JAS-39 Gripen-C VS JF-17 Thunder Block-2.

[abdulbarijan]

Poster for the claims by Kilmov - ( The manufacturer of the RD-93 engine.) stating the thrust from 79-98 KN.

Quote of Wg Cmndr. Ronald Felix regarding the engine thrust ..

Our very own contributor @Tempest II reporting back from Farnborough, UK in 2010 ...

Now, I have slept and rested after a loong day at the show and can write a little bit more:

1. Concerning the TWR, he said this after I specifically asked about the thrust of the RD-93. I was asking this because I still find it hard that the RD-93 is based on RD-33 Series 1. The pilot then said to me, "What I can tell you is the thrust-to-weight ratio. Do you know what that is?" I said "yes". And he said, the RD-93 will give the plane a TWR of over 1:.1.1." I started asking about the loading conditions (how much fuel and minutions) it will be carrying to come to this figure. He got his attention take away by other ppl and then they had to go and do a TV interview.

Squadron Leader Nadir Ali around 2 minute mark in the following video...

"It has the capability of going vertically up, having a good T/W of 1.09"

In addition, you have the vertical takeoff at Paris, with the tires out producing a huge drag yet the jet still goes in to a vertical climb ... There are also snippets of good vertical performance in the Zhuhai airshow 2011, and Paris air show 2015. In addition you can also look at the following video where you see quite aggressive climbing performances ..

The sources that mention the 19,000 lbs class thrust are as following ..

Izmir airshow chart 2011 - 19391 lbs or 86.2 KN
PAFWallpaper.com - 19391 lbs or 86.2 KN
PAC poster at IDEAS - 19200 lbs or 85.4 KN
PAC website - 19,000 lbs or 84.5 KN

Even among these sources we can see quite a variation, the latest claims come from the pilots who fly the aircraft, be it Wing Commander Ronald or Sq Leader Nadir ... the engine thrust is rated as quite high which gives a T/W above 1 .. which has been practically demonstrated in the Paris airshow ... Hence, we can safely assume that a T/W of 1+ has been achieved with the JFT ...

 

[Kompromat]

Canards = Rear Tailplane. They have nothing to do with LERX. LERX are a separate feature attached to the main wing root to achieve a higher and sustained AOA.

Do care to educate yourself about basic aerodynamics before throwing around allegations of "bias"

https://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/page-2

@ Horus you mentioned LERX but did not mention Canards for Grippen, analysis should not be biased

A better way to do comparative analysis is the break it apart in several components such as
Airframe (physical dimensions, weights, load capacity, range LERX, Canards, etc.)
Data net working
offensive electronics
Defensive electronics
Roles & Armaments
A2A
A2G
A2S

etc. etc.

 

[sohail.ishaque]

I can't say about future upgrades but one thing we should know that JF-17 project conceived to develop low budget medium role defense fighter to replace large number of old 3rd Gen fighters like Mirage iii, V and F-7, if we put all the latest equipment the main idea behind low cast will die currently JF-17 30mil per unit we can't afford 40 + fighter. If PAF want to spend more money they definitely go for F-16 newer versions and now which they are looking for.

Some time I think instead of JF-17 we should J.V with China for J-10 fighter but for sure air force officials know better then me.
@MastanKhan
Sir what you think about that.

Isn't it better if we put the high end products in JF, and make it a top tier 4.5 gen fighter jet and stop looking for alternates,. i mean, if possible, why not make some top tier JF17(costly though) and some low cost for numbers,. and stop asking USA for their F16s .. just a thought.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Isn't it better if we put the high end products in JF, and make it a top tier 4.5 gen fighter jet and stop looking for alternates,. i mean, if possible, why not make some top tier JF17(costly though) and some low cost for numbers,. and stop asking USA for their F16s .. just a thought.

JF-17 desighned to to take place old gen fighters, we can't change major things but we can add AESA and few new systems which will be great addition.

 

[Thorough Pro]

wow, so much arrogance. by the way which delta wing has rear tail planes?

