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

[syedali73]

Gripen is prone to sanctions due to US engine and some avionics

Regardless of whether sanction-prone or not, when we already have something in the similar category albeit relatively less potent, why would we even consider Gripen? We need to move on now and think about getting something like J-11 or 5th gen J-31. I don't even know why this thread is still open.

 

[Battle Axe]

6 Years old thread...this particular topic has been discussed to death. Pakistan wanted once this particular platform but when US signed a contract with Pakistan to sell it's Block 52 Vipers, Pakistan dropped that option. Other major factors were the fantastic evolution of our Thunders, which has been the best thing ever happened with PAF, and many other choices from the Chinese origin opened up for us.

However, just 18 landed till now. Hope, the tally can double or triple (too good to be true) and then we will be upto Rafale challenge.

 

[Windjammer]

CHINESE AFICIONADO, XIN LINGYU, SAYS “EVEN THE BASELINE JF-17 THUNDER BLOCK 1 IS MORE MANOEUVREABLE THAN THE GRIPEN C/D”

The empty weight of JF-17 Block I is 6411, while JAS-39 C/D is 6800 kg; the thrust for RD-93 is 8700 kgf (according to the news about FC-31 which use the same engines as JF-17)while JAS-39 C/D used RM-12, is 8214 kgf.

If the two take the same payload of 3,000 kg, then the T/W ratio for JF-17 Block I is 0.92, while JAS-39 C/D is 0.84, so there is a huge gap as JF-17 will win in a dogfight for sure.

 

[Blue Marlin]

CHINESE AFICIONADO, XIN LINGYU, SAYS “EVEN THE BASELINE JF-17 THUNDER BLOCK 1 IS MORE MANOEUVREABLE THAN THE GRIPEN C/D”

The empty weight of JF-17 Block I is 6411, while JAS-39 C/D is 6800 kg; the thrust for RD-93 is 8700 kgf (according to the news about FC-31 which use the same engines as JF-17)while JAS-39 C/D used RM-12, is 8214 kgf.

If the two take the same payload of 3,000 kg, then the T/W ratio for JF-17 Block I is 0.92, while JAS-39 C/D is 0.84, so there is a huge gap as JF-17 will win in a dogfight for sure.

where's the source to verify that? the gripe can take quiet a lot in terms of payload and can bet equiped in many configurations for differant scenarios

 

[Windjammer]

where's the source to verify that? the gripe can take quiet a lot in terms of payload and can bet equiped in many configurations for differant scenarios

We are not exactly discussing load carrying capacity of respective aircraft, rather the performance vis-a-vis at same gross weight.

 

[khanasifm]

Love the ad

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

we never asked for gripen, gripen C and thunder are identical aircrafts

Yes, You were...
When Musharraf visited Sweden in 2004, Pakistan wanted to discuss buying 40 Gripen
"since they were better than the F-16".
They were told to forget it, but EriEye was OK.

http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2004-06-19/pakistan-vill-kopa-40-jas-plan

 

[MastanKhan]

Yes, You were...
When Musharraf visited Sweden in 2004, Pakistan wanted to discuss buying 40 Gripen
"since they were better than the F-16".
They were told to forget it, but EriEye was OK.

http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2004-06-19/pakistan-vill-kopa-40-jas-plan

Hi,

You maybe given the wrong info----the goal of the paf was to test drive the Gripen and get all the info to build their own aircraft---and that is what happened---.

Even though Gripen might no want to admit it---the JF17 has a lots of influence from the Gripen.

Gen Mushy's comments might have been---' we are thinking of around 40 aircraft '----.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Hi,

You maybe given the wrong info----the goal of the paf was to test drive the Gripen and get all the info to build their own aircraft---and that is what happened---.

Even though Gripen might no want to admit it---the JF17 has a lots of influence from the Gripen.

Gen Mushy's comments might have been---' we are thinking of around 40 aircraft '----.

Pakistan stated an interest to buy, and were politely denied.
Whether they actually wanted to buy or not is unimportant
to answer the question, whether Gripen E is available for Pakistan or not.

 

[MastanKhan]

Bhai are you comparing induction of Thunders with SU 35? We are planning to induct 150 if not more JF-17s, this is the economy of sclae, how can we compare that with induction of 2 squardons of SU-35. And Thunders have provided PAF and PAC with immense knowledge, experience and technical skills and saved a lot of foreign reserves as well. Are the Russians willing to put an assembley line here in Kamra, there is no comparison between the two situations.

And what is stopping US from giving Indians better missiles and counter-measures even if we don't get those F-16s.

In 1999 Pakistan was one of the most sanctioned country in the world. We did not have any BVR capability and even if we would have followed any other path instead of F-16s like the Mirage 2000s from France we would not have been provided the BVR capability. So let's suppose we got Mirage 2000 in 80's instead of F-16's, do you think the US would have allowed France to provide us with that top of line techonology of the time when we were under heavy sanctions. Getting old and obsolete Mirage III/V is one thing BVR is another.

