The A/C version Gripen can fly supersonic in dry thrust with a full load of AMRAAM’s, Sidewinders and a drop tank. Why shouldn’t the NG manage to fly M1.2 with the same load with 20% more thrust? Test pilots have noticed that the landing gear farings have actually contributed to overall aerodynamic performance.

Not, and by a long shot.

which is kind of weird…
is there any democracy thats works this way exept brazil?

Hmmmmm, weapons acquisitions with a very heavy political wrangling by the midle? Blimey! :diablo:

Remember what happened in Austria? And what is happening now in Switzerland? And the India Air Force MMRCA saga? And the Norwegian “the F-35A is cheaper to buy and operate than the Gripen” report?
And then there´s a certain USAF Tanker acquisition program… :p

Cheers

Yeah and the F35 is flying since 2006. Everybody know that in this business you need 20% of time to make 80% of the job and 80% of the time to solve (or not) the remaining 20% which are mostly ingrat ****s.

Either way it’s a Gripen C MLU in which case it”d be already outdated when the Brazilian will be able to build it,
either way it’s a brand new design of a brand new plane in which case where are the funds? The home base to support years after years the whole system?

But SAAB tend to take the characteristic of the C when it suits them (low risks, low costs, light weight, easy to maintain, simple, proven) and the PPT characteristics of the NG for all the rest.

This is silly in the extreme. Tell me what are the diferences between the Gripen NG that SAAB presented in the power points and the Gripen Demo that is flying from 27 of last month? Oh, yes, NONE or very close to it.
That settles the “power point” story…
Your other allegations are, well… SAAB delivered the original Gripen six months behind schedule and ON BUDGET, a story that they have been repeating for… SIXTY YEARS…