Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 627

Thread: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122

    AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen

    which is better and in terms of what?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    83
    Why, JF17 of course --- It has DSI!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Samudragupta View Post
    Why, JF17 of course --- It has DSI!
    Good point. JF-17 has a more technologically advanced airframe. Don't forget that JF-17 is the world's first plane that incorporates DSI, both in the prototype stage and in the operational stage.





    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripen
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 00:11.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Can Gripen carry anti-ship cruise missiles like JF-17 which is armed with YJ-83 missiles that have a range of over 255+ km?

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-je2VLDhzDN...25283%2529.jpg
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 00:19.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Good point. JF-17 has a more technologically advanced airframe. Don't forget that JF-17 is the world's first plane that incorporates DSI, both in the prototype stage and in the operational stage.
    Umm.... you realise you're comparing an all metal airframe to one featuring extensive use of composites?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Umm.... you realise you're comparing an all metal airframe to one featuring extensive use of composites?
    Doesn't JF-17 use composites extensively?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Doesn't JF-17 use composites extensively?
    Please refer the to great findouter.

    If this thread is a parody or something, I confess I don't get it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    What does Gripen's composites do? JF-17 has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.95 while Gripen has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.97.
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 01:21.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Can Gripen carry anti-ship cruise missiles like JF-17 which is armed with YJ-83 missiles that have a range of over 255+ km?

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-je2VLDhzDN...25283%2529.jpg
    Yes, RBS-15. Which is top secret and all so it's impossible to find public domain sources about it.
    But its pointless anyway to compare JF-17 to Gripen. Since the former has DSI, it is superior in every way. You really should compare JF-17 to F-22. Maybe the Raptor stands a chance even though it doesn't have the mighty DSI.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Samudragupta View Post
    Why, JF17 of course --- It has DSI!
    Don't forget the Generation Zwei radar- the amazing cockpit, the STATE OF THE ART WS-10 engine, and devastating PLA A2A missiles.

    The answer is clear.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    Yes, RBS-15. Which is top secret and all so it's impossible to find public domain sources about it.
    But its pointless anyway to compare JF-17 to Gripen. Since the former has DSI, it is superior in every way. You really should compare JF-17 to F-22. Maybe the Raptor stands a chance even though it doesn't have the mighty DSI.
    LMAO

    and RBS-15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS-15

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Can Gripen carry anti-ship cruise missiles like JF-17 which is armed with YJ-83 missiles that have a range of over 255+ km?

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-je2VLDhzDN...25283%2529.jpg
    Yes.. Rb15F

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Yes.. Rb15F
    Looks better than YJ-83

    LOL at 3 girls in 3 hair colors
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 02:12.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    891
    excellent thread. the JF-17 is clearly superior to the F-22, as proven by this youtube video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii6sU8-G8y8

    bottomline : one shouldn't insult the JF-17 by comparing it with clearly inferior aircraft like the Gripen.
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Boom View Post
    excellent thread. the JF-17 is clearly superior to the F-22, as proven by this youtube video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii6sU8-G8y8

    bottomline : one shouldn't insult the JF-17 by comparing it with clearly inferior aircraft like the Gripen.
    Can you imagine how badly Tejas would get trashed by PAF JF-17s?

    Frankly I don't think even FGFA will be enough.
    DSI or bust baby.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    132
    You get what you pay for? (Cept the F-35)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Can you imagine how badly Tejas would get trashed by PAF JF-17s?

    Frankly I don't think even FGFA will be enough.
    DSI or bust baby.
    exactly ! my neighbour complained to the police about the noise, my knees are shivering so badly in fear.
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    335
    Don't forget that the integration of Mach 7 PL-12D Ramjet shooting out to 350 km capable of engaging 15 G LO targets is going on as we speak. Plus the fact that thousands of JF-17 can be manufactured per month which other companies like LM (with BAe, Northrop Grumman, Cassidian, etc) are struggling to make 2000 across 5 years.
    Airforces worldwide cower in fear at the thought of a Generation Zwei JF-17. Thunder Indeed.
    Last edited by WinterStars; 17th March 2012 at 07:41.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,462

    Arrow

    I think this thread is being derailed simply because some specific individuals, often of a particular national persuasion think its okay to troll around on a thread that has nothing to do with them.

    Despite the attempted sarcasm, the JF-17 and the Gripen are very comparable planes. I would rank the Gripen higher than the JF-17, but I think that the JF-17 has more potential in future developments than the Gripen does.

