JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[Oracle]

It should be.
Block 4 should merge with J10. A combined block of J10 and j17

Will JF-17 Block-3 be the last variant?

 

[araz]

It should be.
Block 4 should merge with J10. A combined block of J10 and j17

Are you suggesting a hybrid between J10 and JFT? Dont make sense to reopen design of a fighter. What are we hoping to achieve and how does that progress to the expenditure required to do so and to what benefit? I would like to know what your thoughts are?
Regards
A

 

[Dual Wielder]

I would like to know what your thoughts are?

Lets not open the pandoras box just to satisfy ones curiosity..

 

[araz]

Lets not open the pandoras box just to satisfy ones curiosity..

He has made a STATEMENTof some proportions. I just need to know what the thought behind it is. I think it is the essence of this debate. I may perhaps one day get good insight out of these questions.
A

 

[ACE OF HEARTS]

Jf 17, a light weight fighter design, evolving / merging into a medium weight fighter design, would be uneconomical and disasterous. Then, there wouldn't be any need to evolve, because there does exist a medium weight semi - stealth design / concept, j10 D. This will ultimately, lead to an end of Jf 17.

 

[denel]

It should be.
Block 4 should merge with J10. A combined block of J10 and j17

No. It will continue to evolve; there is a lot of improvements yet pending. The journey will continue as more clients come over to using it.

 

[araz]

Jf 17, a light weight fighter design, evolving / merging into a medium weight fighter design, would be uneconomical and disasterous. Then, there wouldn't be any need to evolve, because there does exist a medium weight semi - stealth design / concept, j10 D. This will ultimately, lead to an end of Jf 17.

The D exists on the design board(possibly). There is no existing plan to evolve it along the lines of your thought. You simply cannot convert a non stealth dezign into a stealthy one.
A

 

[mudas777]

I agree, i think the engineer who designed those hinges got his degree from the bargin basement with an additional 99% discount ..

Shocking to see this as an engineering choice in 2020.

Am sure they can do better job then that in this day and age and can be so easily be redesigned and changed. Kamra is not getting any brownie points and shame they are still sticking with it so far and sooner they do it is the better. With the marketing point of view it doesn't bodes well and it should have been changed a long time ago.

 

[Thorough Pro]

and you think there is a thinking brain behind this "thought", if you give it that much respect?

He has made a STATEMENTof some proportions. I just need to know what the thought behind it is. I think it is the essence of this debate. I may perhaps one day get good insight out of these questions.
A

 

[araz]

and you think there is a thinking brain behind this "thought", if you give it that much respect?

Idont know. But it is always better to get the other side of the story/statement before forming an informed opinion.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Arguments for and against a JF-17-inspired F-19 as an alternative to the J-10C? How quickly can we finalise a design and put it in production? Can we afford to wait 6-7 years for a local design that is in the league of the J-10C?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @araz and others

 

[araz]

Arguments for and against a JF-17-inspired F-19 as an alternative to the J-10C? How quickly can we finalise a design and put it in production? Can we afford to wait 6-7 years for a local design that is in the league of the J-10C?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @araz and others

A new design even with off the shelf components will require anywhere between 6-10 yrs to develop and 15 before we get to see a squadron. You also require a1.5-2 billion dollars investment. There is also the minor factors like suitable engines, and willingness of the Chinese to oblige you as you are creating a competitor.
I dont know why people are not understanding that simple alterations like change to an AESA Radar took 4 years as it is not simply plug and play but a lot of considerations come into it along with design alterations and more importantly testing with the newer platform. One mistake and it can crash and burn in a pile of smoke. You have a product which works. Do not try to make it into a space ship and loose all relevance to what your needs are. The US CAN DO IT PAF cannot afford to. Even the PLAAF do not make such rapid changes.
A

 

[The Raven]

Seems like the PAF missed a trick with the B model. As far as I can see, there's no indication the B model will be used for specialised mission purposes, rather simply for training purposes. The B model should have been based on the Block III specs, incorporating an AESA and the dedicated LDP/EWP hard point, to fully maximise the potential of the airframe for special missions, including Wild Weasel and EW missions. As it stands, the current B model specs severely limit its use in any such missions, and instead it seems it's limited to conversion training.

 

[Windjammer]

Seems like the PAF missed a trick with the B model. As far as I can see, there's no indication the B model will be used for specialised mission purposes, rather simply for training purposes. The B model should have been based on the Block III specs, incorporating an AESA and the dedicated LDP/EWP hard point, to fully maximise the potential of the airframe for special missions, including Wild Weasel and EW missions. As it stands, the current B model specs severely limit its use in any such missions, and instead it seems it's limited to conversion training.

This news was circulating two years earlier.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17b-ew-growler.587580/

 

[The Raven]

This news was circulating two years earlier.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17b-ew-growler.587580/

Twitter speculation. Even if they do, it's simply not making the most of an already limited small airframe with hardpoint and fuel constraints.