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

[flamer84]

Hi,

Your " common sense " comment is bad----. It took 15 years for one of the finest aircraft the Rafale to get its first customer----and for pakistan / china it is too soon to get a customer for the aircraft.

The aircraft is technically not ready for sale---because it does not have a 2 seater as of now----secondly available tier 1 avionics package have not come out yet.

So---once that happens in 2 years time---that is when the count would start.

The Rafale is very expensive,it's not the bargain that the JF17 appears to be.You're telling me that nations wouldn't line up to buy Gripen quality at 1/3 of the price...if indeed it would truly be Gripen quality ?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Your argument of trying to compare jet fighters based on number of sales orders is plainly stupid.

You are also comparing sales of JF-17 with Rafale or Gripen which had a 10-15 years head start on Jf-17.

And South Africans are ones with their whole Gripen fleet grounded because of higher costs involved in keeping it afloat which they are not ready for the moment.

If the comparision is stupid (which I don't think) You are barking up the wrong tree.
Just answered questions, and corrected the posts of @DESERT FIGHTER.

The South Africans did not sign a maintenance agreement initially, and it is a long way from Cape Town to Linköping...
Situation is better after the maintenance agreement came in place,
so all aircraft fly, but at a given time, only half the fleet is active (they rotate aircraft in/out of storage)
They estimate the cost of flying to be $9,000 per flight hour,
which is more expensive than the cost to the Swedish Air Force
due to economy of scale, but it is not expensive compared to most other fighters.
If the Air Force does not get money, then they wont fly.

 

[MastanKhan]

The Rafale is very expensive,it's not the bargain that the JF17 appears to be.You're telling me that nations wouldn't line up to buy Gripen quality at 1/3 of the price...if indeed it would truly be Gripen quality ?

Hi,

I can give you a car sales example in the U S. People like to go with the established route----it is very difficult for a new auto company to come and succeed and be known just like that.

There was bad marketing for the JF 17---it was prematurely marketed without doing a proper market analysis---the complete package was not ready and some fools decided to be car salesmen instead of fighter pilots---they fell on their faces.

The first rule of sales is---the product that you want to sell---should be the product that the customer wants to buy and not what you think is right.

that was failure number one.

Then the second failure was to offer a too low of a price---that was shockingly absurd---.

Psychologically---expensive is always related to quality and durability---the cheapness is related to average or below average quality---.

That was absolutely poor on the part of PAF.

Third---no one wants a half ar-se plane---everyone wants more---when you are advertising of coming air to air refuelling---aesa---irst and other gadgets---that is what the average buyers wants as well.

At least he wants to put his hands on one and test drive before making a decision---and he may then opt for the lesser model---that is human nature----people like available and coming choices so that they know that they made intelligent decisions and were not pushed into something.

That means---people like control over their decisions---. So---once you have the option---aesa won't matter much to many---but knowing that they have seen it and can get it---makes the decision easy.

Just like in cars and trucks---people want to see factory navigation system---but when they look at the cost difference---they chose otherwise and they are happy with their purchase because they had control over their decision and made a free choice.

Next is the price---the aircraft is priced too low----. It should have been higher to start with---at least 10---15 million dollars higher.

The last but the leats---paf should have forced china to buy at least 24 of the aircraft---.

People might be surprised that china might consider the BLK 3 with all the goodies once it sees what has happened with the Gripen E.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

The Rafale is very expensive,it's not the bargain that the JF17 appears to be.You're telling me that nations wouldn't line up to buy Gripen quality at 1/3 of the price...if indeed it would truly be Gripen quality ?

You must be a special breed of stupid to compare rafale with JF.. One is a light multirole the other is a twin engine fighter with superior specs in all categories..
As for quality etc .. Didn't I already tell you that we have already signed export deals for JF?a plane that was inducted in the late 2000s.. Vs a jet that was inducted in the late 80s.. ?

Now either you come with with solid facts to refute what I posted regarding the block I being comparable to Gripen C to prove your point or just keep ranting.

