JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

You bring up really valid points. But the thing is, its a win win for these states and for Pakistan. If they see benefit, cost and capability, there is no match vs. that Russian junk they've been operating with 20 KM weapon range! But sales effort is always hard work.

And our JF-17 is based on Russian junk (canceled MIG 33 design of 80s) lol

 

[hussain0216]

You bring up really valid points. But the thing is, its a win win for these states and for Pakistan. If they see benefit, cost and capability, there is no match vs. that Russian junk they've been operating with 20 KM weapon range! But sales effort is always hard work.

If it was a normal product Pakistan would already have racked up more sales

Weapons sales are interlinked with politics and strategic interests

For China JF17 is a great introduction for multiple countries to Chinese origin weapons, sometimes it's easier for certain countries to deal with Pakistan rather then China, because dealing with China would put them in a "camp" that may raise eyebrows. It's may lead to other sales of weapons from Pakistan or China

For The U.S and West in general they don't want to see alternative platforms making sales and offering good options and weapons at a more economical cost

The Russians are losing traditional markets and they don't want to see that and their may be discussions with countries to deter them


Sri Lanka, Argentina and Iraq come to mind as countries that could have had JF17s by now if not for other countries getting involved and forcing a change of mind

 

[iron shrapnel]

View attachment 135507

B3s have a chin hard point for the pod, yes ?

 

[Scorpio]

And our JF-17 is based on Russian junk (canceled MIG 33 design of 80s) lol

If i am not wrong, Mig 33 canceled design was based on F16 .. with bottom intakes... Look like f16

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Psyko70]

And our JF-17 is based on Russian junk (canceled MIG 33 design of 80s) lol

Hello sir,

That is wrong way of understanding things. J10 is also failed or ignored lavi project based on that thinking. Be reasonable. Jf 17 may have been said low cost fighter based on mig 33 but it is not even same thing anymore. Many in PAF and PAC now also say the same that low cost effective is just a catchphrase. Its reached almost 35 to 40 mil a piece now. With aesa gan varient, good sub systems. Best thing in asian market for the price.

The only reason its cheap in some sense is maintenance and the providers are cheap china and pakistan. While same quality stuff is easily 80 mil or more in west.

@MastanKhan

Sir dont you agree with the fact that with jf17 block 3 the concept of low cost fighter is no more validate. When mig 29 costs under 45 mil dollar and su 30 under 49 million dollars. And when we talk about export jf17 averages at 55 mil a piece with logistic and maintenance items.

Low cost fighting planes are only uavs now.

 

[RajaBaja]

If it was a normal product Pakistan would already have racked up more sales

Weapons sales are interlinked with politics and strategic interests

For China JF17 is a great introduction for multiple countries to Chinese origin weapons, sometimes it's easier for certain countries to deal with Pakistan rather then China, because dealing with China would put them in a "camp" that may raise eyebrows. It's may lead to other sales of weapons from Pakistan or China

For The U.S and West in general they don't want to see alternative platforms making sales and offering good options and weapons at a more economical cost

The Russians are losing traditional markets and they don't want to see that and their may be discussions with countries to deter them


Sri Lanka, Argentina and Iraq come to mind as countries that could have had JF17s by now if not for other countries getting involved and forcing a change of mind

Here is why we couldn't sell earlier. This may seem like an MBA introduction business class.

1) Market - Both, unavailable and non-responsive.
2) Product - 1980's effort result between US and China, Super-7. Some add "Russian too but that's not true, some shared features may exist.
3) Capability. Not on par until block II rolled out and I think that was 2016. Add a couple of years to integrate, so 2018-2020 is when we could "comfortably" talk about this and upcoming block III. Later exercised proved the system until 2023. That's when we decided to make sales discussions. Before it wasn't possible. Now due to war in May, its much easier.

Now, #1, market is NOW open primarily due to Russian unavailability and Response time is better because the system is now battle proven with top end capability so covers #3 here also.

#3: Product design isn't an issue. It offers similar capability to an F-16 block 70 or Rafale. What more can you ask for with 50% price tag? Engine is an issue if you want high performance, for that, you can pay and put a 25-30% higher thrust engine, sustain 9G's like an F-16.

 

[Scorpio]

If any country can afford J10C then they definitely go for J10C instead JF17 block 3 ...

If we see cost in both of them not have much difference ..

