JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[Safriz]

dont we have them already ? correct me if iam wrong

Thus thing has large Wings.
Similar to the locally made Range extension kit or REK.

 

[airomerix]

Do we know, where and when this image was taken?

AFAIK no. 0002 was for long - and maybe still is - at CAC, but I'm not entirely sure.

It is a test aircraft and still stationed at CAC. Prototype 1 tests flight envelope whole prototype 2 is used for weapons integration and auxiliary systems test.

 

[BATMAN]

Sir, in simple words which qualities should be there in a strike Jet in case of Indo-Pak expected conflict?

Depend on strike mission.

The qualities expressed especially high speed at low altitude is one of the key advantages expressed by pros for Mirage as it can penetrate enemy area and can return at high speeds so may be able to out run chasing enemy jets in war scenario. The speed of JF17 block -III is rumored to be over Mach 2, meanwhile high service ceiling do have merits as F15 enjoys high service ceiling benefits which one of the most successful multi role jet. The Mirage 2000 of India is even has ability to attack with ammo at high altitudes, when old Indian jets struggled during Kargil war Mirage 2000 were called and they were quite successful due to number of factors i.e ability to attack ground targets accurately from high altitude and even if comes at low altitude has much better defensive gadgets to counter Man pads.

I humbly request you for knowledge sake that if u differ from above points then please explain a little bit .

Hi,
Quality of mirage is it's high altitude flight envelop, which gives it an added advantage of speed.
In strike role it's all about speed & weapon depending on mission, of course stealth would be added advantage but that's not the case for indo-Pak theater, not yet!
On strike missions, most possibly high flying mirages, you are certainly exposed to enemy radars, but your buddies flying at low altitude takes care of radars. While intercepting foe, has to climb to your altitude, where strike package takes care of it, can be mix of F-16 and mirages.

Not sure abt amo bt all marks are fake

Could be second prototype type.

 

[GriffinsRule]

It is a test aircraft and still stationed at CAC. Prototype 1 tests flight envelope whole prototype 2 is used for weapons integration and auxiliary systems test.

Exactly. The dead giveaway that it is the prototype is also the number of hinges for the cockpit. This aircraft has 5 while the production variants that rolled out of PAC have 3.

 

[JamD]

View attachment 637241

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) Note the integration in China.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) Note the integration in China.

*sigh*

 

[MastanKhan]

whats the significance of these types of bombs?

Hi,

It pulverizes the infantry---totally decimates the human body---. The most fearful weapon in the arsenal---.

Paf should not have displayed it---bad bad show off decision---.

 

[Arsalan]

any idea what payload it is carrying ... ??


yaap its strange they are using 6 for dual seat ....

That to me hold a much bigger meaning. Now this might just be me but it seems the Block 6 designation for twin seater indicate that there potentially will be 5 blocks of single seat JF-17s. If you recall, the initial project plan was for 250 JF-17s. Then it was made into 150+100 JF-17, guaranteeing first three blocks and an option of two more. Over the years many have gradually forgotten about those Block 4 and 5 option. Looking at Block 6 for dual seat, i am sure that PAF is not one of them who have forgotten that!

Plus, with around the corner it makes sense if we do get a 100 more planes in Block 4 and Block 5. Preferable with gradual upgrades where possible, based on lessons learned from Project Azm and J-31!

If wishes were horses, i would LOVE to see JF-17 Blk 4 and Blk 5 to 12-15% bigger with more composites, more payload and range, integrated IRST and gradual upgrades in terms of radar and avionocs, esp EW equipment! Now i agree that this probably isnt what JF-17 was envisioned to be but as years passed and tech became available and the rush to add in numbers have decreased, why not spend a couple of extra years and build a proper 4.5 gen fighter. That will be an ideal plane to compliment F-16 Blk 52. With Blk I planes upgraded to Blk II standard we will sentimentally have Blk-II, Blk III and Blk IV+V. Plus additional dual seat!


@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Dazzler @airomerix @araz @Deino what do you guys make of this Blk 6 designation?

 

[HRK]

That to me hold a much bigger meaning. Now this might just be me but it seems the Block 6 designation for twin seater indicate that there potentially will be 5 blocks of single seat JF-17s. If you recall, the initial project plan was for 250 JF-17s. Then it was made into 150+100 JF-17, guaranteeing first three blocks and an option of two more. Over the years many have gradually forgotten about those Block 4 and 5 option. Looking at Block 6 for dual seat, i am sure that PAF is not one of them who have forgotten that!

Plus, with around the corner it makes sense if we do get a 100 more planes in Block 4 and Block 5. Preferable with gradual upgrades where possible, based on lessons learned from Project Azm and J-31!

it could be a possibility as per program philosophy every block represent incremental upgrade; like we can say current JF-17 dual seats are JF-17 block-2 dual seat in terms of avionics, so form that angle use of 'number 6' for dual seat seem a little bit stretched, unless they are treating structural upgrades of JF-17 airframe from single seat to dual seat as the qualificational base to be treated as a separate block.

 

[Arsalan]

it could be a possibility as per program philosophy every block represent incremental upgrade; like we can say current JF-17 dual seats are JF-17 block-2 dual seat in terms of avionics, so form that angle use of 'number 6' for dual seat seem a little bit stretched, unless they are treating structural upgrades of JF-17 airframe from single seat to dual seat as the qualificational base to be treated as a separate block.

Plus if PAF do go for Blk 4 and 5 then there will be dual seat variant produced at that point as well (most likely). Will these be classified as a separate block too? WE know that the the JF-17B Blk 6 that we saw wont make 50 planes.

I don't think this was given that much though, however to me Blk 6 do mean there is potential and increasing possibility of Blk 1 to 5!

 

[HRK]

I don't think this was given that much though, however to me Blk 6 do mean there is potential and increasing possibility of Blk 1 to 5!

yaap this is a serious possibility as you have mentioned in your earlier post that PAF was suppose to induct 250 single seat JF-17 during the initial days of the program, and dual seat at that time was not even in conception stage

 

[airomerix]

That to me hold a much bigger meaning. Now this might just be me but it seems the Block 6 designation for twin seater indicate that there potentially will be 5 blocks of single seat JF-17s. If you recall, the initial project plan was for 250 JF-17s. Then it was made into 150+100 JF-17, guaranteeing first three blocks and an option of two more. Over the years many have gradually forgotten about those Block 4 and 5 option. Looking at Block 6 for dual seat, i am sure that PAF is not one of them who have forgotten that!

Plus, with around the corner it makes sense if we do get a 100 more planes in Block 4 and Block 5. Preferable with gradual upgrades where possible, based on lessons learned from Project Azm and J-31!

If wishes were horses, i would LOVE to see JF-17 Blk 4 and Blk 5 to 12-15% bigger with more composites, more payload and range, integrated IRST and gradual upgrades in terms of radar and avionocs, esp EW equipment! Now i agree that this probably isnt what JF-17 was envisioned to be but as years passed and tech became available and the rush to add in numbers have decreased, why not spend a couple of extra years and build a proper 4.5 gen fighter. That will be an ideal plane to compliment F-16 Blk 52. With Blk I planes upgraded to Blk II standard we will sentimentally have Blk-II, Blk III and Blk IV+V. Plus additional dual seat!


@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Dazzler @airomerix @araz @Deino what do you guys make of this Blk 6 designation?

I didn't get a chance to speak to anyone about the rationale for the serial no's.

However, my best guess is, the dual seater F-16 Bllock 15s have a serial number starting from '6' ie. 92622.

We might have as well adopted this series from there. Sometimes, such decisions are not clinical as they should be. Unfortunately.

 

[dilpakistani]

View attachment 637241

was this in China or Pakistan

View attachment 637241

 

[CriticalThought]

Plus if PAF do go for Blk 4 and 5 then there will be dual seat variant produced at that point as well (most likely). Will these be classified as a separate block too? WE know that the the JF-17B Blk 6 that we saw wont make 50 planes.

I don't think this was given that much though, however to me Blk 6 do mean there is potential and increasing possibility of Blk 1 to 5!

My humble thoughts:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-block-3-updates-news-discussion.594030/page-247#post-11971160

Ignore the part about engine thrust, that was an incorrect conclusion that I drew.

 

[Akh1112]

My humble thoughts:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-block-3-updates-news-discussion.594030/page-247#post-11971160

Ignore the part about engine thrust, that was an incorrect conclusion that I drew.

1. Updated HUD is obvious.
2. Updated MAWS is obvious.
3. The engine has changed. The obvious giveaway is the dark yellow primer on the engine housing and the chute housing. The exposed metallic cover around the aft section has a dulled color. The old, bright metallic cover would have been a better conductor of heat. Possibly, this section is now covered with thermal insulation, and the new protrusion at the front of the tail section allows more air for cooling. Finally, assuming the pic below shows the aircraft taking off, then it is unusual that the afterburner is not engaged.


Point 3 is incorrect. Both primer and engine housing look EXACTLY the same as other models, i.e Bravo or Block II. In terms of the taking off and afterburner, its not taking off, its landing, its got its flaps down quite the way, you can also see in the comparison photos you posted that the afterburner aircraft does not have its flaps out at all, or well, very little. The aircraft you have shown is clearly coming in to land.