    Some interesting similarities:

    1. Very closely matched thrust and weight
    2. STOL performance, ability to operate off roads
    3. Both projects pioneered by smaller nations (in the case of Pakistan and the JF-17 is more vital to Pakistan than China thus...)
    4. Are to be armed with similar weapons (MAA-1B Pirhana for SA and PAK)
    5. A central attempt from the start to focus on ease of maintenance and simplicity in production over raw performance
    6. Both envisioned as multirole platforms from the start

    Between, the JF-17 does use composites, but to a lower percentage than the Gripen. The JF-17 Block II is slated to have even greater composite use. JF-17's TWR is believed to be greater than 1, thanks to some tweaking (as stated if I recall correctly from some info out of the Zuhai airshow)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    I think this thread is being derailed simply because some specific individuals, often of a particular national persuasion think its okay to troll around on a thread that has nothing to do with them.

    Despite the attempted sarcasm, the JF-17 and the Gripen are very comparable planes.
    All facts have been provided by the OP himself here, page 13 onwards...
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...114701&page=13

    Nobody is presenting anything new.
    The OP would disagree with you that the JF-17 and the Gripen are comparable. JF-17 with DSI clearly ...
    Last edited by WinterStars; 17th March 2012 at 09:19.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    All facts have been provided by the OP himself here, page 13 onwards...
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...114701&page=13

    Nobody is presenting anything new.
    The OP would disagree with you that the JF-17 and the Gripen are comparable. JF-17 with DSI clearly ...
    What exactly does that thread have to do with what I am saying? And do you always speak in the second person? Stick to the topic or go away.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893


    Most advance aircraft ever! it does not even need DVI and is composite head to toe! nearly 80% composite usage.
    Last edited by matt; 17th March 2012 at 10:02.
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,442
    If you don't mind a steeper maintanence curve then JF-17 might suit your needs. But if man-hours matter then Gripen may be the better choice for you.
    Go Huskers!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    You really should compare JF-17 to F-22. Maybe the Raptor stands a chance even though it doesn't have the mighty DSI.
    Not a bad suggestion. F-22 still uses the same air intake technology as Q-5 does, the latter being a 1960s plane.

    F-22 http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/fi...ht.preview.jpg

    Q-5 http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...n/IMG_0142.jpg
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 14:10.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Not a bad suggestion. F-22 still uses the same air intake technology as Q-5 does, the latter being a 1960s plane.

    F-22 http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/fi...ht.preview.jpg

    Q-5 http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/china.../day04_016.jpg
    Oh wait, F-22 raptor and wright brother's flying machine both depend on atmospheric oxygen to fly, the latter being an early 1900's design.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,859
    Isn't the JF-17 basically just a warmed over MiG-21? In other words, has it got anything more to offer compared to the Indian air force MiG-21 Bison, avionics etc?
    Patrick

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by JSLLL4 View Post
    Can Gripen carry anti-ship cruise missiles like JF-17 which is armed with YJ-83 missiles that have a range of over 255+ km?

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-je2VLDhzDN...25283%2529.jpg
    Why do you start a thread comparing A with B when you are apparently ignorant about B. Yes Gripen carry antiship missiles, SAAB - the Gripen manufacturer of the RBS-15.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS-15

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    JF-17 or former Super 7 is a joint design of the late 80s from CATIC and Grumman as a replacement for the J-7. Forced to an end by the
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square massacre in 1989. To keep it alive for Pakistan in an urgent need as a F-7 replacement the avaibility of the Russian RD-93 allowed to continue that program without further US cooperation. The present JF-17 does not differ much from the Gripen A in flight performance with the edge for the Gripen by a lower wing-load at least.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    Oh wait, F-22 raptor and wright brother's flying machine both depend on atmospheric oxygen to fly, the latter being an early 1900's design.
    All aircraft require air to fly. The difference is in the engines. The first planes used piston engines. F-22 uses turbofan engines.
    Last edited by JSLLL4; 17th March 2012 at 17:37.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    Isn't the JF-17 basically just a warmed over MiG-21? In other words, has it got anything more to offer compared to the Indian air force MiG-21 Bison, avionics etc?
    When MiG-21 legacy is clearly visible in the JF-17 it is far beyond MiG-21 bis. MiG-21 has some airframe limitations like small nose that limit is from using any proper radar.

    On the other hand JF-17 has rather limited capabilities, no advanced targeting pod, and no BVR missile. Hard to say if it has anything like modern, interested ECM system - like ASPIS from advanced F-16s or Spectra from Rafale.

    Remember that MiG-21bison in India is the solution to fill the gap and eventually all Bisons will be replaced by MMRCA (the Rafale). On the other hand JF-17 for Pakistan is the future platform for like next 30 years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES