F-16 versus JF-17 Joint Pakistan/Chinese fighter

blain2 · by **blain2** » 05 Jul 2006, 15:56

Well given the avionics suite of the F-16 blk 52 vs. what ever that can be integrated onto JF-17 (assuming it will be all western avionics as PAF seldom uses Chinese), I think the JF-17 will still be never as good as blk 52 in terms of sophistication etc. This is the reason that instead of spending the money on JF-17, PAF has chosen to spend upwards of $5 billion on F-16 fleet enhancement.

Corous · by **Corous** » 09 Jul 2006, 06:18

blain2 wrote:Well given the avionics suite of the F-16 blk 52 vs. what ever that can be integrated onto JF-17 (assuming it will be all western avionics as PAF seldom uses Chinese), I think the JF-17 will still be never as good as blk 52 in terms of sophistication etc. This is the reason that instead of spending the money on JF-17, PAF has chosen to spend upwards of $5 billion on F-16 fleet enhancement.

I believe the Pakistanis are still purchasing / producing 150 JF-17s in addition to the Block-50s and MLUs. It's not unreasonable for a country like Pakistan to have upwards of 300 fighters. I still think that for Pakistan, the real perk of having the JF-17 is the technical know-how of designing and building an aircraft.

Ayubi · by **Ayubi** » 30 Jul 2006, 04:08

Corous wrote:. I still think that for Pakistan, the real perk of having the JF-17 is the technical know-how of designing and building an aircraft.

You said the whole thing there buddy. The JF-17 was made to replace PAF's and chinese AF's old planes. They were not made to be the best fighters in the world. Apart from that such plane was made so pakistan can be more dependent on itself( Note pakistan moved to this plane when it was sacntioned in the 90's along with a bunch of other military and civilan progams). With this plane pakistan's engienners will have the know how on the art of making planes.

As for the performance, well it has'nt really entered service yet, but by this time around next year, we'll see how good this thing really is. Right now on paper, it's suppose to be a meduim tech fighter suppose to replaceold fighters

Viper786 · by **Viper786** » 30 Jul 2006, 22:19

i agree with ayubi its true that pakistan is replacing the older aricrafts with JF-17, its better then having older fighters. this fighter also gives them a slight techlongical edge.

falcon_sgd · by **falcon_sgd** » 26 Jul 2007, 10:56

JS-17 has been entered in PAF now...its performance is nearly 70% of the F-16C blk-50 or 52...apparently its far better than those planes whom it is going to replace.i.e. F-7 AND OLD MIRAGE IIIs...PAF will use it mainly to acquire number and secondly performance..for quality GRIPPEN and F-16C are in consideration..though PAF has started to get newer F-16s..

Shirjeel · by **Shirjeel** » 12 Aug 2007, 05:30

Yes 4 JF-17 have arrived in Pakistan. Pakistan is still getting F-16s becuase we had already paid for them in 1990's, but due to sanctions we didnt get them and they were either sitting in Arizona Desert or Were used as agressors for US Navy and Airforce. Most people say that the F-16 has advantage In BVR due to its AIM-120 but the Pakistan JF-17s are also modified to carry the AMRAAM. The JF-17 is about 2000 kg lighter than the F-16, which i think is a crucial factor in Dogfighting. The JF-17 is powered by RD-93 [Modified Mig-29s RD-33 Engine] And gives it a top speed of over 1.8 mach. Future RD-93 will have a thrust vector nozzle which will improve agillity. JF-17's also have a Traditional Russian Refueling Probe[The ones you find on SU's and Migs]So that it can be refueled in Mid-air. And as for tanker role Pakistan has ordered 4 IL-78 Refuelers from Ukrain.

Pilotasso · by **Pilotasso** » 16 Aug 2007, 09:47

Shirjeel wrote:The JF-17 is about 2000 kg lighter than the F-16, which i think is a crucial factor in Dogfighting.

JF-17 has a thrust to weight ratio less than 1 in clean config. So being lighter doesnt do any favours for the Thunder. The JF-17 seems to have the manuverability similar to that of the F5 even if that plane was even more uderpowered than the JF-17.

JF-17 is a strategical aquisition, its not better than the F-16. But if the US stops supplying parts the falcon is grounded while the thunder keeps flying, thats why its being bought, not because its better than the F-16.

Dizasta · by **Dizasta** » 14 Oct 2007, 16:46

The JF-17 Thunder is a new beginning for Pakistan, as it enters the world of fighter design, development and manufacturing. There is alot to learn and alot of experience to apply (flying the F-16s in PAF) to the Thunders. At this point in time, there are 4-6 prototypes flown and Pakistan has received the first two SBP (small batch production) aircraft which were flown on the 23rd of March 2007, on Pakistan's defense day parade. Four more are going to be delivered in December'07, as Pakistan Air Force commences weapons system tests & evaluation.

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a magnificent fighter, which has proved its worth in combat. This fighter is probably the only one which has equaled or surpassed the F-4 Phantom, in sales and production. Vipers are no doubt deadly in combat and for this reason Pakistan Air Force ordered 18 (plus an option 18 more) F-16 C/D Block-52s.If anything, the Fighting Falcon inspired the inception of the Thunders. And there is no comparison b/w the two fighters, as the Thunders have yet to enter into Pakistan Air Force and get baptized in combat.

Some improvements that I feel would eventually take place on Thunders. One of them would be the radar, as Pakistan Air Force is currently looking into options such as RDY, RC-400 & etc. Other than that, the engine would need to be replaced as it is under powered with the Russian RD-93. Plus, I would like to see Pakistan gain some experience on using composite material technology, to apply in the production of Thunders. As you should all know, that post-2010, PAC (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex), would have achieved 100% production of the fighter.

wantedeagle · by **wantedeagle** » 30 Jun 2008, 19:20

one thing more,that F-16 has just 9 payload carrying points while JF-17 has 11 points

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 30 Jun 2008, 23:14

Dizasta wrote:The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a magnificent fighter, which has proved its worth in combat. This fighter is probably the only one which has equaled or surpassed the F-4 Phantom, in sales and production.

There have been more MiG-21's built (sales & production) than any other jet fighter.

regards, O.L.

iJDAM · by **iJDAM** » 01 Jul 2008, 01:31

outlaw162 wrote:
Dizasta wrote:The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a magnificent fighter, which has proved its worth in combat. This fighter is probably the only one which has equaled or surpassed the F-4 Phantom, in sales and production.

There have been more MiG-21's built (sales & production) than any other jet fighter.

regards, O.L.

But the F-16 is better than the Mig-21, so that counts for something.

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 01 Jul 2008, 02:36

No doubt about that. 50's vs 70's fighter concepts.

Producing all those MiG-21's actually ended up providing western fighter aviation with more potential targets.

But I would never underestimate your opponent, including the JF-17.

Remember, the Chinese put two guys in orbit, brought 'em back, and produce a whole lot more critically educated engineers than the U.S. does each year.

regards

dmz241 · by **dmz241** » 23 Dec 2008, 07:09

This board has given alot of information. But with the latest information available its clear that the jf 17 is equal to the f16 blk 50/52. While its still and entry level plane the good news it that we will be replaces the old mirages with this, which clearly means that our air force will be alot stronger. I read some posts on the LCA. LCA is a truly 5th gen plane where as jf17 is a 4th gen plane(but the best in class from the articles I have read). With due time and improvements it can become better then the f16. But we need to really to think about developing j10/j11s ourselfs rather then relying completely on jf17( think export on the jf17).. Remember the china is not going to induct this plane into its force which gives you a hint.

F16guy · by **F16guy** » 23 Dec 2008, 08:28

dmz241, I wouldn't say the JF-17 is the equal of the F-16, based on my background.

It is strictly a matter of opinion, however. I've heard and seen plenty of stories of outclassed (based on avionics, performance, and weapons carried) fighters winning. My impression. JF-17 is not close to a F-16. Also, a lot of people compare the F-16's based on blocks in this forum. I want to go on record and say that is a poor performance comparison. Block 40's and 50's now share the same avionics architecture with just minor differences, however, many of the earlier blocks are very formidable, especially with the avionics and weapons upgrades.

So I'll go back to my assessment and say that the JF-17 is not equal to the F16. I'll put my background and expertise on that. But I'll never scoff an opponent's airplane either, even the MiG-21, F-5, MiG-23, or many other way old generation jets.

Oh, and one last thing, the LCA jet is definitely not a fifth gen jet. Not even close. And I'll still bet my money on an F16 against any F-10 and I don't gamble (no I'm not Mormon either).

dmz241 · by **dmz241** » 24 Dec 2008, 06:35

Thanks for your insight f16guy. But when I was comparing to the 2 jets it was based on why it would be produced. PAF simply wants to replace its aging fleet of mirages and jf17 if not better then the f16 is comparable to it. And as I read somewhere it gives PAF a major shot in the arm as its older fleet is not only outdated but crashing at an alarming rate.