You may call me crazy for dragging the Thunder in to PLA Navy carrier. Briefly,one of the simmering issue at present is how far J-10 can be improved and upgraded. J-10 is reaching a point where further upgrades may not be possible even though it is a great aircraft. JF-17 is not only inexpensive but has a lot of room to grow.
That depends on how you look at it, because the one that is behind obviously has more room to improve to be as capable as the one that is ahead!
Things like IRST, mid air refuelling, dedicated pod stations or some avionics will come only with the next upgrade of JF17, while J10A already has it and the B upgrade might put it even more ahead again, with AESA radar, more modern design or materials...
A lot of talks and rumors are circulating, not necessarily that they are all true but they point to ideas that may or could be incorporated. I may state a few of them:
True, but as I said in an earlier post here, we have to distinguish between myth and reality to understand how capable it really is. Most of the things you pointed out are not special features that only JF 17 can get and could be applied to J10 as well, not to forget that they aren't carrier specific too. The low speed handling for carrier landings should already be better for J10, thanks to the canard design and wouldn't be newly designed or developed for the naval version as in the case of JF 17.
That's why I have some general doubts on these rumors, as far as I see it, the only point that speaks for a carrier verison of JF 17 might be the wing design, because apart from already having the smaller wingspan, a folding system can easier be applied to JF17s wings, than to the delta wings of J10. With the limited space on a carrier, folding wings would offer more parking space for fighters in the hangar or the deck.
gripen info used is not wrong .... however swedes may want to add a ''+'' on some of these values just to prove a point
The payload of both fighters aren't correct:
MTOW (12.7t / 14t)
- emptyweight (6.4t / 6.8t)
- internal fuel (2.3t / 2.2t)
= payload (4t for JF 17 / 5t for Gripen)
Saab fakes the payload specs often by calculating with less internal fuel, that's why they say > than 2t fuel on their official specs, without giving the real figure that you showed. Same reason why the 7t payload of Gripen NG is a fake too, only to impress with a similar load than other medium class fighters, but when it takes off with full internal fuel that is not realistic anymore.
The TWRs are not correct either, with AB thrust the Gripen is hardly comes over 0.91 (low AB thrust / high emptyweight), while JF 17 is close to 1, but with dry thrust, Gripen has some advantages and that's the thrust normally used. Add the lower wingloading, canards and you have some infos on maneuverability or flight performance.
Depending on what you want to prove, this comparison might be helpful, but since the Gripen is superior in most specs according to this (speed, maneuverability, payload) and also wrt the not mentioned features (RCS, mid air refuelling, pod station, weaponary), why would the Swedes want to argue about it? Similar cockpit displays alone doesn't make it equal, they might be useful for similar roles, but the performance is still different.
the LCA naval version is suppose to have a lower T/W ratio than thunder yet they are developing it.
That has nothing to do with good performance, but with national pride of having an indigenous fighter on an indigenous carrier, otherwise a completely useless development. Especially for STOBAR carriers like IN and PLAN will have, light class fighter offer too much limitations in terms of MTOW, range or payload, which could be countered only by catapult take offs. Btw (just as a side note), the MK2 will be the real operational NLCA base, the current version is nothing than a naval tech demonstrator for flight and ground based tests, that's why the lower TWR currently don't matter.
but I'm sure thats some deeply informative stuff ! So good job !
