Considering the Swiss have no plans to invade anybody a twin engine long range type seems less then logical. Gripen E/F (NG avionics) has plenty of plus points that I’m surprised Fernand Carrel hasn’t acknowledged them:

Firstly: Gripen in any form will be a quantum leap in performance and capability over the F-5. Actually it will be a significant capability jump from the Hornet for that matter!

Secondly: It will have a superior BVR capabilty even if they don’t purchase METEOR. The AESA repositioner radar, AMRAAM and newer generation avionics will be significantly better then the Hornet AN/APG-73 combo.

Thirdly: The maintenance model built around the Swedish situation of conscript maintenance personel actually fits nicely into the Swiss situation as well.

Fourthly: The engine in the Gripen is an evolution of that fitted to their current Hornet fleet reducing the training burden even further on their maintenance personel.

Fifthly: Aside from the ammunition a significant proportion of their current munitions are already cleared on the Gripen.

To me it was a no brainer really…I would of eaten my socks if Typhoon had won it and I was fairly sceptical over the Rafale.

Well its a mess pure and simple, with the border closed to NATO supplies the US state department is already being very apologetic.

Expect Pakistan to demand some pretty hefty reparations for this.

Some free P3C Orion maybe?

Well I presume its no longer marketed as a system, I would think Boeing would favour selling Wedgetail now.

Anyhow whilst the AN/APY-2 and its associated systems in upgraded form is still excellent there are more modern radars out there offering performance options unavailable to the E3.

Its not been the same Ja!:D

Who else can correct us about Australian nautical matters…

As for the MH-60R, I see it as a sensible pragmatic solution. OK there might be better stuff out there on the horizon but the MH-60R is a known equation available quickly and as you point out meets the base requirement at a price that allows 24 airframes. Throw in the biggest plus of the large USN order ensuring affordable spares availability makes it a good choice.

Hmmm I’m sure I heard rumour a few years back that the prefered replacement for Milan in the British army was a SPIKE variant. I believe the politicos regarded a purchase of this type of weapon from Israel as politically sensitive and Javelin got selected instead. Not that I am saying that there is anything wrong with Javelin, I think the lads on the ground love it.

Looking at the video below of a SPIKE-NLOS launch I can see why it would be desirable in the counter IED role. I’m sure I saw another video of it being steered by a remote terminal, so a forward party observing the IED being layed could then control the missile fired from the base.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXw9SqnXqZQ

Interesting to see the testing of an AshCM on JF-17, a useful capability alongside the P3.

As for load out I think there is more logic carrying a missile under one wing and a fuel tank under the other.

Well yes, they did give figures with their JOUST interpretation…showing the Rafale as cleary (not slitly) inferior.

And the result is this that (Quoting Seer a few post above) :

“Even a top of the line upgraded Flanker, at Chinese levels of tech., will at best be equal to the Rafale in A2A IMO, and worse than the EF which is optimized for A2A.”

This is not proven and only based on Eurofighter wild claims
Tell me why the Rafale could not performed as well as the EF against Seer’s “top of the line upgraded Flanker” ?
Both aircraft may use different ways to achieve air superiority but I would certainly not rank the EF way of doing A2A (raw force) above the Rafale one (smart force)

That being said, I agree with you that Dassault was not smart to let eurofighter spread the picture of a rafale with an average A2A capability without responding (comparative advertising is not a French habits). They also obviously underestimated the power of new media such as internet to spread that image all over the english speaking world (ie all the world minus France)
Now, they have waken up (a bit late though) and you can see that through the various French Air Force debriefings.

And how many times do you and everybody else have to be told that JOUST is nothing to do with the Eurofighter consortium.

Whether the source is unsubstantiated for you is not debatable. I’ve already heard (not read, heard) the same thing from trusted sources.
That’s substantiated enough for me.

Well who are they then, if they are not prepared to step up and reveal themselves why should we accept their opinion?