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

[kartika]

double-post

 

[kartika]

go for jf-17 yaar!
its home made,do not have much components that are sanction proof!

you may also consider buying them both,i.e,a few examples of gripen and plenty of thunder.

 

[TaimiKhan]

BUT Why did SAAB care JFT?

Gripen NG Decoy Decision Nears


Jul 21, 2010



By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
FARNBOROUGH

Saab is continuing along the road to fully defining — and will soon make an important supplier decision on — its next-generation (NG) fighter’s self-protection suite.

The Gripen NG will have a fiber-optic towed decoy as a baseline subsystem to help defeat radar-guided missile threats. A towed decoy is only an option on the current model, but the supplier choice is pending for the subsystem on the NG, says Eddy de la Motte, a Gripen International program official.

Meanwhile, Saab is currently trying out different cockpit concepts for what the avionics setup should look like. That process also is expected to wrap up soon. Having completed two trial periods with the Gripen NG demonstrator, the aircraft will now go into a layup period to be modified into an avionics testbed. The aircraft is expected to return to flight next year, de la Motte says. The demonstrator so far has logged 175 flight hours.

In turn, Gripen officials are keeping a close watch on the international marketplace, where they are tracking 17 countries for potential sales opportunities. A couple more opportunities are expected to emerge this year.

But competition remains heated, with possible new entrants such as the Chinese-Pakistani JF-17. Gripen officials say they have seen no impact from the appearance of the JF-17 on the scene yet. However, one company official acknowledges “we have to watch the JF-17 as well.”

Gripen NG Decoy Decision Nears | AVIATION WEEK

To our friends from across the border, anything coming from China or Pakistan is shiet.

So, don't waste your time in making them understand, we are happy on what we are getting, to us they are better then gripen or whatever else.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

BUT Why did SAAB care JFT?

Gripen NG Decoy Decision Nears


Jul 21, 2010



By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
FARNBOROUGH

Saab is continuing along the road to fully defining — and will soon make an important supplier decision on — its next-generation (NG) fighter’s self-protection suite.

The Gripen NG will have a fiber-optic towed decoy as a baseline subsystem to help defeat radar-guided missile threats. A towed decoy is only an option on the current model, but the supplier choice is pending for the subsystem on the NG, says Eddy de la Motte, a Gripen International program official.

Meanwhile, Saab is currently trying out different cockpit concepts for what the avionics setup should look like. That process also is expected to wrap up soon. Having completed two trial periods with the Gripen NG demonstrator, the aircraft will now go into a layup period to be modified into an avionics testbed. The aircraft is expected to return to flight next year, de la Motte says. The demonstrator so far has logged 175 flight hours.

In turn, Gripen officials are keeping a close watch on the international marketplace, where they are tracking 17 countries for potential sales opportunities. A couple more opportunities are expected to emerge this year.

But competition remains heated, with possible new entrants such as the Chinese-Pakistani JF-17. Gripen officials say they have seen no impact from the appearance of the JF-17 on the scene yet. However, one company official acknowledges “we have to watch the JF-17 as well.”

Gripen NG Decoy Decision Nears | AVIATION WEEK

they care because JF-17 is a low tech cheap 4th gen fighter poor countries who don't want to buy hi tech but expensive western fighter jets can just purchase JF-17 so it is in the competition of there Gripen which is cost effective compared to other 4th gen fighters

 

[TaimiKhan]

they care because JF-17 is a low tech cheap 4th gen fighter poor countries who don't want to buy hi tech but expensive western fighter jets can just purchase JF-17 so it is in the competition of there Gripen which is cost effective compared to other 4th gen fighters

Kindly elaborate what's low tech in JF-17 ??

 

[LiberalAtheist]

Kindly elaborate what's low tech in JF-17 ??

well first off its avionics are poor for modern standards i believe the PAF has asked france and italy for an avionics upgrade to replace the current Chinese ones on it