The JF-17 Block 3 is significantly more affordable than the J-10C, with unit costs ranging from $30-40 million compared to the J-10C's $40-70 million. While the J-10C offers superior performance and advanced features, the JF-17 Block 3 provides a cost-effective multirole platform with strong export potential.

Cost Breakdown:

• JF-17 Block 3:
  Estimated at $30-40 million per unit, the JF-17 Block 3 is designed to be a cost-effective solution, particularly for nations seeking a multirole fighter without the high price tag of Western-built aircraft.
  
  
• J-10C:
  The J-10C is estimated to cost between $40 and $70 million per unit. It offers a higher level of performance and advanced technology, including an AESA radar and stealth features, making it suitable for nations prioritizing advanced capabilities.

 

[Lion]

“It’s a flipping drone for crying out loud”

- shows your flawed thinking. We in Pakistan don’t use proper target drones, however, the 167 is a mach .9 capable, highly agile target system.

While it won’t replicate a real life fighter 100%, it’s still a very capable and serious piece of kit. Discounting it as “just a drone” is flawed.

This same logic applies to other systems like the PL-15 too. Was the 150km range figure quoted a kill against a fighter? Of course not, it’ll be a simulated theoretical number or a kill against… drumroll… a target drone.

Also, this claim of extreme ranges is rubbish. It’s straight up crap. The one rafale kill was at what, 100km?

If someone is telling you that an SD-10A is the “real deal” compared to a 120C5, they need a check. The SD-10A is a 120A equivalent at best, relying on Russian derived seeker tech and old Chinese motors and airframe design. Delusional.

Not sure why F-16s need to carry IREK when they have a large stockpile of JDAMS to use…? Who’s gonna foot the bill for a duplicate capability? Taimur is probably not even integrated into Jf-17s lol so you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. Just because GIDS presents something, doesn’t mean it exists.

If you’re seriously parading the CM400AKG as this amazing wonder weapon that has been “battle tested”, then id seriously take a look at what your definition of battle tested is, because “**** nuffing” is what comes to my mind when i think cm400.


Yes I believe datasheets. Data sheets are what procurements are based off of initially. We didn’t hit a runway, we didn’t hit an s400, we made Bollywood style trailers to feed local audiences and you ate it all up. The only pinpoint accurate hit we had was ispr hitting the minds of every deluded paknat convincing them we actually did something of substance.

Again, not sure how you can definitively claim your last point, do you know something we don’t?

The first mistake you made was being rational enough to question the echo chamber. Rest assured if Pakistan had invested in newer F16s and AIM120s every single person trying to fight for Chinese tech superiority on this forum would be trying their hardest to prove how the American tech is better and more battle tested than the Chinese tech.​

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

Hello sir,

That is wrong way of understanding things. J10 is also failed or ignored lavi project based on that thinking. Be reasonable. Jf 17 may have been said low cost fighter based on mig 33 but it is not even same thing anymore. Many in PAF and PAC now also say the same that low cost effective is just a catchphrase. Its reached almost 35 to 40 mil a piece now. With aesa gan varient, good sub systems. Best thing in asian market for the price.

The only reason its cheap in some sense is maintenance and the providers are cheap china and pakistan. While same quality stuff is easily 80 mil or more in west.

@MastanKhan

Sir dont you agree with the fact that with jf17 block 3 the concept of low cost fighter is no more validate. When mig 29 costs under 45 mil dollar and su 30 under 49 million dollars. And when we talk about export jf17 averages at 55 mil a piece with logistic and maintenance items.

Low cost fighting planes are only uavs now.

With due respect brother Block-3 design (airframe) remain same as Block-1 only avionics and radar wise its somehow superior in it class (light weight fighter jets) but it has lots of limitations because being a LIGHT WIEGHT FIGHTER JET

 

[Oscar]

If someone is telling you that an SD-10A is the “real deal” compared to a 120C5, they need a check. The SD-10A is a 120A equivalent at best, relying on Russian derived seeker tech and old Chinese motors and airframe design. Delusional.

Equivalent to 120C comment was given to me by someone who is unfortunately undergoing a court martial right now.
But he does carry a LOT of authority when it comes to both knowing AIM-120C performance and SD-10

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

If any country can afford J10C then they definitely go for J10C instead JF17 block 3 ...

If we see cost in both of them not have much difference ..

