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

[Yoron]

I would have liked to link my statements but one have to make fifteen posts before being allowed to do so. But here's another tidbit you might like. As we're also discussing 'stealth', and all Swedish.

"Details of a formerly secret project to defend Swedish airspace against stealthy cruise missiles using a radical but inexpensive radar system were revealed at a conference in Oslo this week. The Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar (AASR) was approaching the hardware-test stage when it was cancelled in 2000 after eight years of work -- because there was no imminent cruise-missile threat any more. It has only recently been declassified and this was one of the first open, formal briefings on the project.

The AASR was designed to take advantage of the principle that a target's bistatic radar cross section -- where the radar receiver and transmitter are in different places -- may be affected minimally or not at all by stealth measures aimed at conventional radars. In particular, it exploits the "shadow" RCS behind the target, which depends entirely on the target's geometrical cross-section. The radar was also designed to operate in the UHF band where radar absorbent material (RAM) is less effective.

Developer Hans Hellsten of Saab Microwave Systems told the conference that the AASR used a number of novel techniques. Each transmitter would transmit on stepped frequencies so that receivers could tell where a signal came from. This made it possible to determine the length of the signal path, so that if a signal was picked up at several nodes it was possible to determine the target's location precisely.

One disadvantage: the transmitter and receiver had to be on opposite sides of the target, so it could not be detected until it had entered the defended airspace. To get around that problem and still intercept targets in a timely manner, Swedish planners expected to exploit the system's accuracy -- it could locate targets within 1.5 m -- and command-guide a high-speed missile on to the target.

But because the system used range rather than bearing to locate its targets, the antennas did not need to have accurate bearing resolution. Also, the system's use of UHF, its independence from target RCS and the fact that bistatic systems have long pulse times meant that the necessary power was modest.

The result was a price that caused sharp intakes of breath among the delegates. Each of the 900 nodes was expected to cost no more than 1 million Swedish kroner (about $156,000) and the entire system would be in the 1 billion kroner ($156 million) realm -- pretty much chickenfeed by defense standards.

Moreover, trying to destroy an air defense radar with 900 distributed apertures is an exercise in futility. The grid pattern does not have to be continuous, and the designers intended to emplace the modules using the same techniques that are used to locate cell phone base stations.

We've seen many anti-stealth ideas come and go over the years, such as the UK's cell-phone radar concept or the Russian Nagira high-powered radar. But AASR is the first advertised system-level attack on stealth to emerge from a full-up combat radar house -- and these are the people -- the former Ericsson Microwave, acquired by Saab in June 2006 -- who produced the world's first airborne AESA and notched up a number of other firsts over the years."

From Military.com
==

I saw someone stating that Gripen used 9 G
This one is from Robban.

"The Gripens max allowable AoA is 26 deg. The Gripen has flown controllably up to at least 110 deg AoA during tests. The Draken and Viggen could both do the so called cobra maneuver. Compared to these two the aerodynamics on the Gripen is more advanced, and its handling and maneuverability quite superior. AFAIK, the Gripen pilot cannot pull through the "stops" and achieve higher AoA's, but he/she can pull through the 9G stop and get 12G should he need it. Gripens G build up is 6G/sec, and in some cases even 12G/sec. I read this in a RSwAF news magazine called "Flygvapennytt" 10 years ago. I need to dig it up! I wonder how the JF-17 compare here?

I have seen the Gripen make such a rapid pull up that it could be mistaken for a cobra. The aircraft however continued flying straight up after the pull up, with little to no visible speed loss.

When I sat in 39.823 a couple of years back the technician told me to pull the stick to the stop. I did, and the stop was quite firm. He told me, there you have 9G. Then he told me to put some more back pressure on it. I did and all of a sudden the stick moved backwards a half an inch more. There you have 12G he said.

He pointed out another funny thing. Next to my right shoulder on the side panel there was a switch, locked by a very thin copper wire. The switch said "war" and "peace". It was locked in the peace setting. By simply breaking the wire and switch to war, he said the systems, the engine, everything in the airplane would be boosted. More thrust, longer radar detection range etc. The version D has an 8G limit, and a lower allowable AoA. Its lower level of instability makes it less snappy in pitch. Its ITR and its STR is lower than that of the C. It is slightly heavier, and the larger canopy might affect drag in a negative way. I guess roll rate is not affected as much."