The radar in use now is KLJ-7 which is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10 radar used in the J-10 of Chinese Air Force. The range of the radar is 105km look up 85km look down for a target of RCS of 5 square meters, 75 kms in look-up mode and 35 km for look-down mode for a target of rcs 3 square meters. Also the radar can monitor upto 10 targets in TWS(Track While Scan) mode and engage two in BVR mode.
The radar is obsolete by today's standards and it would need serious backing by AWACS in order to put up a fight. Also the missile that the plane will use for its BVR engagements would be SD-10 which is a chinese missile with a range of 70 kms. And the radar is limited to 75 km for 3 square meter rcs target, so for smaller targets, the extra range of the missile won't come in handy.
newer aircraft coming up today like Rafale, EF, SU-35,have rcs of 1 square meter or below The KLJ-7 would not be able to detect these targets at ranges beyond 30-40 km. In combat with these aircraft, the JF-17 would be shot down even before it can detect what hit it. as most air to air combat of today would take place in BVR


The engine used in JF-17 is RD93, a modification of RD33, the same engine used in older Mig29. The engine though powerful enough is known to be lazy and not good at acceleration. Also the engine is very old and newer Migs use a newer variant RD33MK of the engine.

The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low. since most of the time the aircraft will be flying without afterburners that means the thrust to weight ratio comes out lower than .94 (which is bad)

on its airframe there is nothing really bad about the JF-17 airframe except for the fact that its all metal which means its RCS is higher and all metal airframes require more maintenance than fighters who have airframes with some kind of carbon fibers or composites

bottom line it uses a old faulty russian engine, substandard avionics, that makes it low tech albeit cost effective

look i'm not saying it sucks any fool would only think that this fighter is meant to be a cost effective platform for air forces who just don't want to spend a lot of money or has a limited budget this is good for the PAF who can replace an odd number of out dated mirages and F-7 i'm just saying compared to other 4th gen fighters its not as "capable"

 

[TaimiKhan]

well first off its avionics are poor for modern standards i believe the PAF has asked france and italy for an avionics upgrade to replace the current Chinese ones on it

The radar in use now is KLJ-7 which is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10 radar used in the J-10 of Chinese Air Force. The range of the radar is 105km look up 85km look down for a target of RCS of 5 square meters, 75 kms in look-up mode and 35 km for look-down mode for a target of rcs 3 square meters. Also the radar can monitor upto 10 targets in TWS(Track While Scan) mode and engage two in BVR mode.
The radar is obsolete by today's standards and it would need serious backing by AWACS in order to put up a fight. Also the missile that the plane will use for its BVR engagements would be SD-10 which is a chinese missile with a range of 70 kms. And the radar is limited to 75 km for 3 square meter rcs target, so for smaller targets, the extra range of the missile won't come in handy.
newer aircraft coming up today like Rafale, EF, SU-35,have rcs of 1 square meter or below The KLJ-7 would not be able to detect these targets at ranges beyond 30-40 km. In combat with these aircraft, the JF-17 would be shot down even before it can detect what hit it. as most air to air combat of today would take place in BVR


The engine used in JF-17 is RD93, a modification of RD33, the same engine used in older Mig29. The engine though powerful enough is known to be lazy and not good at acceleration. Also the engine is very old and newer Migs use a newer variant RD33MK of the engine.

The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low. since most of the time the aircraft will be flying without afterburners that means the thrust to weight ratio comes out lower than .94 (which is bad)

on its airframe there is nothing really bad about the JF-17 airframe except for the fact that its all metal which means its RCS is higher and all metal airframes require more maintenance than fighters who have airframes with some kind of carbon fibers or composites

bottom line it uses a old faulty russian engine, substandard avionics, that makes it low tech albeit cost effective

look i'm not saying it sucks any fool would only think that this fighter is meant to be a cost effective platform for air forces who just don't want to spend a lot of money or has a limited budget this is good for the PAF who can replace an odd number of out dated mirages and F-7 i'm just saying compared to other 4th gen fighters its not as "capable"

I thought you are bringing in something new to the table, but the same old BS from the Indian friends.

Seriously you people need to grow up now.

All of your these concerns have been very well answered and debated in the JF-17s threads and many times by now, so i am no mood to discuss the old BS from Indian side, had it been something new, may be i would have loved to discuss.

Go to JF-17 threads and see what has been discussed.

JF-17 is a good quality medium-tech aircraft, which has lot of potential for its future. It may not be of the Blk-52, Rafale, Su-35, EF or other category, but it has some good hi-tech features, which are there in these 4.5th Gen fighters and its catching up fast.

And do remember to read the JF-17 thread in detail and you can check the JF-17s information pool thread too for some direct links to very informative posts.

