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

[farhan_9909]

First of all Gripen is decade old and jf-17 new one.

Its true Gripen is currently little better then Jf bt JF is new,

in the coming year JF-17 Block II will be comparable to gripen NG if nt better..

currently Gripen is better because

has
higher payload
better radar
reduced RCS
Avionics
Supercruise
American BVR

 

[KEETARP]

Anyway here is the main difference b/w current Jas Gripen and the new Gripen NG[/B]

Mani ,
That is old specs .
Replace it with this newer one

Same is there in JF-17, it has data link also, through which it can communicate with AEW&Cs and can receive and send data.

Taimi , can you post specs of data-links on Thunder .
TIDLS on Gripen is Link16 , so specs are easy to find like (Data rate transfer on TIDLS is 115.2 Kb/sec, Band of operation , Range etc )
I tried google.pk and google.cn , but couldn't get one .

Data-transfer rate ??
Range of operation ??
How many platforms can be connected together ??
Band of operation L/?
Can it be linked with sea+ground+air-borne assets same time ??

 

[TaimiKhan]

Mani ,
That is old specs .
Replace it with this newer one

Taimi , can you post specs of data-links on Thunder .
TIDLS on Gripen is Link16 , so specs are easy to find like (Data rate transfer on TIDLS is 115.2 Kb/sec, Band of operation , Range etc )
I tried google.pk and google.cn , but couldn't get one .

Data-transfer rate ??
Range of operation ??
How many platforms can be connected together ??
Band of operation L/?
Can it be linked with sea+ground+air-borne assets same time ??

JF-17s data link is classified, nothing known for now.

Origin isn't even known.

But the antenna shape is very similar to the ones used on the upgraded Turkish F-5s & seen on the South African-Israeli upgraded Cheetahs.

My assessment is that both F-5s and JF-17s data link equipment is of same origin, it may even be Turkish, as Turkish F-5s data link is also not know, specs or origin both. But Turkish F-5s were upgraded by Israelis and Singapore Technologies.

So can't say what it is and what it can do.

 

[Peregrine]

Hi
there is no doubt that JF-17 is a better choice & as far as the avionics,ECM's etc are concerned i think that was the sole reason why Pakistan wanted french tech, so far Pakistan is only interested in using JF-17 for A2G roles. so far JF-17 hasn't emerged fully loaded as a multirole fighter aircraft like Gripen. by examining the specs, price tags & the remarkable speed at which JF17 is being built one can easily say that for Pakistan the decision of choosing JF-17 has worked out well

 

[BATMAN]

My personal choice would be to opt for gripen instead of F16 and go for thunder as well.both gripen and thunder are really cheap when it comes to maintenance and also the "list of terms of use" that come with F16 is not realy pleasing.

Correct your facts.... F-16 should be cheaper than Gripen... due to its mass production.
F-16 is a natural choice in case of Pakistan and it will definately cost less to Pakistan as compare to inducting Gripen.
However, Gripen was second choice of PAF after F-16.

 

[MastanKhan]

Before Any ones goes any further please read this is not a VS thread but on the contrary, it is to compare the 2 platforms to analise why do people think that the one is better then the other, and we should have gone for this rather then that.


JF 17

Saab Gripen

Comparison side by side.

Now many here advocate that Gripen is a better platform and Pakistan should have opted for it, rather then trying to produce their own in thunder. Now for arguments sake, let say that Gripen was not sanctions prone, and we could buy them just like we are producing the thunder. What would you still go with, being a layman while looking at the specs they look kinda similar to me, apart from the fact that Gripen has the experience of Saab behind it. What do you guys think. And again this is not a Vs thread. Please dont make it into one. Thanks.

Hi,

Sir, as a thread started, it becomes your responsibility to take charge and put forward your analysis---


Secondly---to all posters---don't get mad at me and my comments---because you read something and just jump on it without thinking---with your pet answers---.

Now to the subject matter----comparing the Grippen to thunder---is like comparing the difference between day and night. The grippen was in 2002 where the thunder is going to be in 2013-----did you guys see what I am saying---what has been then and what is going to be.

