JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Mohsin77]

let us enjoy

we have been hit by so many images and updates on JF17 we are energised

What about all the people who were spreading nonsense for all these years? They get a free pass? LOL, okay then. Just so the whole cycle can begin again, and the same posters, using the same 'sources,' can make the same outlandish claims for the next project... makes sense, lol.

 

[asif iqbal]

What about all the people who were spreading nonsense for all these years? They get a free pass? LOL, okay then. Just so the whole cycle can begin again, and the same posters, using the same 'sources,' can make the same outlandish claims for the next project... makes sense, lol.

Hey I remember 2003 well and remember people saying this would ever fly

I Have been a life long follower of JF17

probably around 2001 or 2002 around the time I left high school I have seen all of them come and go

now it’s 2020 and JF17 Block III has come and JF17B along with exports

 

[Franklin]

I thought the block III would get the J-10B treatment but I was wrong. But if the PAF is happy with the design then who am I to complain.

 

[Mohsin77]

Hey I remember 2003 well and remember people saying this would ever fly

I Have been a life long follower of JF17

probably around 2001 or 2002 around the time I left high school I have seen all of them come and go

now it’s 2020 and JF17 Block III has come and JF17B along with exports

Bro, I was a moderator on the original PDF board back then (the board that existed BEFORE the current iteration of it.) I was more involved in the these antics probably more than any of the PDF 'fanboys' here when I was in High School. But we're not in High School anymore, are we? And yet PDF is the same today like it was when I was in High School. It was a joke back then, and it's a joke today, 20 years later.

Do you know why? Because members of PDF fail to realize that the people who were saying the JF-17 will "never fly" and those talking about "stealth JF-17s" are both equally unreliable. Both have been proven equally wrong. So why is the latter given more credibility than the former? Neither have any credibility and their 'sources' are garbage.

Since you are still on PDF, instead of this 'let us enjoy' attitude, please hold the nonsense-artists there responsible for spreading BS, so that they don't repeat the same cycle over again for the next project. Bring some actual accountability into the mix for a change. Otherwise, we will be having this exact same conversation 20 years from now.

 

[yanyan25]

 

[ougoah]

Am I seeing the new JF-17 right? It seems like the fuselage curvature just below the spine has a subtly new shape. Sort of like the Flanker or J-10 hump as opposed to the old blk 1/2 straight tube. I'll try to point it out.








Obviously the spine is bulkier but looks like they've changed the shape very slightly which would be at some expense.

 

[defenceman]

Am I seeing the new JF-17 right? It seems like the fuselage curvature just below the spine has a subtly new shape. Sort of like the Flanker or J-10 hump as opposed to the old blk 1/2 straight tube. I'll try to point it out.

View attachment 56259

View attachment 56260

View attachment 56261


Obviously the spine is bulkier but looks like they've changed the shape very slightly which would be at some expense.

Hi ougoah that’s a nice catch but I’d it possible it’s related with B version for a dual seat
Your input will be appreciated
Thank you

 

[by78]

But that is only a CG!

Woah!

 

[stannislas]

Woah!

Not exactly a Photoshopped CGI, this is a screenshot from dsc world...so yeah, a CG...

 

[MastanKhan]

I thought the block III would get the J-10B treatment but I was wrong. But if the PAF is happy with the design then who am I to complain.

Hi,

Paf's primary focus was on AESA---possibly a more powerful engine---a few tweaks to the frame---additional sensors---an upgraded EW package---HMD---PL15---off bore sight missile---and that was it---.