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

[desiman]

So wats the result...which plane is better...JF17 or Grippen....??? if they face each other and with same conditions like Awacs.. and same pilots skills...who will turn out to be the winner..??

The Griphen already has a well matured and technologically superior avionics suit and a much better support staff behind it. It incorporates the best of European tech and is made for export. The JF-17 is a good jet but cannot be compared to the Griphen in any way. It lacks a credible engine and avionics suit and until that happens, the Griphen is way ahead. Pilot skills make a difference when comparable jets take on each other but skill cannot make up for huge technological gaps. The JF-17 needs time and significant investment.

 

[Donatello]

The Griphen already has a well matured and technologically superior avionics suit and a much better support staff behind it. It incorporates the best of European tech and is made for export. The JF-17 is a good jet but cannot be compared to the Griphen in any way. It lacks a credible engine and avionics suit and until that happens, the Griphen is way ahead. Pilot skills make a difference when comparable jets take on each other but skill cannot make up for huge technological gaps. The JF-17 needs time and significant investment.

Please give the details on the "HUGE" technological gap between the JF-17 and the Gripen, other than your ego, ofcourse.

 

[desiman]

Please give the details on the "HUGE" technological gap between the JF-17 and the Gripen, other than your ego, ofcourse.

please go read specs of the Griphen before you ask me, if you cant argue properly dont get personal. You can also tell me how there is no huge technological gap between the two. You wont be looking for an avionics suit from France if there was no gap between the two. As I said before the JF-17 needs time to mature so I dont know why your getting so emotional.

 

[SQ8]

Gripen..
better radar..(for now)..proven weaponry..apart from the winder which the JF will use as well.
Jf-17
Unproven radar..inferior in A2G
Similar data bus..and Link 16 can be added as per customer req.
Both employ open architecture..
Both display a short take off run..
Both designed to use emergency roadways.

Staff req presented at same time.
JF-17 lays stagnant for almost 18 years.
Gripen..first flight.. 88..twenty two years to mature..
Jf-17.. first flight..2003..eight years in testing.

Gripen fully integrated into swedens national defense by 98...without any A2G modes or software.

by contrast..the JF-17 is fully operational within 8 years of the prototype flying for using all dumb A2G ordnance..and is cleared for use with all Chinese AAM,the winder..and one unspecified AAM.

However..motivation is another factor.. by the early 90's..Sweden's primary threat was gone.. Pakistan's..is still there..and growing.
the JF-17 by

 

[Mani2020]

please go read specs of the Griphen before you ask me, if you cant argue properly dont get personal. You can also tell me how there is no huge technological gap between the two. You wont be looking for an avionics suit from France if there was no gap between the two. As I said before the JF-17 needs time to mature so I dont know why your getting so emotional.

Firstly we are not looking for french avionics now as was stated in ACM interview posted in another thread

Secondly looking or getting avionics suit from france doesnot mean or prove that jf-17 is inferior to Gripen .

Israel replaced many systems from f-16's by homemade ones, does it mean that we should conclude that f-16 with american configuration is inferior to gripen or israeli ones?

jf-17 may have been inferior to gripen but Better you should provide us with some inside if you really have ,if your inside will worth accepting we will happily accept it.this is not a way to prove a point

 

[sathya]