When it comes to the plan crashing in Stockholm it was because of PIO (pilot induced oscillations), although created because the joystick wasn't responding as it should. They tried to blame it on the pilot first but after tests they had to call in a software specialist from the states to trim the software speaking with the plane. That as only the Americans used the system then if I remember right, and we needed their expertize in this. In February 1989 a JAS 39 Gripen prototype crashed when landing in Linköping, Sweden. Pilot-induced oscillation as a result of an over-sensitive, yet slow-response steering system was determined to be the cause. Subsequently, the steering system was redesigned.

Pilot-induced oscillation was blamed for the 1992 crash of the prototype F-22 Raptor, landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. This crash was linked to actuator rate limiting, causing the pilot, Tom Morgenfeld, to over-compensate for pitch fluctuations.

The wiki Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_JAS_39_Gripen doesn't mention that it seems? Don't know why? It's like all electronics that needs to communicate with humans, we need to find the right parameters, but Gripen has had very few crashes. In fact I think one of the lowest in the world, or the lowest?
==

This is the statistic I could find. there should be a better one, somewhere?

AIRCRAFT TYPE FIRST 90000 HOURS FIRST 213000 HOURS
AV-8A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . . 50 (Includes RAF)
A-4 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .37. . . . . . . . . 64
A-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37. . . . . . . . . 73
F-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. . . . . . . . . 79
A-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16. . . . . . . . . 33
F-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . . . . 44
F-100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39. . . . . . . . . 78
F-102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27. . . . . . . . . 38
F-104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43. . . . . . . . . 88
F-105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31. . . . . . . . . 47
F-106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15. . . . . . . . . 26
A-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08. . . . . . . . . 17
F-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .04. . . . . . . . . 15
F-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . 30

So for the Gripen. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . est ?

Two crashed during the development and evaluation phase.
A further three aircraft have crashed in service with the SwAF: 1999, 2005 and 2007.

In january 2008 the aircraft type surpassed 100 000 flight hours.
2009 surpassed 130 000 flighthours.

So counting 3 crashes to that, yep. It's fairly correct.
One of the safest you can fly.

 

[MastanKhan]

Yoron,

Thank you very much for a wonderful insight on the capabilities of the grippen.

Only people who have the first hand knowledge of the engineering capabilities of the swedes can understand and comprehend what you are saying.

Pakistan should have gone for the grippen regardless of any interference---the swedes are an engineering phenomenon like none other---their product is on a totally different pleateau---you have to have different standards to measure their quality---.

But here is what happened with pak----ater all the negotiations to get grippen---pak analyzed during Musharraf's regime that peace between pak and india was inevitable and thus the plans to get a front line aircraft were put on a back burner----. Pak kept investing in the JF 17 project---because it was very cheap---but they failed miserably as they had many a times before in undermining the threat from their main adversary.

When it became clear that there would be no peace with india---pak had lost a lot by that time and could not go back to the grippen deal even if wanted to---. The 2005 earthquake sapped all the funds away from any deal.

The jf 17 will gain maturity one day---but not for another 3---5 years time period----.

As the grippen was developed to confront the russian air force aggression---that is what pka needed---because that is what they will be facing when they go into combat.

And agian thank you for a very detailed technical post.

 

[Yoron]

Thanks MastanKhan, it's always nice to be appreciated And I've seen some bad press when it comes to Gripen. I get the feeling that some people just can't accept that a small country (10 millions about?) can build a working areocraft

Nevertheless I'm rather proud over our Gripen, and even more over our digital link system. I've discussed it before on some primary English/American sites where the response have been like trudging through the trenches :) Filled with views about most everything, except what the threads was supposed to discuss.

I found this thread refreshingly 'keeping in line' so to speak. And as it was about comparing the Thunder against Gripen I thought it an idea to give my perspective. Pakistan should buy the aircraft they get most value from for their money, and I agree that the Thunder seems a good choice.

And as you say (before in the thread I mean), there can be difficulties with export restrictions, though even if we build the engine under license and heavily modified it, it still isn't our engine. And the same may be for some of the more advanced electronic components. I'm not sure there though. when it comes to electronics the components chosen is not only chosen for being 'state of the art'. Durability and proven reliability is just as, if not more, important. We build our stuff to hold, hopefully

But it's nice being here. I've been to India twice, and, God allows, someday I will see Pakistan too. You have some of the most beautiful mountains in the world as I've heard, and women.

Ahem

 

[cw2005]

If between Jf-17 and Gripen was a bad choice, then between LCA and Gripen was a much worse choice

 

[IndianArmy]

If between Jf-17 and Gripen was a bad choice, then between LCA and Gripen was a much worse choice

Yeah, Its Hard to select between LCA and Grippen... I second that

 

[ANG]

Hi Yoron, thanks for the detailed post, as it was very informative. Also MK, thanks for the comments.

