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

[Deino]

higher aspect ratio - for lift and maintained endurance - i dont think that would compromise turn rates.
definite expansion of flight envelope - details??
multiple maws are for redundancy
wings have been optimised to reduce drag which induces an apparent change in wing clearance
mid fuselag is smaller as rootlets expanded
posterior fuselag looks a bit smaller in a diff pict - suspect maybe developed to accommodate different fans??
Any flight video?

Dear @messiach and just as a pretext to this post, I would like to note that I don't want to offend you in any way, I admire your knowledge, I'm more than glad you are back but during the last few weeks, I have some serious issues and this post is a prime-example!

Please explain, where you see a "higher aspect ratio - for lift and maintained endurance" on the wings or any of these details that allegedly "have been optimised to reduce drag which induces an apparent change in wing clearance" and even more changes on the "mid fuselage is smaller as rootlets expanded ... posterior fuselage looks a bit smaller in a diff"! Please show it by comparison with other suitable images of regular Block 2 JF-17s or at least mark it on an image so that we can check for our-self.

In fact - and I'm quite sure several other members here too - see NOTHING, I see no major new wing with wider span, a different and especially not higher aspect ratio or greater ground-clearance, I see no major changes on the fuselage, which would allow a conclusion towards a different engine, higher mass-flow or whatever. Please don't interpret this as ignorance or arrogance or bias, maybe it is a lack of technical understanding, lack of eye-sight or whatever or indeed your knowledge, but PLEASE explain it since at least I truly want to see and believe it, most of all since such major changes at least IMO make no sense. A new wing, a different, redesigned fuselage, a taller gear and so on are no minor changes like an added RWR ow MAWS and as noted I neither see any visible changes nor a reason for such a major redesign, since it would require additional time consuming tests and certification.

Again, please don't take this post as an offence or critic, but only as a desperate request for more information and proof since I want to lean, otherwise any such claim will still remain as mysterious and unbelievable for some here like claims the PAF will get J-15, J-16 and J-20.

Kind regards,
Deino

Hmm .... the JF-17 Thunder Block-3 looks like it has visible structural changes, not drastic though, but still visibly changed.

1. Increased "Wing Loading" height, as well as over all general height of the aircraft.
2. Increased Wing length, which suggests increased number of weapons hardpoints.
3, Larger DSI, which suggests that there is a new engine for the aircraft (possibly).
4. Taller Vertical Stabilizer, with a larger EW Suite at the top.
5. MAWS (?) on either sides of the DSI
6. Wide Angled HUD

...

Sorry, this is exactly the result I feared! There is NOTHING that proves any of these mentioned major changes, yes, these new sensors, pylon attachment and HUD, but points 1-4 are IMO pure speculation and wishful thinking.

@Akh1112

 

[araz]

Hmm .... the JF-17 Thunder Block-3 looks like it has visible structural changes, not drastic though, but still visibly changed.

1. Increased "Wing Loading" height, as well as over all general height of the aircraft.
2. Increased Wing length, which suggests increased number of weapons hardpoints.
3, Larger DSI, which suggests that there is a new engine for the aircraft (possibly).
4. Taller Vertical Stabilizer, with a larger EW Suite at the top.
5. MAWS (?) on either sides of the DSI
6. Wide Angled HUD

This Thunder looks more menacing and seems to have sharper and more powerful steel claws on it. It means that Block-3 can prove to be a significant leap forward for Pakistan Air Force's capabilities. It also would beg the question, whether Pakistan Air Force would increase the number of Block-3s from just 50, to perhaps 100, whilst retiring or reassigning (after updates to the aircraft) Blocks-1/2 to reconnaissance missions or modify them for CAS missions. As it seems to me that the Block-3 has been designed for a specific purpose, Air-Superiority/Air-Dominance.

I must say, I am truly impressed with what China and Pakistan have achieved with the Block-3 Thunders. Congratulations to both countries and their respective Aircraft Design Bureaus. Remarkable achievement indeed.

1,2, 3and 4 unfortunately remain unproven. It does not mean you are wrong but currently there is not enough evidence to support your supposition.
5 is a modification of the MAWS. 6, I will agree with.
Not knowing what is inside I would not rely on the jingoism being exhibited. Let us get a bit more information before we celebrate. However newer pictures emerging means the PAFand CATIC have finalized and tested the modifications and are satisfied for the world to see their produce.
Regards
A

 

[iLION12345_1]

Dear @messiach and just as a pretext to this post, I would like to note that I don't want to offend you in any way, I admire your knowledge, I'm more than glad you are back but during the last few weeks, I have some serious issues and this post is a prime-example!

Please explain, where you see a "higher aspect ratio - for lift and maintained endurance" on the wings or any of these details that allegedly "have been optimised to reduce drag which induces an apparent change in wing clearance" and even more changes on the "mid fuselage is smaller as rootlets expanded ... posterior fuselage looks a bit smaller in a diff"! Please show it by comparison with other suitable images of regular Block 2 JF-17s or at least mark it on an image so that we can check for our-self.

