JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[airomerix]

avionics upgrades are possible later at some stage for blk-I and blk-II upto blk-III .... ??

Yes. However, some avionics upgrades require drawing additional power from the engine. But JF-17 Bock 1's avionics were sophisticated enough to nullify this.

PAF will at some stage upgrade all Block I's and Block II's to Block III standards with regards to avionics.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Posted this on another thread on a JF-17 being multirole, but I guess this is the more appropriate place. Apologies if these have been discussed before as well, but would be nice to have it in one set of posts. Block-I vs Block-II: Features and Operational Implications:

If I remember correctly, it was only when the block-IIs came out that they got data-links and "enhanced load carrying capacity", which probably means the 1,000 pounders/ dual 500 pounders under each wing on no. 2 and 6 stations. Together with 3 tanks as well.

Is DCS accurate in suggesting that center line tank is not droppable? Quite a few pictures of Jf-17 in A2A config are without a centerline tank, infact I don't think I can see a picture of A2A config with one.

If the above is true that means, the 50 block-Is are:
1. Inferior in CAPs due to slightly shorter range of radar (v1 vs v2), and lack of data link which improves situational awareness, and a relatively inferior EW package (I would hazard a guess that Indra ones were introduced on Bk2)
2. Inferior in bombing punch due to lesser load i.e 2 smaller bombs vs 4 of blk 2.
3. Anti-shipping role seems the config where Blk 1 and 2 are near par.

Ofcourse, retrospect incorporation of Blk 2 features would solve each each point, here is my take on easiest to incorporate changes first, along with the reasons I think so:
1. Data link addition. Reason: Home grown, presumably least structural changes needed.
2. Wing strengthening. Reason: again PAC are responsible for making wings.
3. EW suite: foreign involvement required, so probably most cost prohibitive (for lack of a better word)
There was also news of "improved avionics" in blk2, don't know what that means, could be alluding to the EW suite.

Does anyone know if these changes have been applied to blk-1 also?

P.S. I know of internal pluming upgrade in blk-2, lets leave it out for now.

@messiach @airomerix @Ipcha Mistabra would appreciate your take on these points as well.

Block 1s in Air-to-Air config with 3 drop tanks, including center line one.

 

[araz]

Yes. However, some avionics upgrades require drawing additional power from the engine. But JF-17 Bock 1's avionics were sophisticated enough to nullify this.

PAF will at some stage upgrade all Block I's and Block II's to Block III standards with regards to avionics.

Hi
To what extent are the structural changes able to be incorporated into at least the Bravos considering that redesigning for block 3s was ongoing while bravos were being built. Can some of the changes be incorporated or will be incorporated or none at all. It is obvious that some changes with regards to wings and inlets cannot be changed willy nilly and so some of the differences between the block 2 and 3 will remain.
Answer would be appreciated.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Yes. However, some avionics upgrades require drawing additional power from the engine. But JF-17 Bock 1's avionics were sophisticated enough to nullify this.

PAF will at some stage upgrade all Block I's and Block II's to Block III standards with regards to avionics.

Can their Radars be change with KLJ7A or LK601E?

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Yes. However, some avionics upgrades require drawing additional power from the engine. But JF-17 Bock 1's avionics were sophisticated enough to nullify this.

PAF will at some stage upgrade all Block I's and Block II's to Block III standards with regards to avionics.

How power is produced in jet engine??? Is it similar to how it works other vehicles???

 

[airomerix]

Hi
To what extent are the structural changes able to be incorporated into at least the Bravos considering that redesigning for block 3s was ongoing while bravos were being built. Can some of the changes be incorporated or will be incorporated or none at all. It is obvious that some changes with regards to wings and inlets cannot be changed willy nilly and so some of the differences between the block 2 and 3 will remain.
Answer would be appreciated.

Hi Araz,

Bravo's airframe was designed from 'ground up' due to the obvious requirement of an additional seat. Apart from that, lost fuel capacity had to be offset due to the inclusion of another cockpit. Furthermore, the increased storage area for EW capabilities. FBW attributes and so on a required complete redesign. This is why we see a different design of rudder, ailerons, nose cone etc. These changes altered aerodynamics to a large extent. and hence it is hard to say if JF-17B is closer to a Block 1 or Block III.

