block-52+
They don't have the same engine nor engine-power as the Block-52+
They don't have the same RCS
They don't have the same range nor combat radius of the Block-52+
They can't carry CFT like the Block-52+
They can't carry as much weapons or fuel as the Block-52+

JF-17 Block-III on the level of weapons systems, avionics, sensors, FCS and EW-suite, has been re-designed internally to take on the best of the best of the adversary. The level of re-construction required to bring the earlier Blocks to the Block-III level would be illogically cost and time prohibitive.

But that is not to say that can't be upgraded to a near capability level to the Block-III on many aspects.

However, the advantage of the older block F-16s is that they have better wing loading as their airframes are considerably lighter. The latter block F-16s are flying bricks in comparison.

This is not true with the JF-17 blocks. Block 3 is a superior hardware in every possible way.

 

[Armchair]

Was just watching Elon Musk talking about SpaceX. He is making the ultimate space ship using STEEL. Yes, you heard that right.

His philosophy is that if something is taking too long or is too complicated, it should not be used. So he stopped using carbon fiber. Made me rethink my comments on the JF-17. Using aluminum may just have been the Space X equivalent of using steel instead of carbon fiber. A very interesting talk about engineering and design choices:

 

[Syed1.]

It is a given that till Modi is around India would be repeatedly ramping up war hysteria every few months.... The need is to ramp up production of Thunders specially Blk 3 ASAP and roll out 20-25 jets every year.

We need 300+ Thunders just so that we have sufficient numbers to put multiple jets in the air for every IAF plane that takes off.


I know this sounds like a fan boy dream and we don't have any money, but survival of the country should take precedence over economic needs.

 

[LKJ86]

Was just watching Elon Musk talking about SpaceX. He is making the ultimate space ship using STEEL. Yes, you heard that right.

His philosophy is that if something is taking too long or is too complicated, it should not be used. So he stopped using carbon fiber. Made me rethink my comments on the JF-17. Using aluminum may just have been the Space X equivalent of using steel instead of carbon fiber. A very interesting talk about engineering and design choices:

You just confuse "the goals" with "the means".

 

[CriticalThought]

I used the Viper example in terms of avionics, radar, and subsystems, I made not mention of airframe differences, engines, RCS, fuel, range, and loiter time, that was you. I have yet to see what the "significant jump" in capability will be in Block-III vs Block-I/II, other than avionics, radar, and sensors. The airframe and engine are essentially the same. Simply calling it a different "Block" doesn't necessarily imply that there is a significant difference in capability. Again, I suggest you have a look at the iterative changes made to the Viper during its lifetime, which were identified by different blocks. I think people are getting hung up on all this "Block" nomenclature, and are simply assuming that just because the PAF has chosen to call it "Block-III", that immediately must mean that implies a significant upgrade in terms of capability, when in actual fact, that's far from the case. For example, the difference between Block-I and Block-II aircraft was updated avionics software and IFR capability (even then only to later production Block-II airframes). In terms of the PAF, the "block" terminology is being used to identify specific production runs, not necessarily to identify capability.

Per user messiach, Block 3 is Fly By Optics. That in itself means a Block 3 is more resistant to EMP attacks. This capability cannot be back-ported through a simple MLU. The publicly available pictures of Block 3 show an increase in the size of air intakes and an additional aft-air intake. It shows some kind of tuning in the engine's combustion cycle or possibly even more changes. Again, this is something that cannot be MLU'ed. Finally, seniors on this forum have been talking about heat dissipation issues with the AESA radars. The Chief Designer of Jf-17 Yang Wei has said that the nose section had to be completely re-designed to accommodate the drainage pipe for liquid cooling. This cannot be back-ported either.

 

[The Raven]

Per user messiach, Block 3 is Fly By Optics. That in itself means a Block 3 is more resistant to EMP attacks. This capability cannot be back-ported through a simple MLU. The publicly available pictures of Block 3 show an increase in the size of air intakes and an additional aft-air intake. It shows some kind of tuning in the engine's combustion cycle or possibly even more changes. Again, this is something that cannot be MLU'ed. Finally, seniors on this forum have been talking about heat dissipation issues with the AESA radars. The Chief Designer of Jf-17 Yang Wei has said that the nose section had to be completely re-designed to accommodate the drainage pipe for liquid cooling. This cannot be back-ported either.

Sorry, but none of that is true. The Block I-II aircraft have digital FBW in pitch and analogue FBW in roll and yaw, while Block-III aircraft have digital FBW in all three axis, using fibre optics. The B model also uses the same digital FBW controls as Block-III. Can you please explain the technical reason why that can't be integrated to Block-I/II aircraft? Whether the FBW system is resistant to EMP attacks is a moot point because it's not like the rest of the systems are resistant either, so that's a rather asinine argument to take.

