JF-17 VS MIRAGE-2000

[MastanKhan]

Correction, I never quoted any T/W ratio figure, I was simply basing my opinion on GR!FF!N's post who said that the t/w ratio of JFT is indeed better, and while your at it, you should atleast research the very source your quoting, because the loaded weight T/W ratio of JFT (0.9 something) is also given in the link you posted, but its funny -- your quoting wikipedia knowing that its false -- for JFT -- but when one points out what it says for M2K -- your like yeah its false ...

Hi,

The paf pilots should not have disclosed the T/W ratio----he blundered.

That is what happens when pilots talk to public. The information just laks out.

Like the U S air force colonel talking to reporters after the first F 22 public demo and mistakenly disclosed the turning radius of the F 22 at the first flight display of this aircraft..

 

[Zarvan]

Okk..lets discuss about the part..

JF-17 easily counters MIG-29s and Mirages(Old?? I think you meant Mirage 2000 and not upgraded ones like Mirage 2000-5 and Mirage 2000-5-9)..ald FYI,IAF MIG-29s are of SMT standard.

MiG-29SMT FULCRUM
Mikoyan MiG-29M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now,lets compare...

JF-17 vs Mig-29(SM version)

Load- 3400 kg with Weapons vs 4000 kg weapons in Mig-29S

Engine- 1 vs 2,which pushes it upto Mach 2.25,where JF-17 can only reach at Mach 1.6.So,Mig-29 can outruns JF-17.

same TtoW

Radar- 105 km (65 mi) in look-up mode and ≥ 85 km (53 mi) in look-down mode(KLJ-7) vs 120 km for fighter sized target(10 tracked,4 attacked) (Zhuk-ME)

Hardpoint- 8(3400 kg) vs 7(4000 kg)

BVR-PL-12(70 km) vs R-27(latest ones having range over 130 km),R-77(greater than 110 km)
WVR capability is about same- Python,Sidewinder vs R-73(R-73 possibly has little advantage because of its greater HOBS and range)

So,no.JF-17s can't "Easily" handle MIG-29 SM as MIG-29 has better RADAR,better Missiles and It is one of the greatest dogfighter ever designed..remember,I choose MIG-29 SM which is having little bit A2G capability and not MIG-29S which was an "in between product" in my opinion.It came to existence 20 years before JF-17 came.I didn't compare it with MIG-29 SMT which IAF has..I didn't enter into unknown domains like IRST,Jammer etc.I don't know if JF-17 uses Jammer.MIG-29 uses L203 Gardenia..

it is a good jammer..

Overscan's guide to Russian Military Avionics

Now..

JF-17 VS MIRAGE-2000(Base Version)


Engine-1
Speed- Mach 2.2
TtoW-.7,lesser than JF-17
Hardpoint-9,can carry some 6300 kg..far greater..
Radar-Thomson-CSF has range over 100 km(same),RDY has around 110 km range.
Armament- MICA- 50 km,Super-530(40 km)..IAF uses R-27
Magic-17 km

uses Dassault Sabre radar jamming and deception pod.

So,nope..spec is around same,but due to better sensors,Mirage has advantage.India uses much upgraded version of this basic version and now they're upgrading them again.

Block II is capable enough to take on any fighter jet India has to offer. JF-17 and MIG-29 and Mirage 2000 are 4th Generation fighters, so with latest BVR at our disposal and one of the best trained pilots on face of the earth, we are quite happy and ready to answer any misadventure.

 

[GR!FF!N]

@GR!FF!N

Hi,

Is this a frigging weightlifting contest or what-----.

Don't blame me man..I simply quoted against a "Troll Post" of Auz in JFT sales thread..looks like I threw a pebble and next thing I know..

By the way..I think I should ask few members to contribute...

@Penguin
@sancho
@Abingdonboy
@Neptune
@Nihonjin1051

 

[GR!FF!N]

Block II is capable enough to take on any fighter jet India has to offer. JF-17 and MIG-29 and Mirage 2000 are 4th Generation fighters, so with latest BVR at our disposal and one of the best trained pilots on face of the earth, we are quite happy and ready to answer any misadventure.

