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.
Sign In
