I don’t understand, why Argentina want Gripen. They should stay away from it, because UK will block the sell and even if they get them, UK could block sell of spare parts and armament. The best option for Argentina is to buy Su-30MK2 or MiG-29M2 fighters. They are cheaper than Gripen, specially as price will be in Rubles and they could pay them in their national currency. They are fully Russian made, so no danger of any blockade or sanctions from EU or US.

what spares and ammo? the whole idea of the FAB buying and assembling the Gripen E was to have rights to build and sell the Gripen to other nations. After all they’re paying nearly $ 900 million over the initial contract cost that was announced ($5.4 billion instead of $4.5 billion)..what parts other than the radar and IRST does the UK build for the Gripen E?

The radar and IRST being Selex developed could theoretically be replaced by other versions from other countries. Though it is a fair point that the integration and development of replacement radar and IRST (which could be eliminated itself) would be a cost to be added on. If Argentina could bear that cost then there is no reason why it is not possible to do that. the UK has not got veto rights over the Gripen E itself- merely over the Gripen E equipped with the Raven ES-05A and Skyward IRST.

Hellenic Air Force retires A-7 Corsair II from service

Mystery Deepens Over Reported Russian Sub in Sweden

Brahmos Block III missile to be tested for near vertical dive next year

India to develop air launched version of the Nirbhay cruise missile

I agree with your assertion, but I don’t have any further details, I’m only going on the description of the Combat Aircraft article, which states that “The JF-17 Block II has improved avionics, strengthened wing roots so it can carry an additional 3,000lb of stores, further-optimized maintenance provisions and improved operational capabilities.”

Clearly, the commensurate structural work has already been done to at least one of the prototype aircraft, and tested/validated to clear the modification for the Block-II production aircraft. Given the significant increase in payload carrying capability, I’m guessing there would have been attention paid to the impact on airframe life and addressed accordingly. On a side note, I assume that the increase in payload may be driven by the desire of the PAF to carry larger/heavier stand-off weapons further down the line. I think the current known large weapons, primarily the C-803 AShM and the CM-400 hypersonic stand-off missile, are catered for on the centerline and two inner wing pylons. There could also be an additional dedicated LDP hardpoint on the starboard intake, although this wouldn’t require wing root strengthening.

If any of this payload increasing by ~1500 kgs was true, you’d see a corresponding increase in the OEW as well, which would impact the performance very significantly. There is simply no possibility of the former without the latter. And without a new, higher thrust engine, the T/W ratio will go down a lot due to such a weight increase.

Besides, the fatigue life gets affected significantly by additional payloads carried, especially by the flight envelope open to carry such payloads..increase the g loads and you have serious stresses on the airframe. Limiters can restrict g’s with high payloads, but it still impacts service life..

IMO, an additional 1500 kgs payload for a light fighter simply doesn’t make sense. The quoted figure is now approaching Gripen E levels, without any (at least apparently) of the substantial engineering and funding effort that went into the design, testing and validation for those design changes.

I’m pretty sure the journalist didn’t understand what exactly must have been stated. Some confusion in what was stated and what was printed.

Russia optimistic on Pantsir-S export

An extra 3,000lb (approx 1,500kg), not 3,000kg. Not sure what you mean by “bandied about”, it’s the first time I’ve come across this claim, not seen it reported before in any previous articles in Combat Aircraft.

Sorry a typo on my part.
But I don’t see how the payload can go up by ~1500 kgs without some serious rework to strengthen pylons and the airframe structure itself. Even if you were to reduce fuel carried internally thanks to IFR, the pylons are all rated for a given load, which is then certified. The empty weight of the JF-17 would also go up as a result of the strengthening required to increase the payload.

Just look at the Gripen E. The growth in empty weight thanks to the additional strengthening is anything but trivial.