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

[Manticore]

THE SWEDISH EXPERIENCE IN OPERATION
UNIFIED PROTECTOR
OVERCOMING THE NON-NATOMEMBER CONUNDRUM
http://media.wix.com/ugd//012b60_f1ddfbd759804fe6809fb4f09f536405.pdf

 

[Aslan]

I didnt know that this thread was going to last so long, and be such a bank of information when I opened it. Thanks @TaimiKhan for encouraging me to open it.

 

[Armstrong]

I didnt know that this thread was going to last so long, and be such a bank of information when I opened it. Thanks @TaimiKhan for encouraging me to open it.

You posted some good stuff, kid !

 

[Aslan]

You posted some good stuff, kid !

Kid Kay dita paaji. Hehehehe

 

[Armstrong]

Kid Kay dita paaji. Hehehehe

Sir mein 22 saaal kaa fossil hooon aaap mujhee se tou chooteiii hiii hooon gaiii !

 

[Aslan]

Sir mein 22 saaal kaa fossil hooon aaap mujhee se tou chooteiii hiii hooon gaiii !

Well I should be calling you a kid the, only 11+ years younger then you. 33 shall I say.

 

[Armstrong]

Well I should be calling you a kid the, only 11+ years younger then you. 33 shall I say.

Oh teriii kiii....sorry !

 

[Gentelman]

Why only two planes ???

F18 out of the race ????

F-18 is something else...
It is dual engine fighter with different category...

 

[Manticore]

lets update the stats

SAAB JAS-39 "Gripen"
Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - JAS 39 Gripen

*specs taken from dubai air show presentations and jf-17 brochures

*the conditions ,parameters under which climb rate / thrust to wt etc have been evaluated might not be standardised or fully disclosed

*All the values ive posted are from open published sources , so if there are confusions , its upto the companies to clear up

*..... however jft blk1 is not that obsolete as you suspect .. its better than gripenA & thats why i didnt use gripenA's specs.. I used a somewhat comparable block's specs

* we dont know the exact RCS of jft ... If jft was a canards fighters , some people wouldve jumped up and down saying it has greater rcs due to canards

* we dont know the wing loading of the fighter
[ a ground attack role fighter generally has a higher wing loading -
low wing loading is for performing at higher altitudes---multirole aircraft has to find a proper balance..]

* we dont know the AoA of jft -- f-18 has one of the highest values .. and jft would be comparable
[prominent lerx/strakes---> upto 50% increase in max lift , low/moderate swept wing---> better at lower speed performance , spin resistance etc ]

* methods of rcs reduction is a natural step forwards and hopefully would be employed in blk2 along with other gadgets we are reading about in the jft info pool

Northrop had published an interesting comparison chart

 

[Argus Panoptes]

@ANTIBODY Sir, how can the climb rate of the JF-17 be 250 meters per second, i.e. 250*60=15,000 meters per minute, and that of the JAS-39 be 5,500 meter per minute, or only 5,500/60=91.66 meters per second, when they are not too far apart with weights and power?

 

[Manticore]

@ANTIBODY Sir, how can the climb rate of the JF-17 be 250 meters per second, i.e. 250*60=15,000 meters per minute, and that of the JAS-39 be 5,500 meter per minute, or only 5,500/60=91.66 meters per second, when they are not too far apart with weights and power?

its grippen D not C

 

[Khaqan Humayun]

For Asia and Africa a relibal source is nassasary rather then Good weapon of unrelibal source Though Griphen is good but Swedan can not sell it indipandantly.
Pakistan was trying to buy Griphen but just because of Amreca Pakistan could not Buy it.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

its grippen D not C

So are you saying that the climb performance of the JF-17 is 2.7 TIMES better than the Gripen D? How is that possible? Something is not correct here.

 

[Manticore]

So are you saying that the climb performance of the JF-17 is 2.7 TIMES better than the Gripen D? How is that possible? Something is not correct here.

you can deduce whatever you want from these figures--- ive posted the sources earlier in this thread , speculation on baseline conditions/configurations underwhich these figures were achieved were posted by me in response to vcheng somewhere in another thread-- , please find 'em & read 'em-- I have not cooked up these figures myself


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a085065.pdf

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD
SAS APPLIED TC LOW-TO-MODERATE SWEPT WINOS
VOLUME 3: TRANSONIC-SUPERSONIC
SPEED REGIME
w by
Dvid W. Laosy

 

[Argus Panoptes]

you can deduce whatever you want from these figures--- ive posted the sources earlier in this thread , speculation on baseline conditions/configurations underwhich these figures were achieved were posted by me in response to vcheng somewhere in another thread-- , please find 'em & read 'em-- I have not cooked up these figures myself


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a085065.pdf

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD
SAS APPLIED TC LOW-TO-MODERATE SWEPT WINOS
VOLUME 3: TRANSONIC-SUPERSONIC
SPEED REGIME
w by
Dvid W. Laosy

The only deduction about these figures is that one of them is incorrect.

The actual climb rate performance for the Gripen is 254 meters per second, which is very comparable and makes sense given the weights and engines. Please correct your data.