I'm afraid the pictures so far we've seen of the Block-III do not show conclusively that the intakes have been increased. Aside from rather amateurish attempts on online forums, there's no indication that either the air intakes or the nose have been significantly changed. The B model uses the same nose as on the Block II aircraft, and yet it is fully combat capable and will likely receive an AESA as well, especially given its EW and SEAD/DEAD mission profile.

The rear intake at the base of the fin is identical to that of the J-10C's intake for bleed air intake cooling of its integrated EW and MAWs sensors on the fin, which have been integrated on the JF-17 Block-III. It's too small to provide passive air cooling for engine heat dissipation. Take a look at the fin base auxiliary intake on the IAI Kfir Mirage III, upgraded with the J79, for passive air cooling of engine exhaust.

Yes, the internals in the nose section have been reshaped to take either either a liquid or passive air cooled AESA, but the changes can be applied to previous blocks. Take for example the SABR AESA fitted to earlier block Vipers. If second generation Mirages can still be upgraded after 50 years, I can't see why JF-17 Block I-II aircraft can't be upgraded.

What astonishes me is that people are on here advocating the integration of AESA and modern avionics on the Mirage III aircraft, and yet have trouble either understanding or accepting that the JF-17 was designed from the very outset to have a very specific development and upgrade path...go figure!

 

[Armchair]

You just confuse "the goals" with "the means".

I doubt you understood what was written, but I don't blame you, English may not be your strong point, judging from your usage of one liners on virtually every post.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I would say that the most important thing about upgrading older Blocks to newer standards is increasing their ability to use the same weapons as the newer block does with newer sensors & EW package of a similar vintage of the newer Block---.

Fuel consumption and loiter time are not the primary target---.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sorry, but none of that is true. The Block I-II aircraft have digital FBW in pitch and analogue FBW in roll and yaw, while Block-III aircraft have digital FBW in all three axis, using fibre optics. The B model also uses the same digital FBW controls as Block-III. Can you please explain the technical reason why that can't be integrated to Block-I/II aircraft? Whether the FBW system is resistant to EMP attacks is a moot point because it's not like the rest of the systems are resistant either, so that's a rather asinine argument to take.

I'm afraid the pictures so far we've seen of the Block-III do not show conclusively that the intakes have been increased. Aside from rather amateurish attempts on online forums, there's no indication that either the air intakes or the nose have been significantly changed. The B model uses the same nose as on the Block II aircraft, and yet it is fully combat capable and will likely receive an AESA as well, especially given its EW and SEAD/DEAD mission profile.

The rear intake at the base of the fin is identical to that of the J-10C's intake for bleed air intake cooling of its integrated EW and MAWs sensors on the fin, which have been integrated on the JF-17 Block-III. It's too small to provide passive air cooling for engine heat dissipation. Take a look at the fin base auxiliary intake on the IAI Kfir Mirage III, upgraded with the J79, for passive air cooling of engine exhaust.

Yes, the internals in the nose section have been reshaped to take either either a liquid or passive air cooled AESA, but the changes can be applied to previous blocks. Take for example the SABR AESA fitted to earlier block Vipers. If second generation Mirages can still be upgraded after 50 years, I can't see why JF-17 Block I-II aircraft can't be upgraded.

What astonishes me is that people are on here advocating the integration of AESA and modern avionics on the Mirage III aircraft, and yet have trouble either understanding or accepting that the JF-17 was designed from the very outset to have a very specific development and upgrade path...go figure!

Let's see, how difficult is it to strip copper based wiring, then carefully put in fibre optic wiring throughout the plane? And why would Block 3 only update the wiring of the flight controls? The larger reason that is left unsaid, is that it has moved on to a new data bus MIL-STD-1773, which supports higher data rates, needs new processing capabilities, and new software. Interestingly, that is probably why the B version needed a new integration test facility. How do you know that other systems on the Block 3 have not been made EMP resistant? What is asinine is the presumption that for some strange reason, only the flight controls have been upgraded.

If the intake at the base of the vertical stabilizer on Block 3 is for anything other than optimizing engine airflow, then it needs an outlet as well. Air in, means air out. Where is the outlet of your presumed EW/MAWS air cooler? The MAWS is a passive system that doesn't need cooling, and there are no visible EW emitters that would need cooling. Don't make up baseless fairy tales.

The comparison with Kfir is irrelevant. Since you are not willing to accept that the regular intakes have been enlarged (quite evident from the photographs) either, the debate is moot.

I am not advocating integration of AESA on the Mirage, but even if someone is, the Mirage has the kind of volume in its airframe that lends itself to the purpose.

You are right, by spending enough dime, Block 1/2 can be converted into Block 3s. Unfortunately, if you follow @Bilal Khan (Quwa), he has hinted at the possibility of converting older Block 1s into pure strike fighters. And the Block 2s only started getting inducted around 2016. It would be a waste of resources to start applying an MLU on them.

