jln115:

1. It doesn't matter if the F 35 uses the same Software, its still better than that of the JF-17
2.The cobra HMD is NOT integrated on the Junk fighter, thus your opinion is irrelevent.
3. Combat radius is irrelevant if you have air-air refueling capability.
4. The Gripen has a way lower wing loading than the JF-17, go look it up
5. The gripen has the lowest maintenance cost of any fighter on the market, even lower than the JF
6. The Gripen has a RCS of 0.1m2 and the Jf-17 has a RCS of 5m2
7. It doesn't matter if it has a chute or not, it still has a shorter landing distance
8. The gripen has a Max g of 9 and not 8.5 , either way it makes a huge difference if you have a plane that weighs 12 tons when fully loaded, thus just 1 g means the gripen airframe can withstand 12 tons force more than the jf.
9. SAAF Gripen have one of thee most advanced HMI systems in the world.

agaugust:


Same way you Southies talk about project Biro when the OPV has NOT even been named

NAF fully tested/evaluated/selected/named JF-17 Thunder and close to signing contract for purchase of 25 to 40 units/examples.

50 years ahead of SAN project Biro of an unidentified untested unknown OPV that sails with Alice in wonderland
.

agaugust:


Hey dude, what is your source of the ridiculous RCS data you are posting here ? The Gripen has a RCS of 0.1m2 and the Jf-17 has a RCS of 5m2........What is the source of this strange data ?

You always avoid the points where JF-17 beats Gripen......like flight altitude in a dog fight.

The shorter landing distance of Gripen is fake, it's with aid of drag chute, even F-7 jet has drag cute to slow down landing runs.

HMS only works when jets are withing eyeball distance to each other, how do you use it 20 km away ? Or even BVR range 40 km away?

Air refueling Gripen to match JF-17 superior range? Even your master Sweden has no air refueling tanker, talk less of South Africa
.

agaugust:


$2 Billion extra funds was released for new weapons in 2014. Defense budget remains at $6 Billion. Cash reserves stands at $30 Billion.

JF-17 costs only $25 million yet worth the technical value of a $68 million Gripen....Swedish rip off
.

agaugust:


Hey dude, what is your source of the ridiculous RCS data you are posting here ? The Gripen has a RCS of 0.1m2 and the Jf-17 has a RCS of 5m2........What is the source of this strange data ?

You always avoid the points where JF-17 beats Gripen......like flight altitude in a dog fight.

The shorter landing distance of Gripen is fake, it's with aid of drag chute, even F-7 jet has drag cute to slow down landing runs.

HMS only works when jets are withing eyeball distance to each other, how do you use it 20 km away ? Or even BVR range 40 km away?

Air refueling Gripen to match JF-17 superior range? Even your master Sweden has no air refueling tanker, talk less of South Africa
.

agaugust:


$2 Billion extra funds was released for new weapons in 2014. Defense budget remains at $6 Billion. Cash reserves stands at $30 Billion.

JF-17 costs only $25 million yet worth the technical value of a $68 million Gripen....Swedish rip off
.

agaugust:


$2 Billion extra funds was released for new weapons in 2014. Defense budget remains at $6 Billion. Cash reserves stands at $30 Billion.

JF-17 costs only $25 million yet worth the technical value of a $68 million Gripen....Swedish rip off
.

Henry120:
[/b]

This is exactly what is painful about the whole thing.

They paid $68 million for a Block 2 of fighter jet that is only marginally better than a JF-17 Block 1.

jln115:

Dude im not your mom! If you think Im talking sh1t why don't you just go look it up for your self!!

Flight altitude is the only aspect which the JF is slightly better, although it wouldn't help much against the Gripen which has a way better climb rate!

mzilakazi:


Block 2 cannot do simple aerial refueling.

mzilakazi:


How does this change the fact that Nigeria is broke as was shown in BBC?

agaugust:


JF-17 altitude is almost 2 km above the head of the Gripen, you call that slight difference? Well you said the 0.5 g load difference is a wide margin, when it's Gripen advantage, tiny margins become wide.....how about the JF-17 range superiority of about 500 km, that one too is just slightly better ?

E-dummy

Next, what is your source of the ridiculous RCS data you are posting here ? The Gripen has a RCS of 0.1m2 and the Jf-17 has a RCS of 5m2........What is the source of this strange data ?

You are the only one claiming this data, so show us your source, or are you afraid again ?
.

lionel4power:
For the dull zulu brains.


ABUJA – THE immediate past Minister/
Deputy Chairman National Planning
Commission (NPC) Dr. Abubakar
Olanrewaju Sulaiman, Tuesday faulted
claims by President Muhammadu Buhari
that his administration met an empty
treasury. Suleiman said the former administration as
at May 29 left behind the sum of US$ 30 billion

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/06/ex-minister-faults-buhari-on-empty-treasury-says-jonathan-left-about-us30bn/

jln115:

Firstly range doesn't matter when you have air to air refuelling capability!!

Secondly i was over exaggerating a bit about the JF-17s RCS, its , more like 2,5m2 although its nothing compared to the Gripens RCS of 0,1m2

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/bestfighter.html

agaugust:


If I did that, all the fools and m0r0ns born in South Africa will start screaming fake military researcher, right?

You still don't have a good source though.

jln115:

how is not a good source? you said you wanted a source and i gave you one!

jln115:


And further the Gripen has a service ceiling of 16000m and the JF-17 has a service ceiling of 16920m, 16000-16920 does not= 2km!!

http://www.robotechresearch.com/rpg/vehicles/ebsis/gripen/gripen.htm

And lastly the Gripen has a max G of 9.... and yes even 0.5 G makes a huge difference considering both aircraft are +- 12 tons when fully loaded, thus 0.5 G = 6 tons of pressure exerted on the airframe!!!

agaugust:


You gave me one man's ASSUMPTION as a source ! Garbage ! I have my own assumptions too in my bedroom.

You are notorious for quoting false data from bad sources on this forum, I am intelligent enough not to be fooled easily
.

agaugust:


Another weird and mysterious source from you. Why not post data from well known and reputable sources......like Airforce Technology

Gripen max altitude/ ceiling is 15,240 m NOT 16,000 m from your mystery unknown website.

JF-17 flies about 2km above the head of Gripen and will shoot down the overpriced pigeon from above the pilots head

Performance

The Gripen can fly at service ceiling 15,240m. The aircraft weighs around 5,700kg and its maximum take-off weight is 14,000kg.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/
.

jln115:

Dude it doesn't matter if the Jf-17 has a higher service ceiling, its never going to reach that altitude due to the fact that the Gripen has a much faster climb rate!!

jln115:

Dude!!!!! No Fighter manufacturer releases the official RCS of there plane! The RCS is calculated using the known data released by the manufacturer!!

And I thought you said you were a military researcher?

jln115:

Firstly range doesn't matter when you have air to air refuelling capability!!

JF-17s RCS, its , more like 2.5 m2 although its nothing compared to the Gripens RCS of 0.1 m2

agaugust:


Did they both take off from inside the same air base, such that the Gripen shoots down the JF-17 during take off above its own air base?

Brain of a salon barber

agaugust:


So, how did you get 2.5 for the JF-17 since manufacturer did not specify it?

Then 0.1 is the size for a bird like a dove and that is your calculation forn the Gripen RCS.....since SAAB did not give us, then you and your fake sources made up 2.5 for JF-17 and 0.1 for Gripen to make your own jet the size of a bird like a dove or pigeon !

Yes, I am a military researcher, thats why I always burst y.our bubble, now explain to a military researcher from Nigeria how Gripen size RCS is same as that of a tiny pigeon bird.....You will have great career as a full-time salon barber


.

mzilakazi:
Post obtained from Facebook.