Type : JF-17
Dimensions:
Length- 14.9m. Height= 4.77m Width = 9.46m Wing Area = 24.4m²
Weights:
Empty Weight=6,411kg Maximum Take-Off Weight=12,474kg
Loaded Weight=9,072kg Maximum Landing Weight= 7,802kg
Fuel Weight=2,268kg
Engines:Type Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine
Number of Engines = One
Dry Thrust=49.4kN
Thrust After Burner =84.4kN
Performance:
Maximum Speed
1,909km per hour
Ferry Range=2,037km
Operational Radius= 1,352km
Service Ceiling =15,240m
Armament:
Guns = 1 x 2 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon
Rockets =57mm, 90mm unguided rocket pods
Air-to-Air Missiles
Short range: AIM-9L/M, PL-5E, PL-9C Beyond visual range: PL-12 / SD-10
Air-to-Surface Missiles
MAR-1 anti-radiation missile, AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile, and Ra'ad ALCM cruise missile
Bombs
Unguided bombs: Mk-82, Mk-84 general purpose bombs, Matra Durandal anti-runway bomb, and CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye anti-armour cluster bomb Precision guided munitions: GBU-10, GBU-12, LT-2 laser-guided bombs, H-2, H-4 electro-optically guided, LS-6 satellite-
Others
3 x external fuel drop tanks for extended range

JAS-39 Gripen Specifications
Version JAS-39 A
Manufacturer(s) Saab
Country Sweden
Role fighter / attack / reconaissance
Powerplant Volvo Aero RM 12 (General Electric F404J) (1x)
Thrust 80,0kN 18.000 lbs (with afterburner)
Length 14.1m 46.3ft Height 4.70m 15.5ft Wingspan 8.4m 26.3ft
Weight Approx. 6.500kg 14,600 lbs (empty)
Speed Mach 1.15 (1400km/h) at sea level; close to Mach 2
Range n/a
Ceiling 50,000ft 15km
Crew 1 (two in JAS-39B)

 

[Donatello]

The Griphen already has a well matured and technologically superior avionics suit and a much better support staff behind it. It incorporates the best of European tech and is made for export. The JF-17 is a good jet but cannot be compared to the Griphen in any way. It lacks a credible engine and avionics suit and until that happens, the Griphen is way ahead. Pilot skills make a difference when comparable jets take on each other but skill cannot make up for huge technological gaps. The JF-17 needs time and significant investment.

You are again posting the usual better this better that.

JF-17 needs time to mature? What do you mean by that? It is already inducted and PAF is already employing it in A2G roles to test it further. Remember how PAF Helped the Chinese sort out the ground clutter issue on the F-7s?

I mean, how many combats has the Gripen seen? Please list any.


Just because it was designed long ago and has been sitting there, without evident A2A or A2G kills, doesn't mean it matured.


JF-17 was pressed into service the moment it was inducted.


I think the best choice PAF has, isthe choice to continually improve the software of JF-17 computers and employ more weapons.

 

[silent hawk]

The Grippen costs more than 50 million US$ per aircraft while the JF-17 costs 15 million US$ per aircraft.

Both the Grippen and the JF-17 have max g limits of 9G and thrust to weight ratios of just under 1.0 hence the primary difference is in avionics.

We cannot indigenously upgrade the avionics of the Grippen but we can upgrade the avionics of the JF-17.

The Avionics of the J-10 is as good as that of Grippen and this technology can easily be ported into the JF-17

By block 3 JF-17 is likely to have avionics as good as Grippen at less than half the price tag.

We can sell the JF-17 to generate revenue , we cannot sell the Grippen

They above stated facts should be sufficient arguments to prove that choosing Thunder over Grippen was the correct decision.

 

[Yeti]

Gripen is fully net centric and now has the General Electric F414G engines which will increase its performance. Another benefit is that the plane can take take off and land on public roads, saab has also just test fired the new Meteor missile.

 

[Safriz]

The short take off and landing may not be necessary requirement for Pakistan...Atthe heart of Grippen's initial design wast the Swedish fear of being overrun by Soviet Forces,and that they may not have any runways left to launch a retaliation...Thats why they designed planes for Motorway landing and Build motorways around that concept...Why do you think many Swedish Motorways dont have light poles and no trees nearby?

JF-17 was built on a different concept,and there was adifferent fear at the hart of the design...The fear of embargo...And the designers aced it by making the plane highly modifiable according to whatever off the shelf parts are available...
How many planes can take in so many different types of avionics and Engines without major fuselage modifications and redesign?

