jf-17 vs golden eagle for the #2 spot behind Gripen

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

there's probably a few markets where the two can compete for the demand for light weight el cheapo combat aircraft that is not the Gripen!

Original post

Member for

12 years

Posts: 498

Really? Yet another thread involving the JF-17 Mr crispy fried bacon? You and PLA-MKII make the ideal couple, ever thought of moving in together? Although keep in mind that bacon will most certainly be off the menu :p

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

Really? Yet another thread involving the JF-17 Mr crispy fried bacon? You and PLA-MKII make the ideal couple, ever thought of moving in together? Although keep in mind that bacon will most certainly be off the menu :p

well we tried it out, but he just couldn't handle a life of bacon, ham, spam, and pork.

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

I think the jf17 is the best value of the three, so the topic is moot. Note the ng is not a real plane as of now.

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

http://i.imgur.com/KLaNd.png
http://i.imgur.com/GVFjn.jpg

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

If T-50 is your LIFT then F/A-50 makes sense as light fighter. If not, it doesn't: go JF-17 for value-for-money or Gripen NG for performance.

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

If T-50 is your LIFT then F/A-50 makes sense as light fighter. If not, it doesn't: go JF-17 for value-for-money or Gripen NG for performance.

That's the sensible unbiased answer right there.

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

The one place where the JF-17 outperforms the JAS-39, is in low level performance. It is no secret that the Gripen's range sharply deteriorates at lower altitudes. This is possibly due to the large relative wing area and aerodynamics, which sacrifice lower level performance for greater performance at higher altitudes.

The publication Waypoint notes:

Range and combat radius are not too bat at altitude, but sharply deteriorates at low level. While this is not of critical importance to the Swedish air force, export customers with an emphasis on low-level operations might find the Gripen a bit short-legged for their needs

The other two points the publication notes include a lack of diversity of options for the strike role and high costs associated with the low production numbers.

The JF-17 on the other hand is perfectly suited for low-mid level combat, and slightly less suited to high altitude combat compared to the Gripen.

I think the low-level flight characteristics of the JF-17 make it ideal for the kind of "ambush" style tactics the PAF is so fond of using.

Two other vital characteristics for me would be instantaneous turn rates and rate of climb. Rate of climb is 249 m/s versus 255 m/s, giving Gripen a sliver of an advantage. No numbers available for instantaneous turn rates, but an educated guess would be the JF-17 slightly outperforms the Gripen on ITR.

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 3,337

http://i.imgur.com/KLaNd.png
http://i.imgur.com/GVFjn.jpg

how does the JF-17 with 2300 kg of internal fuel have 552 km of additional combat range over the Gripen C/D that has 2270kgs of fuel? Surely that figure for the JF-17 is wrong or includes drop tanks and full internal fuel.

The RD-33 was never considered to be a fuel sipper anyway, whereas the F-404 is quite frugal, so what gives the humongous additional combat range for the JF-17? Notice, their ferry ranges are nearly the same. Something's wrong with that data.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 976

For me both JF-17 and FA-50 make for very good force multipliers as in if you are looking for a combat jet force of 50+ jets having 30+ of these will keep the cost down and give you a Jet that can carry out air policing work plus A2G and point defence as needed but I feel you would need a second more powerful type something like SU-35 JF-17 mix or a Typhoon FGR4 FA-50 mix depending on your views

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

how does the JF-17 with 2300 kg of internal fuel have 552 km of additional combat range over the Gripen C/D that has 2270kgs of fuel? Surely that figure for the JF-17 is wrong or includes drop tanks and full internal fuel.

The RD-33 was never considered to be a fuel sipper anyway, whereas the F-404 is quite frugal, so what gives the humongous additional combat range for the JF-17? Notice, their ferry ranges are nearly the same. Something's wrong with that data.

those figures are from pla-mk2, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

They are from somebody called "Antibody" as noted in the image. RD-93s are not bad on fuel consumption on military power, they are relatively poor wet. I imagine the figures are for hi-lo-hi, and the Gripen has drastically poor range down low.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

how does the JF-17 with 2300 kg of internal fuel have 552 km of additional combat range over the Gripen C/D that has 2270kgs of fuel? Surely that figure for the JF-17 is wrong or includes drop tanks and full internal fuel.

