A simple question.

Would it be politically acceptable in Sweden to sell gripen to “unsavoury” regimes like Iraq? I know that in the past they threw up their corn flakes at the first suggestion of even “simple” transfers to Iraq (like AT4s)… after Iraq has undergone 3 successive democratic elections (2006,2010, 2014) and still has free media etc… would the swedes accept selling to iraq?

Correction- the JF-17 is 3000 hours not 4000 hours design airframe life.

Also, whats the source of your claimed performance and design service life data for the KAI T-50?

according to LM … its 10,000 hours.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/trade-shows/farnborough/stories-from-the-show/t-50.html

so effectively one T50 airframe will last the same as 3x JF17s. allied with the longer lasting F404 vs the RD93… further reinforces the strength of the T50 for operators seeking low lifecycle costs.

airframe:
T50: 10,000 hours
JF17: 3000 hours

Engine time between overhaul
F404: 2000 hours
RD93: 750 hours

Only potential weakness is the smaller number of precision ordnance compatible with it… (and that is mostly a political decision rather than a limitation of the golden eagle).

some positive points for the T50 are:

Max payload:
T50: 4500kg
JF17: 3600kg

combat range:
T50: 1800km
JF17: 1352km

Thrust to weight ratio:
T50: 0.96
JF17: 0.95

Twin seater for attack. 4 eyes better than 2.

BVRAAM:
T50: AMRAAM capable
JF17: PL10/12

The JF17s advantages are:
-freedom from US hegemony
-definitely will get updates without restrictions that the US/LM places on T50
-Ability to carry a good range of Chinese/pakistani precision air to surface / sea ordnance.
-Better climb rate.

great news for Saab and Brazil!!!

Now the Gripen NG’s future is sealed.

any details on the breakdown of the deal? what does the $4.5Bn include? and how do SAAB calculate their much vaunted “$4000/hr” operating expense?

great result! another myth laid to rest.