The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 22:28

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 09:03 
Offline

Joined: 09 Apr 2008, 17:28
Posts: 74
Location: Fish Hoek
According to Wikipedia, in 2004 Air Force of Zimbabwe ordered 12 Chengdu JF-17 Thunder fighters from Pakistan, seen, apparently, as a counter to the South African Gripen. Does anyone on this forum have an opinion as to how the two aircraft would fare against each other in air combat?

_________________
Aviate, navigate, communicate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 09:46 
Offline

Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 17:30
Posts: 175
I don't see how Zimbabwe could afford them at this time, also South Africa's defence budget is double Zimbabwe's GDP.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 18:04 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 Aug 2005, 23:18
Posts: 330
Location: Unknown
I know very little of the JF-17..but my logic would tell me that its not fly-by-wire,so it cannot perform as well as the JAS 39.

It does not have a data-link system - which means they cannot have a better battlefield related orientation than we will have. [-X

Its probably a bigger aircraft,which means it wont have as fast a turn around time as the gripen.

Range? Well..i cant vouch much for the gripen in that department!!! :(

all in all..i dont think we should worry too much about the JF-17's..

_________________
Fights On!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 19:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Observer wrote:
According to Wikipedia, in 2004 Air Force of Zimbabwe ordered 12 Chengdu JF-17 Thunder fighters from Pakistan, seen, apparently, as a counter to the South African Gripen. Does anyone on this forum have an opinion as to how the two aircraft would fare against each other in air combat?


I have followed the story for 4 years since the news came out. Yes, it is questionable – “where did they get the money?”. That does not mean it is not true because they have bought other equipment as much as we don’t know where the money came from. SIPRI has been listing the 12 FC-1s even in there most current (2008) year book.

I don’t believe the FC-1 (JF-17) compares to the Gripen. It is in the same classes and as a defending fighter will give the Gripen a good challenge. Here is a approx table from http://www.airtoaircombat.com . I believe the main BVR weapon is the SD-10.

Image
Image

Here is the FC-1 page from CATIC, little info: http://www.catic.com.cn/en/Product_Serv ... reeID=1833

I find these two Chinese sites not bad: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp and http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm

I believe China has approached Russia and received approval to re-export the RD-93 engine (which powers the FC-1) to 6 countries.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 22:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 00:24
Posts: 123
MAVERICK wrote:
I know very little of the JF-17..but my logic would tell me that its not fly-by-wire,so it cannot perform as well as the JAS 39.


Wrong, It is equipped with a digital dual fly-by-wire .

Chengdu JF-17 Information

_________________
Without weapons it's just another airliner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2008, 22:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 Aug 2005, 23:18
Posts: 330
Location: Unknown
Sorry guys! I have the wrong aircraft in mind - i was thinking of that F-7, Mig 21 lookalike thing, went to go check pics of the JF-17, it looks pritty cool actually!

_________________
Fights On!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2008, 17:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2008, 05:26
Posts: 327
Location: New Hampshire - U.S.A
According to wiki, the order for 12 is confirmed!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2008, 17:53 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2005, 12:39
Posts: 1372
Location: United Kingdom
I would not take it as confirmed yet, as you can not believe or go by what is on wiki, as it is just what any old joe soap has loaded up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 04:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
W407594F wrote:
I would not take it as confirmed yet, as you can not believe or go by what is on wiki, as it is just what any old joe soap has loaded up.


Image

Image

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 04:57 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2005, 08:40
Posts: 3457
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Not a bad looking bird but still doesn't quite look cutting edge either.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 11:48 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4253
At first look I thought "Thats a wierd looking Mirage"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 15:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
H1017412 wrote:
Not a bad looking bird but still doesn't quite look cutting edge either.


I agree – I look at it and say not bad but would have like to see some canards and a bubble canopy. It is made for a cheap budget and considering there is talk that China might not even induct the plane – it is purely for to 3rd parties – I don’t feel good about it.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 17:06 
Offline

Joined: 30 May 2007, 19:54
Posts: 195
Typical Asian design. They seem to copy everything. At first glance it looks like a Mirage 3 front end and Grippen at at the rear. But who cares what they have, it will be unservisable in a few years due to lack of interest.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 21:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2007, 19:29
Posts: 177
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Yes I fully agree. It looks like they took the design characteristics from several other plane designs and mangled it together into one abomination. The tail end does indeed look inspired by the Gripen, while the wings look characteristically F-16, the fuselage reeks of Mig-21, the canopy from the Mirage series of fighters, and the nose looks destinctively Buccaneer.

The only thing on this aircraft that looks remotely original are the air intakes... even though they remind one of the US-NAVY A6 Intruder.

That's what you get when you purchase something stamped "Made in China" =D>

Take a look at the Indian homegrown fighter as well :wink:

Image

_________________
ArmA Border War Mod Site >>> http://www.armedassault.info/_hosted/bu ... index.html
---------------------------->>> BOMBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! <<<----------------------------


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Sep 2008, 06:33 
Offline

Joined: 14 Feb 2008, 08:36
Posts: 311
With the new government in Zimbabwe that will be looking to cut military spending(if the opposition gets control of the finance ministry), I wonder what the implication will be for the Air Force of Zimbabwe FC-1 purchase and for the AFZ as a whole?

With a worthless currency and an economy in tatters things do not look good for the AFZ.

I thought their K-8 gave a decent enough display at AAD2008..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group