Frankly I’m not too interested in Typhoon development post-2030 because both it and the Rafale will be technologically superceded by then but from 2017-2030 the Typhoon will be comfortably smashing the Rafale and that’s far more relevant to present day discussions.

Lukos, less.
There’s not even something so basic has a production contract for Captor-E.

Still the most aerodynamically advanced fighter created.

This fórum in the last few days has gone into nationalistic chest thumping overdrive mode!
The Gripen is a typical 80’s delta canard fighter, there’s nothing in its design that aerodynamically makes it indisputably superior to it’s contemporaries.
Actually that aircraft it’s identical to BAE P106b design.

The Gripen NG isn’t technically cheaper to buy than F-35A (unlike F-35B, it’s likely cheaper than Gripen NG), but lifetime costs quickly escalate over the Gripen NG.
.

Unless there´s some kind of divine intervention, on an “apples to apples” comparison, lets say answering to the same exact RFI/RFP for the same number of airframes, for the foreseable future (lets say to the mid 2020´s) any proposal based on a Gripen airframe will be almost certainly cheaper to acquire (nevermind running costs) by a very decent margin than any F-35A proposal. So much in fact, that these two designs are the main contenders to swallow the western air defense market for the next decade and a half, the F-35A being the midle/high end of the equation, the Gripen nabbing what was once the “F-5/Mirage” lower cost niche.
The F-35A has some very, very obvious advantages, direct acquisition costs are not one of them.

Cheers

Because all F-35 are STOVL right ?

Never said that they were, but Dave B was always part of the program, wasnt it?
So unless Rafale could take off and land from HMS Lusty there a few promises of the JSF program that the Rafale cant do.

On LO, speaking with some Belgian folks close to the military, they are not buying F-35 because LO, but because US support (EPAF) and, to a lesser extent, data link stuff (which the Rafale is able to handle). And this is actually pretty valid for most F-35 buyers, especially considering stealth is gone with many loadouts.
So I’m sorry, no LO hype there. 😉

Oh, yes, some Belgian folks, thanks for the highly valued input…
Guess that the South Koreans, the JASDF, the IDF/AF, etc, etc, etc, are all part of EPAF, right?
And you are aware that the “Data Link” stuff that the Rafale “can handle” its called “LINK 16” and “Rover”?

Nevermind, forget it, “RAFALE IS DA BEST”

They don’t. Captor-E is getting a new back-end hence the vastly expanded capabilities and the length of development time.

?

Product Capability
The Captor-E next generation AESA radar builds upon technology developed in the Technology Demonstrator Programme and for the M Scan radar, relying heavily on the existing ‘back-end’ processor and receiver with an optimised large array featuring the addition of an innovative re-positioner

http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/24128094/body_pressback_captor_e_es.pdf

Cheers

Lukos/mrmalaya, you are both correct, the Eurofighter is indeed primarily an ATA design, but the multirole capability was part of the program right from the original 1985 EFA contract.

1984 Flight Global “Germany outlines Nineties fighter requirements”:

“In its secondary role of ground attack, JF-90 will carry a variety of underwing stores including stand-off attack weapons and antiradiation missiles. The specified combatradius is 500km (300 n.m.) with up to one hour of loiter possible at this range. For escort missions a radius of 1,000km (600 n.m.) is required.”
“Finally, the Germans see a need for a true multi-mission airframe with changes from air-to-air into air-to-ground roles simply a matter of weapons fit. Specialised versions of
the aircraft to meet both missions will not be acceptable.”

1985 Flight Global “Tripartite EFA is go”

“The aircraft will be optimised for the air-to-air role.”
“Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Williamson, Chief of the Air Staff in the United Kingdom, gave an in-service date for the aircraft of 1995. This, he said, was a “slight compromise” as the Royal Air Force had wanted it as early as possible. EFA will replace the RAF’s Phantoms and Jaguars.”

Cheers

I did (I’m living in Western Switzerland) and I agree that offsets issues were mostly irrelevant. As is the choice of Gripen as an aircraft for the SwAF. Unlike eagle, I do not believe the choice of Gripen as the NFA made a difference in the vote results. It is true that some voters voted against Gripen because a “better” aircraft wasn’t selected, but these are far more than outnumbered by people that’d preferred a more reasonably priced aircraft.

I am not Swiss, but i would imagine that the typical Swiss taxpayer is has “Pro Air Force” has any other typical Western European tax payer, meaning that he´s not and doesnt have a clue beyond “they fly jets”. On top of that the % of “Pro Air Force” voters wich could discuss the relative merits of Gripen versus the twin engined Euro canards would be something starting with a “‘0” then a “.” then “something”…
I would suspect that had the Swiss air force gone with anything but the least expensive option that could do the “job”, they would be labelled has complete knuckle heads by almost everyone and the final vote would never, ever, be in any type of doubt.
I suspect that the exact same will happen again, unless TU-142´s starts flying over Berna (not very likely).