JF 17 thunder is made on age old mig-21 airframe which
russia supplied. JF 17 (JOINT FAILURE NO 17 / JUNK
FIGHTER - 17) is just a modification of age old
design.....tech experts around the world consider the JF-17
a FAILED DESIGN


Description
* Pakistan claims their aircraft as INDIGENOUS but it is
using almost all the technology from China and engine from
Russia in their jf-17 (JOINT FAILURE NO 17) fighter........
* Jf-17 is an soviet era fighter comparable to Mig-21 at
most. Even this may be an rosy comparison as China uses
700 Mig-21 but not an single Jf-17 despite Jf-17's low
price.
* the JF-17 aka junk fighter which is designed by China
with partial funding from Pakistan. It is formally known as
JF-17 Thunder. When the fighter was in development,
Pakistani online communities were jumping with excitement
comparing it with its arch rival India’s modern combatants
Su-30MKI, Mig-29S & Mirage-2000H. There were claims of
it featuring western Radars and long range missiles, &
Chinese ordering some due to its superior capabilities. But
the reality is far from it. China having spent significant
amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to
use, most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to
offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known
for their self reliance first and quality next, are further
downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-
pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any
chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s
front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.
* The Chinese designed JF-17 (also known as FC-1) is also
manufactured in China, which is trying to export it to
Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon,
Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka as an inexpensive alternative to
American and Russian fighters. So far, no takers. The
hundreds of JF-17s to be built in Pakistan are mainly
composed of Chinese parts, and the Chinese Air Force has
not shown any interest in obtaining the aircraft for its own
use. Officially, the Chinese Air Force is still “evaluating” the
JF-17, but unofficially, Chinese air force commanders
consider the JF-17 a FAILED DESIGN.




https://m.facebook.com/jointfailure17?v=info&expand=1&nearby&refid=17

mzilakazi:
Post obtained from Facebook.


JF 17 thunder is made on age old mig-21 airframe which
russia supplied. JF 17 (JOINT FAILURE NO 17 / JUNK
FIGHTER - 17) is just a modification of age old
design.....tech experts around the world consider the JF-17
a FAILED DESIGN


Description
* Pakistan claims their aircraft as INDIGENOUS but it is
using almost all the technology from China and engine from
Russia in their jf-17 (JOINT FAILURE NO 17) fighter........
* Jf-17 is an soviet era fighter comparable to Mig-21 at
most. Even this may be an rosy comparison as China uses
700 Mig-21 but not an single Jf-17 despite Jf-17's low
price.
* the JF-17 aka junk fighter which is designed by China
with partial funding from Pakistan. It is formally known as
JF-17 Thunder. When the fighter was in development,
Pakistani online communities were jumping with excitement
comparing it with its arch rival India’s modern combatants
Su-30MKI, Mig-29S & Mirage-2000H. There were claims of
it featuring western Radars and long range missiles, &
Chinese ordering some due to its superior capabilities. But
the reality is far from it. China having spent significant
amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to
use, most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to
offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known
for their self reliance first and quality next, are further
downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-
pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any
chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s
front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.
* The Chinese designed JF-17 (also known as FC-1) is also
manufactured in China, which is trying to export it to
Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon,
Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka as an inexpensive alternative to
American and Russian fighters. So far, no takers. The
hundreds of JF-17s to be built in Pakistan are mainly
composed of Chinese parts, and the Chinese Air Force has
not shown any interest in obtaining the aircraft for its own
use. Officially, the Chinese Air Force is still “evaluating” the
JF-17, but unofficially, Chinese air force commanders
consider the JF-17 a FAILED DESIGN.




https://m.facebook.com/jointfailure17?v=info&expand=1&nearby&refid=17

agaugust:


Citation needed

Henry120:


I expect you to provide evidence you have more than 9 qualified pilots. So far, you Southie soweto dundies have been able to prove you have more than 9.



Stats show the Gripen block 2 is only marginally better that the JF-17 block 1. Shame!

Henry120:


Rest assured, we will not buy a JF-17 at $68 million.