In fact - and I'm quite sure several other members here too - see NOTHING, I see no major new wing with wider span, a different and especially not higher aspect ratio or greater ground-clearance, I see no major changes on the fuselage, which would allow a conclusion towards a different engine, higher mass-flow or whatever. Please don't interpret this as ignorance or arrogance or bias, maybe it is a lock of technical understanding, lack of eye-sight or whatever or indeed your knowledge, but PLEASE explain it since at least I truly want to see and believe it, most of all since such major changes at least IMO make no sense. A new wing, a different, redesigned fuselage, a taller gear and so on are no minor changes like an added RWR ow MAWS and as noted I neither see any visible changes nor a reason for such a major redesign, since it would require additional time consuming tests and certification.

Again, please don't take this post as an offence or critic, but only as a desperate request for more information and proof since I want to lean, otherwise any such claim will still remain as mysterious and unbelievable for some here like claims the PAF will get J-15, J-16 and J-20.

Kind regards,
Deino


Sorry, this is exactly the result I feared! There is NOTHING that proves any of these mentioned major changes, yes, these new sensors, pylon attachment and HUD, but points 1-4 are IMO pure speculation and wishful thinking.

@Akh1112

Totally agree with this, I respect Messiachs knowledge and they’ve been right in the past, but as it stands there’s absolutely nothing pointing to these changes, even if we compare the highest quality photographs available, there’s no changes at All.

 

[Iron Shrappenel]

The DCS camera has a different focal length than the camera used to take the photograph so I don't think it's possible to get accurate measurements.

Could you still give it a try ?
Replication of angle and take them at multiple distances. Just so we have the right pose to compare them.
If you have time ofcourse and you think it will be fruitful to reach a conclusion.
Cheers

 

[m52k85]

higher aspect ratio - for lift and maintained endurance

Wouldnt you need the top view to comment about aspect ratio?
(for others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(aeronautics))

Changes are there. Those who can spot them, know.

So why dont you explain to us how the pictures show that the landing gear is stronger and the wings longer?

If those who can spot them, know, then you're not protecting any secret information by not explaining.

 

[graphican]

I've found Block-II image which is almost an exact match to released Block-III photo. Here is a comparison GIF in which two images are overlapped.

Opaque photo comparison.

Here is the comparison with 70% transparent overlap.

JF-17 Block-II

JF-17 Block-III

 

[iLION12345_1]

I've found Block-II image which is almost an exact match to release Block-III photo. Here is a comparison GIF in which two images are overlapped.

Opaque photo comparison.
View attachment 773188

Here is the comparison with 70% transparent overlap.
View attachment 773189

JF-17 Block-II
View attachment 773180

JF-17 Block-III
View attachment 773187

And once more, absolutely no difference is visible, apart from the one due to the camera being at a lower angle in the block 3 pic.

 

[POPEYE-Sailor]

I've found Block-II image which is almost an exact match to release Block-III photo. Here is a comparison GIF in which two images are overlapped.

Opaque photo comparison.
View attachment 773188

Here is the comparison with 70% transparent overlap.
View attachment 773189

JF-17 Block-II
View attachment 773180

JF-17 Block-III
View attachment 773187

Bro I found only difference is block 2 has silver color and block 3 has yellow color, heat waves is coming out from engine.

 

[Iron Shrappenel]

I've found Block-II image which is almost an exact match to released Block-III photo. Here is a comparison GIF in which two images are overlapped.

Opaque photo comparison.
View attachment 773188

Here is the comparison with 70% transparent overlap.
View attachment 773189

JF-17 Block-II
View attachment 773180

JF-17 Block-III
View attachment 773187

Bravo !

 

[FuturePAF]

Was the intake slightly redesigned? DSI bump seems larger. Maybe it’s just the angle.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Was the intake slightly redesigned? DSI bump seems larger. Maybe it’s just the angle.

It’s the same, just the angle.

 

[Deino]

I've found Block-II image which is almost an exact match to released Block-III photo. Here is a comparison GIF in which two images are overlapped.

Opaque photo comparison.
View attachment 773188

Here is the comparison with 70% transparent overlap.
View attachment 773193

JF-17 Block-II
View attachment 773180

JF-17 Block-III
View attachment 773187

Thank you so much since it is exactly what I see since the first clear image ob a B3 appeared: There is major difference - no wider span, not a change in aspect ratio, no taller tail, no larger intake, no longer/wider/different fuselage, no taller landing gear with greater ground clearance ... nothing, they are almost the same at least by my eyesight and understanding.

Again, I'm open for any correction and will check any hint and evidence presented which corrects this, but for now, there is nothing and simple claims without proof are worthless especially when facing this work.

Well done.

 

[The Raven]

I've noticed one minor difference, those two cooling/ejection ports on the gun have been removed, maybe they've adopted a solution which doesn't add to the frontal RCS so much.

 

[Falconless]

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

[Deino]

I've noticed one minor difference, those two cooling/ejection ports on the gun have been removed, maybe they've adopted a solution which doesn't add to the frontal RCS so much.

Yes, and surely not to forget that small cooling intake on the vertical fin's base and eventually a wider spine, but these are far from major structural.