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

[GriffinsRule]

Nothing new, it is same old report from July earlier this year. It seems some major changes in Engine is causing delay in Block-III and it is my guess that performance of Thunder during Op SR has a lot to do with modifications in engine other than increased thrust along with host of other upgrades in aircraft overall structure.

Highly doubtful SR has anything to do with it. These thing are planned years in advance and the engine upgrade was on the cards a long time ago, not just for performance but also safely and reliability sake.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Highly doubtful SR has anything to do with it. These thing are planned years in advance and the engine upgrade was on the cards a long time ago, not just for performance but also safely and reliability sake.

Yes you are right things like these are planned before hand but then there is an unexplained pause in development news about Block-III which is very unusual if we compare this project with anything else being upgraded in CAC. No photos, no videos, etc. Now keeping this in mind, read my post again ...what I said was more like (probably) added requirements in planned upgrades.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Yes you are right things like these are planned before hand but then there is an unexplained pause in development news about Block-III which is very unusual if we compare this project with anything else being upgraded in CAC. No photos, no videos, etc. Now keeping this in mind, read my post again ...what I said was more like (probably) added requirements in planned upgrades.

Secrecy is not the same as delay and so far there is no indication the program is behind schedule we just don't have insight into it. If there are any delays. my guess would be they would relate to the AESA radar as it might be a simple piece of hardware per say, but the algorithms behind it would be nothing but. If its performance is lacking in any of the domains required by PAF or standard across western radars, PAF would want those issues ironed out. One thing we do know is there is a prototype flying in China for a while. There very well could be more than one going through their rounds of testing the avionics and EW systems and what not.

As far as the engine is concerned, even if it is ready in 2022-23 timeframe its not a big deal. Block IIIs could very well flying with the current version of RD-93 before swapping out for the new engine. PAC Kamra might also be involved in the upgradation of the existing engine fleet over time as well.

 

[DrWatson775]

Secrecy is not the same as delay and so far there is no indication the program is behind schedule we just don't have insight into it. If there are any delays. my guess would be they would relate to the AESA radar as it might be a simple piece of hardware per say, but the algorithms behind it would be nothing but. If its performance is lacking in any of the domains required by PAF or standard across western radars, PAF would want those issues ironed out. One thing we do know is there is a prototype flying in China for a while. There very well could be more than one going through their rounds of testing the avionics and EW systems and what not.

As far as the engine is concerned, even if it is ready in 2022-23 timeframe its not a big deal. Block IIIs could very well flying with the current version of RD-93 before swapping out for the new engine. PAC Kamra might also be involved in the upgradation of the existing engine fleet over time as well.

Time is needed for upgradation yes. However i am not sure - and i dont think anyone outside the program will ever be - if the "delay" (if any) is normal/expected or is it something out of the ordinary from our Chinese partners. One would not be looking at all possibilities if one does not wonder if a possible delay is just for the sake of increasing the chances of inducting a new Chinese platform to increase the numbers (and some capabilities) in part due to the delay in blk III. Something like induction of AK1 with the acquisition of VT4.

 

[DrWatson775]

I do hope that in block III improvements we also work on getting multiple AAMs on a single hardpoint. Something like in this picture would work. Yes JF17 is a light multirole aircraft but 2 BVRs in this age are just not enough for a front line fighter which is most likely to be scrambled with only one wingman (usually) to intercept a raid of 8 strike aircraft with 6 to 8 escorting aircraft

.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Still no image of prototype Block III

 

[Marker]

PAF may use French version of multipurpose fuel tanks specially MATRA TK500 in JF 17 to carry various munition.

 

[The Accountant]

PAF may use French version of multipurpose fuel tanks specially MATRA TK500 in JF 17 to carry various munition.
View attachment 679664

Tk500 have dumb munition. The days of dumb munition are over. I am not sure if something like tk500 van be developed that has suffecient fuel and space for smart munition within the desired weight range

 

[Riz]

Still no image of prototype Block III

All experts are busy no one will reply you..

 

[Marker]

Tk500 have dumb munition. The days of dumb munition are over. I am not sure if something like tk500 van be developed that has suffecient fuel and space for smart munition within the desired weight range

Currently Jf-17 Block 2 can carry three external drop tanks. (1 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) centre-line drop tank; 2 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) or 1,100 kg (2,425 lb) under-wing drop tanks)

If TK500 version external under wing drop tank is to be developed for JF-17, it should no more than 500 kg and should be able to carry additional load of fuel plus armament weighing 600 kg.

A rough idea about availability of space for SOWs attachment points on the drop tanks.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

JF-17 block 3 has become like the top non-suspecting murderer in the Agatha Christie novels!!!! Here, the would-be slayer of the IAF jets may be flying around in public, but nobody is able to recognize it....

 

[PakFactor]

Currently Jf-17 Block 2 can carry three external drop tanks. (1 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) centre-line drop tank; 2 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) or 1,100 kg (2,425 lb) under-wing drop tanks)

If TK500 version external under wing drop tank is to be developed for JF-17, it should no more than 500 kg and should be able to carry additional load of fuel plus armament weighing 600 kg.

View attachment 679834

A rough idea about availability of space for SOWs attachment points on the drop tanks.

Issue would be ground clearance, which would be a hindrance going forward with JF-17. It limits load out ability of armament this aspect should’ve been thought out fully they had the F-16 as an example for 30+ years but failed.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

All experts are busy no one will reply you..

So, you are not the expert

 

[The Accountant]

Currently Jf-17 Block 2 can carry three external drop tanks. (1 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) centre-line drop tank; 2 x 800 kg (1,764 lb) or 1,100 kg (2,425 lb) under-wing drop tanks)

If TK500 version external under wing drop tank is to be developed for JF-17, it should no more than 500 kg and should be able to carry additional load of fuel plus armament weighing 600 kg.

View attachment 679834

A rough idea about availability of space for SOWs attachment points on the drop tanks.

Its not just about but the size as well... Smart bombs require much more space then dumb bombs on tk500.furthermore in case of air to air engagement these drop bombs needs to be released. So it will ve really risky to send these planes with munition in fuel tanks which might need to drop in case of interception by enemy.


Too much if and buts for too little to gain. Dual rack is much better option

 

[cranwerkhan]

The wait is killing me, madam Messiah said we should see some flight around june july but its october now..