j10 has better range fuel and payload
Logic fail there. How can an aircraft that is much smaller, lighter with less thrust and more fuel have less range than an aircraft that is much larger, heavier with more thrust and less fuel?
The J-10's range on internal fuel is 1800Km. The same for Gripen E is 2500Km. With external fuel in three tanks, the J-10 manages 3000Km, while the Gripen does well above 3500Km.
For example the payload...payload is max payload with minimum fuel required for takeoff(half tank!). You can google it it will come up in small text from official sources
Then it gets even worse for J-10. It already has an inferior weapons layout. Gripen can carry what it's already been advertised for.
Avionics etc is subjetive thing for now we really dont know..i think the only country that can say anything is onw who is operating both Chinese and American weapons(b50/52) like Pakistan
The benefit of the doubt will obviously go to Europe here.
You forget that India operates both Russian and Western aircraft. But that doesn't mean anything unless you actually operate both the Gripen and J-10 for direct comparison, neither country does.
Engine i agree russian engines are cheaper but low life..as the whole thought process is production
No, it's inferior materials, which they have openly admitted to.
Gripen-E is better if it is compared with J-10A.
The comparison becomes unclear when we consider J-10B or the upcoming J-10C variants.
@randomradio maybe you should give the comparison figures b/w Gripen-E vs J-10B and Gripen-E vs J-10C.
The image you posted above is that of J-10A. J-10 later variants have an uprated Al-31FN3 and the new & better WS-10 engines. Recently they even introduced a TVC version WS-10 on J-10B.
Do us a favor, in your comparisons, also state the thrust of the fighters' respective engines/power-plant, types of radar, clean head-on RCS of each fighter, advantages and disadvantages b/w meteor and pl-15, EW suite … etc.
Because no comparison without the above will be fair, but just ones own wishes.
My comparison already takes the J-10C into account. The other older variants are not adequate.
There're no operational Chinese engines on the J-10 yet, only prototypes, including the TVC. It's a future upgrade potential. The F414 engine is obviously way better than the AL-31FN.
As for everything else you've mentioned, the Gripen is ahead on pretty much every metric. The airframe is superior. Meteor is a generation ahead compared to the PL-15. PL-15 is like the K-100. PL-21 is a Meteor equivalent, which is still in development. Gripen's EW suite is better. It's an ultra-wideband EW suite with GaN, incomparable with the J-10's EW suite.
Just to increase in your knowledge that PAF old mirages have same NCW capacity as Gripen-C/D so JFT block-3 will be much better then that because PAF have studied many birds development road maps and their design and tech pro and cons, that is why JFT have adopted many things from different birds.
NCW is subject to the capabilities of each air force. It's not something someone else can simply give it to you, you will have to develop it yourself.
While the Gripens will be able to talk to each other with an advanced directional datalink, they will not be able to talk to other assets in your force unless you allow the Swedes to add your own datalinks. Of course, the same applies to the J-10.