The RD-33 was never considered to be a fuel sipper anyway, whereas the F-404 is quite frugal, so what gives the humongous additional combat range for the JF-17? Notice, their ferry ranges are nearly the same. Something's wrong with that data.

Can't speak for the rest of the data, but regarding engines RD-33 has better fuel efficiency than F404 in dry thrust.
Worse with afterburner, but it is a bit more powerful as well .

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 22

why is tejas not on the list? it will have the same engine as the gripen ng and also an aesa radar just like the gripen ng.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

G limit for Gripen C is 9g

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

why is tejas not on the list? it will have the same engine as the gripen ng and also an aesa radar just like the gripen ng.

Yes definitely should be included. You are right, in many ways the LCA is just like the gripen and in fact potentially uses more composites.

Maybe we should also include the FCK1 which is being upgraded.

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 1,050

why is tejas not on the list? it will have the same engine as the gripen ng and also an aesa radar just like the gripen ng.

Gripen C and JF-17 are operational, and both are available for export.
Given the attrition rate of Indian MiG-21 I would assume domestic demand is priority over exports for Tejas. IAF needs MK II yesterday.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 1,003

I think the jf17 is the best value of the three, so the topic is moot. Note the ng is not a real plane as of now.

Two cultures divided by a common language indeed.

Do you mean moot as British English I.e. subject to discussion
Or moot as in n American English I.e. irrelevant

?

Gripes looks prettier

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,551

I did mean it in the American sense, but looking back, I think the British meaning would also fit in. i.e. Given that the JF-17 is great value for money, it is open to discussion if the topic is relevant. OR
Given that the JF-17 can be considered a better deal than the Gripen, the topic is irrelevant.

PS: The JF-17 most reminds me in its role, the Hurricane in WWII. Not the best plane compared to the top 5 fighters in the world, but it provides decent performance and numbers.

On the other hand it reminds me of the Me-109G "Gustav". the G did not have the speed of a P-51 (M-2000), could not out-turn a Spitfire (F-16), but it has a balance of compromises all its own. In the hands of a good pilot, the Gustav could take on any of its opponents still...

The JF-17 can't do sustained turns like an F-16, or instantaneous turns like an F-18, It can't fly as high or as fast as an M-2000, but it has compromises between them that makes it very well balanced.

It has a M-2000 like tubular body area ruled body that makes it cheap and easy to make, and provides it with low drag. But it doesn't have the M-2000's low drag and high speed delta wings. It instead has F-16 like wings that gives it reasonable turn's and allows a dogfighter to keep more of its energy in the fight.

Yet it doesn't exactly have F-16's wings, it has long LERX that lets it have very decent AoA and instantaneous turn rates, well, not as good as the larger LERX of the F-18, but still, a middle ground between the 18 and the 16. F-16's wing, combined with larger LERX, helps reduce drag in straight flight while increasing drag somewhat at the benefit of higher ITR in a turn.

It has the Gripen's best features mixed into that as well - virtually the same cockpit, and the tail fairing for EW. It also has the same philosophy from the ground up of low maintenance and being able to be used from roads and makeshift runways. Yet, the Gripen's advanced delta canard is heavy and difficult to manufacture cheap. So the JF-17 takes no more.

The JF-17 is a plane that doesn't stand out, but plays the middling game well, taking the best features from multiple jets for a very decent value for money.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

Yes definitely should be included. You are right, in many ways the LCA is just like the gripen and in fact potentially uses more composites.

Maybe we should also include the FCK1 which is being upgraded.

please stop swearing :)

if we include the ching kuo, then that would be heads ovr jf-17, t-50, and tejas because of its longer established history.

Member for

16 years

Posts: 920

The JF-17 is a plane that doesn't stand out, but plays the middling game well, taking the best features from multiple jets for a very decent value for money.

m'kay... So that's why they are selling like hot cakes on the international market? You learn something new every say, they say...