 

[flamer84]

You must be a special breed of stupid to compare rafale with JF.. One is a light multirole the other is a twin engine fighter with superior specs in all categories..
As for quality etc .. Didn't I already tell you that we have already signed export deals for JF?a plane that was inducted in the late 2000s.. Vs a jet that was inducted in the late 80s.. ?

Now either you come with with solid facts to refute what I posted regarding the block I being comparable to Gripen C to prove your point or just keep ranting.

It would be nice if instead of cursing you'd take a look and see that the poster I've replied to ,mentioned the Rafale.The Gripen wasn't inducted in the late 80's but '96,you've been allready cleared on that,and the C/D came even later,a few years before the JF17.

 

[ghazi768]

The Devil is in the details.
There is a lot this comparision does not bring up.
How advanced is the data link of the JF-17.
That is one of the key parameters to win an engagement.

Gripen does not need an AWACS, since one of the aircraft can act like one,
providing data to up to three more Gripen, that fly with radar turned off.
The low RCS of Gripen (a lot lower than JF-17) will allow the other Gripen to come close
without beeing detected, let go of a Meteor, turn away and let the AWACS Gripen control the missile.

What will happen in a dogfight?
No data about which plane can outmanouvre the other.
Gripen consistently do well here in Red Flag and similar exercises.
What has the JF-17 to show?

When comparing radars, is the Gripen C, Mk4 PS05/E considered?
This increases the detection range by one and a half.
A target which could be detected at 120 km by the Mk3, can be detected at 300Km by the Mk4.
Can detect fairly stealthy targets as well.

Yes, devil is in the details..
Chances of key parameters of data link coming out on public forums are extremely low not only for ours link but for others as well. But you can speculate as much as you want.

If by not needing AWACS, you mean that a set of fighters can share radar data and even hand off fire control solution data to other fighters or receive fire controls solution from another platform and use it to fire a missile and basically work as a relay station than Jf-17 is in comfortable grounds and Gripen is too. For JF-17 further development in this regards what is important is that it can work as 'relay station' for many more missiles. This Inshalla Allah will be the case in Blk 3.

About dogfighting..
I have seen you attach an image of turn rates of different fighters which are mostly wrong and my apologies I immediately understood that you do not know much about manoeuvring. For example, your chart shows that F-18 has lower instantaneous turn rate. Which is highly incorrect, it has much better ins turn rate than F-16. Before introduction of newer fighters I do not think there was any which can beat it in this regard, it had the highest AOA. Because it had manual flying controls and also did not even include a 'kicker' like in Mig-29s so only an alarm was sounded and it was quoted by some to go as high as 65 deg.

Also that chart showed that many other fighters including Gripen had higher sustained turn rates that F-16. Unless some body is using a single loop as a criteria some how, that is not the case. First you should know that turn rates are highly dependant on altitude, an F-16 bulk 15 at 10,000 feet can keep on going in a 9G turn at its corner speed for as long as fuel last or the pilot can remain conscious. Other than F-22, show me a single fighter which can do this and we'll talk.

But dog fighting is not just about who can turn most, as turning most can also leave you out of energy forcing you to go down with your after burner full on to regain energy and turning into a juicy red hot target for a missile. It is basically a matter of what dog fighting 'style' you prefer, is it energy based manoeuvring or slow speed stalls based. Jf-17 tries to stick with F-16 like energy based manoeuvring with a larger LERX to provide a better AOA. It is basically an energy-manoevour fighter, whose design and flight control laws are geared to keep its energy as much up as possible unless you really want to break very hard. Gripen is more of a slow speed stalls fighter, your airforce choice, we have no objections to it.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It would be nice if instead of cursing you'd take a look and see that the poster I've replied to ,mentioned the Rafale.The Gripen wasn't inducted in the late 80's but '96,you've been allready cleared on that,and the C/D came even later,a few years before the JF17.

Well than why you are quoting with that?


96 vs 2007.. That's 11 years head start .. We already have a deal and we have the statistics to prove and show the world .. We aren't making that we can't back up !

 

[flamer84]

Well than why you are quoting with that?


96 vs 2007.. That's 11 years head start .. We already have a deal and we have the statistics to prove and show the world .. We aren't making that we can't back up !

I quoted @MastanKhan ,he mentioned the Rafale.

