Funny how stealth was the only thing that mattered until China tagged along, then “sensors can see it”. 🙂

i found this on the matter, in portugies?!
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ge/furt22projetos2.html

🙂

Gripen NG is also likely to come short due to too many pressure from US, UK and France on many of its critical systems (engine, AESA…).

Who pressure who? and why?
Do you have any idea of how market economy works, or how ITAR works?
please read up in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Control_Classification_Number

Politcal leaders make up laws that tha nations departments and Corporations need to follow. They dont “make it up as they go” as you imply.

In the american case this mean ITAR law and ECCN coding. The coding of a component will regulate it in terms of who can be the enduser not what product its in. This means it applies to Gripens US ECCN coded parts as well as EF, Rafale, F-16, and F-18.

As a example if a American ECCN coded processor is integrated into F-18 and F-16 and Gripen, and india is interested in those A/C. If the Law say india is granted as enduser for this processor, then the sell is granted of all of those A/C.

Due to the Latest US sales to India, i dont think there is an ECCN code that probid F414 sales to india as a end user, otherwise LCA engine would probably been a eurojet, wouldnt you say?

:D, leave it Sign, no matter how you twist and turn it, the Gripen is hardly in the same class like the other contenders like you said and that’s why LCA MK2 will be more comparable and overlapping to it, than those fighters.

Twist? How hard is it to understand?

class 1 loads 7t LCA
class 2 loads 10t Gripen, F-16
———————————-single/dual engine
class 3 loads 15t rafale, EF, F-18
class 4 loads 19t SU

it isnt overlapping! Just because F-16 got alot more deadweight/needs more power, its a bigger class?

You are contradicting yourself here! LCA MK1 has a MTOW of 12.5t, MK2 will have more and the Gripen NG has a MTOW of 16.5t only, while all other MMRCA contenders have a MTOW above 21t!

Because both will offer the same tech level!

🙂
I mean Fuel and arms not max takeoff weight. only Fuel and weapons.
this is about 10t for gripen and F-16 (gripen drinks less :).

LCA is 30-40% less, is that a contradicting?

Rafale and EF is more bigger figthers with at least 15t of fuel and arms. in my mind not medium.
Su-35 about 19t.

The point is, the F16 is way more “medum class” than the Gripen, be it size and weight, be it the better T/W ratio with higher loads… and will be much more comparable to the twin engine fighters in the competition. While the Gripen is way closer to LCA (or better the other way around) in these fields.

Not really! Does Gripen C/D has AESA radar, or such a higher thrust engine? Does it have IRST, or latest EWS features? The MK2 comes late sure, but technologically it will be on the same level as the Gripen E/F, that is hardly deniable!

It does matter, because if LCA MK2 can be close, or even equal to Gripen E/F in terms of techs, or flight performance, but costs clearly less, there is no point in buying Gripen for MMRCA. Then advantages like more range, better strike performance, better T/W ratio, proven/maturity, same fighter for IN, or other forces, industrial and political advantages are way more important than the cost-effectivity of Gripen E/F, because we get that through LCA.

How do you measure “medium” Fighter? buy MTOW, empty weight, lenght of the fighter? Or by flight cost?

I would say MTOW is a good parameter. Than Gripen and F-16 is in the same class and LCA loads 30-40% lower.

How can you brag, say Mk2 is NG level? when Mk2 is mere a requirement on paper and and Mk1 isnt in gripan A/B level by a longshot? a AESA radar does not change a bit! Radar performance, integration with modes, datalinks etc. must be on par. AESA is only the front of the radar and have often worse performance than PESAS exept, LPI, No tracks, interleaving between modes. So time will tell, but history say otherwise, and the learning is steep.

For your info gripen C/D has been updated 20 times in its lifespan and the EWS has the latest EWS features.
The EWS is why Gripen was a contender agianst F-35 in Norway and is in danmark and Holland. otherwise it would not fit the requirements of stealth (thou in a active updated NG variant).

Loke, it will not happen just because you want India to develop something as you wish it. Mk2 itself will catch up with gripen NG. I haven’ heard of any Mk3 yet.

btw, how exactly is the gripen at the same level as rafale when it comes to LO or avionics ?

>0,1m2 is good lo, in my book. Things gets worse with arms, but it still on par with rafale. Avionics is known to be one of the best, Sensorfusion, automation, infocharing etc. is top of the class. Any partilular part you think about?

Even if we take what you say as correct, that itself counts against the Gripen NG, that it has an aircraft, which in one design cycle can come to the Gripen NG level, so why buy an aircraft at that level. It makes more sense for India to actually buy something fundamentally different and in a different category like the Rafale, F-18 or the Eurofighter

It depends all of your AF requirements. I would not spend more money on Rafale just because someone in a forum think it sounds nice or look nice 🙂

If long strike with high MTOW are you requirements then Rafale fits better. Is it fast turnaround, and VTOL in rough airfields, supercruise, F-16 class MTOW then Gripen is your choise. Is it extremly important to have high speed/Hi MTOW and power in Air defence than EF is your choise.

But if all fits youre requirements, i would go for the cheapest, and fit the budget. To do anything else would be spending taxpayers money on things thats not needed. That extra cash can allways be better used elsewere.