Pakistan is expected to order its JF-17 Block-III in 2017.

[Trango Towers]

Not at all mate!F-15Es, Rafales, F/A-18 F & Growler, M2000s and many more
all are used with a WSO to perform complex environment penetration strikes.
It is the job that writes the tactics depending on the weapon you have and AFs
with the best means that don't skimp have that tool in their arsenal as AzadPak
also explained a couple posts above.
In fact, in France, when the dual seaters are stretched thin, we use single seaters
Rafales for transformation and training because modern planes are easier to learn.
But you're right that they don't all need to be dual seaters.


The law of conservation of energy? They emit more power so they generate more
heat. Taking care of that heat requires power too for the new / additional cooling unit.
That's why when an engine gains in performance, we never get the full HP equivalent
in additional payload or speed, albeit by a small margin.



Not necessarily! How about heavier weapons, buddy?
Gain power and hike MTOW by 500 units of weight then
change the 2 GBU-58 under your 2 meager hardpoints
with 2 GBU-12s and voilà, you've eaten your payload
gains without augmenting the number of carries.



No, the upgrade hasn't happened but it's no biggie because ...
as MastaKhan said, the books have leeway.
Let's recheck ghazi's OP about 50 B-III order coming soon :


So, 70+ Thunders in service minus 50 B-I equals 20+ B-IIs to which one adds 14 cells for 17 the year.
So by year's end, PAF has 35+ block 2s and PAC has 15 more to deliver or about a year of work : 2018.

Then, in January 2019, PAC has to build 16 aircrafts for Myanmar ( a full year of prod. by present output ),
3 aircrafts for Nigeria and 3 dual-seaters for Pakistan before it can embark on Block III production which
requires some re-tooling on the line.

So barring a different / additional line taking slack off,
Block III JF-17s may well begin to roll out in mid 2020!

Which is fine as the definition isn't that far along with its
main systems undefined yet? 3 years is almost short ...

About which, MastaK my friend stop the histrionics, please!
I'm 53 and my 40YO coworkers and 18YO son can't keep up!
As others that like you pointed out, 60 is almost low mileage.
Get a grip, grab the accolades from feigning senility and I'll
talk to you here in 5 years!

Great day all, Tay.

Oh dear.....bro jf17 wasn't designed in the same class as a mirage 200 or an f15. It's a light weight fighter.
Simple physics tells you if you increase the load you need a bigger power plant to push it or reduce weight elsewhere.
A 2nd seat will assist in certain environments such as you have suggested however it will also reduce the paupload carried by the aircraft. This bro I am sure you will agree with as it's elementary physics

 

[RealNapster]

So, 70+ Thunders in service minus 50 B-I equals 20+ B-IIs to which one adds 14 cells for 17 the year.
So by year's end, PAF has 35+ block 2s and PAC has 15 more to deliver or about a year of work : 2018.

Then, in January 2019, PAC has to build 16 aircrafts for Myanmar ( a full year of prod. by present output ),
3 aircrafts for Nigeria and 3 dual-seaters for Pakistan before it can embark on Block III production which
requires some re-tooling on the line.

33rd block II is currently Passing through flying tests.

also the Myanmar ordered aircraft code name "RUBY" have been seen in videos. at least 3 have been builted as per September 2016 news.

 

[Taygibay]

A 2nd seat will assist in certain environments such as you have suggested however it will also reduce the paupload carried by the aircraft. This bro I am sure you will agree with as it's elementary physics

Of course, the additional weight is taken from the MTOW in any case but that
does not mean less payload as I explained because other things are not ISO
on a new Block.

Start with a 10, 000 kgs fighter with a 100kN engine. Add 4000 kgs for fuel and
rails & racks and flares and the pilot and so on. Suppose the MTOW is 20 000kgs.
You have 5 000 kgs left for mission payload.

Now, a new build / block comes out with important changes : new equipment,
new parts and structures and more powerful engines.
What's the new mission payload?
It depends ...