In my opinion comparing JF-17 and Grippen is Flawed because both planes were built around very different concepts.

 

[Indian-Devil]

There is no doubt Grippen and Jf-17 belong to different leauges and meant for different requirements. JF-17 is a low cost replacement for PAF's vintage aircrafts or for exporting those countries who cant afford costly Aircrafts. While Grippen is quiet advanced fighter and one generation ahead of JF-17. Grippen NG looks in very good shape and improved from old versions in every aspects. It has state of the art avoinics and mostly western/european armaments while JF-17 has mostly chineese avoinics and armaments.
Grippen is better than JF-17 in most of the areas if you take powerplant, avoinics, armaments, radar etc.
In next blocks Jf-17 should be in better shape, but that will take time.

 

[silent hawk]

Gripen is fully net centric and now has the General Electric F414G engines which will increase its performance. Another benefit is that the plane can take take off and land on public roads, saab has also just test fired the new Meteor missile.

The JF-17 through the tactical data link also is net centric capable. As far as takeoff and landing on public roads is concerned this is a capability which PAF has had for quite some time now.

 

[Yeti]

I heard that the gripen has one of the lowest turn around times and can be refueled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes that would be of great benefit in a war situation as you can scatter the Gripen around the country due to it being able to land and take off from public roads as your enemey would target military air bases and airstrips in the first act of any war so this could be a good defence.

 

[Safriz]

I heard that the gripen has one of the lowest turn around times and can be refueled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes that would be of great benefit in a war situation as you can scatter the Gripen around the country due to it being able to land and take off from public roads as your enemey would target military air bases and airstrips in the first act of any war so this could be a good defence.

What you heard is true and yes Grippen has a very low turnaround time,and need only a few people to refuel and rearm.
But then it was a Soviet era planning from Sweden's military planners who calculated and blatantly told their military leaders during the Finnish war that if the USSR turns towards Sweden,they will have no chance of stopping them,and will have to resort to guerrilla war.
As a result Grippen was built according to that scenario...But then similarly all the infrastructure of sweden's airforce logistics is based on that concept...Their bases are scattered allover the country,and in addition to that they have remote and numerous small units for Aircraft rearming and refueling...There is a whole system in place to use the Grippen's capability to land on public roads and refuel in forests..
Does Pakistan has any such system in place? I don't think so..
Above all,will Pakistan ever risk being over run by an unstoppable Military force who will destroy all of her Airbases to the level that Airforce will have to retreat to forests and mountains? Thats never going to happen...For all those reasons,Pakistan does not need an aircraft with such capabilities.
If IAF rises to such unstoppable strenth,which they haven't yet..the Pakistan may start looking for "A refuel in the jungle" aircraft...but that time hasn't come yet.
Turnaround times can make a difference...Better crew training and small tweaks to existing procedures can cut down the Refueling and Rearming time to almost the same level as Grippen.
For major repairs,such as Engine overhauls,Grippen or not,all aircrafts have to go the shed..No exceptions.

 

[Safriz]

There is no doubt Grippen and Jf-17 belong to different leauges and meant for different requirements. JF-17 is a low cost replacement for PAF's vintage aircrafts or for exporting those countries who cant afford costly Aircrafts. While Grippen is quiet advanced fighter and one generation ahead of JF-17. Grippen NG looks in very good shape and improved from old versions in every aspects. It has state of the art avoinics and mostly western/european armaments while JF-17 has mostly chineese avoinics and armaments.
Grippen is better than JF-17 in most of the areas if you take powerplant, avoinics, armaments, radar etc.
In next blocks Jf-17 should be in better shape, but that will take time.

If by "Next block JF-17" you mean a redesigned? Pakistan will not need Next block JF-17 for upgrades...Its just a matter of getting hold of better engines,avionics and weapons systems and "Slotting them in" and hey presto The aircraft is upgraded.This wont take time? or will it?