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

[cyphercide]

from what i've read the Gripen did not meet some of the IAF's main standards especially in the field for a AESA radar, we did not want it because it did not fit our standards or qualities that the IAF procurement brass had issued

Gripen is a good fighter don't underestimate its actually very similar to our LCA in terms of engine thrust, thrust to weight, service ceiling hard points etc its a good fighter jet

Nope.The Gripen was not chosen as a MRCA podium finisher because it's single-engined.A single-engined jet cannot successfully carry out the functionality of a multirole fighter aircraft without modifications.

External fuel tanks for longer flight durations would have to be fitted for the Gripen to attain a multirole purpose and hence it would lead to a lower weapons payload,higher RCS,higher probability of interception by either ground or air radars and of course there's no additional engine to fall back on if the primary engine gives out.

The Swedes are extremely honorable people with no hard feelings at all(They have sending Gripens for tenders since 2008).The Gripen NG is a potent jet(better than the LCA on paper),just not what India is looking for right now.

 

[Psyxjen]

A single-engined jet cannot successfully carry out the functionality of a multirole fighter aircraft without modifications.

Beg pardon?

 

[ziaulislam]

you are right rd 33 from which rd 93 is derived is crappy engine developed in 84 yet for some unknown reason is widly used and most accepted russian engine..and even the indians use this faulty engine...mr deathtocorruption was chief engineer in the project..he is thus a very credible source....

 

[ziaulislam]

for india grippen lacked range nothing else...
f-16 are considered as best multirole aircraft ever produced and most ever used in combact..so single engine isnt an issue..
small countries want a single engine...larger countries like double engine mainly due to range and payload issue..
which we dont have..

 

[ziaulislam]

105km vs 120 km
RCS 1m2 vs 3m2

 

[cyphercide]

Beg pardon?

You have been pardoned.lol.What's your question?

 

[ziaulislam]

last adition is block 2 of jf-17 is upcoming..
also many sources claim range of KLJ7 to be greater than 105 km and many sources claim zhuk me to be around 110 km..so even these ranges are approximate..
Zhuk-ME

currently many of your mig29 have much inferior radar..see the article on link ...it also state the range from 110-120..

regardlessly this has been extensively discussed in the thread
http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/87290-klj-7-radar-thunder.html

 

[cyphercide]

Technically,Any aircraft with canons(for air to air combat) and hardpoints for gravity bombs(for air to surface combat)for qualifies as a MRCA.However, the generally accepted definition of an MRCA has to reach targets deep inside enemy territory,carry out it's mission and return safely to base and hence has to have a big internal fuel tank to furnish it's flight.A single-engined jet has a comparatively smaller fuel tank and to tackle this problem,you would need to;

A. Have an aircraft carrier that will physically move the jets closer to the target.

B. Designate refueling tankers for every 5-7 fighter jets to fly on the mission which would be unfeasible and not to mention suicidal to employ on countries with extensive radar and AWACS systems.

C. Concentrate aerial assaults to the locations that are close-by and hope the airbases located away will not respond.

D. Having external fuel pods to be carried on hardpoints on the jet's exterior

Of the viable options, option D would be most practical and feasible one for countries that do not operate fleets of aircraft carriers and employ single-engined jets. But it comes with a compromise of having a lower weapons payload,higher RCS,higher probability of interception by enemy ground radars or aircraft and if you do get shot at you might lose the entire jet due to it's single-engine.

Twin-engined aircraft have an edge in this field since they have a larger internal fuel tank, can creatively conserve jet fuel by the option of flying the jet on single engine or dual engine mode.That gives them a longer range to carry out operations without the requirement of external fuel pods.If required,they can carry external fuel pods creatively as using the fuel pods to fly towards the mission and dumping them before entering enemy territory.This wouldn't be possible on the single-engined jet because it wouldn't be able to hold the fuel elsewhere other than the designated smaller internal tank and would be forced to keep its fuel pods for the duration of the mission.

For these said reasons, almost all prominent combat aircraft or or prototype is twin-engined(F-22 Raptor,Chengdu J-20,Sukhoi PAK-FA,Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafales etc.).Single-engined jets have the upper hand in maneuverability,ease of operation, and dog-fighting skills if it comes to that but for modern day warfare,twin-engined fighters are a must.