But i do know it would be of no use, as its hard to change the Indian mentality, so may be it would be better that you also don't waste your time as you are gonna keep thinking just like your above post, since the fighter in discussion is a Pak-China venture, something from the nations which the Indians hate a lot.

 

[cyphercide]

Why crib over something that you've already co-produced and acquired over something that you could've bought.A thread comparing the JF-17s with the F-16s would be more productive.Is one open currently?

 

[VCheng]

....................



JF-17 is a good quality medium-tech aircraft, which has lot of potential for its future. It may not be of the Blk-52, Rafale, Su-35, EF or other category, but it has some good hi-tech features, which are there in these 4.5th Gen fighters and its catching up fast.

......................

The REAL value of the JF-17 program is the potential to develop indigenous expertise in the future, not only for integrating and upgrading systems, but also for more basic things like airframes and even engines in the future. I hope that this potential is realized rather than being wasted as happened with the MRF.

 

[houshanghai]

well first off its avionics are poor for modern standards i believe the PAF has asked france and italy for an avionics upgrade to replace the current Chinese ones on it

The radar in use now is KLJ-7 which is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10 radar used in the J-10 of Chinese Air Force. The range of the radar is 105km look up 85km look down for a target of RCS of 5 square meters, 75 kms in look-up mode and 35 km for look-down mode for a target of rcs 3 square meters. Also the radar can monitor upto 10 targets in TWS(Track While Scan) mode and engage two in BVR mode.
The radar is obsolete by today's standards and it would need serious backing by AWACS in order to put up a fight. Also the missile that the plane will use for its BVR engagements would be SD-10 which is a chinese missile with a range of 70 kms. And the radar is limited to 75 km for 3 square meter rcs target, so for smaller targets, the extra range of the missile won't come in handy.
newer aircraft coming up today like Rafale, EF, SU-35,have rcs of 1 square meter or below The KLJ-7 would not be able to detect these targets at ranges beyond 30-40 km. In combat with these aircraft, the JF-17 would be shot down even before it can detect what hit it. as most air to air combat of today would take place in BVR


The engine used in JF-17 is RD93, a modification of RD33, the same engine used in older Mig29. The engine though powerful enough is known to be lazy and not good at acceleration. Also the engine is very old and newer Migs use a newer variant RD33MK of the engine.

The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low. since most of the time the aircraft will be flying without afterburners that means the thrust to weight ratio comes out lower than .94 (which is bad)

on its airframe there is nothing really bad about the JF-17 airframe except for the fact that its all metal which means its RCS is higher and all metal airframes require more maintenance than fighters who have airframes with some kind of carbon fibers or composites

bottom line it uses a old faulty russian engine, substandard avionics, that makes it low tech albeit cost effective

look i'm not saying it sucks any fool would only think that this fighter is meant to be a cost effective platform for air forces who just don't want to spend a lot of money or has a limited budget this is good for the PAF who can replace an odd number of out dated mirages and F-7 i'm just saying compared to other 4th gen fighters its not as "capable"

The current JFT blk1 is not better than SAAB JAS39.however you know 1 jas39 = 3 JFT BLK1 in the cost now

In addition, you guy know saab havent any 5 gen fighter.but china have j20 5 gen fighter.No doubt about it,SINO-PAK JFT project will benefit from J20 project too.
SINO-PAK JFT will certainly become better and better.PAC and CAC are working hard together to improve JFT ability in every part now.Time will show JFT is as good as JAS39.EVEN better.

 

[kartika]

guys,why don't conduct an evaluation competition like mmrca between jf-17 and gripen?

 

[Bratva]

well first off its avionics are poor for modern standards i believe the PAF has asked france and italy for an avionics upgrade to replace the current Chinese ones on it

The radar in use now is KLJ-7 which is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10 radar used in the J-10 of Chinese Air Force. The range of the radar is 105km look up 85km look down for a target of RCS of 5 square meters, 75 kms in look-up mode and 35 km for look-down mode for a target of rcs 3 square meters. Also the radar can monitor upto 10 targets in TWS(Track While Scan) mode and engage two in BVR mode.
The radar is obsolete by today's standards and it would need serious backing by AWACS in order to put up a fight. Also the missile that the plane will use for its BVR engagements would be SD-10 which is a chinese missile with a range of 70 kms. And the radar is limited to 75 km for 3 square meter rcs target, so for smaller targets, the extra range of the missile won't come in handy.
newer aircraft coming up today like Rafale, EF, SU-35,have rcs of 1 square meter or below The KLJ-7 would not be able to detect these targets at ranges beyond 30-40 km. In combat with these aircraft, the JF-17 would be shot down even before it can detect what hit it. as most air to air combat of today would take place in BVR


The engine used in JF-17 is RD93, a modification of RD33, the same engine used in older Mig29. The engine though powerful enough is known to be lazy and not good at acceleration. Also the engine is very old and newer Migs use a newer variant RD33MK of the engine.