I have been lucky enought to have lived in Sweden for 3 months, in Stockholm, when I was working in international consulting. Swedish engineering is amazing, and you cannot compare Swedish engineering to that found in Pakistan. It is not a question of intelligence, but rather honestly, availability of resources, funds, and moreover a complete lack of corruption in Sweden. It is amazing what a country of only 8 million (less than a Karachi or Lahore) has achieved so much, and has some of the best international companies, like SAAB, Ericsson, Volvo, etc.

Now getting back to the topic at hand. I understand that Mushy and Co., and the PAF wanted to buy the Griphen. But Sweden in the end balked at selling it, and only allowed limited defensive weaponry exports. I am also under the impression, as I read somewhere, that Sweden has banned all future weapons sales to Pakistan. Moreover, given the engine is a US engine, the US did not allow exports to Pakistan.

In regards to the JF-17, I completely agree the JF-17 is yet to mature. The Block 2 version will bring it closer to maturity and give it more credibility, but that is about 3-4 years away. Also training air crews, ground crews, developing tactics will take a few years.

Once the JF-17 Block 2 has IRST, IFR, multi-weapons racks (already available on it), increased composites, HMD systems, publicly displayed BVR capabilities, AESA or longer range radar, higher TWR, will it then be a true world class credible fighter. I also want to caveat some or all of these features might be being tested on the plane, and we are simpy unaware of them. Time will tell for sure.

I personally believe the JF-17 is an excellent project for the PAF and Pakistan, as it brought a lot of technology in house, and has made the PAF a bit more sanction proof. Take care.

 

[Mani2020]

Yoron,

Thank you very much for a wonderful insight on the capabilities of the grippen.

Only people who have the first hand knowledge of the engineering capabilities of the swedes can understand and comprehend what you are saying.

Pakistan should have gone for the grippen regardless of any interference---the swedes are an engineering phenomenon like none other---their product is on a totally different pleateau---you have to have different standards to measure their quality---.

But here is what happened with pak----ater all the negotiations to get grippen---pak analyzed during Musharraf's regime that peace between pak and india was inevitable and thus the plans to get a front line aircraft were put on a back burner----. Pak kept investing in the JF 17 project---because it was very cheap---but they failed miserably as they had many a times before in undermining the threat from their main adversary.

When it became clear that there would be no peace with india---pak had lost a lot by that time and could not go back to the grippen deal even if wanted to---. The 2005 earthquake sapped all the funds away from any deal.

The jf 17 will gain maturity one day---but not for another 3---5 years time period----.

As the grippen was developed to confront the russian air force aggression---that is what pka needed---because that is what they will be facing when they go into combat.

And agian thank you for a very detailed technical post.

You have developed a wrong relationship here

1) Firstly Jf-17 project started way before having good relationship/peace with india ,and we were in dire need then as we were embargoed by the west ,and after spending 500 million on the project it would have been insanity to drop the project in favor of western origin aircrafts as there was always an embargo factor involved .

2) When we started Jf-17 project at that time there was not even a single sign from west to offer their aircrafts and Gripen was not an exception as it had/has various parts of US origin.

3) Even if we have asked for Gripen sweeden have never provided us at that time as you must know that our request for Erieye was denied repeatedly at that time so Gripen was nothing but a dream

4) Later on when embargoes were lifted we went for High-Tech fighters from west (and your statement regarding we had good relationship with india so we never cared about high-tech fighters is merely an illusion ) and the competitors were Gripen, Rafale and J-10 .we rejected Rafale as it was too costly ,Gripen was close to PAF but later on when US agreed to provide latest F-16's i.e block 52+ ,the deal went to F-16 as PAF was previously operating F-16's had experience as well as infra-structure and it would not have been wise decision to opt for completely new aircraft with lot of training cost and infrastructure involved.so 72 f-16's were ordered but later on the number were lessened due to FC-20 factor

5) PAF saw a great prospect in J-10 as it was cheap as well as nothing embargo like thing was there but J-10 was not upto the par at that time PAF demanded improvements and input from their side for what they now call FC-20 ,Chinese were ready to provide PAF insight of the j-0 only if PAF drops the number of F-16's and go for large number of FC-20 as a result F-16's numbers were restricted to only 18

6) According to official sources FC-20 once in service will be superior to F-16 block 52+ and that is some achievement

7) sorry to say but you have a habbit of tilting from one side to another, i have red your comments 100 of times,when somebody say jf-17 is good you say yeah its good to have self-reliance ,when somebody says f-16 is good you say PAF should have gone for large fleet of F-16's as it is a battle proven platform and now when someone provided you with a little insight of Gripen now you have tilted towards it.So MR MK with due respect do you yourself know what you want? Do you want a blend of all western fighters? or do you want anything that anybody refers ?