 

[Tempest II]

Technically,Any aircraft with canons(for air to air combat) and hardpoints for gravity bombs(for air to surface combat)for qualifies as a MRCA.However, the generally accepted definition of an MRCA has to reach targets deep inside enemy territory,carry out it's mission and return safely to base and hence has to have a big internal fuel tank to furnish it's flight.A single-engined jet has a comparatively smaller fuel tank and to tackle this problem,you would need to;.

Is India not looking for an Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (=MMRCA) instead of just a Muti-Role Combat Aircraft (= MRCA)?. I believe most planes lately are coming as multirole anyway, therefore the Gripens, LCAs and JF-17s will all fit the MRCA.

You mention twin-engines, payload and range. I believe that is what the Medium part of the requirement if about. This then will exclude the Gripen, LCA and JF-17. F-16 has a good payload and could sneak into the Medium bracket.

F-15s and Flankers are the heavy fighters.

 

[cyphercide]

Is India not looking for an Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (=MMRCA) instead of just a Muti-Role Combat Aircraft (= MRCA)?. I believe most planes lately are coming as multirole anyway, therefore the Gripens, LCAs and JF-17s will all fit the MRCA.

You mention twin-engines, payload and range. I believe that is what the Medium part of the requirement if about. This then will exclude the Gripen, LCA and JF-17. F-16 has a good payload and could sneak into the Medium bracket.



F-15s and Flankers are the heavy fighters.

True.That's the quintessential definition of an MRCA,a jet that can carry out air to air as well as air to surface attacks and hence many jets can be classified under it.My point was to highlight the tradeoff between payload and mission flight-time that would need to be addressed in a single-engine jet bracket.One of the said factors would have to be compromised for the optimality of the other in case of a full fledged conflict.

 

[SQ8]

...
For these said reasons, almost all prominent combat aircraft or or prototype is twin-engined(F-22 Raptor,Chengdu J-20,Sukhoi PAK-FA,Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafales etc.).Single-engined jets have the upper hand in maneuverability,ease of operation, and dog-fighting skills if it comes to that but for modern day warfare,twin-engined fighters are a must.

Not a hard and fast rule.. There are twin engined jets that fall under the lightweight category.. the original F-18 hornet sits with the F-16.. and is one heck of a dogfighter..
Twin engined jets offer survivability.. in case of en engine losing power.. or redundancy in case of the types with the engines spaced further apart.
They are larger jets than their single engined counterparts(with the exception of the F-35).. which allows them to carry more.
But at what cost in maintenance and logistics?
Its more to do with aircraft design in general rather than just twin engines or single engines.

Also.. most twin engined jets NEVER shut down an engine to conserve fuel.. the smaller A-37's could do it over vietnam but it is usually never recommended for anything else.
The F-18's twin Ge-404's consume more fuel in its most efficient cruise than the single PW-100 in the F-16.
Having a lot of fuel helps.. which is why the Flanker series can almost fly intercontinental.. but at the same time.. that fuel translates into a large weight penalty. So even with more powerful engines and a comparable T/W ratio.. A F-15E still cannot match the F-15C in air combat.
A clean F-15E perhaps.. not one loaded with weapons.

 

[cyphercide]

Not a hard and fast rule.. There are twin engined jets that fall under the lightweight category.. the original F-18 hornet sits with the F-16.. and is one heck of a dogfighter..
Twin engined jets offer survivability.. in case of en engine losing power.. or redundancy in case of the types with the engines spaced further apart.
They are larger jets than their single engined counterparts(with the exception of the F-35).. which allows them to carry more.
But at what cost in maintenance and logistics?
Its more to do with aircraft design in general rather than just twin engines or single engines.

Also.. most twin engined jets NEVER shut down an engine to conserve fuel.. the smaller A-37's could do it over vietnam but it is usually never recommended for anything else.
The F-18's twin Ge-404's consume more fuel in its most efficient cruise than the single PW-100 in the F-16.
Having a lot of fuel helps.. which is why the Flanker series can almost fly intercontinental.. but at the same time.. that fuel translates into a large weight penalty. So even with more powerful engines and a comparable T/W ratio.. A F-15E still cannot match the F-15C in air combat.
A clean F-15E perhaps.. not one loaded with weapons.

