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

[denel]

IMO ... for a 'JF-17 NG' to be a success, it would basically have to be a redesign of the JF-17.

The current JF-17 is a compromised solution by design so as to save costs (e.g., stable design, limited range and payload, etc). It's a semi-modern solution in that it delivers the right electronics and weapons, but for it carry next-generation needs, it'd need a lot of reworking.

This could basically be a project in the vein of the Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F.

IMO, a workable alternative is to call a moratorium on any further JF-17 design work, but instead, extend the production run to 250-300 using the JF-17B and Block-III combination. Let's freeze any further work and start saving money via economies-of-scale and a reduced development overhead.

In tandem, we can venture into a joint-project for a twin-engine NGFA (e.g., TFX) and, in parallel, start actual studies on an eventual JF-17 replacement. The cool thing about the TFX is that it presents us an opportunity to ride shotgun with the Turks and basically learn the fighter development process.

We can re-apply those learnings to our own indigenous single-engine NGFA (which we can slate for a 2040 or later timeframe by developing the inputs on our own, albeit slowly). If we co-invest in the inputs, we can also re-use some of the TFX stuff, e.g., TR Motor engines.

I agree; JF-17 is now reached a first stable baseline but with many compromises.

Time again is in question given the urgency to replace Migs/Mirages - that is why 250-300 figure holds as it is good enough. In parallel a seperate team to work on redesigns, lesson learnt, integration, new system patterns/practices. This is where I strongly support your suggestions that locally sourced components are key - supply chains can be compromised and local engineering in terms of R&D, innovation, material sciences need to be harnessed via private consortiums locally; where needed is there potential to join the design such that JF17NG/T-FX can merge or use most of common components.

 

[Bilal.]

IMO ... for a 'JF-17 NG' to be a success, it would basically have to be a redesign of the JF-17.

The current JF-17 is a compromised solution by design so as to save costs (e.g., stable design, limited range and payload, etc). It's a semi-modern solution in that it delivers the right electronics and weapons, but for it carry next-generation needs, it'd need a lot of reworking.

This could basically be a project in the vein of the Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F.

IMO, a workable alternative is to call a moratorium on any further JF-17 design work, but instead, extend the production run to 250-300 using the JF-17B and Block-III combination. Let's freeze any further work and start saving money via economies-of-scale and a reduced development overhead.

In tandem, we can venture into a joint-project for a twin-engine NGFA (e.g., TFX) and, in parallel, start actual studies on an eventual JF-17 replacement. The cool thing about the TFX is that it presents us an opportunity to ride shotgun with the Turks and basically learn the fighter development process.

We can re-apply those learnings to our own indigenous single-engine NGFA (which we can slate for a 2040 or later timeframe by developing the inputs on our own, albeit slowly). If we co-invest in the inputs, we can also re-use some of the TFX stuff, e.g., TR Motor engines.

1. Why should the block building approach be halted when that was always the idea?

2. NGFA is around 20 years away, we will need credible deterrence in between or we end up spending money on off the shelf buying in larger quantities with no benefits to our industry.

3. A good enough solution of today without growth potential built in such large numbers will leave us with that large a fleet that would be obsolescent in 15-20 years time and in need of urgent replacement. Leaving us in same situation as where we started in a few years time.

4. We would need to allow future proofing and growth in JF17 to allow enough capability for a overlapping period where it still provides credible capabilities while it’s replaced post 2040 or so, over multiple years that may extend over a decade.

 

[The Maverick]

Bilal,

I dont get it. Why have the PAF only ordered 30 blk 3’s?

Reasons will include

1. The huge cost and time needed to bring block 1 & 2 upto bock 3 level in terms of new cockpit aesa radars and new EW suites and the HMD will cost $8-10 millon per fighter and will take 5 years.
Assuming the 30 Block 3 are delivered by 2025 i suspect from 2025-2030 PAF will be very very busy upgrading the earlier blocks ie cool $1 billion needed and 5 years to upgrade all 120 planes.

2. PAFs scarcity of funding and the Rafale and S400 Will need to be factored in. ie a new fighter is required to partly answer the emerging new threats. You need block 70 F16 or J10C and you need them now . Even an order of 40 planes will cost $3 billion for chinease option $5 billion for USA option. Then time to sign contract and deliver the planes .........Then the years needed to fully embed the new fighter. This time consuming and $$$ costly .