Now,I'm not sure,I'll have to check tommorow but I believe that in '96 the Gripen A/b came into service with the C/D in the early 2000's.

 

[The SC]

You still don't get it.If it truly were close to a C/D,it would be close to blk 52 and with a price tag like that countries like Egypt,Morocco would snatch it.China would induct it.Pakistan wouldn't run after F16 in every corner of the world.You can keep your nationalist dreams to keep you warm at night because this is a Pakistani forum,go to other forums with reputed members and make these claims and you'd be the laugh of the village.

As for the comparison,it was done on this forum ad nauseam,you can live the dream for all i care and I can laugh about it and be on my way.Just like I do now.Have a pleasant day.

Pakistan needs a combination of F-16s and JF-17s in other words medium weight fighters and lightweight fighters, that is why Pakistan is looking for some more F-16s, it has nothing to do with the JF-17 performance which is by all means a very good one already, block 3 will take it to new heights..
I know that Sweden makes good planes and cars, Pakistan and China are relatively new to this and they are catching up rather quickly.
I like the Gripen-all versions, good aerodynamics, good avionics, good Engineering in general and some aesthetics too..
JF-17 is more modest, but quite efficient..even if it attains 80/90% of Gripen's efficacy it is still quite an achievement for a newbie (if you want!)

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

...

Yes, devil is in the details..
Chances of key parameters of data link coming out on public forums are extremely low not only for ours link but for others as well. But you can speculate as much as you want.

If by not needing AWACS, you mean that a set of fighters can share radar data and even hand off fire control solution data to other fighters or receive fire controls solution from another platform and use it to fire a missile and basically work as a relay station than Jf-17 is in comfortable grounds and Gripen is too. For JF-17 further development in this regards what is important is that it can work as 'relay station' for many more missiles. This Inshalla Allah will be the case in Blk 3.

About dogfighting..
I have seen you attach an image of turn rates of different fighters which are mostly wrong and my apologies I immediately understood that you do not know much about manoeuvring. For example, your chart shows that F-18 has lower instantaneous turn rate. Which is highly incorrect, it has much better ins turn rate than F-16. Before introduction of newer fighters I do not think there was any which can beat it in this regard, it had the highest AOA. Because it had manual flying controls and also did not even include a 'kicker' like in Mig-29s so only an alarm was sounded and it was quoted by some to go as high as 65 deg.

Also that chart showed that many other fighters including Gripen had higher sustained turn rates that F-16. Unless some body is using a single loop as a criteria some how, that is not the case. First you should know that turn rates are highly dependant on altitude, an F-16 bulk 15 at 10,000 feet can keep on going in a 9G turn at its corner speed for as long as fuel last or the pilot can remain conscious. Other than F-22, show me a single fighter which can do this and we'll talk.

But dog fighting is not just about who can turn most, as turning most can also leave you out of energy forcing you to go down with your after burner full on to regain energy and turning into a juicy red hot target for a missile. It is basically a matter of what dog fighting 'style' you prefer, is it energy based manoeuvring or slow speed stalls based. Jf-17 tries to stick with F-16 like energy based manoeuvring with a larger LERX to provide a better AOA. It is basically an energy-manoevour fighter, whose design and flight control laws are geared to keep its energy as much up as possible unless you really want to break very hard. Gripen is more of a slow speed stalls fighter, your airforce choice, we have no objections to it.

Yes, the data link introduced already in Gripen A has that capability,
so when You compare Gripen C to JF-17 Block I, you forget about one of the more
important features.
Furthermore, You can use networked Gripen C to triangulate the position and speed using the Data Link.
Or in a heavy jamming environment You let the radars operate at different frequencies for all aircraft making it much harder to jam.

As I already pointed out, the chart was from the article, and not my data.
You are right that the turn rate is depending on altitude, so the chart is significantly simplified,
and the conditions are unknown.
But You cannot compare two fighters without discussing these parameters, and that was why
i added it.

 

[MastanKhan]

...


Yes, the data link introduced already in Gripen A has that capability,
so when You compare Gripen C to JF-17 Block I, you forget about one of the more
important features.
Furthermore, You can use networked Gripen C to triangulate the position and speed using the Data Link.
Or in a heavy jamming environment You let the radars operate at different frequencies for all aircraft making it much harder to jam.