Well,The maneuvers that can be undertaken on single-engined aircraft can be replicated by a twin-engined one but it has to be said that the single engined jet being lightweight holds an edge in dog-fighting(if it comes down to it).Maintenance is what I meant by ease of operation in my earlier post so that is covered.

Huh?It has been my perception that a twin-engined jet can safely switch off one engine and still maintain perfect flight.My dad was a Captain in Navy and the manipulation of engine to increase flight duration is something I've heard from many Naval pilots enumerating the advantages of the twin-engined jet.It might not be recommended but it can safely be done.

 

[SQ8]

Well,The maneuvers that can be undertaken on single-engined aircraft can be replicated by a twin-engined one but it has to be said that the single engined jet being lightweight holds an edge in dog-fighting(if it comes down to it).Maintenance is what I meant by ease of operation in my earlier post so that is covered.

Huh?It has been my perception that a twin-engined jet can safely switch off one engine and still maintain perfect flight.My dad was a Captain in Navy and the manipulation of engine to increase flight duration is something I've heard from many Naval pilots enumerating the advantages of the twin-engined jet.It might not be recommended but it can safely be done.

You can switch it off.. but its NOT recommended..
F-14 pilots used to switch off their engines until issues with restarts forced them to rethink that.
Switching off a jet engine in say a large turboprop is a little easier.. than doing the same operationally for a fighter.
Lets assume a naval scenario where the pilots have managed to switch off one engine.. and are flying a CAP.. they get a vector.. how much penalty do they pay for having to start the other engine?

As I stated in my earlier post.. it is no longer practiced operationally.. It can be done.. is different from it may be done.

 

[cyphercide]

You can switch it off.. but its NOT recommended..
F-14 pilots used to switch off their engines until issues with restarts forced them to rethink that.
Switching off a jet engine in say a large turboprop is a little easier.. than doing the same operationally for a fighter.
Lets assume a naval scenario where the pilots have managed to switch off one engine.. and are flying a CAP.. they get a vector.. how much penalty do they pay for having to start the other engine?

As I stated in my earlier post.. it is no longer practiced operationally.. It can be done.. is different from it may be done.

OK.So we agree.lol.I mean,Who better to tell you about the combat aircraft than the dudes who fly it for a living eh!

You really think that a twin-engined jet could take on a single-engined fighter in a dogfight?Of course this would move into the pure speculation category but in my opinion if you cancel out the BVR radar lock and the two jets are sufficiently close enough for a dogfight,I think the single-engined jet would take it down.All the flight demonstrations that I've seen,the single-engined jet have clean-cut routines and the twin-engined ones are quite sluggish in that area.

Like I stated earlier,pure speculation.What do you think?

 

[Psyxjen]

A single-engined jet has a comparatively smaller fuel tank and to tackle this problem,you would need to;

A. Have an aircraft carrier that will physically move the jets closer to the target.

B. Designate refueling tankers for every 5-7 fighter jets to fly on the mission which would be unfeasible and not to mention suicidal to employ on countries with extensive radar and AWACS systems.

C. Concentrate aerial assaults to the locations that are close-by and hope the airbases located away will not respond.

D. Having external fuel pods to be carried on hardpoints on the jet's exterior

Of the viable options, option D would be most practical and feasible one for countries that do not operate fleets of aircraft carriers and employ single-engined jets. But it comes with a compromise of having a lower weapons payload,higher RCS,higher probability of interception by enemy ground radars or aircraft and if you do get shot at you might lose the entire jet due to it's single-engine.

Twin-engined aircraft have an edge in this field since they have a larger internal fuel tank, can creatively conserve jet fuel by the option of flying the jet on single engine or dual engine mode.

Sir, Twin engines burn fuel as well, you see...

Twin engine jets are mostly so as they are designed to carry more payload, thus increasing their weight, and, in turn, increasing the amount of thrust needed to power them on. If the loadout on the single-engined and twin-engined jet is the same, then the twin-engined jet has an advantage... that it can carry more fuel (both as it is not fully loaded, and the fact that it has extra hardpoints for external tanks).
However, having less payload-carrying-capability should not limit the single-engined aircraft, as severely as you state, in deep strike missions.

Furthermore, I don't think it is standard practice in heavy-fighter equipped Airforces to switch off one engine in flight... I maybe wrong though. But even then, in case of a missile hit, the chances of survival for both types of aircraft are based on sheer luck.