3. You need a new indengious fighter to answer the threat of Mark 2 & Amca after 2030.
JF17 block 3 is not the answer You need the project AZM to start . Again its funding.
Ie Block 3 thunders versis J10C versis funding for AZM
PAF had to draw the line somwhere it chose 150 Thunders .........I think thats good nos.

Look at IAF india they stopped Tejas mark1/1a @ 120 planes ..........They are going striaght to mark2

PAF is looking aty emerging threats 10 years from now AND saying we need more than JF17 block 3 to tackle future IAF threat

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

1. Why should the block building approach be halted when that was always the idea?

2. NGFA is around 20 years away, we will need credible deterrence in between or we end up spending money on off the shelf buying in larger quantities with no benefits to our industry.

3. A good enough solution of today without growth potential built in such large numbers will leave us with that large a fleet that would be obsolescent in 15-20 years time and in need of urgent replacement. Leaving us in same situation as where we started in a few years time.

4. We would need to allow future proofing and growth in JF17 to allow enough capability for a overlapping period where it still provides credible capabilities while it’s replaced post 2040 or so over multiple years that may extend over a decade.

We should continually upgrade the electronics and weapons suites, but we should try avoiding another long developmental period (which we had with the JF-17B and Block-III).

Basically, if there's a JF-17 Block-IV, it should basically be a Block-III/B with an upgraded AESA radar, avionics, etc. The risk of another big upgrade (Block 2 to Block 3) is that we'll divert resources away from actually sourcing a clean-sheet replacement for the JF-17s post-2040 (which isn't far -- only 19 years away).

The benefit of a clean-sheet design is that we can ensure our next mainstay fighter has everything it needs to take on future IAF and IN threats.

 

[Bilal.]

We should continually upgrade the electronics and weapons suites, but we should try avoiding another long developmental period (which we had with the JF-17B and Block-III). Basically, if there's a JF-17 Block-IV, it should basically be a Block-III/B with an upgraded AESA radar, avionics, etc. The risk of another big upgrade (Block 2 to Block 3) is that we'll divert resources away from actually sourcing a clean-sheet replacement for the JF-17s post-2040 (which isn't far -- only 19 years away).

We will also have to factor in the overlapping period between the availability of the next gen platform and the time it will take to produce it in large enough numbers for a replacement program and let’s not forget that by that time most of our F16 fleet will also be in need of replacement (airframe life and obsolescent electronics for that time period).

So it will be prudent in my opinion to make as much improvement as possible for later batches of JF17 post block3 to provide credible capability while the replacement of F16 and early production JF17 takes place over a decade or two post 2040.

Case in point, the replacement of F7 is still on going since more than a decade of production model JF17 coming to fruition.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

We will also have to factor in the overlapping period between the availability of the next gen platform and the time it will take to produce it in large enough numbers for a replacement program and let’s not forget that by that time most of our F16 fleet will also be in need of replacement (airframe life and obsolescent electronics for that time period).

So it will be prudent in my opinion to make as much improvement as possible for later batches of JF17 post block3 to provide credible capability while the replacement of F16 and early production JF17 takes place over a decade or two post 2040.

Case in point, the replacement of F7 is still on going since more than a decade of production model JF17 coming to fruition.

Sure, but realistically, what more can we do to the JF-17 without investing a lot back into design? We could look at a Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F-type upgrade (i.e., enlarge the airframe, new uprated engine, more fuel and payload), etc but that'd be a 3-4 year program (at the minimum) before it reaches production.

 

[Bilal.]

Sure, but realistically, what more can we do to the JF-17 without investing a lot back into design? We could look at a Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F-type upgrade (i.e., enlarge the airframe, new uprated engine, more fuel and payload), etc but that'd be a 3-4 year program (at the minimum) before it reaches production.

Yes, that’s about the time it should take. But in the past that work started almost in parallel to design completion and production start of the current block which will run for 5-6 years. So following the same approach, we can see the next block by the time B3 production run is ramping down or a year or so afterwards.

And it’s not necessary that we go gripen-ng route of enlarging the airframe. Maybe we can go with uprated engine (WS19?), OBOGS, CFTs, airframe/wing strengthening and of course better electronics per what is available by then.

