stan4guy6:
without seeing f35 operational you don't need people to tell you it worth something looking at the previous design f22.

According to your own comment that's not proof. Stop contradicting yourself.

hesiod:

Blame the game not the player. Gallant soldier of the republic.

Oh i see, mynd44 don ban ur other monicker

DonBobes:



Oh i see, mynd44 don ban ur other monicker

If and when I want to speak my mind not even mynd44 can stop me.

I have cutting-edge automated tools to make his banning job hell if he crosses a line.

Sup with the gallant solider of the republic vs avengers and boko harem? what good news from the war front?

hesiod:

If and when I want to speak my mind not even mynd44 can stop me.

I have cutting-edge automated tools to make his banning job hell if he crosses a line.

Sup with the gallant solider of the republic vs avengers and boko harem? what good news from the war front?

Nothin for nw!

stan4guy6:
guy don't let f7 ruin your career though electronics not aeronautics what I have observed from the f7 when I was living close to airforce base yola is that the jet is that the jet worth nothing. I mean it doesn't have any advanced technology

Sorry but speak for the Nigerian F-7 and not all. You don't just say a piece of technology worths nothing. The F-7 truly is not really advance but capable of inflicting a huge damage on a national asset.

Henry240:


Not entirely true. F-16 Block 52, Block 60 and Viper are a lot better than the JF-17, but the JF-17 is better than F-16 block 40 and below.

Sorry but probably the F-16 block 40 avionics are far better than that of the JF-17. I would be betting my money on the F-16 in BVR or even dog fight against the JF-17.

tdayof:
Sorry but probably the F-16 block 40 avionics are far better than that of the JF-17. I would be betting my money on the F-16 in BVR or even dog fight against the JF-17.

F-16 Block 40 avionics are not better than the JF-17. There simply is no evidence to support this. The JF-17 uses the same exact avionics which the J-10 in PLAAF service use.


The F-16 beats the JF-17 interms of hardpoints(11 to 7), Engine 124KN against the 98KN on the JF-17. Infact usually comparisons aren't made between the JF-17 and F-16. The F-16 is a medium weight fighter, while the JF-17 is a light weight fighter.



All evidence proves that the JF-17 as a light weight fighter, is the same as the Gripen C/D but at 1/3 the price.

There is also the KLJ-7v2 radar option the JF-17 provides.

Henry240:


F-16 Block 40 avionics are not better than the JF-17. There simply is no evidence to support this. The JF-17 uses the same exact avionics which the J-10 in PLAAF service use.


The F-16 beats the JF-17 interms of hardpoints(11 to 7), Engine 124KN against the 98KN on the JF-17. Infact usually comparisons aren't made between the JF-17 and F-16. The F-16 is a medium weight fighter, while the JF-17 is a light weight fighter.



All evidence proves that the JF-17 as a light weight fighter, is the same as the Gripen C/D but at 1/3 the price.

Good. Am sorry but In terms of avionics the JF-17 isn't superior to the F-16. RWR, MAW, Decoys, radars etc. The F-16 will detect the Jf-17 before the JF-17 knows. The JF-17 running on planar array is a big turn off. You can compare pakistani F-16's to the JF-17 but not the Versions used by US and her allies. since i have been learning about propulsion, avionics and Radar systems , most of my lecturers keep using this word " Our military jets are not comparable to the American version" To the extent that during lectures or practicals, comparisons are always made with American Or Russian Aircrafts.
The JF-17 may look good on paper write up to the extent of competing with F-16 but the avionics are not.

NO AESA radar, ability to engage only two targets simultaneously, a sub-1.0 thrust-to-weight ratio in a clean configuration?? really who does that? It's just like pakistani wants a Jet of her own.
The JF-17 is a light MRCA & therefore will be used primarily for defensive counter-air & close air-support purposes and not for offensive air superiority purposes, especially in theaters where aircraft like Mig 29s and F 15s can easily establish air supremacy.

