Assessment | JF-17 Thunder, a 21st century F-20 Tigershark ?

[GURU DUTT]

You care to explain how it does? You made the claim.

WELL MODS SIR I DONT WANT TO TROLL AND ITS NOT TEJAS Vs JF17 THREAD ALL IS BASED ON MY CURIOSITY SO IF YOU DONT LIKE IT I OPOLOGISE I DONT WANT ANY TROLLING OR UNESSARRY FLAMING OR SPAMMING HOPE U ESCUSE ME FOR THAT


ok
tejas has

EL/M-2032 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relaxed stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MIL-STD-1553 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RS-422 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Electric F404 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

elbit DASH (HMDS)
Tejas has a night vision goggles (NVG)-compatible "glass cockpit"
4 channell digital fly by wire system with all the latest gizmos & british made martin baker street

Armament

• Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.
• Hardpoints: 8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of 4,000 kg external fuel and ordnance
• Missiles:

• Air-to-air missiles:
  • Python 5
  • Derby
  • Astra
  • Vympel R-77
  • Vympel R-73
• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • Kh-59ME (TV guided standoff Missile)
  • Kh-59MK (Laser guided standoff Missile)
• Anti-ship missiles
  • Kh-35
  • Kh-31
• Bombs:
  • KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs
  • GBU-16 Paveway II
  • FAB-250
  • ODAB-500PM fuel-air explosives
  • ZAB-250/350 incendiary bombs
  • BetAB-500Shp powered concrete-piercing bombs
  • FAB-500T dumb bombs
  • OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
  • OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
  • RBK-500 cluster bomb stake
• Others:
  • S-8 rocket pods
  • Bofors 135 mm rocket
  • Drop tanks for ferry flight/extended range/loitering time.
  • LITENING targeting pod

While JF17 has a russian engine

Klimov RD-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Armament

• Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2)
• Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage; pylon stations number 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumb capable) with a capacity of 3,629 kg (8,001 lb) for external fuel and ordnance
• Missiles: ** Air-to-air missiles:
  • • MAA-1 Piranha (Short-range)
    • AIM-9L/M (Short-range)
    • PL-5EII (Short-range)
    • PL-9C (Short-range)
    • PL-12 / SD-10 (Beyond visual range)
  • Air-to-surface missiles:
    • MAR-1 (Anti-radiation missile) - Planned.
    • C-802A (Anti-ship missiles)
    • C-803 (Anti-ship missiles)
    • CM-400AKG (Hypersonic Anti-ship missiles)
    • Ra'ad ALCM (Nuclear capable Stealth Cruise missile)
• Bombs: ** Unguided bombs:
  • • Mk-82 (general purpose bomb)
    • Mk-84 (general purpose bomb)
    • Matra Durandal (anti-runway bomb)
    • CBU-100/Mk-20 Rockeye (anti-armour cluster bomb)
  • Precision guided munitions (PGM):
    • GBU-10 (Laser-guided)
    • GBU-12 (Laser-guided)
    • LT-2 (Laser-guided)
    • H-2 (electro-optically guided)
    • H-4 (electro-optically guided)
    • LS-6[disambiguation needed] (satellite-guided glide bombs)
    • Satellite-guided bombs
• Others:
  • Countermeasures (Flares, Chaff)
  • Up to 3 external drop tanks (2× under-wing 1,100 litres (240 imp gal; 290 US gal), 1× under-fuselage 800 litres (180 imp gal; 210 US gal)) for extended range/loitering time

Avionics

• DEEC electronic warfare suite
• NRIET KLJ-7 multi-mode fire-control radar
• Night vision goggles (NVG) compatible glass cockpit
• Helmet Mounted Sights/Display (HMS/D)
• Externally mounted avionics pods:
  • KG-300G self-protection radar jamming pod
  • WMD-7 day/night targeting pod

now you tell me sir are US - Israeli , british & french Latest & battlle tested products are better or reversed engeneared russian and chinese made wepons , avionicks and radar are better

 

[VCheng]

Agreed. The project stemmed from the Sabre-II.. which had Grumman input. Interestingly ..the F-7E and its derivatives(MG,PG,BG) all owe their existence to Grumman engineers who thought of the cranked delta as an idea to improve the original F-7(Mig-21F) wings. (there is even a picture of a sketch they did of the change). Once that idea proved infeasible, there were further studies undertaken by Grumman(and the Chinese) for a more greater redesign of the F-7 airframe.