Again we have to remember that the last of the late production JF-17 might get replaced 2060ish! We are in for a long haul with these birds and it would warrant the commitment to develop and evolve them accordingly.

 

[GumNaam]

Reasons will include

1. The huge cost and time needed to bring block 1 & 2 upto bock 3 level in terms of new cockpit aesa radars and new EW suites and the HMD will cost $8-10 millon per fighter and will take 5 years.
Assuming the 30 Block 3 are delivered by 2025 i suspect from 2025-2030 PAF will be very very busy upgrading the earlier blocks ie cool $1 billion needed and 5 years to upgrade all 120 planes.

2. PAFs scarcity of funding and the Rafale and S400 Will need to be factored in. ie a new fighter is required to partly answer the emerging new threats. You need block 70 F16 or J10C and you need them now . Even an order of 40 planes will cost $3 billion for chinease option $5 billion for USA option. Then time to sign contract and deliver the planes .........Then the years needed to fully embed the new fighter. This time consuming and $$$ costly .

3. You need a new indengious fighter to answer the threat of Mark 2 & Amca after 2030.
JF17 block 3 is not the answer You need the project AZM to start . Again its funding.
Ie Block 3 thunders versis J10C versis funding for AZM
PAF had to draw the line somwhere it chose 150 Thunders .........I think thats good nos.

Look at IAF india they stopped Tejas mark1/1a @ 120 planes ..........They are going striaght to mark2

PAF is looking aty emerging threats 10 years from now AND saying we need more than JF17 block 3 to tackle future IAF threat

all of your reasons are wrong. the real reason is simple; production capacity is 25 per year, its is being increased right now but the order was made keeping that capacity in mind. diverting funds to increasing production capacity especially due to steadily increasing foreign demand which, ones increased, will result in more orders from the next years budget.

 

[Crimson Blue]

IMO ... for a 'JF-17 NG' to be a success, it would basically have to be a redesign of the JF-17.

The current JF-17 is a compromised solution by design so as to save costs (e.g., stable design, limited range and payload, etc). It's a semi-modern solution in that it delivers the right electronics and weapons, but for it carry next-generation needs, it'd need a lot of reworking.

This could basically be a project in the vein of the Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F.

For a moment I thought you were describing J-10C ...... which has already been developed.

If J-10C is too close to JF-17 NG then why reinvent the wheel? Only thing PAF needs from J-10C is total control over electronics so that it can integrate with PAF munitions & data link, even if they have to rewrite major portion of the software .

 

[The Maverick]

For a moment I thought you were describing J-10C ...... which has already been developed.

If J-10C is too close to JF-17 NG then why reinvent the wheel? Only thing PAF needs from J-10C is total control over electronics so that it can integrate with PAF munitions & data link, even if they have to rewrite major portion of the software .

no totally wrong
j10c is bigger plane
bigger thrust to weight
bigger ew suites and bigger radar..
bigger more powerful.engine
everything in j10 is 30% better .

a small.fighter is always limited in improvements

this explains why
USA enlarged early hornet to super hornet
Sweden the gripen c was enlarged to gripen ng
this is why India is developing mark 2 tejas and stopping mark1a at just 120 planes

assuming thunders remain in service until 2050 do you not think pakistan planners are thinking
we need more than block 3 to tackle potential more Rafale bigger tejas mark 2 and super upgraded mki
this is being discussed for certain
and that answer will.be j10c or more f16

 

[Yujiro]

Reasons will include

1. The huge cost and time needed to bring block 1 & 2 upto bock 3 level in terms of new cockpit aesa radars and new EW suites and the HMD will cost $8-10 millon per fighter and will take 5 years.
Assuming the 30 Block 3 are delivered by 2025 i suspect from 2025-2030 PAF will be very very busy upgrading the earlier blocks ie cool $1 billion needed and 5 years to upgrade all 120 planes.

2. PAFs scarcity of funding and the Rafale and S400 Will need to be factored in. ie a new fighter is required to partly answer the emerging new threats. You need block 70 F16 or J10C and you need them now . Even an order of 40 planes will cost $3 billion for chinease option $5 billion for USA option. Then time to sign contract and deliver the planes .........Then the years needed to fully embed the new fighter. This time consuming and $$$ costly .