OKK man..whatever you say..

 

[Malik Alashter]

SD-10A has range of around 120km and has similar performance to AMRAAM-120C of U.S (which is a superior platform to Russian BVRs).

I've read some where that sd-10 uses Russians seeker! I don't know how come they still better.

 

[Yousafzai_M]

Jesus, don't your fingers get tired writing so much stuff? not that I have a clue what you are talking about anyway.

JF17 versus Indian planes - why don't we just wait till they face each other in the skies? we will then find out which one was better.

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

So you think G-limits do nothing in Aircraft performance In aeronautics, the load factor is defined as the ratio of the lift of an aircraft to its weight and represents a global measure of the stress ("load") to which the structure of the aircraft is subjected:

Since the load factor is the ratio of two forces, it is dimensionless. However, its units are traditionally referred to as g, because of the relation between load factor and apparent acceleration of gravity felt on board the aircraft. A load factor of one, or 1 g, represents conditions in straight and level flight, where the lift is equal to the weight. Load factors greater or less than one (or even negative) are the result of maneuvers or wind gusts

Load factor (aeronautics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you Based your Facts on Media Ads All weight of your argument Lied on that Single poster

Your Even Denied that PAF Pilot Sqr Leader Nadir ALI Quoting Figure in Paris Air show which is Most Recently Instance is Wrong you are claiming you know more than Test pilot

the Load Factor depends on Aircraft design and Structure of aircraft Mirage-2000 is capable of G limits: +9.0 g / -3.2 g (override mode: 11 g, structural limit: 12 g)

In the definition of load factor, the lift is not simply that one generated by the aircraft's wing, instead it is the vector sum of the lift generated by the wing, by the fuselage and by the tailplane, or in other words it is the component perpendicular to the airflow of the sum of all aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft.

The lift in the load factor is also intended as having a sign, which is positive if the lift vector points in the same direction, or close to, as the aircraft's vertical axis, or negative if it points in the opposite direction, or close to opposite, to the vertical axis


Excessive load factors must be avoided because of the possibility of exceeding the structural strength of the aircraft.

Aviation authorities specify the load factor limits within which different classes of aircraft are required to operate without damage. For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case):

• For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)
• For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8
• For utility category airplanes, from -1.76 to +4.4
• For acrobatic category airplanes, from -3.0 to +6.0
• For helicopters, from -1 to +3.5

However, many aircraft types, in particular aerobatic airplanes, are designed so that they can tolerate load factors much higher than the minimum required. For example, the Sukhoi Su-26 family have load factors limits of -10 to +12.

The maximum load factors, both positive and negative, applicable to an aircraft are usually specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.



Its Applies to you too, your the one who Stating Fact that JF-17 is Out Maneuvering F-16 In Various Mock Battles

Variable Fact is F-16 TWR is 1.096 which More than jf-17, Uptill Now Whole Argument of yours Based on Fact that JF-17 has Slightly better TWR than Mirage-2000-5 Which Makes it More Capable.But When you are comparing it with F-16
you yourself Underrated this Factor Considering that JF-17 out maneuvered f-16 in Dogfight in Disputed Mock Battles which only you Claimed without Providing Authentic Source

you Also don't considering the Fact that Twr will Also Depend on Fuel density used in calculations
and Combat Payload So Mirage-2000-5 with reduced Payload will have different variations
Even - Harrier GR7A has TWR of 1.00 that doesn't make it Better Dog Fighter

Also the the Fact 0.7 TWR of mirage-2000 is of C version Later version Mirage-2000-5 have better thrust of 0.93 against Loaded Weight which has better thrust by 3 kn

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

Also mock battles only Not the Factor that Makes Fighter Better For instance Rafale out maneuvered f-22 in Dogfight which greater than rafale in all parameters.or Turkish f-16 against typhoon in various Exercises

You are an idiot of the highest order. Your posts are total ripoffs from random websites (in particular wiki) with no structure or coherence. Writing in bold caps is not helping your cause. It shows that you have a small-man complex.