As I already pointed out, the chart was from the article, and not my data.
You are right that the turn rate is depending on altitude, so the chart is significantly simplified,
and the conditions are unknown.
But You cannot compare two fighters without discussing these parameters, and that was why
i added it.

Hi,

It is just like the early 80's---general dynamics was bragging about the F16---and the french were still waiting for their M2k---.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The Austrian project to find a better solution than the Eurofighter is an excellent
opportunity for Pakistan to prove that the JF-17 Block II is on par with the Gripen C.
Win the Eurofighter replacement deal, and noone will doubt the JF-17 anymore.

http://www.bundesheer.at/english/dynmod/artikel.php?id=4994

First step would be to show that JF-17 is one of the 19 options considered.

 

[Avicenna]

The Austrian project to find a better solution than the Eurofighter is an excellent
opportunity for Pakistan to prove that the JF-17 Block II is on par with the Gripen C.
Win the Eurofighter replacement deal, and noone will doubt the JF-17 anymore.

http://www.bundesheer.at/english/dynmod/artikel.php?id=4994

First step would be to show that JF-17 is one of the 19 options considered.

JF-17 can never win. Politics alone rules it out.

 

[VCheng]

RD-33



JF-17 test Pilot, Wing Commander Ronald Felix.

View attachment 290516

A thrust to weight ratio of 1:1.1 would mean it has less thrust than weight.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Gripen is a Fighter Jet created by Saab , Swedish company , and we all know that Joint Fighter 17 is a fighter jet created by Pakistan / China joint collaboration in field of Fighter Jet.


Initial Birth :
GRIPEN : 9 June 1996, Introduction to Service , Program started in 1979
JF17 Thunder : 12 March 2007, Introduction to Service , Program started 1999


Planes Produced and Active:
GRIPEN : 247 Crafts
JF THUNDER 17 : 100+ Crafts


Models & Cost :
GRIPEN :

BLOCK I ~ 40-60 Million Dollars

• JAS 39A (Single Seater)
• JAS 39B (Double Seater)

BLOCK II ~ 40-60 Million Dollars, Air-Air refueling enabled , Enhanced Weapons package

• JAS 39C (Single Seater)
• JAS 39D (Double Seater)

BLOCK III ~ US$113M, More hard points, More fuel , New Radar Engine package

• Gripen NG (Technology Demonstrator)
• JAS 39E (Single Seater)
• JAS 39F (Double Seater)

JF17 Thunder :

BLOCK I : US$~25 million Dollars [Being Upgraded]​

BLOCK 1A (Single Seater):
BVR , Short Range Missiles, Ground weaponry, Strategic weaponry. Anti Ship Missiles Carrier, Cruise Missile carrier​

BLOCK 1B (Single Seater):
Anti Ship Missiles Carrier, Strategic weapon carrier, Cruise Missile carrier​

BLOCK II : US$ ~28 million [IN PRODUCTION]​

BLOCK 1C (Single Seater)
BVR , Short Range Missiles, Ground weaponry, Strategic weaponry , Aselsan ASELPOD Enabled, Air to Air refueling, Additional Air to Air Missile carriage. IRST​

BLOCK 1D (Double Seater)
BVR enabled , Can carry mix of Short/Long range weapons , Aselsan ASELPOD Enabled, Air to Air refueling, Additional Air to Air Missile carriage , IRST. Enhanced Ground Operation​

BLOCK III : US$ ~32 million​

(Thunder Next Generation (NG))
BLOCK IIIE (Single Seater):?????
BLOCK IIIF (Duel Seater):???????

Upcoming Enhancements

Design Phase : Completed

• New Radar
• New Engine
• Helmet Based Target

Production Phase :Under way




​

On a Side by side comparison it is clear that JF17 Thunder program will match the capabilities of Saab's more expensive counter part offering very soon with release of the Block III


The Gripen Program has enjoyed a 15 year head start , in term of access to Markets and as such , we see Pakistan's Block III is behind Gripen's Block III however once completed the JF17 will certainly offer a better overall value for clients