However, if you are referring to structural strength, it is closer to Block III. Hence, one of the reasons why Block III and Bravo's are rolling out in almost the same time frame.

Can their Radars be change with KLJ7A or LK601E?

Block 1's, II's and JF-17B's are not getting AESA.

How power is produced in jet engine??? Is it similar to how it works other vehicles???

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Block 1's, II's and JF-17B's are not getting AESA.

Not in future too?

 

[araz]

Hi Araz,

Bravo's airframe was designed from 'ground up' due to the obvious requirement of an additional seat. Apart from that, lost fuel capacity had to be offset due to the inclusion of another cockpit. Furthermore, the increased storage area for EW capabilities. FBW attributes and so on a required complete redesign. This is why we see a different design of rudder, ailerons, nose cone etc. These changes altered aerodynamics to a large extent. and hence it is hard to say if JF-17B is closer to a Block 1 or Block III.

However, if you are referring to structural strength, it is closer to Block III. Hence, one of the reasons why Block III and Bravo's are rolling out in almost the same time frame.



Block 1's, II's and JF-17B's are not getting AESA.



https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

Thank you for the heads up. I was thinking about the alterations like IIR MAWS and other software changes and avionics changes. I was perhaps not clear in my question so apologies. Also is the load carrying capacity of block 3s and Bs the same.? To me it seems it should be as timeline wise they are not that far apart.
A

 

[air marshal]

http://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17-Thunder/2458

 

[Ultima Thule]

Hi @The Eagle why you banned me from the discussions of JF-17 block-3 thread, i am just giving the answer to @LKJ86 queries, please allow me again i don't want to derail that thread @The Eagle

 

[airomerix]

Thank you for the heads up. I was thinking about the alterations like IIR MAWS and other software changes and avionics changes. I was perhaps not clear in my question so apologies. Also is the load carrying capacity of block 3s and Bs the same.? To me it seems it should be as timeline wise they are not that far apart.
A

Systems like MAWS should be the same. As Air Forces tend to favor standardization.

As for TOW/MTOW values for Bravo and Block III, I cannot speak intelligently since I have not spoken to anyone who has worked on Block III first hand. I will try to find out though.

Theoretically speaking, Block III should have increased MTOW due to increased thrust. This is at least what I have learned in the topics propulsion during my academics.

 

[araz]

Systems like MAWS should be the same. As Air Forces tend to favor standardization.

As for TOW/MTOW values for Bravo and Block III, I cannot speak intelligently since I have not spoken to anyone who has worked on Block III first hand. I will try to find out though.

Theoretically speaking, Block III should have increased MTOW due to increased thrust. This is at least what I have learned in the topics propulsion during my academics.

Thank you for your response.
Kind regards

 

[The Eagle]

Hi @The Eagle why you banned me from the discussions of JF-17 block-3 thread, i am just giving the answer to @LKJ86 queries, please allow me again i don't want to derail that thread @The Eagle

That is not the first time and replying to any off-topic post is similar to derailing by the first member. Thread ban will remain there and your posts will be under observation for certain period of time. Members are suppose to discuss the subjects instead of redirecting topic to yet another issue in irrelevant thread.

 

[Ultima Thule]

That is not the first time and replying to any off-topic post is similar to derailing by the first member. Thread ban will remain there and your posts will be under observation for certain period of time. Members are suppose to discuss the subjects instead of redirecting topic to yet another issue in irrelevant thread.

Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks

That is not the first time and replying to any off-topic post is similar to derailing by the first member. Thread ban will remain there and your posts will be under observation for certain period of time. Members are suppose to discuss the subjects instead of redirecting topic to yet another issue in irrelevant thread.

Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks

 

[Beast]

Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks


Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks

@LKJ86 has first hand news about Chinese military related information thru Chinese source and you have nothing... @The Eagle I support the continue ban of sevenOseven. Most of this information for JF-17 and Chinese military are misinfo.