When you talk about procuring defence equipment---you look at how seasoned the equipment is, how superior in quality the product is, what is the reliability factor of the machinery is, what kind of abuse it can take in combat and over the years of peace---how user friendly the maintenance and equipment transfer is, how easily it can be serviced.

The most important factor is that of parity---how close does it bring you to the enemy's best weapons system. That is the most important question of any equation. It is all about the enemy and you.

Because you don't live in ETHER---you are buying a weapons system for a reason---the reson being that your enemy has outdone you and you feel hopelessly outclassed---so you desperately need to make amends.

Now remember----this is open house---no strings attached---.

The grippen was available in 2002--03---the jf 17 in a similiar compliment not till 2013---.

If pak had forced delivery starting by 2005----we would have been 8 years ahead of where we are today.

To you young people I want to ask---does time ever mean anything to you at all---does the loss of time has any strategic meaning of loss to you. Is there any comprehension of 8 years time loss.

Do you people know that----Napoleon lost his major battle, BECAUSE HIS FLANK WAS LATE BY ONE MINUTE IN MOVING INTO ACTION---.

If you read the posters post again--he clearly mentions about the grippen then and jf now.

Next thing is---specs are meaningless in a manner----just because the specs of a HYUNDAI SONATA are the same as a HONDA ACCORD, does it put it at the same level of quality in material and workmanship, service and reliability of operation, safety---absolutely not.

Some of you are engineering students---put your thinking caps on---think and act like and engineer.

Just because two different nations are manufacturing a similiar equipment---doesnot mean that the quality is the same.

 

[sancho]

Hi,

Sir, as a thread started, it becomes your responsibility to take charge and put forward your analysis---...

Hi MastanKhan, I guess nobody says that JF 17 would be generally the better fighter and you also might have a point that PAF at the moment has not an equal response to IAF new fighters. Anyway even from an Indian point of view, PAF did the right move to go to a sanction prove fighter in numbers as a workhorse.
Didn't PAF had trouble with spares for the F16 during sanctions too? So if they had gone with a fighter that has a high content of US parts in 2002, they would be fully dependend on the US and even more vulnerable. China instead gave you a safe alternative and even if it isn't as good as a comparable Gripen, PAF could at least add 2 JF 17 for one Gripen right?

Personally I think, PAF should have gone with Gripen C/D instead of F16 B52, because they use most of the same US weapons anyway and PAF might have get some ToT from a western fighter too (possibly of the PS-05/A radar, which now would be useful for JF 17 too, maybe there would have been even a chance for a co-developed AESA). More F16 instead was the more cost-effective choice, because PAF already had the logistics for them, but there was nothing else where PAF could gain from.

 

[Comet]

@MK

You are Bang on Target.

The biggest concern for me is the time and cost it takes for maintenance because in peace time, cost matters and in war time, time matters. We already have less aircrafts than IAF and if we have 1/3rd of our fleet in maintenance then we are doomed.

But what I like about JF-17 against Grippen is the cost factor. We are saving some real good money that can further be utilized in R&D.

Yes we are approx 8 years late, but we'll cover our time in a few years.

 

[razgriz19]

i heard gripen was offered to PAF during 1990s but because we were under sanctions by US we couldn't get it...

 

[gogbot]

SAAB Gripen has superior manoeuvrability by design.

In designing the aircraft, several layouts were studied. Saab ultimately selected a canard design with relaxed stability. The canard configuration gives a high onset of pitch rate and low drag, enabling the aircraft to be faster, have longer range and carry a larger payload.

the Relaxed stability design gives the Aircraft more manoeuvrability , by making it highly unstable , thus it is quicker to turn . It in turn used he Canards as regulators for balance when needed.

