sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
only reason why we underate thunder as comparable to other similar aircfts like gripen , is that we assume chinese avionics are not as good enough but actually wwe beleieve are not even close enopugh to western avionics...
It's not only that, but there are more basic points as well. Gripen was developed according modern western design and material standards. The new delta canard design (that even the J10 has) or the high use of composites and RAM materials are different to JF 17s development, which probably is caused by the Russian consultancy in the early design stages. Look at when they started to use similar materials in their fighters and how they still wants to limit the use at Pak Fa. So even when you compare the JF 17 B1 with the Gripen A/B, this will be a prime difference.
Other differences might be the use of radar blockers in the air intakes (instead of most likely Y-ducts in JF17), or retractable refuelling probes (instead to fixed) in later batches. JF 17 is simply not developed to have all the most modern features, like comparable western fighters, but to be a cost-effective fighter that does basically anything these Gripen do as well, but with less advanced features. In terms of multi role capability it doesn't stand behind them at all, but in certain fields it is undeniably not as advanced as or on par with the Gripen yet (RCS, speed, maneuverability, payload).
So even though JF 17 is a good fighter with a lot of good capabilities and fully suiting to PAFs requirement, export countries that will have J10, or western fighters like Gripen or F16, might opt for the more advanced versions, if they can afford it. Even PAF wants J10s above JF 17s, although the later batches of both fighters will have similar weapons and techs, so that alone should tell you that there are more reasons than the usual Chinese vs Western comparison.