In comparison to @abdulbarijan 's posts your ranting makes you look completely moronic. Just stop. You're making a total fool of yourself. You have more than adequately displayed your lack of knowledge.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

ECM suit on board in JFT is spanish Indira system.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Yeah to you i guess because its Fill with rationality. Counter IF it is Any Factual error in my assumptions if Not STFU

Now I know that I've said that I wouldn't be responding to your post, but just to demonstrate the rationality that you so speak of, simply writing in a font size 6 literally screaming in writing doesn't make your argument valid -- so where should i start -- hmm

Because the New Gen Bvr Like MICA Make it pointless and Damocles Targeting Pod and HMDS Make this Points of argument Moot

So your "argument" involves a targeting pod mainly used to guide Air to ground weapons to do what exactly in an air to air engagement against a JF-17 ??? -- and while we're at it does IAF even field the pod since litening G4 was selected for IAF..

So you think G-limits do nothing in Aircraft performance In aeronautics, the load factor is defined as the ratio of the lift of an aircraft to its weight and represents a global measure of the stress ("load") to which the structure of the aircraft is subjected:

Since the load factor is the ratio of two forces, it is dimensionless. However, its units are traditionally referred to as g, because of the relation between load factor and apparent acceleration of gravity felt on board the aircraft. A load factor of one, or 1 g, represents conditions in straight and level flight, where the lift is equal to the weight. Load factors greater or less than one (or even negative) are the result of maneuvers or wind gusts

Load factor (aeronautics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you Based your Facts on Media Ads All weight of your argument Lied on that Single poster

Your Even Denied that PAF Pilot Sqr Leader Nadir ALI Quoting Figure in Paris Air show which is Most Recently Instance is Wrong you are claiming you know more than Test pilot

the Load Factor depends on Aircraft design and Structure of aircraft Mirage-2000 is capable of G limits: +9.0 g / -3.2 g (override mode: 11 g, structural limit: 12 g)

In the definition of load factor, the lift is not simply that one generated by the aircraft's wing, instead it is the vector sum of the lift generated by the wing, by the fuselage and by the tailplane, or in other words it is the component perpendicular to the airflow of the sum of all aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft.

The lift in the load factor is also intended as having a sign, which is positive if the lift vector points in the same direction, or close to, as the aircraft's vertical axis, or negative if it points in the opposite direction, or close to opposite, to the vertical axis


Excessive load factors must be avoided because of the possibility of exceeding the structural strength of the aircraft.

Aviation authorities specify the load factor limits within which different classes of aircraft are required to operate without damage. For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case):

• For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)
• For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8
• For utility category airplanes, from -1.76 to +4.4
• For acrobatic category airplanes, from -3.0 to +6.0
• For helicopters, from -1 to +3.5

However, many aircraft types, in particular aerobatic airplanes, are designed so that they can tolerate load factors much higher than the minimum required. For example, the Sukhoi Su-26 family have load factors limits of -10 to +12.

The maximum load factors, both positive and negative, applicable to an aircraft are usually specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.

I didn't say G-limit was a non-factor, what I said was and I'll demonstrate through exemplification that you don't even read my posts, or if you do cannot even understand them --

What I said was G-limit isn't the only factor, would G-limit be the only factor with tejas which at IOC-I was quoted as to only be able to pull 6 G's -- is G-limit the only factor in the maneuverability of say a Mig-21 or F-7 PG both of which are known to be quite effective in WVR ...

Secondly I've demonstrated the figures of JFT variate alot -- so you have variation in the speed claims, variation in the payload claims.. variation even in the engine thrust claims -- variation in the Thrust to weight ratio claims -- infact I've even highlighted the fact that there has been variation in the G-limit claims where +8.5 G's have been claimed for the JFT .. Even then I'll give you a 0.5 +ve G-limit advantage -- what I would like to ask is -- and let me continue this maneuverability argument after I quote this precious piece of text ...

