[IMG]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2511/fgfa.png

AWESOOOOMMMMME

nice pic! really looks like YF-23 from that angle..
http://nomosshere.tumblr.com/post/868778205/moneyissues-planeshots-northrop-mcdonnell

http://www.marianne2.fr/blogsecretdefense/Le-Rafale-trop-cher-Bienvenue-au-cafe-du-commerce-_a452.html

As always, french complacency. Gripen “less efficiant”, per what? per force? plane vs. plane? per cost?
its kind of obivios that Gripen is more cost-effective and therefore a 3,3 billion USD Gripen force is more effective than a 3,3 billion USD Rafale force. Or 22 Gripen is better force than about 11 Rafale.
This is allways depending on requirements, but often in evaluations you hear that all contenders pass the technical eval.

one should compare what is comparable.

the gripen is a light fighter, rafale and typhoon are medium fighters. the first is designed to be a light and cheap air defence alteernative, while the two others are made to be the backbone of an airforce with much higher capabilities and also much higher needs (especially offensive)

for any small country, short on budget and with little to no involvement in other nations’ business, the gripen is much more suitable as such, while the rafale and typhoon are closer to a high end product for wealthy guys out there.. having the budget (or the need) to play with these toys.

the switzerland is a bit of an exception: a small country, surrounded by countries which have no business going after them and never going anywhere outside its borders, it obviously had no need for a high end solution.. but having the budget they had high expectations. (that last point has obviously changed a bit lately 😉 )

there could have been one competitor to the gripen in the form of Novi Avion, a yugoslav project made in coopereration with the french, a sort of “mini-rafale”… single engine (M-88), some bits of rafale technology or derivatives were to be incorporated… had there been no war in ex-yugoslavia and had that project go to its end (probably in mid 90s’), there would have been two european medium fighters and two light fighters on the market, and it’s not sure the gripen would come out as the best or cheapest of the latter.

anyway, with the events over there, the project never materialized and never will, so, gripen remains the only one it its category in europe

You can put it anyware you like. Gripen seems to excel, rafale dont. Mini rafale could have been alot worse. who knows..
it would probably been more expensive due to rafales expensive systems against gripens more “OTS” design.

hmmm….it crashed as soon as it took off…. what could it be….bird- ingestion? But still the Su30s got an engine to carry on. Or flight computer went down?

if not tech fail, a flock of birds is known to have taken down even 4 engine A/C:s.

oh well

time flies 😀

A pity the present configuration doesn’t appear it will accomodate additional nose and tail antenna arrays(to cover the front and rear sectors, as on the Chinese KJ-200) because it would mean shifting those other antennas away.

in my mind theres no need for 360 deg cover. Normally you only look in one direction (one side) at a time. this also boost the energy in this direction. for example:
If you fly say parallell to the pakistan border to see into pakistan for activity, you really not interested in whats going on at the coastal area to Sri Lanka. or bangladesh coast. You probable want to see even more of pakistan with greater resolution (concentrate energy on one side). Also you normally never fly in the middle of a battlefield only parallell with a defence line. So 170 deg cover on each side should be optimal (this means little more than a Erieye or EMB-145I).

probably heavier, that makes it sit closer to the cabin and shorter therefore. My 5 cents thou.
All in all to keep the balance and weight properties within about the same. therefore less need for redesign/revalidate the A/C.
Also much more fins and antennas on the indian variant.
Anyone know what the side “randome” on the cabin is all about? (black area)
Wonder why they never develop a new EMB-145 with larger wings for higher altitiudes. This would really get the competion with G550 going.

OK, what does it mean in practical terms?

Do Swedes change engines less often?
Do they check and maintain various parts less often?
Are their engines / parts so much better and so much more durable?
Are Gripen’s self-check systems more automated than the ones of say Rafale?
Are they underpaying their service personnel?
Or is their personnel so much more skilled that conscripts can perform things which are normally reserved for expert staff?

I mean there has to be SOMETHING which is beyond the usual “we are cheap” claim. And that something shall be easily explainable and understandable for pretty much everyone.

I would gladly believe that Sweden don’t rely on contractor support that much or have very low connected govt cost due to high efficacy of their political system but unfortunately they give in tremendous difference even in variable operating cost which don’t include any of these.

Yes! exept underpayed personal 🙂
It get soon very complicated and will not get precise, i dont think i can go deeper on this one.
But it stays in the shop much much less than any other fighter, also costs less when its there.
due to less eqiupment is needed and less personal. Also costs less due smaller craft with all the benefits.