JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Y

Yodello

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
How does JF-17 compare on paper to Gripen? They are miles apart in price but everything else seems to be quite close. In fact with an AESA radar, JF-17 will get the better radar first. Who knows when Gripen will receive AESA and IRST in the E/F variant. Like other European projects, hopelessly delayed and out of budget. What was meant to be a cheap fighter is now close to $100M for export when E/F comes out. I remember many many years ago, Eurofighter consortium was bragging about new radars and engines and TVC for Typhoon. Nearly a decade later and not even prototypes and tests have been done (only a wealthy arab nation bought a version with unproven Captor E AESA radar last year). This is why Rafale is 100% the better fighter than Typhoon. Definitely better for French Airforce and Navy. Seems like Gripen is going down the Typhoon path. Great marketing but actually selling garbage with the only hype being "oh it has great info sharing and sensor fusion" as if that stuff is hard and other fighters don't ALL have very competent data sharing and sensor fusion. Software is the easy part and I don't recall Europeans being terribly strong at this stuff. Ericsson isn't anything special these days.

So if JF-17 block 3 comes out in next few years with AESA, refuel probe, upgraded sensors and avionics, would JF-17 be a better light weight fighter than Gripen for less than a third the price?
Click to expand...

That's a great question and a legitimate one for countries with tight budget looking for a Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Platform. I don't see the Gripen having that much superiority above the JF-17 if at all. Heck, the future growth path of the JF-17 looks much stronger and I believe that with each upgrade of JF-17 Blocks, the JF-17 will only grow better than the Gripen and hence the justification for spending a significantly larger amount for a Plane which is not much better or even inferior in performance becomes unreasonable.
The JF-17 is the safer bet, at least to me. With the JF-17, one would have the backing of the Pakistan Aeronautical Industry as well as that of the Chinese Industry for future upgrades. Having the JF-17 being associated with a future military superpower already gives the JF-17 a hefty plus point in my opinion. The Swedish Military Industrial Complex while highly advanced, simply is not on the same scale of the Chinese Military Industrial Complex. I see the Chinese MIC growing from strength to strength along-with the PAF.
If I were head of procurement for a small budget military looking for a competent Lightweight Aircraft/Platform to upgrade and boost their Air Force, I would pick the JF-17 because of the reasons mentioned above. One can add more points or reasons.
 
Last edited:
S

schrage musik

Junior Member
Registered Member
asif iqbal said:
Nigeria has allocated 2 install payments for JF17 Block II

$36 million in 2017 and $14 million in 2016

I am not sure if they will make another payment but that’s $50 million for 3 x JF17

That puts the value at approx $17 a pop

Block I was $700 million for 50 units or $14 million a pop

No question that Block III is way more advanced and more expensive but I would seriously doubt its “double” the price

So we can put price tag at $25-30 million

That is one hell of a price tag for a ASEA equipped fighter
Click to expand...

Could you please cite a source for these figures. I'm too lazy to google and I'm sure you probably already have the links with you
 
M

MastanKhan

Junior Member
Hi,

I think the TEST was for the new BVR test firing range for PAF in which a JF17 fired an SD10 at a slow moving target in flight---.
 
M

MastanKhan

Junior Member
ougoah said:
How does JF-17 compare on paper to Gripen? They are miles apart in price but everything else seems to be quite close. In fact with an AESA radar, JF-17 will get the better radar first. Who knows when Gripen will receive AESA and IRST in the E/F variant. Like other European projects, hopelessly delayed and out of budget. What was meant to be a cheap fighter is now close to $100M for export when E/F comes out. I remember many many years ago, Eurofighter consortium was bragging about new radars and engines and TVC for Typhoon. Nearly a decade later and not even prototypes and tests have been done (only a wealthy arab nation bought a version with unproven Captor E AESA radar last year). This is why Rafale is 100% the better fighter than Typhoon. Definitely better for French Airforce and Navy. Seems like Gripen is going down the Typhoon path. Great marketing but actually selling garbage with the only hype being "oh it has great info sharing and sensor fusion" as if that stuff is hard and other fighters don't ALL have very competent data sharing and sensor fusion. Software is the easy part and I don't recall Europeans being terribly strong at this stuff. Ericsson isn't anything special these days.

So if JF-17 block 3 comes out in next few years with AESA, refuel probe, upgraded sensors and avionics, would JF-17 be a better light weight fighter than Gripen for less than a third the price?
Click to expand...


Hi,

Only if it was as simple as that---.

An aircraft and its EW suite---its power plant---etc etc etc is a SLAVE to the weapons that it can launch at the enemy---.

If you cannot get the top tiered weapons designated for that aircraft in question---then how can the top tiered aircraft be better than the 2nd in line which has all the available weapons package at hand???
 
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
I do not think it's as easy as comparing engines, weapons and so on. JAS-39 Gripen is a versatile aircraft which offers some good capabilities. However, an aircraft is only as good as the air force which operates it and the manner in which they utilize the aircraft in actual combat. It also has to do with the scope and scale of the that particular Air Force's perceived objectives and the sort of threat they face. A Gripen or Thunder can perform well in war, provided they have a healthy serviceability rate and are not subject to any external blockade or sanctions.

A good example, by far, is the Argentinian Air Force that dealt devastating blows to the British Navy during the Islas Malvinas or Falklands War. Had the "French" not succumb to British requests to stop supplies of Exocet Missiles to Argentina. The outcome of the war would have been completely different. So even though the Super Etendard is a very capable combat aircraft. It still was toothless without the Exocet Missiles. Suffice to say, the deliberate and viscious act of corruption within the country's leadership (and external meddling, as both go hand in hand), made it impossible for the Argentinians to launch such an audacious campaign ever again.

So coming back to the Gripen vs Thunder discussion. It's not entirely accurate to summize whether one aircraft is better than the other. It's like arguing which came first, chicken or the egg!!
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's fair to assess them on a objective level. Not realistic or applicable to real world I know. But the point of comparing was to show that the JF-17 offers similar levels of performance (digital) and approaches Gripen kinematically for a fraction of the price.
 
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
Indeed that was the entire purpose of developing the JF-17 Thunder, where Pakistan Air Force is concerned. It was a realistic and mature approach toward a problem that had to be dealt with. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of all inventions ... and innovations. A template that ought to be adopted by Pakistan Navy as well. As for the JAS-39 Gripen, well it is a very good aircraft, pity the price is beyond the range of majority of most non-western, non-Arab air forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top