The JF-17 Block 3 is significantly more affordable than the J-10C, with unit costs ranging from $30-40 million compared to the J-10C's $40-70 million. While the J-10C offers superior performance and advanced features, the JF-17 Block 3 provides a cost-effective multirole platform with strong export potential.

Cost Breakdown:

• JF-17 Block 3:
  Estimated at $30-40 million per unit, the JF-17 Block 3 is designed to be a cost-effective solution, particularly for nations seeking a multirole fighter without the high price tag of Western-built aircraft.
  
  
• J-10C:
  The J-10C is estimated to cost between $40 and $70 million per unit. It offers a higher level of performance and advanced technology, including an AESA radar and stealth features, making it suitable for nations prioritizing advanced capabilities.

Well JF17 Block III have AESA as well the only difference is perhaps Delta Wing , and better manoeuvrability which comes with Delta Wing in Dog fights. But a good pilot can also balance the difference

JF17 is based on F16 which had a tremendous positive review from Pilots so we know the core of JF17 is good

JF17 Block III just gives you workhorse availability , with Enhanced weapon's rack , carrying more BVR Missile load , it is a Must have with Turkish Targeting Pod , the Turkish Targeting pod is just beautiful Add-on

• You want the core of your Airforce to be JF17 Block III , for 24/7 role

Every Airforce should aim to get 36-40 JF17 Thunders from Pakistan

 

[Jango007]

Potential customers….

Iraq
Bangladesh
Srilanka
Indonesia
Sundan
Argentina
Bolivia
Ethiopia

Argentina already signed up for F16....They are out

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Argentina already signed up for F16....They are out

They have Zionist Leader head of state you can't expect him to purchase JF17 Thunder, the eccentric fool looks like a character out of Comic book combined with whacky evil scientist hair cut

Zelensky "2.0" is in Argentina he is propped up there to counter Venezuela and Brazil

In South America

• Venezuela
• Brazil

Central America

• Mexico

Could be potential Customers, with Oil for Fighter Jet deal with Pakistan with Venezuela

Brazil has stuff like Wood , and other raw items , Pakistan could use these

 

[Psyko70]

With due respect brother Block-3 design (airframe) remain same as Block-1 only avionics and radar wise its somehow superior in it class (light weight fighter jets) but it has lots of limitations because being a LIGHT WIEGHT FIGHTER JET

You need to understand pakistan airforce doctrine. I believe its based on light to medium fighter concept.

Apart from payload and speed. Avionics and radar are most important component and jf17 is good in it. Mig 33 never had that leverage evem mig 35 lacks the quality in avionics and radar section that jf17 now possess.

What we need is j16 like fighter for strike role. For aa role and light weight ground attacks, jf17 in our theatre is doing adequate job. Plus, firing 2 raad or glide bombs with precision is not bad role.

I replied to your, "russian junk" statement. Which is too extreme.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

You need to understand pakistan airforce doctrine. I believe its based on light to medium fighter concept.

Apart from payload and speed. Avionics and radar are most important component and jf17 is good in it. Mig 33 never had that leverage evem mig 35 lacks the quality in avionics and radar section that jf17 now possess.

What we need is j16 like fighter for strike role. For aa role and light weight ground attacks, jf17 in our theatre is doing adequate job. Plus, firing 2 raad or glide bombs with precision is not bad role.

I replied to your, "russian junk" statement. Which is too extreme.

I gave a cost-effective solution to the bomb-truck problem here:

Thread 'A stop gap solution for PAF in absence of large payload bomb truck platforms?'

Jul 8, 2025

Since most of Pakistan's combat fleet consists of low payload light jets, compared to heavy twin-engine aircraft like the Su-30, J-16, or F-15, during wartime we could struggle to deliver a sufficiently large amount of ordinance due to this, is it feasible to use modified cargo aircraft to dump stand-off munitions in large numbers at a distance?

For example a modified C-130 or Y-9 platform packed with long-range cruise missiles, REKs, loitering munitions, EW payloads, etc.

I was thinking of it and came across the USAF with a similar concept called the 'Rapid Dragon'

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

...

• Rational Philosopher
• Replies: 70
• Forum: Pakistan Air Force

• 
• 
• 

Essentially a cargo aircraft flying at safe distances similar to an AEWAC while dumping long-range cruise missiles from the backdoor. Can perhaps go closer with top cover. Can't say it's a perfect solution but worth analysing by the planners in the know.