The same concept is used , to more a extreme level on the Euro fighter , that is why it has such agility.

and before you rubbish RSS

The YF-16 was the world’s first aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable. This technique, called "relaxed static stability" (RSS), was incorporated to further enhance the aircraft’s maneuver performance. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, which induces an aircraft to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to remain in its current attitude opposes the pilot’s effort to maneuver; on the other hand, an aircraft with negative static stability will, in the absence of control input, readily deviate from level and controlled flight. Therefore, an aircraft with negative static stability will be more maneuverable than one that is positively stable. When supersonic, a negatively stable aircraft actually exhibits a more positive-trending (and in the F-16’s case, a net positive) static stability due to aerodynamic forces shifting aft between subsonic and supersonic flight. At subsonic speeds, however, the fighter is constantly on the verge of going out of control.

 

[Quwa]

Supposedly there will no sensor fusion between the PAF's Erieye and ZDK03 AEW&C systems (as per latest AFM). Given the high number of JF-17s involved in PAF's modernization plans, there is a possibility that a few squadrons will be equipped to operate with Erieye & F-16 while others with ZDK03 and FC-20. Should such a configuration be pursued, then Link-16 is certainly an option for JF-17. A high-end avionics, radar, ECM/EW, etc, package will certainly bridge the gap with Gripen in many respects.

As for comparing current JF-17 with Gripen-C/D, then we'll need to see specific stats with regards to each fighter's radar, ECM/EW, avionics, weapons-system, etc.

 

[F86 Saber]

What people don't realize is that Gripen would have been prone to two different types of sanctions, 1. The US sanctions and 2. The Swedish sanctions. Looking at the current scenario we can negotiate with USA as we are their "Partners in War on Terror". But even if we are temporarily safe from the ever lurking danger of US sanctions for the time being, the Swedes have imposed a ban on sales of all kinds of defense sales to Pakistan. Now imagine had we gone for Gripen in 2002 and had been operating 2-3 squadrons of it, where would we be standing?

At least with F-16's we have only the US sanctions to worry about.

There are two scenarios for us right now,

1. There will be a war between India and Pakistan in the coming 10 years (Not a small scale conflict which we have already ruled out).
In this case we should immediately acquire EF2000/Rafael/F-15/Gripen otherwise PAF's wrong decisions in the past will come back to haunt them.

But on the other hand

2. If there isn't a war for the next 10-15 years, wouldn't that be enough time for JF-17 to evolve into a true 4th generation multirole fighter? Wouldn't that be enough time to evaluate and induct FC-20? PAF will operate 4-4.5 generation planes with no fear of sanctions and in good numbers.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

People you are missing the point that the thread starter was making. The condition is of no sanctions----period---the condition is no sanctions----.

There is nothing further to discuss under those conditions. Only a fool will let go of the grippen and go for jf 17.

Pak was an extremely serious contender for the grippen----they spent close to 2 years analyzing that plane.

Open purchase and no sanctions would have meant that the jf 17 project would have been scrubbed.

Paf would have been a 110% contender for that plane under the thread starters conditions.

 

[Aslan]

Hi,

Sir, as a thread started, it becomes your responsibility to take charge and put forward your analysis---

Thank you for your balanced analysis like always, one thing I would like to point to is that the only reason I had started this thread is that allot of people advocate one AC over other. And I wanted to get their POV to understand why.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Khalidali,

It is always fascinating ot notice that the mind reads something different than what the eyes see.

You clearly mentioned the condition----NO SANCTIONS----open field day.

Even though I have been extremely critical of the PAF about their procurement---it is open knowledge that the grippen was the aircraft of choice for the PAF. That aircraft fit the profile of the paf like a hand in a glove---.

The reason the paf didnot buy it---if you go by the interview of the ex paf chief---he stated 'we cannot absorb the technology'---now the question is that was he being truthful---or after two years of testing the plane and finally deciding to get it----the swedes said we can't sell it to you---so was that statement from the ACM a face saving statement----it could be.

The u s decided that it would sell pakistan the F 16's or the F 18's---and no sweden cannot sell their aircraft---u s did indeed bless the sale of the eyeriye---but not that of the grippen---otherwise---we would have been driving saabs.

Any honda / toyota / saab / bmw owners on this board---would you buy a chinese car?