Tinted assessments usually. Made through the manipulation of figures and facts. As are all fair assessments. Be it Carlo Kopp or Pierre Sprey. Hence, they cannot be taken at any stage as the final word.... yours have your bias of experience.. not just technical but by nationality.. as have mine. People should realize that. How much it takes before the nationality starts spilling into the technical bits.. is the true gauge..........

Isn't it ironic how you agree with what I said in this thread.

Fair is fair, without qualifications.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Agreed. The project stemmed from the Sabre-II.. which had Grumman input. Interestingly ..the F-7E and its derivatives(MG,PG,BG) all owe their existence to Grumman engineers who thought of the cranked delta as an idea to improve the original F-7(Mig-21F) wings. (there is even a picture of a sketch they did of the change). Once that idea proved infeasible, there were further studies undertaken by Grumman(and the Chinese) for a more greater redesign of the F-7 airframe.
Oscar said: ↑
Tinted assessments usually. Made through the manipulation of figures and facts. As are all fair assessments. Be it Carlo Kopp or Pierre Sprey. Hence, they cannot be taken at any stage as the final word.... yours have your bias of experience.. not just technical but by nationality.. as have mine. People should realize that. How much it takes before the nationality starts spilling into the technical bits.. is the true gauge..........

So Oscar Sir you are saying JF17/sabre 2 /F7E is basically a Mig 21 airframe with US inputs and chinese ingeuinity (M21wings ,US design Inputs & chinese expertise/manufacturing) so how does pakistan role comes into picture in designing and manufacturing as ihave also seen many fotos or chinese made JF17 air frames being unloaded and taken to PAF factory in Kamra ... please care to elobrate and explain it .... Thanks in advance

 

[SQ8]

now you tell me sir are US - Israeli , british & french Latest & battlle tested products are better or reversed engeneared russian and chinese made wepons , avionicks and radar are better

No they are not. There is nothing revolutionary in the Tejas electronics that the JF-17 does not have. In your simple approach you even included the RS-232 standard which has been around since 1944 as some piece of advanced system. . Also, the Mil std bus is a regulatory standard to meet interoperateability.. the JF-17 has EXACTLY the same thing.

So already two of the things you tried to pass off as better in the Tejas are the same for the JF-17 as well.

Relaxed stability is one aspect of aircraft design and depends on aircraft orientation. Pitch, Roll Yaw etc.. is the aircraft unstable in pitch, roll or yaw.. There is no literature available on the JF-17 being unstable in pitch but it does use FBW for it.. why?
So you cannot prove superiority through that alone.

Both the Tejas and JF-17 cockpit have Gizmos.. and neither are direct superiors to the other.. if Chinese parts were so unproven .. 7000 Boeing airplanes would not be flying in it.. so next time perhaps your poor ideals on Chinese technology should have you avoid air travel.

So there is no superiority there EITHER..

Lets come to the Radar.. Both the ELTA 2032 and KLJ-7 have similar performance figures.. and NEITHER has actually gone to combat.. but are now operational with forces that have verfied each as excellent. SO no advantage there EITHER.

At the end.. your comparision is FLAWED and BIASED.

Let me tell you the ONLY area where the Tejas does excel and beat the JF-17.. that is construction techniques.. and growth costs. It will cost less to improve the Tejas and provide it additional capabilities per dollar than it would for the JF-17.

So Oscar Sir you are saying JF17/sabre 2 /F7E is basically a Mig 21 airframe with US inputs and chinese ingeuinity (M21wings ,US design Inputs & chinese expertise/manufacturing) so how does pakistan role comes into picture in designing and manufacturing as ihave also seen many fotos or chinese made JF17 air frames being unloaded and taken to PAF factory in Kamra ... please care to elobrate and explain it .... Thanks in advance

You have not read my post properly... please read it again.