Its Applies to you too, your the one who Stating Fact that JF-17 is Out Maneuvering F-16 In Various Mock Battles

Variable Fact is F-16 TWR is 1.096 which More than jf-17, Uptill Now Whole Argument of yours Based on Fact that JF-17 has Slightly better TWR than Mirage-2000-5 Which Makes it More Capable.But When you are comparing it with F-16
you yourself Underrated this Factor Considering that JF-17 out maneuvered f-16 in Dogfight in Disputed Mock Battles which only you Claimed without Providing Authentic Source

you Also don't considering the Fact that Twr will Also Depend on Fuel density used in calculations
and Combat Payload So Mirage-2000-5 with reduced Payload will have different variations
Even - Harrier GR7A has TWR of 1.00 that doesn't make it Better Dog Fighter

Also the the Fact 0.7 TWR of mirage-2000 is of C version Later version Mirage-2000-5 have better thrust of 0.93 against Loaded Weight which has better thrust by 3 kn

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

Also mock battles only Not the Factor that Makes Fighter Better For instance Rafale out maneuvered f-22 in Dogfight which greater than rafale in all parameters.or Turkish f-16 against typhoon in various Exercises

So lets continue, the G-limit argument right --- So I'll give you the 0.5+ve G's -- but just see the part in red --


My argument from the post that i quoted-- JF-17 has better maneuverability in the horizontal axis then an F-16 -- not in the vertical axis due to the fact that an F-16 has better TWR then a JF-17 --- (remember F-16 is a 9G capable aircraft)

Translation : F-16 is better in the vertical axis then a JF-17 because of a superior TWR..however the JF-17 has an edge in the horizontal axis even against an aircraft that is 9G capable and is known for its turning performance and is hailed by many as amongst the best dogfighters ever made ....

However, in the case of JFT vs M2k, JF-17 has a better TWR then the mirage 2000 -- This is me pointing out the simple fact that I wouldn't count out a JF-17 simply because there lies a G limit difference of half a G, which probably wouldn't be there looking at how much the figures variate in the first place ... infact owing to the high T/W ratio difference (between JFT and M2K) translating in to a better vertical axis performance for the JFT and the fact that its better then an F-16 in horizontal axis maneuvering I would give the advantage to a JFT ...

Okay, fuel density argument of yours -- how about your provide the fuel density of the "rocket fuel" being used inside the M2K -- the reason I say "rocket fuel" is because if you weren't so busy looking up things that partially supported your point you would've noticed you were studying rocket TWR's of rockets and why they are greater owing to one of the factors being fuel density -- want me to quote you your "proof"

"The thrust to weight ratio of rockets typically greatly exceeds that of airbreathing jet engines because the comparatively far greater density of rocket fuel eliminates the need for much engineering materials to pressurize it."
Thrust-to-weight ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lastly, Ive already stated that different loads will mean different TWR's many times, but for the sake of comparison -- the normal consideration is of the loaded weight and the thrust with afterburners being provided by the engine ..

So a thrust increase of 3 KN (so 98 Kn) will get a TWR ratio of 0.7 on loaded weight to 0.93 -- just so you know thats 22,031 pounds of force, and with a loaded weight of 30,420 pounds -- that still comes up with a TWR in the early-mid 0.7's -- not 0.9 something as you so claimed ...

and like I expected and have stated so many times the factors that are in favor of JF-17 don't matter -- just before to other Indian posters .. it mattered alot when Mig-29 was the one having the advantage, infact even you were blaberring about the engine thrust of M2K being greater --

so try being a little realistic and fair before you go blindly data mining for things that you dont even understand ... just in case you forgot -- this is you at the time where engine thrust was "the thing" to the point where you bolded it in the specs section of your original post -- showing that M2k had a supposed "advantage"--- remember this little post of yours ..

