Arguments of choosing JF-17 Thunder over JAS-39 Gripen

[greatsequence]

according tothe airchief , paf was not in the position to absorb that much tech , at that time--

having 2 western embargo prone platforms alonge 3 other platforms would be an administerative nightmare

I never understood what ACM meant by that . To me it looks like more of an excuse for dumping an expensive fighter.

 

[softtec]

The basic argument is wrong. I think Thunder involvement started long back than PAF started looking for Gripen.So Thunder not the replacement of Gripen.

However Jf-17 will give many advantages actually for PAF :

1)PAF will have the technology transfer and full control and most trusted partner like China.
2)It will cost less than 50% of Gripen cost, so can be bought in big numbers with limited budget.
3)It will create the aviation assembly and manufacturing industries in Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

I never understood what ACM meant by that . To me it looks like more of an excuse for dumping an expensive fighter.

Less to do with the new tech..
more to do with op req..
The gripen was never meant to compete with the JF.. that JF was coming come hell and high water...
The gripen was competing with the F-16 for the high end..
however....from its inception..the Gripen has been focused on air defence with a secondary strike capability..
Which brings in the saga of the M2K's.. back in 2006...during the IDEAS exhibition I asked the same of a senior PAF official..
they had no love for the gripen..it was just Mushy going ahead with a little love for sweden.. to try to sweeten the Erieye deal.. (which was never needed)..
The PAF wanted a bomber to strike deep into enemy territory.. the M2K fit that bill perfectly..except we couldnt find new examples or even examples with sustainable numbers..
The Qatari AF was asking too much for those airframes..
and so.. finally the PAF decided to stick to its order of F-16's.. since they represented the best strike force possible next to a M2K-5..
The Gripen.. was NEVER really considered seriously..
Although PAF pilots were all praise for the jet.

 

[Yeti]

I wonder how these Chinese missiles on the JF 17 can compare to the new Meteor missile the Gripen just test fired.

 

[silent hawk]

I wonder how these Chinese missiles on THE JF 17 can compare to the new Meteor missile the Gripen just test fired.

Both missiles are new and have not been tested in Combat hence any comparision between the two has to be academic.

The SD-10 being used on the JF-17 is the primary BVR missile being used to defend China and is a very capable missile.

PL-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yeti]

Bitzinger says that the J-10 is "pretty close" to the Saab Gripen, but "probably not comparable in terms of quality, low observability, avionics, or weapons mix".

He adds: "The Chinese do not possess the range, or quality, of air-launched weapons that approach the flexibility of Western fighter aircraft. They have just got BVRAAMs, but the West is already moving on to much more sophisticated BVRAAMs such as the Meteor. And they lack, so far, the wide range of sophisticated air-to-ground munitions. This limits the fighting effectiveness of their combat aircraft," he adds.


CHINA SPECIAL: Air force rejuvenation gathers steam


I was reading this article about the state of China's airforce

 

[farhan_9909]

JF-17 is comparable to Gripen..

bt in the coming year we will make jf-17 better then Gripen

 

[ARCHON]

JF-17 is comparable to Gripen..

bt in the coming year we will make jf-17 better then Gripen

And meanwhile Gripen manufacturers will be doing what?? play ping pong?/ They will improve it further too.

 

[silent hawk]

And meanwhile Gripen manufacturers will be doing what?? play ping pong?/ They will improve it further too.

Gripen and JF-17 are pretty comparable in aerospace, both can pull 9 Gs and have a thrust to weight ratio slightly less than 1.0

At present Gripen is superior in avionics which is close to state of the art. Hence improving the Gripens avionics requires considerable research and development.

To upgrade the JF-17 all we have to do is port the already developed avionics suit of the J-10 into the JF-17. This will take far less time.

 

[SQ8]

Gripen and JF-17 are pretty comparable in aerospace, both can pull 9 Gs and have a thrust to weight ratio slightly less than 1.0

At present Gripen is superior in avionics which is close to state of the art. Hence improving the Gripens avionics requires considerable research and development.

To upgrade the JF-17 all we have to do is port the already developed avionics suit of the J-10 into the JF-17. This will take far less time.

If any of you bother to read through the threads and posts of past..
You would see that is already being done.
Both the gripen and thunder are very similar in their design targets..
Just following different philosophies..and different resource constraints.

 

[silent hawk]

If any of you bother to read through the threads and posts of past..
You would see that is already being done.
Both the gripen and thunder are very similar in their design targets..
Just following different philosophies..and different resource constraints.