3. You need a new indengious fighter to answer the threat of Mark 2 & Amca after 2030.
JF17 block 3 is not the answer You need the project AZM to start . Again its funding.
Ie Block 3 thunders versis J10C versis funding for AZM
PAF had to draw the line somwhere it chose 150 Thunders .........I think thats good nos.

Look at IAF india they stopped Tejas mark1/1a @ 120 planes ..........They are going striaght to mark2

PAF is looking aty emerging threats 10 years from now AND saying we need more than JF17 block 3 to tackle future IAF threat

For india producing 120 tejas mk1/mk1a will take untill 2025. Paks approach is more efficient.

 

[PakAlp]

Paf have plans to upgrade all Block 1s and 2s to block 3 level or atleast close enough and more block 3s will be ordered. We should see 250 fighter jets, this is so that by 2025 all F7s will be replaced and by 2030 Mirages will be replaced.

The Jf17 was needed to replace the big number of F7s, Mirages we have but we could not afford 250 F16s or 250 J10s. Perfect solution.

By 2030 our total fighter jets will be 250 Jf17 and 76 F16s. We will be short of 60 to 100 planes. We definitely need another medium fighter jet ASAP but funding issues is the problem. 60 J10s would be ideal, anything European we cannot afford.

Paf must be waiting for J35 which for some reason is taking too long. If by 2030 J35 is ready then we can induct that as project AZM Paf modified plane otherwise we will be short of 60 to 100 planes for the next decade. A high risk indeed.

 

[Bossman]

Bilal,

I dont get it. Why have the PAF only ordered 30 blk 3’s?

This is how PAF operates, it’s partly risk management. Partly funding. More can be ordered later. Allows any issues to be fixed for the next order/batch

 

[The Raven]

Paf have plans to upgrade all Block 1s and 2s to block 3 level or atleast close enough and more block 3s will be ordered. We should see 250 fighter jets, this is so that by 2025 all F7s will be replaced and by 2030 Mirages will be replaced.

The Jf17 was needed to replace the big number of F7s, Mirages we have but we could not afford 250 F16s or 250 J10s. Perfect solution.

By 2030 our total fighter jets will be 250 Jf17 and 76 F16s. We will be short of 60 to 100 planes. We definitely need another medium fighter jet ASAP but funding issues is the problem. 60 J10s would be ideal, anything European we cannot afford.

Paf must be waiting for J35 which for some reason is taking too long. If by 2030 J35 is ready then we can induct that as project AZM Paf modified plane otherwise we will be short of 60 to 100 planes for the next decade. A high risk indeed.

Another way to look at it would have been to simply join the J-10 programme, instead of the developing the JF-17, and licence manufacture the J-10 in Pakistan. That would have allowed significant cost synergies with China in terms of service, support, and weapons, and streamline the airforce into essentially two 4.5 gen fighter types, the Viper variants and the J-10, with incremental blocks and upgrades, similar to the Viper.

It could be argued that the PAF couldn't operate two 4.5 gen platforms in sufficient numbers to replace the Mirages and F-7P/PGs, but consider the cost so far in developing and manufacturing the JF-17, it wouldn't have been that different in my view. In addition, you wouldn't need a like-for-like replacement of all the J-7s and Mirages, a smaller number of J-10s are more effective in terms of capability than a larger number of lower tech fighters, especially when you include force multipliers into the mix (datalink, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc).

 

[m52k85]

Another way to look at it would have been to simply join the J-10 programme, instead of the developing the JF-17, and licence manufacture the J-10 in Pakistan. That would have allowed significant cost synergies with China in terms of service, support, and weapons, and streamline the airforce into essentially two 4.5 gen fighter types, the Viper variants and the J-10, with incremental blocks and upgrades, similar to the Viper.

It could be argued that the PAF couldn't operate two 4.5 gen platforms in sufficient numbers to replace the Mirages and F-7P/PGs, but consider the cost so far in developing and manufacturing the JF-17, it wouldn't have been that different in my view. In addition, you wouldn't need a like-for-like replacement of all the J-7s and Mirages, a smaller number of J-10s are more effective in terms of capability than a larger number of lower tech fighters, especially when you include force multipliers into the mix (datalink, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc).

Israel has been striking 2x2 Gaza using PGMs, and has needed 150+ aircrafts, and you are advocating smaller airforce for a foe like India!