Endurance is usually much better with turboprop, which is critical for a AEW.
Snaillike speed makes also better endurance and smaller workload for dataprocessing/better resolution for the radar
If you dont think transit speed or ceiling is a problem turboprop is better
RCS isnt that big of a deal as Spudman says, Radiation detection is.
Hopefully beamforming and LPI functions helps out..

digital all the way

i really think the new digital camos are really good. In that sens is harder to make out lines.

Two interesting parts of that article;

1. It is implied there are discussions about using the F414 EPE engine
2. “Gygax also confirms that leaked reports out of Swiss weapons acquisition agency Armasuisse are based on old data and do not reflect the Gripen configuration chosen by Switzerland”

Also confirming the DSI is under considuration.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/295692/ensuring-logistics-support-for-military-aircraft

Here it say a total of 18 aircrafts. So they have just extended the second batch from 6 to 12 A/C and last delivered in 2013!

there are some speculations about 6 more gripens to a total of 18 gripens.
Maybe something about that, that has surfaced, not wrongdoing by raptor219. we have to what an see if better sources reports…

I beg to differ. F-22 is not stealth against a modern AESA / IRST combo. AESA has a very wide angle of scan and is very powerful which heats iron ball paint a lot which in turn makes F-22 vulnerable to IRST. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar-absorbent_material

here’s what Boeing says about Super Hornet being a stealth killer http://defensetech.org/2011/12/30/the-super-hornet-as-a-stealth-killer/

also http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/

You hopefully are ironic, and just having a fun with all of us at this thread.
Otherwise you are utterly wrong about everything, and have no clue how fighter or radars works.

AESA have worse angle of scan than PESA, and have no measurable heating effect of the surface of an other fighter even if all energy is absorbed.

JF-17 is far more advanced than any 1980s plane F-22 was designed to take on, but be my guest 😀 and don’t cry to mommy should it get locked on

http://www.jf-17.com/avionics/

Ooh yes, a radar with half a normal 4:gen range and some screens with engine and flight data its all it takes. 😉
maybe this qualifies in Pakistan as a figther avionics?
[ATTACH]205552[/ATTACH]

it’s not a copy. Grumman supplied F-20 design and technology during the technology transfer from the US to China for countering USSR 😎

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

JF-17 has evolved so much since the F-20 design it is over a generation ahead of F-20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

so since 1986, wings and evolvement is zero to none.
None of modern avionics, radar, or longrange missiles installed, until “later”, not that much MTOV or range.
Not anything except DSI and bigger lerx which make it go alot slower but little better angels of attack? (can beat gripens >100deg?)
And what about the current state of the radars?
KLJ-7 against PS-05a 😀 Even the early versions from 1990 are generations ahead, with 120km@1m2 against 75km@3m2