In my opinion most of the discussion on this topic has been done and it has been proven that choosing thunder over gripen was the right decision.

As long as the mods keep this thread open repitions are likely to occur.

 

[Yeti]

The Chinese do not possess the range, or quality, of air-launched weapons that approach the flexibility of Western fighter aircraft. They have just got BVRAAMs, but the West is already moving on to much more sophisticated BVRAAMs such as the Meteor.

This is what was quoted in the article I posted, airplane aside how does Chinese BVRAAM's compare to new types of missiles like Meteor? because if India picks the Eurofighter it will surely go for this once it has been inducted.

 

[niaz]

I have no problem admitting that Grippen even with it current F-404 (produced as Volvo RM12) and Western avionics is superior to JF-17 with RD-93 and Chinese avionics and armaments. Grippen NG on the other hand is comparable to Typhoon and F-Block60. However there are two important factors:

1. With the Gen Electric F404 Engine, US permission is needed before it can be sold to Pakistan. It is therefore as prone to US sanctions as F-16, a tried and tested aircraft. Because of this fact don’t think Grippen was under serious consideration at any time.

2. Unit price starts at $40-million and for Grippen NG it could be $60-million.


JF-17 is worth $20-million enabling PAF to acquire 2 aircrafts in place of one. Hopefully with Chinese Wopen engine, it would not be dependent on Russian good will either. Ergo there is absolutely no question that choice of JF-17 was correct.

 

[silent hawk]

The Chinese do not possess the range, or quality, of air-launched weapons that approach the flexibility of Western fighter aircraft. They have just got BVRAAMs, but the West is already moving on to much more sophisticated BVRAAMs such as the Meteor.

This is what was quoted in the article I posted, airplane aside how does Chinese BVRAAM's compare to new types of missiles like Meteor? because if India picks the Eurofighter it will surely go for this once it has been inducted.

The missile is reported to be compatible with Grifo Radars for use in J-10

From Wikipedia
The Italian FIAR (now SELEX Galileo) Grifo 2000/16, has been offered to the Pakistan Air Force for installation on the J-10

The PAF Mirages and F-7 PGs already have the Grifo Radar installed hence it can be asumed that as soon as SD-10s are inducted they shall be available on PAF JF-17, Mirages and F-7 PG aircrafts making more than 60% of the fleet BVR capable this would not have been possible if we had gone for the gripen and meteor

Another good reason for choosing Thunder over Gripen​

 

[dingyibvs]

The Chinese do not possess the range, or quality, of air-launched weapons that approach the flexibility of Western fighter aircraft. They have just got BVRAAMs, but the West is already moving on to much more sophisticated BVRAAMs such as the Meteor.

This is what was quoted in the article I posted, airplane aside how does Chinese BVRAAM's compare to new types of missiles like Meteor? because if India picks the Eurofighter it will surely go for this once it has been inducted.

Ironically, this just came out:

Jane's Defence Weekly


China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM.

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor - Zhuhai, China



China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, Jane's understands.

Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.

There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service.

The SD-10 - the current production version is the refined SD-10A - has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the Pakistan Air Force.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade.

What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes.

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting mode and cited the risks to friendly aircraft of relying on passive guidance alone. It is not clear if the SD-10A's seeker can continually alternate between active and passive modes in flight or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch.

In the past, Russian sources have given Jane's a detailed account of the assistance supplied by Russian design bureaus in the development of the SD-10. A LOEC official hinted that this co-operation is continuing when he noted: "We [LOEC] have the capability to make the seeker ourselves, but obviously we want it to be the best it possibly can." He confirmed that the missile still relied on some unidentified components that were sourced outside China.

Within Russia the AGAT Design Bureau has developed several dual-mode seeker designs which it only began discussing in public in 2009. Senior AGAT officials have remained vague when asked by Jane's about who paid for these development programmes, noting only that there is no Russian application and no Russian state support for them.

During the 1990s China also gained access to the 9B-1032 passive seeker developed by Avtomatika for the Vympel R-27P (AA-10 'Alamo') AAM. A melding of these two design inputs might explain how China arrived at its SD-10 seeker design. According to a LOEC official, the dual-mode capability was designed into the SD-10 from its inception.

An SD-10A missile (underwing) is part of the weapons suite of a Pakistan Air Force JF-17 at November's Airshow China.