 

[Yoron]

Yes Ang I think our export restrictions forbids us to sell new parts if there is a war going on. We can maintain delivering spare parts though, as I think, but I'm no 'expert' on that subject.

We've have a long tradition of neutrality, been at peace for over two hundred years now. With that comes an unwillingness to seem to choose one country before another if there is upheavals, and even though our government now seems to lean towards NATO we have not made any long term commitments. Our government may try its best to make us 'choose' But we Swedes are slow movers, and, peace is not a bad thing.

It's like all fighting, all to easy to start, harder to stop.
And thanks

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Any engineer who has had any exposure to swedish machinery of any kind knows very well the high calibre and quality of the equipment---the swedes set their own standards and set the bar for others to follow in a sense.


Mani,

Thanks for your post---when you make a purchase of a major weapons system---or when you manufacture one yourself---you are not looking at what you can develop---you are looking at what it will do for you at the time of conflict---you are looking at what it brings to the table---and in what time frame---.

You see--- the time is of crucial essence---we can have a jf 17 maturing in 2015---what does it do for us---we should have been at that juncture in 2005---or maybe in the year 2000----we made errors in judgement and we keep getting behind all the time---the adversary has not been sitting stationary for the last ten years---its resource will be at a totally different pleateau---it will always be a catchup game where the runner up will be left eating dust and a time will come where there will be no place to run because the disparity in equipment and numbers would have grown so much due to the lag period.

The swedish issue about not dealing with pak defence needs just didnot materialize from nowhere---one of the reasons was the paks handling of wot and second reason was the way the swedes were handled by pak on the grippen issue---. The way pak setup the swedes with getting grippens and then walking away didnot play very well with the swedes.

Not a single jf 17 has crashed so far----is it due to the reason that it is not being put through its paces real hard---that it is not being pushed hard through the grinder---that its maximum capabilities are not being tested so far.

There is no new aircraft in the industry that has not hit the deck due to some error---either system or pilot---pak and china couldnbot have build a perfect aircraft---it is not possible---.

I want to put it on paper and say that jf 17 is only been put to service by the paf to save face---it is not 100% ready to be put into service yet---.

The reason of swede restarints is of a different issue---if pak had played its hand well against the war on terror right from the word go and made a mess of al qaeda coming into fata---sweden would not have had any issues---. With the right pressure put on the U S---the engines issue would have been resolved as well---.

Sweden made the grippen to take on the russian air craft su 27 / 30 etc---we are going to be facing the russian aircraft as well.

As for your comment in response to mine about relations with india---the information is on public domain---one of our air chief marshalls made that statement--it is here on this board somewhere---pakistan slackened off the purchase of a high tech aircaft due to the reason pak india peace deal was about to be signed---money spent on a high tech aircraft was considered wasteful----.

Please---instead of negating me just like that just because you want to---please do a little research into it---and look into the issue a little deeper---thank you---.

The jf 17 project had been going on for many a years---sometimes slow---sometimes dead---sometimes at full speed.

 

[PoKeMon]

Not a single jf 17 has crashed so far----is it due to the reason that it is not being put through its paces real hard---that it is not being pushed hard through the grinder---that its maximum capabilities are not being tested so far.

There is no new aircraft in the industry that has not hit the deck due to some error---either system or pilot---pak and china couldnbot have build a perfect aircraft---it is not possible---.

I want to put it on paper and say that jf 17 is only been put to service by the paf to save face---it is not 100% ready to be put into service yet---.

well argumented sir but is it necessary for a plane to crash to prove it has been tested to its limits. Will it not cost a pilot life just for testing or you are just talking about lab testing?
I have never heard of pakistan missiles test failing. Can I assume that they were not tested rigourously?

 

[ANG]

Dear All, not that I want this to happen, but the JF-17 has only been flying since August 2003. As the number of flights and hours increase, I am sure and unfortunately, some type of accident will occur. Take care.

 

[Silk]

Mani:
>>Any engineer who has had any exposure to swedish machinery of any kind knows very well the high calibre and quality of the equipment---the swedes set their own standards and set the bar for others to follow in a sense.