Canards = Rear Tailplane. They have nothing to do with LERX. LERX are a separate feature attached to the main wing root to achieve a higher and sustained AOA.

Do care to educate yourself about basic aerodynamics before throwing around allegations of "bias"

https://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/page-2

 

[gambit]

wow, so much arrogance. by the way which delta wing has rear tail planes?

MIG-21.

 

[Thorough Pro]

how could I miss that

MIG-21.

 

[PakEye]

@horus
In the column of NETWORK CENTRICITY DATA Link AWACS the name of
PAF SAAB erieye AWACS is not mentioned for JF-17 Block-II.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Interesting Article, claiming Gripen E kill ratio vs the desired Su-35 is 1,6:1

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Also data on agility vs top of the line fighters, unfortunately not JF-17.

This link however claims that JF-17 takes 20% more time to turn compared to F-16.

http://www.break.com/video/ugc/jf-17-vs-f-16-vs-mig-29-turn-rate-comparison-2342656

Swedish Air Force Gripen C Top Gun pilot claims he never lost a dogfight vs U.S. built aircraft (Swedish). (Did not fight vs F-22 though)
http://www.expressen.se/kronikorer/carl-bergqvist/darfor-slar-gripen-alla-i-en-top-gun-fight/

Service Life Gripen = 8,000 flight hours.
Service Life JF-17 = 4,000 flight hours in some sources. Anyone can confirm?

Gripen C is now qualified for SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) allowing more stores to be carried.

 

[salarsikander]

Lol theres comprasion btw both. The one is highly advanced has credibility backed by Swedish ingenuity and their engineering, for instance one can look at IKEA. While the other one is not only being used as front line fighter but as an experiment to expand our learning curve.

 

[ghazi768]

Interesting Article, claiming Gripen E kill ratio vs the desired Su-35 is 1,6:1

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Also data on agility vs top of the line fighters, unfortunately not JF-17.

View attachment 310364

This link however claims that JF-17 takes 20% more time to turn compared to F-16.

http://www.break.com/video/ugc/jf-17-vs-f-16-vs-mig-29-turn-rate-comparison-2342656

Swedish Air Force Gripen C Top Gun pilot claims he never lost a dogfight vs U.S. built aircraft (Swedish). (Did not fight vs F-22 though)
http://www.expressen.se/kronikorer/carl-bergqvist/darfor-slar-gripen-alla-i-en-top-gun-fight/

Service Life Gripen = 8,000 flight hours.
Service Life JF-17 = 4,000 flight hours in some sources. Anyone can confirm?

Gripen C is now qualified for SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) allowing more stores to be carried.

I just wanted to say something about the chart you have mentioned.
Although these rates especially instances turn rate is very much dependant on speed at time of turn. But sustained turn rate is basically turning at maximum allowed g or maximum which an air-fame can bear at corner speed of aircraft while still maintaining your energy.
According to Saab, gripen ng basic mass empty is 8000kg and its fuel is 3400kg which will without payload will result in 11400kg with 98kn thrust that is TWR of 0.87. It also have very large wings which in turns will result in adding a lot of drag and draining energy rapidly. How with such low trust and so much drag it will be able to keep a sustained turn rate better than F-16 or F-22 which have far less drag and much more thrust available. Can you please explain it?

Now here is a video of one US pilot telling some of the training experiences about F-16s, F-22 and Su-30MKI:

Now listen closely when he essentially says that their F-16s have practice a dogfight tactics where they turn and than try to induce an F-22 to get into using its thrust vectoring after which they try to pull a vertical attack on it. And he also mentions that this tactic even works better on Su-30MKIs because they actually start losing altitude on trying to use vectored thrust.
Why will F-22 or even Su-30MKI not be able to match F-16 turn rate without using vectored thrust if they have a better sustained turn rate? they both are touted to have very good TWR and according to your chart much better sustained and instantaneous turn rates, they should have far more energy at that time to actually not only go vertical but even not need to use vectored thrust..