Mirage 2000 mk2
Dimensions :

Span 29.9 ft
Length 47 ft
Combat weight 21,000 lbs.

Maximum thrust of the SNECMA M53-P2 98 kN
Two versions single and twin-seater

and then you have the claim of 1 vs 1 fights, refer to the ROE's of the examples you quoted then make a judgement -- instead of blindly posting stuff that seems to you as this stuff -- "proves my point"

There are two MICA variants; MICA RF has an active radar homing seeker and MICA IR has an imaging infra-red homing seeker. Both seekers are designed to filter out counter-measures such as chaff and decoy flares. A thrust vector control unit fitted to the rocket motor increases the missile's agility. The missile is capable of lock-on after launch (LOAL) which means it is capable of engaging targets outside its seeker's at-launch acquisition range. Mounted on the Rafale, the MICA IR can provide IR imagery to the central data processing system, thus acting as an extra sensor.

The 'no escape zone' (NEZ) is a loaded subject. As emotionally loaded as how people are passionate about the radar cross section values of the fighters that are the focus of their adoration.

The major problem with the NEZ is that any claim cannot be verifiable and I have no problems applying that skepticism even to US. The recipients of these claims, meaning the missiles' targets, are usually already dead and cannot give testimonies to any manufacturer's claim to lethality. So unless we can get Madam Zola to channel the spirits of the victims of these missiles to tell us what happened, let us take these claims with grains of salt.

But at least there is one agreed upon qualifier about the NEZ: That the 'no escape zone' is an area of airspace where the target cannot escape by agility alone.

The NEZ is derived from:

1- Whether that airspace volume is detected by radar or infrared sensor,

2- The assumption is that as long as the sensor continues to provide the missile with credible target discrimination,

3- The missile have superior speed,

4- And the missile have the necessary flight control systems to continue to pursue the target to the end.

The higher the quality of each item, the greater the NEZ.

1- Radar is superior to infrared in many ways that it is the preferred primary sensor for target acquisition and lock. If infrared is coupled with radar with appropriate switching algorithm to compensate for countermeasures then we raise item one over a competitor that have only radar or infrared.

2- Target discrimination is not a given just because there is a sensor of any type. Target discrimination is data driven, meaning how sophisticated is the sensor package in weeding out the target from background. It is how fast does the sensor data get to the processor section and how fast does the processor section work on that data. If a missile have solid state avionics over a competitor that have majority analog electronics, then we raise this missile over its competitor.

3- Most missiles have superior speed over the target anyway, so this is a plus for all manufacturers' claims.

4- Flight controls involves more than just actuators and deflection fins. It is navigation laws sophistication that will predict the target's future spatial location and direct the missile to that estimated location. It is the granularity of that prediction, as in whether the target is calculated in meters (plural) increment, meter (singular) increment, or less. If the actuators and deflection fins cannot respond to the commands from the navigation laws, this will affect the entire NEZ calculus -- negatively.

Since missiles are obviously export controlled items, how can any manufacturer claim his product is superior to his competitor if all competitors have the same technology base ?

According to US, when the AMRAAM was under development, an F-15C fired four missiles at four QF-100 drones that were under high maneuvers and discharging countermeasures, and all four drones were hit. The public have no other information about the above four items, especially on how much the drones tried to escape via agility and countermeasures. Countermeasures falls under item 2: credible target discrimination.

Over Iraq, the AMRAAM destroyed several Iraqi MIGs. Obviously, these are 'real world' situations. But the problem is that we do not know if the Iraqi MIGs have done anything similar to what the test drones did. Was it because the Iraqi pilots did not have radar warning receivers ? Maybe they have but the RWR system was not good enough ? Maybe the RWR system was good enough but the Iraqi pilots did not know what to do, which would make this a training issue and incompetency in combat from the same. Maybe these AMRAAM kills came from a mixture of both failure of warning and human incompetency ?