New equipment.
Case A : more stuff instead of new stuff : 1500 kgs+/
Case B : better stuff / same weight or lighter or heavier by -200kgs
New parts and structures.
Case A : added pylons with added weapons period 3500 kgs/
Case B : new composite structural elements weight savings - 700 kgs
New engine.
Case A : uprated by 5%/
Case B : uprated by 15%.
​

Now, for every kilo of weight you need 9.8 N so that 5 kN bring you 500 kilos of payload
and for 15, 1 500 kgs at around a 30 000 kgs MTOW to begin with. * Correction below ...
Let's now take Case A where everything goes bad and find 5, 000 additional kilograms or
said otherwise ten times the weight increase to that of thrust and a reduced payload.

Let's finally take Case B where everything goes right and find a net gain of 700 kgs with
an MTOW gain at 1 500kgs on top of it. Surprise, surprise, the difference in weight between
a single seater Rafale C and the dual seater B is 650Kgs!!! So adding a weapons system officer
can be add without using that free ton and a half of payload gain?

* And as there is drag to account for, 30 to 35% yield is a good average for fighters.
If you never went supersonic, it would be better but the increases I gave are 3x IRL.
Plus, there is the trust to weight ratio of the engine itself that tripled in last 50 years.

I made it an extremes meet comparison but you get the idea : without knowing what
changes are coming, estimates are better left alone. Fingers crossed we get Case B?

33rd block II is currently Passing through flying tests.

also the Myanmar ordered aircraft code name "RUBY" have been seen in videos. at least 3 have been builted as per September 2016 news.

I'd have taken a quote but I can trust you all the easier
as that makes my case : the sooner the line is freed, the
sooner that freezing of Block III needs to happen which
was the point of the OP?

Have a great day guys, read you soon, Tay.

 

[Trango Towers]

Of course, the additional weight is taken from the MTOW in any case but that
does not mean less payload as I explained because other things are not ISO
on a new Block.

Start with a 10, 000 kgs fighter with a 100kN engine. Add 4000 kgs for fuel and
rails & racks and flares and the pilot and so on. Suppose the MTOW is 20 000kgs.
You have 5 000 kgs left for mission payload.

Now, a new build / block comes out with important changes : new equipment,
new parts and structures and more powerful engines.
What's the new mission payload?
It depends ...

New equipment.
Case A : more stuff instead of new stuff : 1500 kgs+/
Case B : better stuff / same weight or lighter or heavier by -200kgs
New parts and structures.
Case A : added pylons with added weapons period 3500 kgs/
Case B : new composite structural elements weight savings - 700 kgs
New engine.
Case A : uprated by 5%/
Case B : uprated by 15%.
​

Now, for every kilo of weight you need 9.8 N so that 5 kN bring you 500 kilos of payload
and for 15, 1 500 kgs at around a 30 000 kgs MTOW to begin with. * Correction below ...
Let's now take Case A where everything goes bad and find 5, 000 additional kilograms or
said otherwise ten times the weight increase to that of thrust and a reduced payload.

Let's finally take Case B where everything goes right and find a net gain of 700 kgs with
an MTOW gain at 1 500kgs on top of it. Surprise, surprise, the difference in weight between
a single seater Rafale C and the dual seater B is 650Kgs!!! So adding a weapons system officer
can be add without using that free ton and a half of payload gain?

* And as there is drag to account for, 30 to 35% yield is a good average for fighters.
If you never went supersonic, it would be better but the increases I gave are 3x IRL.
Plus, there is the trust to weight ratio of the engine itself that tripled in last 50 years.

I made it an extremes meet comparison but you get the idea : without knowing what
changes are coming, estimates are better left alone. Fingers crossed we get Case B?



I'd have taken a quote but I can trust you all the easier
as that makes my case : the sooner the line is freed, the
sooner that freezing of Block III needs to happen which
was the point of the OP?

Have a great day guys, read you soon, Tay.

