I think this thread is being derailed simply because some specific individuals, often of a particular national persuasion think its okay to troll around on a thread that has nothing to do with them.

Despite the attempted sarcasm, the JF-17 and the Gripen are very comparable planes. I would rank the Gripen higher than the JF-17, but I think that the JF-17 has more potential in future developments than the Gripen does.

Some interesting similarities:

1. Very closely matched thrust and weight
2. STOL performance, ability to operate off roads
3. Both projects pioneered by smaller nations (in the case of Pakistan and the JF-17 is more vital to Pakistan than China thus…)
4. Are to be armed with similar weapons (MAA-1B Pirhana for SA and PAK)
5. A central attempt from the start to focus on ease of maintenance and simplicity in production over raw performance
6. Both envisioned as multirole platforms from the start

Between, the JF-17 does use composites, but to a lower percentage than the Gripen. The JF-17 Block II is slated to have even greater composite use. JF-17’s TWR is believed to be greater than 1, thanks to some tweaking (as stated if I recall correctly from some info out of the Zuhai airshow)

Everything sounds good on paper and exercises, nay even against primitive enemies in COIN operations. What happens in fluid maneuvre warfare? where do you get your artillery placed in time? How do you move it along at the pace of armour? How do you get real time situational awareness combined with firepower over the battlefield? How do you get that in a survivable and cost effective platform? How do you deliver this in contested airspace? What is the better method of taking out enemy artillery or effectively locating them at standoff range?

People speak of their experience in Afghanistan without paying due attention to how that scenario may be completely different from a conventional battle between more evenly matched forces.

What is most strange is that a concept that is well established in military doctrine is being attacked simply because a certain aircraft of bias is not suited to the role. Very childish I’d say, but to each his own.

…
It actually is similar to a religious belief in that a leap of faith that the methodology and capability of the F35 will be adequate is required.
To date, as with religious belief, there is little to no evidence that supports that leap….

Peace snafu352,

Just want to say that while you are right that religious beliefs that you know may not have evidence and rely on blind faith or “a leap of faith” as you put it, you may find it of interest that there is in fact one religious belief that does come with evidence, logic and reason.

Should you be interested to search for that evidence, please do not hesitate to PM me and I would be happy to provide you with something of that evidence. I will leave it at that so as not to detract the thread.

As for your assessment of CAS and F-35, I do agree with your assertions. Dropping JDAMs is possible in uncontested airspace, but in a more even air warfare up above, CAS aircraft climbing into the sky will be juicy targets for fighter jocks looking down. In this circumstance, it is not low flying armoured CAS that is obsolete but in fact the other way around.

Futhermore:

1. Doing CAS with an F-35 is a joke. Simple small arms fire can cause massive financial losses in maintenance.
2. Ruggedness and ability to take a beating is of critical import
3. CAS aircraft in such circumstances are like grunts and not Princess Jasmine
4. for real effectiveness of such low flying aircraft, they need to have a peculiar kind of maneuverability that true fast movers do not possess. Nor do they possess the rough field performance that then become crucial for timely action.

Just some thoughts. 🙂

Sens, please note that CAS aircraft are of secondary import unless you can compete in the air-to-air war enough to give them the space to operate. Since much of the world does not have that luxury, they remain the barrier to export that was being discussed earlier.

Few thoughts:

1. It does not meet the objective to only attempt to delay the Iranian nuclear program from the West / Israel’s perspective

2. People are not factoring in the possibility of a prolonged air campaign by Israel against Iran

3. People are not factoring in that UAVs can play a new and revolutionary role in such attacks, perhaps even being the main strike element of an attack

4. Not factoring in Georgia and other places (possibly Eastern parts of Africa) Israel hides some planes in

5. The reaction from Iran is predictable and would give the US easy excuse to enter the fray. That may be reason enough for Israel to strike… and let the US deal with the aftermath.

6. Iran’s ballistic missile force is a factor. But its been a big factor for too long. I think that the layered missile shield is mature at this point. I know an Iraqi who used to work in the Green Zone, and he recalls seeing large lasers successfully shooting down anything that projected close, including mortars.

I would be happy to hear the detailed views of Mercurious, MSphere and other senior members on the possible means and manner of an attack by Israel / US on Iran.

what about Naval LCA :diablo:

why not Hotdog? 😉

I think they would be useful for Pakistan Army Aviation and I would cheerfully promote such a sale had they not been American equipment.

^^what a handsome man you are Hot-dog, I bet the women in Sweden find you in high demand.