Over Serbia, an AMRAAM hit a Serbian MIG flying low level using terrain as cover, this indicate the AMRAAM have high item 2: credible target discrimination. Flying low level using terrain as cover is tricky. Depending on altitude, the pilot maybe maneuvering in response to terrain features. But it also mean his maneuvers are limited, else he would crash into a hillside or a vertical cliff, this also means the target may not be able to maneuver to the extent that he stresses the AMRAAM's navigation laws and flight controls. We can even criticize that terrain would restrains the target to be well inside the AMRAAM's 'no escape zone', making verifying the manufacturer's large NEZ claim difficult. Going back to the Serbian MIG shoot down. All we know is that the AMRAAM can distinguish a target from heavy Earth clutter, not how much the AMRAAM's technology was stressed before it hit the MIG.

The fact that the American AMRAAM have been used in combat with measurable success and yet can still be criticized means that no missile is above skepticism, regardless of how a person maybe biased towards one side or the other.

Here we go more MICA -- it is the greatest thing that happened right --- just for the fun of it, I remember the very same indian fanboys going,

"It doesn't even have enough range compared to an AMRAAM or R-77" when it was shortlisted by PAF -- now it seems that MICA is the best thing that ever happened to the missile industry since ofcourse the IAF is getting it...

The problem is I've already stated a number of times that MICA is a good missile, but does it give M2K the ultimate advantage --- not really -- since the opposition -- I stress again -- is fielding BVR missiles that just happen to be very capable as well --- with continuous reference to the HOJ capability that both (AMRAAM C5's and SD-10's have)

- As far as your criticism of the AMRAAM is concerned, I'd love for you to read your post again -- aloud-- because all it's saying is that --- AMRAAM hit the drones, the Mig's over Iraq, the Serbian Migs --- and the "could be's" of why the jets were destroyed ... and if they had such and such and such would they have been able to survive -- all an "analysis" -- while the fact remains -- amongst all the incidents you mentioned --- the result were : kills achieved by the AMRAAMs ---

Lastly, with LOAL -- who do you think will guide the missile until the seeker takes over -- ?? -- obviously The radar of M2K -- but when I bring in the radar of JFT and its quoted ranges etc. suddenly you don't seem that comfortable and go on half a page about how great your MICA is -- maybe the Indian airforce should give the MICA's to the "Khooti reeri's" (donkey carts) of India -- after all they have LOAL, TVC and 60 G capability -- they would shoot anything to the ground without even being guided right ??

 

[NKVD]

However, in the case of JFT vs M2k, JF-17 has a better TWR then the mirage 2000 -- This is me pointing out the simple fact that I wouldn't count out a JF-17 simply because there lies a G limit difference of half a G, which probably wouldn't be there looking at how much the figures variate in the first place ... i

Not its Not 0.7 Twr you quoting is of Mirage-2000C but Mirage-2000-5 is TWR of 0.93
Read Below link

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

 

[NKVD]

Here we go more MICA -- it is the greatest thing that happened right --- just for the fun of it, I remember the very same indian fanboys going,

"It doesn't even have enough range compared to an AMRAAM or R-77" when it was shortlisted by PAF -- now it seems that MICA is the best thing that ever happened to the missile industry since ofcourse the IAF is getting it...

The problem is I've already stated a number of times that MICA is a good missile, but does it give M2K the ultimate advantage --- not really -- since the opposition -- I stress again -- is fielding BVR missiles that just happen to be very capable as well --- with continuous reference to the HOJ capability that both (AMRAAM C5's and SD-10's have)

- As far as your criticism of the AMRAAM is concerned, I'd love for you to read your post again -- aloud-- because all it's saying is that --- AMRAAM hit the drones, the Mig's over Iraq, the Serbian Migs --- and the "could be's" of why the jets were destroyed ... and if they had such and such and such would they have been able to survive -- all an "analysis" -- while the fact remains -- amongst all the incidents you mentioned --- the result were : kills achieved by the AMRAAMs ---

Lastly, with LOAL -- who do you think will guide the missile -- ?? -- obviously The radar of M2K -- but when I bring in the radar of JFT and its quoted ranges etc. suddenly you don't seem that comfortable and go on half a page about how great your MICA is -- maybe the Indian airforce should give the MICA's to the "Khooti reeri's" (donkey carts) of India -- after all they have LOAL, TVC and 60 G capability -- they would shoot anything to the ground without even being guided right ??

