It wasn’t a price comparison.
Why has the C-17 has actually outsold the Il-76 anyway?

you wrote that drunk or in sleep? Even common sense and basic logic tells us that larger/costlier products lie to the top half of the pyramid!

if some one orders a MiG-35 at MAKS, I’ll punch a puppy and kick a kitten, just for you!!!

What’s the matter, affraid to pick someone your own size? :confused:

lol…after all thats what NATO & NATO members do. Nevr fight your equals! 😀

It looks like Indonesia’s JV for a fighter a/c with SK is going to get bad. Its better for the Indonesians to join the Russians for their a/c rather than depending on the Koreans.

You’re not making any sense at all…
You’ve just highlighted how the JF-17s fuselage can not be fundamentally the same as the Mig-21s, and yet keep banging on about how it’s still ‘basically a Super-7’.

The fact that the JF-17 uses a completely different engine, completely different intakes (DSI eventually), completely different landing gear assembly into the fuselage, different cockpit, different wings, different tail plane…etc would all add up to the necessity of desiging a new fuselage. There’s no way you could configure all those changes into the limited Mig-21/Super fuselage, it’s just too limited in what you can do with it.

Using you logic, the JAS-39 and JF-17 essentially use ‘the same’ fuselage because they look ‘similar’. Have a look at the plan form of the two types on the previous page. Does that also mean the Gripen uses ‘essentially a Mig-21 fuselage’ as well?

nevermind..:rolleyes:

I can see that I’ve touched a raw nerve here for certain posters. Facts are there for anyone to see if they just compare the Super-7 concept and the initial FC-1 prototypes.

Or is it that someones pride got hurt? :rolleyes:

This is what you said.

…but, it still inherits the basic Super-7 fuselage and general layout…

Remember, the Super Sabre/Super-7 project was based directly on the F/J-7/Mig-21 fuselage, the later FC-1/JF-17 project was based on a new fuselage to house the RD-93 and other structural changes, that’s what I’ve been trying to get across. There’s no denying that lessons learnt from the previous Super Sabre/Super-7 project were used, but just that the two projects used different fuselages.

And as the pictures posted show, it does inherit the basic Super-7 fuselage and layout (the front fuselage and intake location are nearly the same), but as it has evolved (such as the wing design being changed to an F-16 style wing and the wider diameter RD-93 engine) it has had some obvious changes thanks to area ruling.

Oh boy, now Get up, dust your butt and move-on.

If anyone claim that Tejas is a cheap copy of Mirage-2000 to avoid paying French the royalty for licence manufacture, will you accept it?
If not, get matured and don’t pollute the thread.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Gripen is superior to both the JF-17 & Tejas but I differ from the way you are considering it. Any aircraft has to be considered or compared by separating two vital stati

1) constants
2) variables

Airframe or the structure of the aircraft is a constant and is likely to remain mostly the same for its entire life. Except for maybe few supports for strengthening the joints like wing-roots etc during life extension. Another constant is the aerodynamics of an aircraft.

Whereas almost everything else is a variable that can changed/replaced/upgraded.

I brought it up only because people always do an aircraft comparison only based on the avionics saying radar, datalinks, weapons etc of X aircraft is better than Y and hence X is better than Y…It may be true when considering the system as a whole…

In the case of JF-17, considering the above….it can be installed with all the avionics of the Gripen and make it equal in the variable(s) department. But it won’t be able to match the Gripen in the (constant) airframe department where Gripen is superior…. Unless the design is upgraded (new batch), in short a new design.

All three – JF-17, Tejas LCA & JAS-39 Gripen – belong to the same size class but capablility wise they can be categorized as low-medium-high, based on the constants.

In the case of Gripen & JF-17, I see a much greater success (read desirable) for the JF-17 because it would be cheaper to buy than the Gripen and provide most of the options that a costlier Gripen can provide.

Today was the launch trial for Prahaar battlefield missile…no news on how it went??

BTW chorgupta as usual confusing Prahaar with LORA /EXTRA/Whatever in his blog and also making false claims(as usual) about prithvi’s CEP…again caught red handed:

should there be any surprise to his remark? We have seen the case of IAFs recently inducted radars being claimed as “indigenous”

In your first comment you mentioned that the accuracy of SS-150 is dismissal and the system is cumbersome and so on.

Prithvi was, is and will be cumbersome battlefield missile when compared with other similar systems. It was the reason why Prahaar was born. The accuracy of Prithvi was improved in the later on variants…

Me being witnessed a trial launch,I assure you that the accuracy of the system has been brought down to 4-6mts.Other than the system being a liquid fueled,its still our best choice to take down the enemy targets with a wide variety of targets.Been using the system fora long time and having tested it multiple times,I will place my bet on using this one. All the inventory of 150`s which are ofcourse a huge number running into a number of hundreds has to be expelled to make room for new inventories.
On the other hand you cant compare a system like prithvi to any other contemporary one. Prithvi lies in an entirely different block. IF accuracy is one factor, then its anti-ABM is another factor.

Simply because ss150 is the only option will not make it less cumbersome or undo the fact.;)
btw, what is chorgupta?

Excellent News! If these are similar to ATACMs then they should be very cost effective. I really hope they are planning to stick a couple of these on some surface ships or even fast attack craft like a slightly bigger version of the L&T interceptors.

Yes great news indeed, in the sense that IA will be able to do away with the cumbersome Prithvi missiles. Prithvi as a battlefield missile had a drawback with its long tail of supports for a missile just 150Km. Else Prithvi is a bit OK for the job.

Prahaar with a single TEL will be able to carry a payload of 1,200Kg (6 missiles) against the 1,000Kg of Prithvi and will do away with all support units associated with the liquid fuel. Lets wait and watch how much the tail have been chopped for the Prahaar battle units.

If I may go further ahead….. when these missiles start arriving, there is a chance that Prithvi already in service might become secondary as any IA commander would like to see his job done with a smaller logistics footprint. So why not put up the already in service Prithvi for sale to other countries once the Prahaar fills up the arsenal?? Any thoughts?