I think I'll quote the chief designer of that plane "The aircraft cannot compete with other aircraft on the market" http://www.webcitation.org/6VHWpaYlV
Or there's this: "The JF-17 is an obsolete and cheap aircraft, ideal for the Pakistan market, which values numbers over actual combat effectiveness."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-china-awaits-fighter-export-breakthrough-373313/

tdayof:


Good. Am sorry but In terms of avionics the JF-17 isn't superior to the F-16. RWR, MAW, Decoys, radars etc. The F-16 will detect the Jf-17 before the JF-17 knows. The JF-17 running on planar array is a big turn off. You can compare pakistani F-16's to the JF-17 but not the Versions used by US and her allies. since i have been learning about propulsion, avionics and Radar systems , most of my lecturers keep using this word " Our military jets are not comparable to the American version" To the extent that during lectures or practicals, comparisons are always made with American Or Russian Aircrafts.
The JF-17 may look good on paper write up to the extent of competing with F-16 but the avionics are not.

NO AESA radar, ability to engage only two targets simultaneously, a sub-1.0 thrust-to-weight ratio in a clean configuration?? really who does that? It's just like pakistani wants a Jet of her own.
The JF-17 is a light MRCA & therefore will be used primarily for defensive counter-air & close air-support purposes and not for offensive air superiority purposes, especially in theaters where aircraft like Mig 29s and F 15s can easily establish air supremacy.

You only repeated all i said. Which is, there is no basis for comparison between the JF-17 and the F-16 and i mentioned why.


Which lecturers?


- AESA radar, only Block 60 and Viper have AESA radars.

- On avionics, the JF-17 uses an avionic suite similar to the J-10.

- the JF-10 can track 10 targets and engage two simultaneously. Tactics come into play as fighter jets usually fly in combat formations and not in 1s.


- the JF-17s Klimov engine produces a maximum 84KN of thrust, that's above the Gripen engine, and below the F-16.


You're moving out of tandem, the JF-17 isn't a superiority fighter, it's a light weight fighter, unlike the F-16 which is a Medium weight fighter.



Clear differences, hence i said a more suitable comparison is with the Gripen and not the F-16.

tdayof:




I think I'll quote the chief designer of that plane "The aircraft cannot compete with other aircraft on the market" http://www.webcitation.org/6VHWpaYlV
Or there's this: "The JF-17 is an obsolete and cheap aircraft, ideal for the Pakistan market, which values numbers over actual combat effectiveness."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-china-awaits-fighter-export-breakthrough-373313/

I doubt if you've been reading my responses, you are posting completely off-lane.


I was referring to the KLJ-7v2. There is a difference between the two.


Your second source is completely irrelevant as they aren't based on facts.


From your first source,


The FC-1 Xiaolong fighter, also known as JF-17 Thunder, is
suitable for use by developing countries that cannot afford
fifth-generation fighters, the article said. The Xiaolong is a
more affordable solution for these countries, as they are
less likely to be attacked by stealth aircraft and have no
need to carry out long-range strikes,


Does Nigeria fall into that description?

tdayof:


eaters where aircraft like Mig 29s and F 15s can easily establish air supremacy.

I think I'll quote the chief designer of that plane "The aircraft cannot compete with other aircraft on the market" http://www.webcitation.org/6VHWpaYlV
Or there's this: "The JF-17 is an obsolete and cheap aircraft, ideal for the Pakistan market, which values numbers over actual combat effectiveness."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-china-awaits-fighter-export-breakthrough-373313/

You should atleast read your own source and respond appropriately.


Here is the entire comment from the designer and the offer the Russians have on the table.


The chief designer of the Xiaolong, Yang Wei, said that the
aircraft cannot compete with other aircraft on the market
and that exporting fighters is often influenced by geopolitical
factors, in an interview with Beijing-based China Daily.


Russia is attempting to solidify its status as the engine
supplier for the Xiaolong, recommending that China adopt
the RD-93MA, an updated version of the RD-93 with a 9300
kilogram-force thrust, for the aircraft compared to the 8300
kgf thrust of the engines it is currently equipped with, the
paper said.