Which is more advance, JF-17 Block 3 or F-16?

[CriticalThought]

AWACS has bigger radar with longer detection range, and faster processing speed. now stealthy fighter jet carrying VLRAAM stand a chance to take out AWACS before found.

If the AEWACS doesn't take out the stealthy jet first, that is.

 

[Dalit]

I think you need to take a few things into consideration. Firstly 16 is a different class fighter and with CFT its range will never be matched. Secondly I will disagree that the software of Bl. 3 will still match that of 16/52 as the specs remain unknown which in itself is a problem when you compare a bird in hand with a non existent one. Thirdly the body life and engine on 16s remains better which means less maintenance however pound for pound Bl. 3 would remain cheaper to maintain due to local input.
There are distinct advantages in that the Bl.3 has AESA, Will be able to carry a much more diverse variety of weaponry, remains upgradeable as new tech becomes available and lastly it is our product and therefore is not prone to sanctions.
For all practical purposes we are comparing diverse machines and such diversity should give a certain advantage to the heavier machine. Lastly in my humble opinion the notion of 16s becoming hanger queens on account of bugs in an Indo Pak war is fallacious one. Surely the US will sanction us and not sell spares but will never hamper the quality of the product as it remains the biggest propaganda advert for them if their machine overcomes the SUs or the Rafale. This in itself and the fact that the US has no value for lives of the brown or black people when it comes to industrial promotion will prevent them from doing so. My opinion therefore could be totally wrong.
Regards
A

I understand that when comparing fighters you have to take many factors into account.

It would be foolish to give one fighter a complete edge over the other. However, we can safely assume that an AESA radar has certain benefits which a conventional radar simply doesn't possess. I believe it is safe to assume that the addition of AESA on JF-17 will give it an edge as opposed to F-16. Despite the fact that we don't know the full capabilities of the F-16 conventional radar. The F-16 might have other advantages such as range etc., but JF-17 is getting some serious upgrades in the most critical areas.

The PAF flies the F-16 Block 52. It wouldn't want to make any compromises on JF-17 Block III. At the very least we should expect a JF-17 Block III on par with F-16 Block 52 in the most critical performance parameters.

 

[araz]

I understand that when comparing fighters you have to take many factors into account.

It would be foolish to give one fighter a complete edge over the other. However, we can safely assume that an AESA radar has certain benefits which a conventional radar simply doesn't possess. I believe it is safe to assume that the addition of AESA on JF-17 will give it an edge as opposed to F-16. Despite the fact that we don't know the full capabilities of the F-16 conventional radar. The F-16 might have other advantages such as range etc., but JF-17 is getting some serious upgrades in the most critical areas.

The PAF flies the F-16 Block 52. It wouldn't want to make any compromises on JF-17 Block III. At the very least we should expect a JF-17 Block III on par with F-16 Block 52 in the most critical performance parameters.

Thank you for your post. The AESA on JFT is untried/untested so a bit premature to say how it will perform. Not a criticism per se just an objective assessment. Other software as well needs to be integrated to see the overall effect. The problem remains one of the unknown. How do you compare a known entity with an unknown one! This is the issue at heart. This whole discussion is within the realms of a certain amount of fantasy(for lack of a better word) as the tech on JFT remains unknown. It would however in my view remain a litmus test to the progress of the Chinese aviation industry especially in software.
Regards.
A

 

[Dalit]

Thank you for your post. The AESA on JFT is untried/untested so a bit premature to say how it will perform. Not a criticism per se just an objective assessment. Other software as well needs to be integrated to see the overall effect. The problem remains one of the unknown. How do you compare a known entity with an unknown one! This is the issue at heart. This whole discussion is within the realms of a certain amount of fantasy(for lack of a better word) as the tech on JFT remains unknown. It would however in my view remain a litmus test to the progress of the Chinese aviation industry especially in software.
Regards.
A

I am sure the Chinese have tested their radar comprehensively. You don't just add critical components to a fighter without extreme testing. This Chinese AESA radar has been in the making for years. Also, Pakistan has been following its development for a long time. The PAF is highly critical about upgrading its Block III fighter. It has Western options at its disposal. Pakistan still picked the Chinese radar. That should reveal something.

Secondly, we can argue about its effectiveness in the real world, but there is no fighter immune to threats.

Just look at the state of the art Israeli F-16 that got downed in Syria from thin air. There are no firm guarentees and you know that better than I do.

 

[araz]

I am sure the Chinese have tested their radar comprehensively. You don't just add critical components to a fighter without extreme testing. This Chinese AESA radar has been in the making for years. Also, Pakistan has been following its development for a long time. The PAF is highly critical about upgrading its Block III fighter. It has Western options at its disposal. Pakistan still picked the Chinese radar. That should reveal something.

Secondly, we can argue about its effectiveness in the real world, but there is no fighter immune to threats.

Just look at the state of the art Israeli F-16 that got downed in Syria from thin air. There are no firm guarentees and you know that better than I do.

