Looking around, you’re right that they are bigger than that of the F-16 but not by much. As for the claim the JF-17 LERX is in the same league as F/A-18 that’s just silly, the size of the F/A-18’s LERX may look the same size but you’ve got to consider the size of the F/A-18 compared to it’s LERX, that’s what may make it look the same size but it’s not. Again it’s the same case for the F-16, JF-17 LERX comparison, But F-16 isn’t that much bigger than the JF-17 for their to be a visually misleading difference. BTW hadn’t you said that IRST is ‘fading away again’? Now that really is funny…

true that’s why I said proportionately larger 😀

IRST is becoming popular again. RAM works by absorbing radar waves and converting them into heat, which can then be picked up by IRST. this being why so many combat planes are now using a combination of radar and IRST for finding planes 😎

MiG-21 has significantly less surface area to the Thunder’s front, also lower drag because it doesn’t have huge lerxes. its a very stream lined design, thats why Russia’s newest stealth cruise missiles are based on the MiG-21 design

look how little surface area MiG-21’s air intake has. that’s enough air flow for a turbojet, but not enough air flow for a turbofan

Given China’s and Sweden’s history, experience and know-how of with fast jet miltary aviation regarding these two aircraft, I’d go for the Gripen every single time over that thing.

and what technologies that Sweden has that China doesn’t? China makes supercomputers, electric bullet trains, nuclear powered subs, helicopters, tanks equipped with laser defense, AEGIS type warships, PCs, TVs, space stations, washing machines, air conditioners etc. that Sweden does not

it does seem to me that Thunder’s front has significantly less surface area as compared to Griffin’s front and a significantly lower coefficient of drag. any thoughts on this?

How do you recon a 8,5 kN á 1,6 Mach FJ-17 have better aerodynamics than a 8 kN 2,0+ supercruiser?

I’m not aware Gripen C has supercruise. Oh, and btw, China shall be the world #1 because it has better freedom than most other countries and free speech and thought are protected by law in that country 😎 YOU sir fail to threaten me. first, I suggest you get the name right, it’s JF-17 not FJ-17, and Mach 1.6 is possibly outdated now it’s Mach 1.8 in any case dogfight at over Mach 2 is virtually non-existent in the 21st century

Seen a clip showing that 2 F-22 pilots will go to talk about the unresolved oxygen problems on CBS. Boy are they risking their jobs for doing that or what. 😮
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7407394n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Confucius says: It is better to risk your job than it is to risk your health or life. 😀

that thunder shot looks so bulbous, a lot like what USA were doing some 40-50 years ago (F-14, F-15, F-16…)… it could really make good use of some more modern aerodynamics, like those of the gripen for example 😀

That shot is no good. the shot at 1:22 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4WjYESLFbc is way better. also some good footage of Thunder’s front in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFg22Cms7MI

Thunder’s aerodynamics is way better than that of Griffin C. the bump intakes vastly reduce drag 😀 which contributes to its very long combat radius of 1,352 km

Thunder Block 2 gets an AESA replacing the pulse doppler and gets a J-10B style nose 😀

3 view of Thunder Block 1 http://www.topgunchen.cn/doc_img/album/20070715-859-1-3.jpg

the whiskers are likely IFF. man that frontal shot of Griffin…. seems much less aerodynamic than Thunder 🙁 Griffin looks like it could really make use of bump air intakes. a nice shot of Thunder’s front at 1:22 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4WjYESLFbc

why come Griffin has a pitot tube whereas Thunder does not? :confused: