Those last articles are quite interesting especially the last one. I don’t know how they manage to seem that well informed, but if its true (which would explain the delay the first article reported as well), then all bets are still open…

it is extremly critical, would be a suprise that a fighter under development doesnt have all operational performance?

The SAF said it recommended the Rafale. So the Rafale was the best plane for the SAF. That the politicians couldn’t or wouldn’t afford it is another matter entirely. It doesn’t mean the Gripen was the best plane for the SAF, unless you want to imply the SAF doesn’t know what it needs.

Nic

Nic, try to understand. i would recomend ferrari to my family( and to the bank) but still it would not happen.

Its not only AF choise.
-Both contenders meet all AF reqiurements (recommendation does not matter if not all other parameters dont differ)
-Cheaper to fly
-Gripen suits ToT model better the Swiss business strategy
-total contract value is lower

well done mate 😉 I wonder why the Colonel describes it as a problem :confused:

Probably he felt like a harley fan who needed to add a muffler or he missed the runway..;)
too bad whe dont have the complete interview…

the source states Griffin NG demo can, doesn’t say Griffin C can 😀

no, i changed my source. this is a 2001 source when gripen C was the gamechanger and Demo or E/F wasnt invented.

This means
Gripen C 1.1 Mach with a droptank 2 sidewinders and four Amraam
Gripen Demo at more than 1.2 Mach at 30000ft with the same loadout.

Obligatory claimed Griffin C could supercruise I quote

yes and thats exactly right??!

more supercruising

this is one source:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/243/gripensupercruisetempja8.jpg/

Demo or F version (not E) is more than 1,2 Mach with same loadout.

That shot is no good. the shot at 1:22 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4WjYESLFbc is way better. also some good footage of Thunder’s front in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFg22Cms7MI

Thunder’s aerodynamics is way better than that of Griffin C. the bump intakes vastly reduce drag 😀 which contributes to its very long combat radius of 1,352 km

Thunder Block 2 gets an AESA replacing the pulse doppler and gets a J-10B style nose 😀

3 view of Thunder Block 1 http://www.topgunchen.cn/doc_img/album/20070715-859-1-3.jpg

Before you get banned, i need to be honest with you, you never have any clue, no data, only words with no substance.
How do you recon a 8,5 kN á 1,6 Mach FJ-17 have better aerodynamics than a 8 kN 2,0+ supercruiser?

You really need to sharpen your statements.