F-20 vs Gripen vs JF-17?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Nodeo-Franvier

Airman 1st Class
124
24
Jul 13, 2020
Excluding Avionics how do you think Gripen and JF-17 compare to F-20?
 
The JF-17 doesn't really have the electronic sophistication of the Gripen, but in terms of affordability it offers a similar but slightly less capable weapons carriage capability for a fraction of the cost. It's performance is below that of the Gripen and it's lighter, and being cheaper it's ideal for those air forces strapped for cash, like Argentina for example, that want a multi-role strike fighter.

The Gripen has become an export success story through vigorous marketing by British Aerospace a few years back, although that deal has since ended and it still ranks as one of the modern day export successes, whereas the JF-17, despite heavy promotion at airshows is not 'yet' an export success. A few countries have ordered it but in small numbers only and Pakistan is the primary operator; interesting that Pakistan's technology share partner China has not chosen to put the JF-17 into service, which is problematic for the Pakistanis as they have to foot the production costs alone, which they want to offset with foreign orders.

Of interest is that Argentina has placed interest in ordering 12 of them, while Brazil has ordered the Gripen. Perhaps the only place where side-by-side comparisons between operators will be made?
 
Well ... compared to either the F-20 or the JF-17 ... the Gripen has a more modern engine, more modern structure, and more modern aerodynamics. The Gripen-E has about twice the range and (i think) needs less runway. The Gripen carries more weapons of more total weight. And an easier cockpit. And more modern avionics, which is the most important part of the plane.

The Gripen looks better too.

The F-20 has a better thrust/empty_weight ratio.

You can buy three JF-17s for the cost of a Gripen, and you can buy a JF-17 without oversight from Swedish politicians.

I'd bet on the Gripen in a dogfight because of the delta-canard, and it's obvious who wins in a beyond visual range encounter.
 
The Gripen has become an export success story through vigorous marketing by British Aerospace a few years back, although that deal has since ended and it still ranks as one of the modern day export successes, whereas the JF-17, despite heavy promotion at airshows is not 'yet' an export success. A few countries have ordered it but in small numbers only and Pakistan is the primary operator; interesting that Pakistan's technology share partner China has not chosen to put the JF-17 into service, which is problematic for the Pakistanis as they have to foot the production costs alone, which they want to offset with foreign orders.

China has enough of money to buy, fuel and maintain the pricy and more capable hardware. Not just the bigger, heavier and more expensive J-10, but a whole host of 2-engined fighter-bombers.
Grippen cost to buy and operate is probably 2/3rds of what will Rafale or Eurofighter cost?
 
excluding avionics is like saying - lets discard 70% of combat airplane and lets start discussing about which one has clear edge....
Well you can't really compare 1980s Avionic with modern ones on JF-17 and Gripen.
 
China has enough of money to buy, fuel and maintain the pricy and more capable hardware. Not just the bigger, heavier and more expensive J-10, but a whole host of 2-engined fighter-bombers.
Grippen cost to buy and operate is probably 2/3rds of what will Rafale or Eurofighter cost?
Pretty interesting that the little Gripen is more expensive than F-16.
 
Well you can't really compare 1980s Avionic with modern ones on JF-17 and Gripen.
Well when you put surveys like this together consider that in the modern era that avionics are an integral part of the design and in today's world some aircraft are designed around avionics
 
Well you can't really compare 1980s Avionic with modern ones on JF-17 and Gripen.
that was my point - and because avionics is main design driver of contemporary combat airplanes making such comparison is pointless, F20 is nonexistent airplane from different era, JF17 is cheap substitute of combat machine and you are putting this on the same level as JAS39, it is like asking question with one widely and well known answer
 
that was my point - and because avionics is main design driver of contemporary combat airplanes making such comparison is pointless, F20 is nonexistent airplane from different era, JF17 is cheap substitute of combat machine and you are putting this on the same level as JAS39, it is like asking question with one widely and well known answer
Well I think we can compare Airframe,Pay load,range,maneuverability etc though.
 
Would the JF17's airframe be able to handle avionic upgrades? Could the great "What-If", the F-20, have been able to have been upgraded as well? How modernized are current F5-E's avionics bay and wouldn't the F-20 handle similar upgrades?
Full disclosure: I am biased towards the F-20 'cause I'm a sucker for a pretty face.
 
Would the JF17's airframe be able to handle avionic upgrades? Could the great "What-If", the F-20, have been able to have been upgraded as well? How modernized are current F5-E's avionics bay and wouldn't the F-20 handle similar upgrades?
Full disclosure: I am biased towards the F-20 'cause I'm a sucker for a pretty face.
Absolutely. The Canadians installed upgraded avionics in their F-5s during the last years they were flying them, similar to what was found in the F/A-18. The issue is when you have to mount sensors and antennas that might be built into a modern airframe designed from the ground up to accommodate those avionics. You may give an older airframe new life but may inhibit some performance aspects because of "bolt on" improvements.
 
Well I think we can compare Airframe,Pay load,range,maneuverability etc though.
Sure we can but... - JF17 and F20 have been build using airframe 30 years older than JAS39. If we are talking about E/F version of the grippen it's powerplant has the same age advantage. With this airplane SAAB has used every piece of their broaden experience with aerodynamic design (it is logical development of Drakken/Viggen families). I think you are trying to compare tier 1 light fighter with two tier tier 2/3 ones. More logical is to make comparison of JAS39, F16, and Mirage 2000 could be MiG29 as well (at least in dynamic aspects). JF17 is totally different story (from the very beginning has been designed as a cheap substitute for poor customers) and F20 is not even worth of mentioning because early stage of development this project has been dropped talking about quality of this design is pure speculation.
 
Absolutely. The Canadians installed upgraded avionics in their F-5s during the last years they were flying them, similar to what was found in the F/A-18. The issue is when you have to mount sensors and antennas that might be built into a modern airframe designed from the ground up to accommodate those avionics. You may give an older airframe new life but may inhibit some performance aspects because of "bolt on" improvements.
You literally cannot fit a modern radar into the skinny nose of an F-20. A full sized antenna won't fit. That's why no modern fighter has an F-20 style nose.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back