But they are not reducing the weight by employing a partial composite airframe and neither are they changing the engine to give greater thrust. So I don't understand the point of this discussion

 

[Taygibay]

Not known is not the same as not happening
and engine thrust can go up within the Block
III production span if dimensions stay the same.

Just sayin', Tay.

 

[araz]

Can't say, we'll have to wait and see, but Alan Warnes did say (in the Rolling Thunder article) this:

Meanwhile a contract for 50 JF-17 Block-3s is expected to be signed in the first half of this year, which will ensure production does not halt when all the JF-17 Block-2 aircraft are completed. The most advanced version of the Thunder will include new avionics, better electronic warfare systems, increased payload and more sophisticated weapons.

http://asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/rolling-thunder-jf-17/​

To add to your post, what we think is that block 3 will hve addition of a hardpoint for the Aselsan pod. It maybe chin mounted. However, the likelihood of anymore changes in hardpoint seems remote. Additional hardpoints may well require structural changes and movement of the rear wheels as in NG JAS39. I dont think in view of our critical need for platform change we have the luxury of time. Itseems possible that block 4 might have some changes as by then we would hve replaced most of our legacy fighters. This is my opinion and I may well be wrong.
Regards
A

 

[PakEye]

Hi,

The BLK2 numbers are a necessity at this time---because the BLK 3 will have to go thru the periods of integration and we still need aircraft to fill in the hole---.

As the BLK2's will be later on upgraded to the EW standards of the BLK3---so it would not effect the balance.

Sir
what you think :-
Are Block-3 will come with same RD-93 or or WS-13 Engine ? and
AESA (NRIET) KLJ-7A or a Leonardo radar (possibly Vixen 1000)?

To add to your post, what we think is that block 3 will hve addition of a hardpoint for the Aselsan pod. It maybe chin mounted. However, the likelihood of anymore changes in hardpoint seems remote. Additional hardpoints may well require structural changes and movement of the rear wheels as in NG JAS39. I dont think in view of our critical need for platform change we have the luxury of time. Itseems possible that block 4 might have some changes as by then we would hve replaced most of our legacy fighters. This is my opinion and I may well be wrong.
Regards
A

it means Block-3 Air Frame will be same as Block-II without structure modifications.

 

[ghazi52]

Defense Secretory Gen(R) Zameer UL Hasan at Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Karma

JF17 serial 16-232

It's was built in 2016, its Block 2 and is the 32nd unit

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir
what you think :-
Are Block-3 will come with same RD-93 or or WS-13 Engine ? and
AESA (NRIET) KLJ-7A or a Leonardo radar (possibly Vixen 1000)?


it means Block-3 Air Frame will be same as Block-II without structure modifications.

Hi,

That is the million dollar question.

 

[PakEye]

Hi,

That is the million dollar question.

We Don't know when the JFT light weight teg will be change with the Long Range fighter ?

 

[araz]

Sir
what you think :-
Are Block-3 will come with same RD-93 or or WS-13 Engine ? and
AESA (NRIET) KLJ-7A or a Leonardo radar (possibly Vixen 1000)?
At least I think so with only minor changes.


it means Block-3 Air Frame will be same as Block-II without structure modifications.

With minor changes essentially the same.
A

We Don't know when the JFT light weight teg will be change with the Long Range fighter ?

In all probability---------------NEVER!!!. DONT MAKE THE FIGHTER WHAT IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE.
Regards
A

 

[My-Analogous]

In terms of which AESA will be fielded by Block 3, it seems sensible the PAF will prioritize:

1. Wide ranging integration with existing systems.
2. The complete package: AESA+HMD+HOBS.
3. Ease of availability in the future.

The Chinese systems excel at 1 and 3, Italians excel at 2. And Turkey is a wild card.

Bro we are using Italian system more then 30 years now and it is also sanction free, even when US refuse to sell us F16, Italian help us in ROSE project. Even for point 1 I think Italians are far ahead because we are using their system for quite long

 

[WarFariX]

http://urdupoint.com/n/910479

 

[Side-Winder]

Urdu Point..

 

[graphican]