 

[The Raven]

Let's see, how difficult is it to strip copper based wiring, then carefully put in fibre optic wiring throughout the plane? And why would Block 3 only update the wiring of the flight controls? The larger reason that is left unsaid, is that it has moved on to a new data bus MIL-STD-1773, which supports higher data rates, needs new processing capabilities, and new software. Interestingly, that is probably why the B version needed a new integration test facility. How do you know that other systems on the Block 3 have not been made EMP resistant? What is asinine is the presumption that for some strange reason, only the flight controls have been upgraded.

If the intake at the base of the vertical stabilizer on Block 3 is for anything other than optimizing engine airflow, then it needs an outlet as well. Air in, means air out. Where is the outlet of your presumed EW/MAWS air cooler? The MAWS is a passive system that doesn't need cooling, and there are no visible EW emitters that would need cooling. Don't make up baseless fairy tales.

The comparison with Kfir is irrelevant. Since you are not willing to accept that the regular intakes have been enlarged (quite evident from the photographs) either, the debate is moot.

I am not advocating integration of AESA on the Mirage, but even if someone is, the Mirage has the kind of volume in its airframe that lends itself to the purpose.

You are right, by spending enough dime, Block 1/2 can be converted into Block 3s. Unfortunately, if you follow @Bilal Khan (Quwa), he has hinted at the possibility of converting older Block 1s into pure strike fighters. And the Block 2s only started getting inducted around 2016. It would be a waste of resources to start applying an MLU on them.

The Block III aircraft have been upgraded with a new electronic warfare system based on the version on the J10-C, which includes, amongst other elements, the S740 airborne missile approach warning system using improved infrared MAWS as apposed to the UV based MAWS in Block I and II aircraft. See link below.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-01-02/more-thunder-chinas-air

You seem to be hung up on making things EMP resistant as if that's the be all and end all. The FBW and databus changes were made to improve flight dynamics, save weight, free up internal space for the AESA, and improve mission computer performance and weapons integration. Are you saying the primary aim of improving the avionics was simply to make it EMP resistant? I don't think the PAF expects the indians to develop an EMP weapon any time soon. Of more importance is making the datalinks, radar, and weapons jam proof, for which you don't need EMP shielding. The PAF have been routinely rebuilding mirages, including complete rewiring, so not sure why you think this is beyond the capability of the PAF for JF-17.

The comparison with the Kfir is completely relevant because it demonstrates the very real problems of changing an engine for any given airframe, particularly in terms of heat dissipation management. Coincidentally, IAI made no real changes to the intakes of the Mirage III for the Kfir. Again, the fin base intake on Block III is too small for any engine cooling.

So the Mirage III has enough internal space for an AESA, but earlier block JF-17s don't?! How did you come up with that conclusion?!

The Block I and II aircraft will not be getting an MLU any time soon, that's not what I claimed. The PAF have always hinted about the clear production and development path of the JF-17, with iterative block upgrades which can be applied to earlier airframes. Some time back, an early Block I JF-17 was sent to China for overhaul, as a pattern aircraft.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china-overhauls-pakistan-air-force-jf-17-fighter-jet/

And the PAF has already setup a separate MRO facility for overhaul of JF-17, which can be used further down the road if they choose to apply an MLU type upgrade in the future.

https://www.janes.com/article/91686...rst-locally-overhauled-jf-17-thunder-aircraft

In addition, the JF-17 has been claimed to have an airframe life of around 4,000 hours, and as they are likely to be around for some time in PAF service, an "MLU" type extension of their lifetime isn't unrealistic, similar to what has been done with the Vipers. The same approach will be applied to Block II aircraft. The PAF likes to get as much life out of its assets as it can, this is amply demonstrated by the Mirages.

 

[ARMalik]

I wouldn't be surprised if MLU on Blocks - 1 & 2 is already happening. PAF is under no obligations to inform the fanboys on what its ongoing plans are, and how and when it would implement them.

 

[Shabi1]

I wouldn't be surprised if MLU on Blocks - 1 & 2 is already happening. PAF is under no obligations to inform the fanboys on what its ongoing plans are, and how and when it would implement them.

Block-2+ configuration.

 

[The Raven]

Around 20 JF-17s should be overhauled this year, but I doubt whether it will be an extensive "MLU" type upgrade at this stage. Once the kinks have been ironed out of the Block III aircraft, a common configuration can be applied to Block I and II aircraft, something akin to the "V" standard for the Vipers.

 

[Syed1.]

I hope plans are in place to start on Block VI.... I think originally the plan was to have only three blocks, but even if we the Azm flying tomorrow we would still need a utility fighter like the Thunder in larger numbers upto 2030 and beyond. Ceasing the design process would be seriously detrimental because technology won't stop evolving and foreign manufacturers aren't lining up to sell their jets to us.

 

[Trango Towers]

I doubt whether block 1 and 2 would be upgradeable to block 3. You may have an upgrade on block 2 but perhaps not upto block 3. There are far too many differences for block 2 to be upgraded to block 3.
A

sorry you have no idea....JF17 from the onset is modular.
what is the reason block 1 and 2 cannot be upgraded to block 3. care to enlighted us please