I have. It is ok. The only part they very well succeeded was SA for the pilot. The rest is nice but look at the price and the quality of maintenance you need.


MK:
>>>Thanks for your post---when you make a purchase of a major weapons system---or when you manufacture one yourself---you are not looking at what you can develop---you are looking at what it will do for you at the time of conflict---you are looking at what it brings to the table---and in what time frame---.


The reason western nations bought is cause the UA was wanting them to buy. There is zero relationship with what the airforces need and what political is decided. You are looking far to simple at these tradings.

>>>You see--- the time is of crucial essence---we can have a jf 17 maturing in 2015---what does it do for us---we should have been at that juncture in 2005---or maybe in the year 2000----we made errors in judgement and we keep getting behind all the time---the adversary has not been sitting stationary for the last ten years---its resource will be at a totally different pleateau---it will always be a catchup game where the runner up will be left eating dust and a time will come where there will be no place to run because the disparity in equipment and numbers would have grown so much due to the lag period.

You are asking China to deliver that in 2000 minus 10-15 years development? Which planet are you from? What has India achieved that much that you need a lot more? Give facts and not opinions.

>>>The swedish issue about not dealing with pak defence needs just didnot materialize from nowhere---one of the reasons was the paks handling of wot and second reason was the way the swedes were handled by pak on the grippen issue---. The way pak setup the swedes with getting grippens and then walking away didnot play very well with the swedes.

O... So you were there? Maybe it was USA forcing PAF to go back to their table. Maybe the Gripen had many strings. Ask Brazil. Maybe it was with so many other questions.

>>>Not a single jf 17 has crashed so far----is it due to the reason that it is not being put through its paces real hard---that it is not being pushed hard through the grinder---that its maximum capabilities are not being tested so far.

So you are now the pilot. Did you se how they treated it at Zuhai? Compare that to an average diplay. And you famous Gripen had already crashed several time before that it entered airshow scene.

>>>There is no new aircraft in the industry that has not hit the deck due to some error---either system or pilot---pak and china couldnbot have build a perfect aircraft---it is not possible---.

There is no such thing as perfect but you are way to negative. You brother nation India is probably perfect.

>>>I want to put it on paper and say that jf 17 is only been put to service by the paf to save face---it is not 100% ready to be put into service yet---.

Who's face? And why did Tornado IDS had no radar for years when already in service? Why is EF2000 improved with every tranche? You are totally not informed about the way the industry works.

>>>The reason of swede restarints is of a different issue---if pak had played its hand well against the war on terror right from the word go and made a mess of al qaeda coming into fata---sweden would not have had any issues---. With the right pressure put on the U S---the engines issue would have been resolved as well---.

O God.I hope Pak sends you to fight Al Qaida and destroy WMD in Irac.

>>>Sweden made the grippen to take on the russian air craft su 27 / 30 etc---we are going to be facing the russian aircraft as well.

Were they? So Gripen cold small nation is same as hot huge Pakistan?

>>>As for your comment in response to mine about relations with india---the information is on public domain---one of our air chief marshalls made that statement--it is here on this board somewhere---pakistan slackened off the purchase of a high tech aircaft due to the reason pak india peace deal was about to be signed---money spent on a high tech aircraft was considered wasteful----.

I hardly believe that.


>>>Please---instead of negating me just like that just because you want to---please do a little research into it---and look into the issue a little deeper---thank you---.

To be honest. I have never some seen writing so many opinions and presenting it as facts. A common thin for some kind of people. Reminds me of a big poster in the past.

>>>The jf 17 project had been going on for many a years---sometimes slow---sometimes dead---sometimes at full speed.

Maybe you should write the real story of the JF17.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

thunder is cheap... gripen is not...

 

[Silk]

thunder is cheap... gripen is not...

LCA is neither cheap. It is late and not capable.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi IND_PAK,

A crash not neccessarily---but the urgency that is being shown of integrating these aircraft and creating one sqdrn and going for the second one--it is at a little too fast a pace---it is like on the job training----we will hire you first and then train you for the job---.

We will manufacture it as fast as we can and put up the numbers---to look good.

The jf 17---sd 10 b---radar capable of integrating the missile---they are in development stage---through the test phase at this time---will be possibly ready in 3---4 years time frame---.

Pakistan needed this capability before 2005---we won't have it till 2015 on this aircraft---.

When you have to fight the su 30 mki---you first have to acknowledge its strength to come up with an aircraft of your own to counter it. We are not there---in time---but then su 30 would be there in much larger numbers---.

The gap would be too wide to overcome with technique and skill.