I don’t really disagree with much of this post, but I think we gotta clear up again that this aircraft will not be competing against J-20 for the real “NGF” which was the J-XX. They won’t be in a fly off or anything >_>

J-10B’s aesa has 1152 TR modules (quite favourable compared to F-16E’s ~1000)

AESA, right in black and white, in english from the developer. Can’t get more straight forward than that. Hopefully the issue of J-10B/AESA can now be put to rest >_>
Posted by xyz at CDF, for anyone who can read chinese.

I don’t understand your fascination with hotdogs at all… :confused:

Does Pakistani Erieye can datalink to JF-17?

Do you think they will leave their future workhorse blind?

But don’t have it now. Aircraft without any BVR is useless this days. Gripen already is flying with Meteor.

But it was designed from the outset for BVR. You may as well say every aircraft which doesn’t have weapons integrated to be useless. I was talking about the aircraft when it was mature enough

And? SAAB is also constanly developing more advanced avionics for Gripen so the gap will stay the same.

Honestly the gap never stays the same between any two countries.
Two decades ago PLAAF had no AEW&C, now they have a dozen very potent indigenous AESA AEW&Cs.
The swedes are good, I’m no challenging that. But you seem to think the rest of the world, or at least the chinese aerospace industry are fools.

Good joke!

Gripen has better avionic (in any aspect), better airframe (more advanced aerodynamics – the unstable aircraft, more Gs, lighter – more composites) and better engine.

So slightly better in almost every aspects but overall they offer similar capabilities.
Trololol indeed.

Surly both fighters are same class (comparing aircraft by size and weight) but Gripen is a far more advanced with all its cool features like linking radars on couple of fighters (through Gripne link that has greater capabilities than Link-16) to give them better range, Gripen also should have beter aerodynamics (JF-17 is just MiG-21 with some features upgraded, Gripen is a new design and they have lots of experience in aerodynamics in Sweden, they have been building fighters since World War II). In Sweden Gripens are a part of a system with Erieye.

Just a Mig-21 with some features upgraded..?
Far more advanced due to cool feature like linking radars…?
How’s erieye relevant…? (for that matter the PAF itself operates multiple Erieye AEW&Cs and have further ZDK-03s on order from China and i doubt they’ll only be networked with F-16s while missing out on the PAF’s future workhouse)

Well seeing as you said J-20 was just a flying mock up a few weeks back I don’t have much else to reply with.

Avionics: Gripen has AIM-9M, IRIS-T (that can be used with helmet mounted sight), AIM-120C and soon MBDA Meteor. Does JF-17 have helmet mounted sight and any BVR capability?

JF-17 will have BVR capability through the SD-10 yes it was always meant to. All chinese built fighters since later J-7s have at least HMS I believe.
And listing weapons which can be integrated onto either aircraft isn’t going to really help your case because equivalents are either in the works or have the potential to be put on JF-17. It especially will not help you try to say Gripen’s avionics are leagues ahead of JF-17.

Personally I’m not a big fan of Gripen because it is to small (what limits payload and range) and not fully NATO compatible (for long time it had no Link-16 so it couldn’t share information on targets with AWACS or other NATO aircrafts). But to compare it to Chinese MiG-21 offspring powered by RD-93 (RD-33) engine – well I know something about MiG-29 and RD-33 is not the best engine, especially for one engine fighter. Is this some kind of Joke?

Both are light fighters in the same class in the same overall generation offering similar capabilities so clearly it’s not some kind of joke.

Gripen is the best light fighter on the market, the other are used F-5s (IAI offers some nice upgrades), and Asian fighters like Tejas (India), FA-50 (Korea) and F-CK-1 (Taiwan). I would take any of those (including IAI upgraded F-5) over JF-17 anytime. Just google the pictures and compare how those fighters looks. JF-17 is just coarse.

Of course which fighter you’d choose is your opinion 😮 but I don’t think the aircraft doesn’t look coarse at all, at least not the production versions.
You can really see CAC’s better workmanship over the years.

JF17 is not a FBW aircraft either right? That would also imply that JF17 is a stable designed aircraft compared to the 4th Gen unstable designs.

Also its got a very low % of composities compared to Gripen/LCA.

“Its flight control includes a Type 634 quadruplex digital FBW in pitch axis and a duplex analog FBW in roll axis”
http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
JF-17 definitely has FBW as part of its FCS. Besides, Mig-29 originally didn’t have an encompassing FBW if I remember right — doesn’t mean it’s inherently a stable aircraft and that it isn’t considered 4th gen.

Not sure what % use of composites have to do with anything

The main advantage for JF17 seems to be that it is quite cheap to build. It should serve its purpose well as a cheap multi-role BVR capable fighter.

I wonder about that — the supposed unit price of the JF-17 is $18-20 mil USD, but I’ve been getting conflicting numbers on F-16C/D prices.
The biggest advantage for JF-17 I think is its bang for buck. It isn’t top end but if you can get two for the cost of one F-16C/D or gripen, I’d take the former option.
I wonder how maintenance intensive JF-17 is.

Does anyone know why the Chinese Air Force are not buying any JF-17s? Doesnt China still have a large inventory of J7 and JH7 which need to be replaced?

JF-17s are probably considered too expensive to replace J-7s on a one to one basis for the PLAAF. A smaller aircraft, maybe based on the JL-15 would be built en masse in the future.
JF-17 won’t be able to replace JH-7s either.

You can’t really call the plane a point defence fighter or generation 3 when it has ARH missiles and PGMs like LS-6 meant to be on it from the outset.

Obviously we don’t know how “network centric” the JF-17 is but its massive three MFDs must be there for a reason. The aircraft has a decent avionics suite too, rear facing MAWS like J-11B and what seems to be an integrated ECM antennae on the tip of its fin.

JF-17’s basically a cheaper gripen that isn’t necessarily as good in every parameter but has everything you’d want on a 4th generation workhouse, including provision for improvement.

Will be interesting to see how the trials and service life of Varyag and Vikramditya pan out over the next few years and decades.