On current firm contracts, well before the Swiss plan to induct the new jets, there’s 5 nations flying 160+ jets of the JAS 39C/D which is the product on offer. Sweden is not reducing its C/D in fact the C/D fleet is being expanded.

5 nations with plans to fly the type another 30+ years. Future R&D is already funded. So I don’t think the worries you talk about is on the Saab side.

I would argue for the good points of your favourite aircraft rather than talk negative about other jets, in part because only the Armasuisse know the results of tests and how they match the Swiss requirements.

when will they actually announce who “won”?

It is. Just as it would be to stand in front of a speeding train. Been in the position of those photographer’s position once though. At the take-off end of Love Field in Dallas there is a road that goes perpendicular to it. I happened to be on a mountain bike riding past as an airliner began it’s takeoff, and while the wind didn’t make me crash it definitely made things interesting. (Off the bike trail and headed down hill fast towards the lake LOL).

Lol:D Standing about 15ft from the rear of a Tornado GR4 has propbably been the worst for me, I could barely breathe!

Concorde being rolled? I would assume that is heavier than the B-1?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQS3qAIjAo&feature=related

Bwned, so to speak 😀 Love the roll at the end as well, I suppose the B-1B is the heaviest aircraft to have performed a roll? Or has some Russian madman rolled a Tu-160 😮

A vulcan has been rolled, but I assume the a B-1B is alot heavier

Then somebody would call the whaaambulance. :rolleyes: Dumbasses shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Actually, it is terribly exciting to be stood in such a position 😉

An hard fact evidence ?
So we must consider FlugRevue as a bible and Air&Cosmos as French propaganda ? :rolleyes:

The only evidence i’ve read is the fact that the Typhoon will get an AESA only if India pay for it. 🙁

I knew it.:rolleyes:

Well reportedly it was spoken by GAF luftwaffe pilots themselves, and if you do not believe that, why believe that it will get AESA? At least it is some evidence that Rafale supporters have been questioning for a long time! I have not seen any articles saying the opposite, anywhere!

Typical response though, a piece of evidence, though brief, evidence none the less it met with :eek::(:o:mad: And whatever you are refering to about Air&Cosmos being French propaganda I have no idea.

http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=4187

Eurofighter: Signature for Tranche 3 gets urgent

By Karl Schwarz
the pilots from Neuburg recently pitted their skills against their French Rafale colleagues in aerial combat. The results were extremely gratifying, the main difference being the much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine.

Finally some proper evidence.

The rafale is in no way under powered, it is quite the opposite in fact..All the discussion I had with rafale pilots (4 of them in total) praise the rafale power and handling which already give the rafale a clear edge against all of the teen fighters. It can supercruise with 1*1000l and 4 AAM.

I agree, people saying the Rafale is underpowered are on the whole incorrect as it does have better TWR (in a variety of different operation loadouts. eg for same range vs weapons loadouts) better than most fighters out there. Though when comparing it to other 5th, 4+ fighters it is at the lower end of the spectrum. Su-35/EF/F-22/Mig-35 etc…

However power can be only as good as the FCS, of which fighters such as the rafale/typhoon/gripen/F-22 have perfected, i.e every single ounce of thrust is used very efficiently in turning,climbing etc…opposed to airframes such as the mig-29.

Now merely speaking as an aviation enthusiast all the rafale demo’s I have seen show impressive sustained/instaneous turn rates, but acceleration from very slow speeds seems only ordinary and low speed climbs, that I believe is where a more larger static thrust M88 would be very useful.

You say the French Airforce prefer cheaper operating/maintainence costs and longer lifespan with the M88, could this be seen as a disadvantage with the M88 engine? Purely speculating atm P&W engines and GE have been uprated by massive amounts in the F-16A-F,F-15A-SG,F-18A-F and they seem to fine
with no problems really, so do these engines have an advantage in terms of “engine thrust growth vs increase maintainenece, costs etc..” Basically are they more economical/less troublesome in terms of maintaineence/lifespan to upgrade than the M88?

These should be the climbing performance at sea-level height. However, as the altitude increase, the climbing performance will also change.

I think that from braking-off to the height of 40,000 fts, the performance of Typhoon should be better than Lightning. However, if you want to make a comparison between the two fighters of the climbing performance from braking-off to the height of 60,000 fts or even higher, then Lightning may be the better one…….

I believe the typhoon was designed to perform from 40-60+ thousand feet, thats where it enjoys most of its advantages against its rivals.

I also have read a book, a long time ago, about flying the lightning from the cockpit. If my memory serves me correctly I’m preety sure the pilot quoted that over 40 or 50,000ft the climb rate was around 36,000ft/min and no more. If anyone has read the book maybe you could shine some light on it.