What's new

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

is it safe yo say that block 3 is better than F16 block 60 or block 70, or Sufa of Israel?
Any comparison on its comparable 4++ aircraft .. ?
I think we can safely say such comparisons are a bit premature as specs of Block 3 remain unknown. Can we please not go down the route of comparing fighters with unknown specs
 
. .
So this AESA is confirmed any source please

images (2).jpeg
 
. .
For the AESA part, I will let the adversary to keep thinking about that. About the parameters of weapons, let the enemy keep guessing unless has the taste of it and same goes for everything not told in the public about Block-III. Conclusively, I will repeat the words of Wiseman that "When Block-III flies, professionals with knowledge/skills from around the world/air force(s) will envy the bird for its capability given its size & cost".
 
.
150 km is not feasible BVRs are not fired at their Max range because they have more chance to miss or lose the targets at Max range because of no NEZ (no escape zone) brother

And rest are all speculations and how rd 93ma increase range of klj 7a can you explain it???

150 km is not feasible BVRs are not fired at their Max range because they have more chance to miss or lose the targets at Max range because of no NEZ (no escape zone) brother
And rest are all speculations and how rd 93ma increase range of klj 7a can you explain it???
Once a missile is fired the enemy aircraft will know that a missile has been fired and it will have to go defensive as they can't risk it hence will give our pilots some seconds to decide what to do while enemy pilots will be busy defending a mach 4 missile headed toward them it's an edge ............. and I read somewhere that the radar range depends on the power the engine can provide it was here on the forum modern avionics are power hungry that's why MA version was chosen..... PL 15 uses dual pulse rocket motor and special propellant to increase range so 150km is no big deal....[/QUOTE]
 
. .
As Bronk states, the active radar-guided PL-15 is of particular concern, given its estimated range of 134nm (250km). The J-20 also has four external hardpoints that can carry additional ordnance or fuel tanks. There is online speculation that the J-20 may also have a cannon.

 
.
While the PL-15 and AESA combo are the hot topic of discussion these days, let us not forget the PL-10E and the upgraded engine in RD-93MA with increased thrust.

Back in 2010's I remember reading about certain falcon pilots that went up against the thunder. To put things in to perspective, this was the block 15 F-16A considered to be amongst the most maneuverable in the family. These F-16's had their hands full with the thunder and we came to know that the thunder in-close is a serious problem. The place where the viper had the advantage was the vertical plane owing to a more powerful engine and a better T/W ratio.

Very keen to see the information pertaining to the performance in-close, with a better engine for the JFT along with a new generation HOBS capable SRAAM (hopefully along with a decent HMD/s) as well. Maybe @Dazzler can shed a bit of light on this aspect as well.
 
. . . . .
IMO, the bulges on both sides of dorsal are CFT, if one notice the air refueling probe is seems to be just placed very near to the bulge in right hand side - so the hard points for external fuel tanks could be used for additional weapons.
The biting teeths of JF-17 seems to be growing.
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom