JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[CriticalThought]

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.

Yes, I noticed in recent videos the latest Block 2/Bs have a different primer on the tail section. But I ask why is the primer a deeper yellow on the tail? I will avoid drawing any conclusions, but it is a valid question.

 

[Akh1112]

Yes, I noticed in recent videos the latest Block 2/Bs have a different primer on the tail section. But I ask why is the primer a deeper yellow on the tail? I will avoid drawing any conclusions, but it is a valid question.

They are usually to prevent corrosion, it could be as simple as that perhaps the engine housing is made of a different metal so requires a different type of primer or that it was sourced from a different vendor.

 

[CriticalThought]

They are usually to prevent corrosion, it could be as simple as that perhaps the engine housing is made of a different metal so requires a different type of primer or that it was sourced from a different vendor.

There are a thousand and one explanations. The question is, which one is the correct one?

They are usually to prevent corrosion, it could be as simple as that perhaps the engine housing is made of a different metal so requires a different type of primer or that it was sourced from a different vendor.

Btw, the primer itself is for corrosion resistance, but the color is used to disambiguate parts so workers don't make mistakes. The tail is a different color exactly because it needs some sort of different handling, or is in some way different from the rest of the body.

 

[Akh1112]

There are a thousand and one explanations. The question is, which one is the correct one?

nobody knows unfortunately


Btw, the primer itself is for corrosion resistance, but the color is used to disambiguate parts so workers don't make mistakes. The tail is a different color exactly because it needs some sort of different handling, or is in some way different from the rest of the body.

No no, the actual primers can come in different colors too, you can regularly see other aircraft with different primers on them

 

[CriticalThought]

No no, the actual primers can come in different colors too, you can regularly see other aircraft with different primers on them

It seems strange why a specific area should be in slightly different color on multiple recent aircraft.

 

[mshan44]

 

[Arsalan]

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.

I do agree that sometimes these decisions are not very well thought. Since the people making these decisions do not depend on serial numbers to knwo about about project future and the numbers of planes and blocks to be manufactured they may have just done this causually.

However i dont think adopting the number from F-16 is likely. We do follow a patterns with JF-17. XX-ABB. That is XX for year of manufacture, A for block and BB for aircraft number in that block. Now this have not been changed here. The year of manufacture is 2019 and the number serial confirm it. This also is most likely the 03 aircraft so that is also being confirmed by the serial number. I dont think they would have just added the number "6" for a different reason where the number 19-x03 are being added for the same reasons we already know about (year and number of aircraft). That confirm that this is purposely designated as Blk-6! Now this is not the point that interests me, my interest in all this is because to me, designated these as Blk 6 mean the likelihood of Blk-4 and Blk-5 have increased.

Personally i have always been a strong advocate and believer that PAF should go for the original 250 planes. Now again, personally i will want the last 100 to be bigger than the first 150 but sadly i am in no position to make my personal wishes influence the project. That being said, i do feel that these 100 Jf-17 in Blk 4 and Blk 5 will serve us in more than one way and will in fact support the project Azm. Without these, we might be rushed into buying a plane from a foreign supplier.

 

[graphican]

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.

RCS contributing hinges are a liability. We don't see hinges in other aircrafts.

 

[Armchair]

I don't think the hinges would be a major RCS contributor for a non-stealthy aircraft at all. If the ends of the hinges are faceted, even less so.

It does provide a simple solution while competing solutions are more complex. (complex in engineering terms often means more expensive, more weight, more space, more maintenance)

I would hope PAF would ultimately fly 300-350 JF-17s ultimately. Perhaps even a dedicated strike variant, an EW variant. I'd also hope they build decoys of the JFT. Flying decoys even.

If in the next decade PAF is to become a 500 fighter air force, one would hope JF-17s would make the majority of them.

A bit more powerful JF-17 is possible with whatever engine the Chinese are building for the J-31. If you combine that with a slightly enlarged wing, you essentially have a "Super Thunder". I personally would love to see the JF-17 with a slightly better area ruled wing-body merge.

 

[The Raven]

I don't think the hinges would be a major RCS contributor for a non-stealthy aircraft at all. If the ends of the hinges are faceted, even less so.

It does provide a simple solution while competing solutions are more complex. (complex in engineering terms often means more expensive, more weight, more space, more maintenance)

I would hope PAF would ultimately fly 300-350 JF-17s ultimately. Perhaps even a dedicated strike variant, an EW variant. I'd also hope they build decoys of the JFT. Flying decoys even.

If in the next decade PAF is to become a 500 fighter air force, one would hope JF-17s would make the majority of them.

A bit more powerful JF-17 is possible with whatever engine the Chinese are building for the J-31. If you combine that with a slightly enlarged wing, you essentially have a "Super Thunder". I personally would love to see the JF-17 with a slightly better area ruled wing-body merge.

you need to get over this obsession of yours of having JF-17s as drones. UAVs equipped with RCS enhancement devices are far cheaper and more effective. Integrated Dynamics already makes a decoy drone system which can be equipped with an RCS enhancer, with potential use in SEAD/DEAD missions.

http://idaerospace.com/tornado/

http://idaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tornado.pdf

 

[Falcon26]

Minhaj Hussain, you need to get over this obsession of yours of having JF-17s as drones. UAVs equipped with RCS enhancement devices are far cheaper and more effective. Integrated Dynamics already makes a decoy drone system which can be equipped with an RCS enhancer, with potential use in SEAD/DEAD missions.

http://idaerospace.com/tornado/

http://idaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tornado.pdf

By the way, what happened to "Grand Strategy.com"? that was an entertaining website. What are you up to these days?

https://twitter.com/minhaj1007 @MastanKhan

What was the purpose of linking a random twitter account?

 

[Armchair]

Interesting info about decoys deployed on the F-35s. I guess there are different kinds of decoys:

Decoys that are deployed at air bases to visually look similar to fighter aircraft.
Decoys deployed in flight to evade radar and IR sensors.

Then there is perhaps a requirement for aircraft to have some kind of a "loyal wingman" and yet another to have a "flying magazine" providing extra hard points that can be fired via net centricity. I personally feel that the JF-17 would benefit from such concepts.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...oys-that-unreel-from-inside-its-stealthy-skin

 

[airomerix]

Bravo

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The extra folk at the back can play with ASELSAN MEHPOD (electronic warfare pod):

Capabilities
• Electronic Protection against RF guided threats, • Easy Integration to Fighters as a Standalone Pod • Threat detection, classification and identification in E-J band • RF energy transmission enabling deceptive and noise jamming techniques in a dynamic threat environment • Tracking and jamming the threats autonomously • Phased array antenna and solid state transmitter architecture (AESA) • Fully programmable Mission Data File architecture

Technologies
• Instantaneous Frequency Measurement (IFM), • High-sensitivy Superhet Digital Receiver, • Digital RF Memory (DRFM), • Solid State Power Amplifiers (SSPA) • Active Electronic Scanning Array (AESA), • Aerodynamic Design with low drag index • Qualification and Certification • Self-contained ECS and Power Systems

 

[Ali_Baba]

Bravo

View attachment 638522 View attachment 638523

My My.. look at those horrible 1950's era cockpit hinges......