Rest of your points just assumptions

 

[abdulbarijan]

Not its Not 0.7 Twr you quoting is of Mirage-2000C but Mirage-2000-5 is TWR of 0.93
Read Below link

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

Like I said, atleast go through the links and sources that you post, as the answer is already there staring you right in the eyes --

to quote your source --

TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel)))

So 98 Kn of force = 22031 lbs of force
3.5 tonnes + the empty weight = 24077 lbs

Translating in to a TWR of 0.91 for M2K, it doesn't really have anything to do with the versions of the aircraft like you believe, just the weight being loaded differs in each consideration ...


The JFT still beats the M2k over the TWR comparison, even with this claim of yours ... but like I've previously stated the comparison in such conditions wouldn't hold any ground, because the two jets belong to different weight classes, and carry different loads -- and the type of load would dictate the ultimate TWR but for the sake of comparison, I assumed loaded weights --

however if I were to compute TWR's on

Empty weight - Jf-17 would have 1.30, M2k has a TWR of 1.34 at empty weight

Loaded weight - JF-17 has a TWR of 0.94/0.95, M2k on the other hand has 0.72

Max take off weight - JF-17 has a TWR of 0.68, M2K on the other hand has 0.59

With these jets being of 2 different weight classes the load types on each would be different, but generally speaking JFT would be at an advantage in most cases --

That's usually the case with relatively heavier fighters, unless you have an engine like GE F110, or F100 giving you thrust ranging from 110 KN all the way to 144 KN if one is talking desert falcon, then you have Mig-29's with RD-33's providing along the lines of 80 KN each --

So while the M2K is a good platform, TWR isn't exactly its strong suite -- so bottom line, even with your "source" the M2k would still be at a disadvantage in the TWR category ...

Rest of your points just assumptions

 

[Last Samuri]

PAKISTANIS ARE WORKING OVER TIME NIGHT AND DAY TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE MIGHTY THUNDER IS
MORE THAN A MEDUIM LOW COST BUDGET LIGHTWEIGHT FIGHTER.

This thread has been opened closed reopened hundreds of times since 2011

I GET THE IMPRESSION there is some serious insecurity by Pakistanis over the thunder..

You are the only nation on earth buying it and using it...

THE PLAAF have not acquired this preferring flankers & J10 and will move on to fifth gen fighters

Bangladesh and Mynamar are your next big targets ( big I say in gest)

Relax let the plane develope and see where it goes

STOP MAKING OUT LANDISH CLAIMS.

BOTH THE F16 & the mirage2000 are world class fighters. with world class airframes engines avionics and weapons.

You need to accept that scenario and hope your WORLD CLASS PILOTS bridge the technology gap

 

[Djinn]

The fallacies of Indian logic:

Mirage is better because it was built by French.

We bharteez are stuck in the past and still think wilaiti(Foreign) products are best, especially European because we Bharteez look up to them.

PAF is buying F-16's because JF-17's are too inferior.

Just because China hasn't inducted JF-17's so far, so this proves that JF-17 is a failed jet.

SU-30 MKI's are mini AWACS and best, but IAF is still buying Rafales, because we are the most SMARTEST people in the world.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Hi,

The paf pilots should not have disclosed the T/W ratio----he blundered.

That is what happens when pilots talk to public. The information just laks out.

Like the U S air force colonel talking to reporters after the first F 22 public demo and mistakenly disclosed the turning radius of the F 22 at the first flight display of this aircraft..

I would agree, we're not in a position to be boasting about capabilities of the jet, especially when we don't have a platform which gives us an overwhelming advantage over our opponents, having every little surprise would serve us in the situation of a conflict --