These were the initial 8 testing batch produced in China before the line in Kamra was set up.

Isn't it ironic how you agree with what I said in this thread.

Fair is fair, without qualifications.

No it isnt.. Whats so special about you that my agreeing or disagreeing with you matters..
You give too much importance to yourself.

My post was to highlight that in all qualifications a sense of nationality drips in.. including me.. and NO.. fair is NOT fair.
Fair is what I see from my perspective.. and what you see from yours. You are not a 100% accurate.. neither am I.

 

[SQ8]

well what about EW suite & wepons and you are saying that chinese radar is as good as the israeli one and what about the RCS

well even the amerians has somewhere said thatthere famed F16s fly better with tejas digital fly by control

thing is tejas is more lighter , agile , smarter and elusive than JF17 just like a gorkha against a Pathan

And that last comment tells me that you have no actual interest other than pathetic trolling. You are now banned from the thread.

 

[VCheng]

..............
No it isnt.. Whats so special about you that my agreeing or disagreeing with you matters..
You give too much importance to yourself.

My post was to highlight that in all qualifications a sense of nationality drips in.. including me.. and NO.. fair is NOT fair.
Fair is what I see from my perspective.. and what you see from yours. You are not a 100% accurate.. neither am I.

Back to the topic instead of the person .........


The JF-17's roots place a limit to which it can be developed cost-effectively.

 

[SQ8]

Back to the topic instead of the person .........


The JF-17's roots place a limit to which it can be developed cost-effectively.

Exactly.. the idea that fanboys seem to portray is that the aircraft will become some sort of 4.5++ gen semi stealth aircraft.. while still maintaining its tagline of "cost effectiveness" is futile. I have the horse's mouth say on this particular fact.. and yet there will always be dreamers.

 

[VCheng]

Exactly.. the idea that fanboys seem to portray is that the aircraft will become some sort of 4.5++ gen semi stealth aircraft.. while still maintaining its tagline of "cost effectiveness" is futile. I have the horse's mouth say on this particular fact.. and yet there will always be dreamers.

Now that is a fair assessment too.

 

[SQ8]

Now that is a fair assessment too.

well, one can only expect fair assessment from the such horses when they head the Testing and Evaluation flight. But then again, its their baby, just as Beesely had the F-35..

 

[Luftwaffe]

 

[SQ8]

That is the image I was referring to . Manticore has done a great job of puting all of these design images together.. hopefully it should stay "clean" of pointless images as long as certain "senior" members dont start posting unrelated images.
JF-17's various initial designs phases | Page 2

 

[imiakhtar]

when we compare jft with gripen, we compare two operational light fighters of the modern era

Not when the numbers you quote have basic inaccuracies like landing distance 750km.

For the job it needs to do, replace the F-7, the JF-17 is fine.

There really is no point comparing it to $60 million+ fighters which in reality it could not hold a candle to.

 

[VCheng]

Exactly.. the idea that fanboys seem to portray is that the aircraft will become some sort of 4.5++ gen semi stealth aircraft.. while still maintaining its tagline of "cost effectiveness" is futile. I have the horse's mouth say on this particular fact.. and yet there will always be dreamers.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating that the real value of the JF-17 program is the expertise it will generate within Pakistan, if we play our cards right.

 

[Manticore]

Not when the numbers you quote have basic inaccuracies like landing distance 750km.

For the job it needs to do, replace the F-7, the JF-17 is fine.

There really is no point comparing it to $60 million+ fighters which in reality it could not hold a candle to.

Looks like a type-o. Thanks for the rectification

 

[imiakhtar]

Again, what is the point in comparing basic numbers like max g and max climb max range?

What are the real world numbers?

How much G can an aircraft pull when it's loaded with external stores?

What is climb performance like on an above ISA day with said external stores?

How far can the aircraft fly with a 3t payload?

Very few, if any of us on these forums are privy to this information and comparing marketing numbers is pointless.