The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low. since most of the time the aircraft will be flying without afterburners that means the thrust to weight ratio comes out lower than .94 (which is bad)

on its airframe there is nothing really bad about the JF-17 airframe except for the fact that its all metal which means its RCS is higher and all metal airframes require more maintenance than fighters who have airframes with some kind of carbon fibers or composites

bottom line it uses a old faulty russian engine, substandard avionics, that makes it low tech albeit cost effective

look i'm not saying it sucks any fool would only think that this fighter is meant to be a cost effective platform for air forces who just don't want to spend a lot of money or has a limited budget this is good for the PAF who can replace an odd number of out dated mirages and F-7 i'm just saying compared to other 4th gen fighters its not as "capable"

All of your concerns are addressed that's why Block 2 of JF17 is rolling, with Aesa radar, IRST, more composites and DFRM as Latest ECM system And redesigned frontal section to reduce RCS more and addition of one more hard point. And for your Info, Block-1 will be relieved from the active duty once the Jf-17 hits 200 mark and will be used for training purposes.

 

[ziaulislam]

regarding engine you should dispose your mig29 fighters..rd93 is upgraded version of rd33 the manufacturer tells it, who are you to contradict it???

thrust according to kamara is 86.6 and kilmov 98kn max thrust..

TWR is 0.96 for 86.6 if you think thats low than you should junk your mirage 2000 which has twr of 0.90 (though when i calculated it seemed very low..i.e 95.1x1000=95100, weight loaded=13800x 9.87=136206, TWR=951000/136206= 0.70??)

and scrap the lca which has twr of 0.82 with after burns

the klj-7 derived from zhuk had a range of 105 km (vs 120 km of mig29SMT!!! being much lighter than it) so an idiot will think its not good enough for fighter of its size..so i recommend once you become IAF airchief scrapp all your migs.,irages and LCA...
we would be glade

avionics, jf-17 have somethings even most modern fighters dont..see jf thread for it

 

[houshanghai]

self delete

 

[LiberalAtheist]

regarding engine you should dispose your mig29 fighters..rd93 is upgraded version of rd33 the manufacturer tells it, who are you to contradict it???

thrust according to kamara is 86.6 and kilmov 98kn max thrust..

TWR is 0.96 for 86.6 if you think thats low than you should junk your mirage 2000 which has twr of 0.90 (though when i calculated it seemed very low..i.e 95.1x1000=95100, weight loaded=13800x 9.87=136206, TWR=951000/136206= 0.70??)

and scrap the lca which has twr of 0.82 with after burns

the klj-7 derived from zhuk had a range of 105 km (vs 120 km of mig29SMT!!! being much lighter than it) so an idiot will think its not good enough for fighter of its size..so i recommend once you become IAF airchief scrapp all your migs.,irages and LCA...
we would be glade

avionics, jf-17 have somethings even most modern fighters dont..see jf thread for it

and as for the engine newer MiG-29's use RD-33MK and the RD-33 series 3 not the RD-93 get your facts straight The thrust provided by the engine is around 49.4KN without the use of afterburners. With the afterburners, the thrust is 84.4KN. Also its worth mentioning here that this old Russian engine like its counterparts is known to have problems sustaining its afterburner for longer duration of time, which suggests that most of the time the aircraft would be flying without its afterburners on. So the important thrust specification here is the 49.4KN, which by today's standards and the weight of the aircraft is quite low. The thrust to weight ratio comes out to be 0.78 for an empty aircraft and 0.55 for a loaded aircraft, Even with the afterburners on the aircraft fails to exceed a ratio of 0.94 for a loaded aircraft, which is poor to say the least.

the KLJ-7 is a scaled down version of the KLJ-10, not the Zhuk, 105km for a target of 5 square meters against 120 km for 5 square meters??? yes the MiG-29 radar is better we are comparing the Gripen and the JFT