ASAK.
No gripes to your argument but a comparative analysis means 2 products being compared side by side by an impartial third party. PAF will play that role once the prototype comes out and see how it performs in action. Till such time all conclusions drawn are premature. This is all I am saying.
We need to wait and pitch the prototype against the 16/52 to see how it performs and draw our conclusions then.
In my opinion a fighter plane is a system and each component of that system needs to be compared once incorporated within the system. Rest till that time will remain hear say and conjecture. We may be on par, or ahead, or still catching up but till the prototype arrives a concluaion cannot be drawn.
A

 

[fitpOsitive]

I am not at all an expert, but I hope with addition of more composite material in place of metal, and addition of AESA and BVR capability will make JF-17 a better bird...way much better.

 

[araz]

I am sure the Chinese have tested their radar comprehensively. You don't just add critical components to a fighter without extreme testing. This Chinese AESA radar has been in the making for years. Also, Pakistan has been following its development for a long time. The PAF is highly critical about upgrading its Block III fighter. It has Western options at its disposal. Pakistan still picked the Chinese radar. That should reveal something.

Secondly, we can argue about its effectiveness in the real world, but there is no fighter immune to threats.

Just look at the state of the art Israeli F-16 that got downed in Syria from thin air. There are no firm guarentees and you know that better than I do.

To add to my earlier post the Chinese also seem to be relying on us a lot more to test products for them in our WOT. This gives an opportunity to test products in actual battle conditions something which is valued by both parties. They will take the feedback and use it to improve their product whic is a win-win situation.
A

 

[CriticalThought]

ASAK.
No gripes to your argument but a comparative analulysis means 2 products being compared side by side by an impartial third party. PAF will play that role once the prototype comes out and see how it performs in action. Till such time all conclusions drawn are premature. This is all I am saying. We need to wait andcpitch the prototype against the 16/52 to see how it performs and draw our conclusions then. In my opinion a fighter plane is a system and each component of that system needs to becompared once incorporated within the system. Rest till that time will remain hearsay and conjecture. We may be on par, or ahead, or still catching up but till the prototype arrives a concluaion cannot be drawn.
A

The real test would be against NATO planes fielded by the likes of UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. There is a possibility that even our Block 52s are 'watered down' in terms of capability.

Interestingly enough, the PAF recently acquired a test range from China. It should be put to good use!

 

[araz]

I am not at all expert, but I hope with addition of more composite material in place of metal, and addition of AESA and BVR capability will make JF-17 a better bird...way much better.

Well it will certainly be better than what it was before. How much better remains to be seen.
A

 

[CriticalThought]

I am not at all an expert, but I hope with addition of more composite material in place of metal, and addition of AESA and BVR capability will make JF-17 a better bird...way much better.

Note that use of composites doesn't automatically lead to lowering the radar signature.

 

[araz]

The real test would be against NATO planes fielded by the likes of UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. There is a possibility that even our Block 52s are 'watered down' in terms of capability.

Interestingly enough, the PAF recently acquired a test range from China. It should be put to good use!

With the new AESA they might themselves be keen to test their mettle against our baby. It maybe reluctance on our part rather than on their part which might prevent that happening.
A

 

[CriticalThought]

With the new AESA they might themselves be keen to test their mettle against our baby. It maybe reluctance on our part rather than on their part which might prevent that happening.
A

If history is to serve as a guide, I expect a KLJ-7A V2 just like there was a KLJ-7 V2. Retrd ACM Sohail Aman has already said that the future of PAC is in producing AESA radars locally. I am hoping they will make local customizations that will not be available on the export market. And then there is integration with Link-17 and our existing AD network. Having AESA sensors during regular CAP duty 24x7 will be a huge capability increase, Insha Allah.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Note that use of composites doesn't automatically lead to lowering the radar signature.

But at least air frame will be lighter and long life...no?

 

[CriticalThought]

But at least air frame will be lighter and long life...no?

Lighter, yes. Longer life? Depends on the characteristics of the composites used. As a general rule, they are naturally immune to rust, but if mechanical stress goes out of expected range, they can develop fractures.

 

[Dalit]

ASAK.
No gripes to your argument but a comparative analysis means 2 products being compared side by side by an impartial third party. PAF will play that role once the prototype comes out and see how it performs in action. Till such time all conclusions drawn are premature. This is all I am saying.
We need to wait and pitch the prototype against the 16/52 to see how it performs and draw our conclusions then.
In my opinion a fighter plane is a system and each component of that system needs to be compared once incorporated within the system. Rest till that time will remain hear say and conjecture. We may be on par, or ahead, or still catching up but till the prototype arrives a concluaion cannot be drawn.
A

Fully agreed. We need to wait for real world comparisons. Surely the PAF will pitch the Block III against the Block 52. We have the luxury of doing so.

However, my expectations for Block III are naturally high considering that an AESA upgrade is no peanuts. It is supposed to give the Block III a serious punch. I am sure PAF expectations are no different.

To add to my earlier post the Chinese also seem to be relying on us a lot more to test products for them in our WOT. This gives an opportunity to test products in actual battle conditions something which is valued by both parties. They will take the feedback and use it to improve their product whic is a win-win situation.
A

No doubt. WoT is certainly a plus, but also Pakistan's insight and hands-on experience with Western doctrines and fighter jets. China and Pakistan cooperation is a massive win-win. Both complement each other.

The F-16 fighter is the foundation of US air force. A lot of tech has been re-used i.e. borrowed and improved in F-35 and F-22 platforms.