50 SU 35's ?? With each of the plane itself costing around $ 65 Million how many can we actually afford. And don't just take the cost of a fly-away plane, there are numerous other costs that you have to keep in mind when inducting a new platform. As was in the Rafale case for India, the fly-away cost is about $ 100 Million but the deal that France was proposing meant India would have got each plane for about $ 300 Million, which they now have lowered to $ 220 Million.

Chinese bought 24 SU 35s for more than 2 Billion dollars and that is the initial cost that they will be paying to the Russians and does not include the infrastructure and other costs.

So these 50 SU 35's that you are proposing can easily cost us around $ 5 Billlion, do you think we have that much money, and there will be recurring expenses as well that PAF will have to cover from their meager annual budget. Again we dropped the idea of 8 F-16 Block 52s because we can not pay 700 Million dollors for them. With the Russian economy growing at about 0.4 percent I don't think they will afford giving a soft loan for this.

And besides who told you they are serious in selling us those planes. In their right mind that will suicidal as India is still one of the largest importer of Russian hardware and will remain so for decade or more even with all the western goodies that they are getting. Selling us their top of the line stuff will be a monumental shift in Russian policy and it does not seem plausible. Indians have much deeper pockets than we have so it does not make sense for Russia to antagonize them.

Sir,

France never had any problems selling weapons to pakistan. The sanction was from the US and american weapons.

The early 90 mirage m2k's that were available to pakistan were more advanced that any that india had---and would have stayed so for awhile.

France had no objections on selling BVR capability.

If you are so worried about financing---then make a proposal for eternal peace with India.

One cannot fight a war and cry for funding as well. Wars are expensive and getting ready for war is more expensive.

Pakistan stated an interest to buy, and were politely denied.
Whether they actually wanted to buy or not is unimportant
to answer the question, whether Gripen E is available for Pakistan or not.

Hi,

That was the proposal that paf made when it flight tested all the parameters of the Gripen. It is incorrect that Gripen was rejected---. If such was the case---Paf would not have been given access to the Gripen---and that was for awhile that pakistani pilots looked at the aircraft.

But paf's interest was not in the Gripen---they wanted to build their own Gripen---and just wanted access to the aircraft---.

Between the JF17 BLK2 and Gripen C----there is hardly any difference---.

I whould wait and see when the BLK 3 comes out and then compare it to the Gripen E---.

But there is no doubt that the Gripen E is going to be a very potent aircraft---.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Hi,
That was the proposal that paf made when it flight tested all the parameters of the Gripen. It is incorrect that Gripen was rejected---. If such was the case---Paf would not have been given access to the Gripen---and that was for awhile that pakistani pilots looked at the aircraft.

But paf's interest was not in the Gripen---they wanted to build their own Gripen---and just wanted access to the aircraft---.
Between the JF17 BLK2 and Gripen C----there is hardly any difference---.
I whould wait and see when the BLK 3 comes out and then compare it to the Gripen E---.
But there is no doubt that the Gripen E is going to be a very potent aircraft---.

Fact remains that Musharraf wanted to discuss the purchase of 40 Gripen with the Swedish Government...
SAAB might have been interested and allowed Pakistani pilots to fly,
but it is the Swedish Government that makes the final decision.

When comparing the aircrafts, what would be the result of a long time conflict between two air forces,
spending 5B$ on JF-17 or Gripen? The air force choosing JF-17 will initially have more planes.

The Meteor missile and superior radar range would for starters establish a healthy kill ratio for Gripen.
In dogfights, the Gripen looks like it can outturn the JF-17 without problems.

One of the key factors allowing Swedish Pilots to win in Top Gun is the Man Machine Interface,
which they claim is the best in the world, allowing them to concentrate on fighting,
instead of on flying, so JF-17 pilots are likely to run into information overload way before Gripen pilots.

This includes the superior datalink between Gripen aircrafts, allowing one aircraft to act like an AWACS
for other Gripen which runs without activated radar.

While the air force getting JF-17 will be able to get more aircraft, the fast turnaround time of the Gripen
will allow a higher percentage of the fleet to be up in the air,at any given time.
Over time, the limited number of flight hours of the JF-17 cause attrition, reducing the theoretical numerical superiority.

 

[salarsikander]

Over time, the limited number of flight hours of the JF-17 cause attrition, reducing the theoretical numerical superiority.

And exactly how? Cna you shed some light on that ?

 

[C130]

I like the Gripen, but from what I have read it is super expensive to buy and fly compared to the first version of Gripen why is that??

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

And exactly how? Cna you shed some light on that ?

The sources I have seen state the number of flight hours for the JF-17 to be 4,000.
(That might be wrong of course)
Gripen is designed for 8,000 flight hours.

I like the Gripen, but from what I have read it is super expensive to buy and fly compared to the first version of Gripen why is that??

Sweden estimate the cost to be ~72M$ Per plane.
I have not seen any data for cost per flight hour

 

[C130]

The sources I have seen state the number of flight hours for the JF-17 to be 4,000.
(That might be wrong of course)
Gripen is designed for 8,000 flight hours.



Sweden estimate the cost to be ~72M$ Per plane.
I have not seen any data for cost per flight hour

I wouldn't be surprised if Gripen could do 12,000 flight hours

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...6-fighter-jet-could-fly-92-years-theory-14290