 

[SQ8]

This link however claims that JF-17 takes 20% more time to turn compared to F-16.

http://www.break.com/video/ugc/jf-17-vs-f-16-vs-mig-29-turn-rate-comparison-2342656

id rather take this man's word for it than some video (generally not serious references).

The JF-17 has better rates than the F-16 in the horizontal, but loses out in the vertical due to less power.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I just wanted to say something about the chart you have mentioned.
Although these rates especially instances turn rate is very much dependant on speed at time of turn. But sustained turn rate is basically turning at maximum allowed g or maximum which an air-fame can bear at corner speed of aircraft while still maintaining your energy.
According to Saab, gripen ng basic mass empty is 8000kg and its fuel is 3400kg which will without payload will result in 11400kg with 98kn thrust that is TWR of 0.87. It also have very large wings which in turns will result in adding a lot of drag and draining energy rapidly. How with such low trust and so much drag it will be able to keep a sustained turn rate better than F-16 or F-22 which have far less drag and much more thrust available. Can you please explain it?

Now here is a video of one US pilot telling some of the training experiences about F-16s, F-22 and Su-30MKI:

Now listen closely when he essentially says that their F-16s have practice a dogfight tactics where they turn and than try to induce an F-22 to get into using its thrust vectoring after which they try to pull a vertical attack on it. And he also mentions that this tactic even works better on Su-30MKIs because they actually start losing altitude on trying to use vectored thrust.
Why will F-22 or even Su-30MKI not be able to match F-16 turn rate without using vectored thrust if they have a better sustained turn rate? they both are touted to have very good TWR and according to your chart much better sustained and instantaneous turn rates, they should have far more energy at that time to actually not only go vertical but even not need to use vectored thrust..

First of all, the chart is from the article, second the turn rate of F-22 might assume vectored trust is used.

id rather take this man's word for it than some video (generally not serious references).

The JF-17 has better rates than the F-16 in the horizontal, but loses out in the vertical due to less power.

Agree, but I was hoping someone had reliable information.

 

[MastanKhan]

Interesting Article, claiming Gripen E kill ratio vs the desired Su-35 is 1,6:1

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Also data on agility vs top of the line fighters, unfortunately not JF-17.

View attachment 310364

This link however claims that JF-17 takes 20% more time to turn compared to F-16.

http://www.break.com/video/ugc/jf-17-vs-f-16-vs-mig-29-turn-rate-comparison-2342656

Swedish Air Force Gripen C Top Gun pilot claims he never lost a dogfight vs U.S. built aircraft (Swedish). (Did not fight vs F-22 though)
http://www.expressen.se/kronikorer/carl-bergqvist/darfor-slar-gripen-alla-i-en-top-gun-fight/

Service Life Gripen = 8,000 flight hours.
Service Life JF-17 = 4,000 flight hours in some sources. Anyone can confirm?

Gripen C is now qualified for SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) allowing more stores to be carried.

Hi,

Gripen came into service about 7 to 10 years before the JF17 BLK1. The current Gripen that you mentioned is the Gripen E---so we are about 1 1/2 years away from getting our version---ie---the bLK3 with aesa and irst etc etc etc and we will be in the ball park.

The Gripen C is very similar to the JF17 BLK2---.

I can tell you this---counting ZERO from now---till the next 10 years---we will have more sales of the JF17's that you will have of Gripen NG's.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Hi,

Gripen came into service about 7 to 10 years before the JF17 BLK1. The current Gripen that you mentioned is the Gripen E---so we are about 1 1/2 years away from getting our version---ie---the bLK3 with aesa and irst etc etc etc and we will be in the ball park.

The Gripen C is very similar to the JF17 BLK2---.

I can tell you this---counting ZERO from now---till the next 10 years---we will have more sales of the JF17's that you will have of Gripen NG's.

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

― Yogi Berra

First delivery of the Gripen E will be in 2018, and all planes on order for the Swedish Air Force will have been delivered by 2023.