By my count it’s 4,000 kgs just for the bombs, not counting the racks themselves. Also it’s not just a matter of weight but also drag. Even if it does manage to get airborne, it wouldn’t get to far and also, the potential for maneuvering would be minimised to just take off-fly-land. And finally, all this weight+drag would significantly reduce the lifespan of the wing.

It is too small a fighter to carry reliably all this load.

I think in such cases it would make more sense to get it airborne with part of the internal fuel only, just for take off and then refuel it.

then its about 2000kgs to spare for racks and other things before hitting max takeoff weight with full internal fuel. .
16500-(7100+3500+4000)~2000kgs
i have no idea of the runway required, but it´s not the standard 800m gripen strip (550m gripen C takeoff with AoA).

Gripen lifts alot of its size, reliable or not, this you must ask the AFs using it, and i dont believe we see this in real life maybe not even flight tested, not even on bigger fighters like EF or Rafale, due to its rare in its usability. But for flexibiliy its doable, and i know those racks is being integrated.

And for drag, small diameter bombs is made for exactly that reason, lowering drag. So instead of lowering drag, this config uprating the capacity.

Oops. they forgot installing a few racks on the canards, too. :rolleyes:

I wonder how far it will go with all this weight and drag. Not too far I would presume.

this is a marketing slide made for cruching the the prejudice of gripens loadout. There´s nothing standard about it… 🙂

the additional fuel of the NG will be a good thing for such a loadout thats for sure (fuelfraction unloaded >,33). This makes it have almost as much fuel that a /C/D gripen have with two EFT, this comes with NG better aerodynamics and better bodylift.
But for longer trips or loitering it would probably be sensible to have a tanker nearby or switch one or two stations for fuel.

Don’t be ridiculous…Do you think Swiss air force would recommend the best aircraft (rafale) but knew they can’t afford enough of them to do the job ? Just think a second ! They had well enough money allocated/voted to buy the rafale or typhoon. In terms of performance vs costs rafale was rated n°1 and it could do the job better with fewer aircraft than with the gripen.

The reason for gripen is political when both France and Germany are pressuring switzerland over its bank system and issues related to tax fraud. Buying swedish was more politically acceptable as it is also a somewhat neutral country.

not foolish, but yes.

While searching for that quote i actually did came across a Viggen pilot interview that had this to say about Draken:

http://www.milavia.net/specials/iv_viggen/

:diablo:

from obligatory’s post

I guess it’s 17 meters wide then 😉

in any case, again, it is maybe not a 3km long and 60m wide runway, but it’s not a “simple road” either

There are strips that were 17 m, but gripen lands on 9 m wide roadbases.
The roadbases costs alot to maintain, and therefore they have not maintained the outer layers since the introduction of the gripens.
Note that these roadbases where introduced in the 50:s, where high landing speed Drakens with little/bad landing guide systems/FBW were availible.

Was Rafale ever considured in Japan?

if they needed something like the gripen, they’d be running the LMRCA, not the MMRCA

try again 😀

as for the F-35, an unfinished design, with no ToT to speak of, it’s all but what India asked for in the first place

funny :rolleyes: Do you specify what india reflect as a medium fighter?
As i recall gripen was in the competion. therefore defined as i medium class fighter in india..

As i also recall a F-15A per se a heavy fighter. but still lower MTOW than Rafale. Yes capability change with technology at hand, but does the definitions?

At least as visible EM goes, black absorb better than other colors

Yes the A/C becomes a blackhole for VIS EM 😀
Too sad visual detection is a passive detection technic, that really makes it easier than a mirror to spot.