I am certainly not deifying anything, but you are certainly defying the odds and common sense. The Su-35 brochure actually advertises the airframe as a “low observable” bird thanks to the use of adequate materials. Now how far they have reduced the sig is anybody’s guess. But based on ITAE literature and articles posted by flateric and sweetman in various places, the difference is in orders of magnitude. The last I checked they mentioned around 1-3msq. I am not making this up. Again,

Intl Def Review

– Globalsecurity

Happy? As you can see – no deification, it is all open source! Btw, there was an article by Andrei Chang, who mentioned that the Su-30MKK had an RCS of about 4msq! Can’t find it though.

What magic paint? You mean russians can’d devise/design/invent something that is a bit different from their western counterparts? From Sweetman:
We all know that the MiG-21 showed some rather amazing results in terms of RCS reduction, despite being a full metal bird (reduction claimed was well above 10X). And exercises done using latest fishbed variants tend to support this claim.

IOWs, using such techniques in conjunction with a jammer (and there is no question who carries a bigger jammer), the Su-35 has some major potential.

I ignored nothing, you simply did not comprehend what I was saying. If both sides have AWACS, marginal differences in RCS are further nullified.

Like I said, the Rafale/Tiffy stand a better chance hence i’d prefer their selection, but don’t put the Gripen in the same league, it is not. It is great bird for its size and good competition for a similarly upgraded Mirage a 2000 or even F-16/J10. But if you want to have self escorting counterstrikes emanating from the interiors of India or destined for deep strike in China, you’d be better off with an a/c with greater capabilities/capacities!

A whole generation higher is it? Prove it! Also, show me how the radar can have equal power when the engine is much smaller. I’d bet that the Apg80 has better range than the Raven. Unless they are a) using GaN chips or b) able to fit in far more TRMs – neither of which I have heard of yet.

Nowhere did I say that size is all that matters – no point putting words in my mouth to suit your argument. I simply pointed out that in case of top notch fighters, a larger bird has certain distinct advantages – endurance, power, size of sensors for example. As far as the Tiffy vs. F-15s go, I haven’t heard of anything in terms of a face off when it comes to latest F-15s (Singaporean for example), let alone the silent eagle.

Duh! I am obviously not talking about large bombers here but an extraordinarily manouverable design that has become the nemesis of western fighters for over 2 decades.

USS

rafale radar diameter 550mm
mig35 radar dia 700mm
f 18 radar dia 700mm
typhoon radar dia 750mm
Gripen radar dia 600mm
su 35 radar dia 1000mm

But in the end it all depends on efficiencies in electronics (the part were russians is really behind) and cooling efficiencies and not really the powersource.
Electronics efficiences is alot to do with generation.

Different class?
Selex have an own foundry in GaN, a new design in Si would not be part of the future for X-band. Saab EDS is developing its backend with projects like NORA 1, 2,3 and M-AESA as well as last upgrade of the PESA PS-05A MS20 in its back. It can only be nextgeneration to APG-80 in this flashtime of electronics evolution.

.

But AFAIK, no radical overhaul is planned of reworking the airframe, adding a new radar plus new mission computing suite, new engine, new/upg. EW suite, new IRST etc. All of these are pencilled in for the Gripen NG as a given. What this tells me, based on historical experience with even simpler types, is that the first few years after induction will be spent in fixing all sorts of integration and other bugs that will only become apparent over time. We saw what happened with the much simpler Hawk for instance. And this when BAe has a long record of working overseas and transferring tech., and even experience with India.

Hence, I do think the the EF, Rafale & even Super Hornet are lower risk, as they have gone through that maturity curve and are still fixing stuff. By 2014-15, hopefully, they would have matured even further.

The original plan for the MMRCA was to get an in-service (matured) variant of the tried and tested Mirage 2000, the Mirage 2000-V, which would give India sufficient punch, inducted double quick, and address any shortfall in force levels.

Right now, with the MiG-35 & the Gripen NG, India will be saddled with 2 Work-in-progress jets while the IAF is holding out for the advanced variant of the LCA & retiring its earlier aircraft, the only mature types will be the MKIs and even they are to begin upgrades. It just defeats whatever is left of the original intent of the MRCA to boost combat power asap.

Plus, the Gripen simply does not offer India the punch that it needs, given the est. 40 year lifecycle this jet will have to serve. The way PLAAF is recapitalizing its equipment with iterative improvements, a marginal difference in combat capabilities just will not suffice.

I really dont see where you coming from, Gripen is a mature platform and one of the best availibility out there, in all AF that using it. The new IN version have requirements for being better.
So i dont see the problems youre see by looking at Hawk.

40 years of service are no problems, due to the fact that its bound do have upgrades for keep it flying as a state of the art fighter until 2050 in SwAF, HuAF ThAF etc.. Demo program is a legacy for that after 20 smaller upgrades in 13 years of service.

“The punch” should represent the requirements, and those was “checked” in the rials(as the reports seems to tell). The only thing that left is who is the lowest bidder and on the “political correct”.
This is what this thread should be all about these days, but its all stuck in the “requirement department”.

can F-22 can detect its own waves in LPI mode?
Probably 😎
so can an Adversary.
it can be tricky for an older system, but not modern 4 gen.

I mean, heavy economically. Twice in greek newspapers, it was quoted as 30.000 per flying hour the cost of the Typhoon, 20-25.000 the Rafale, whereas F16/Gripen are at around 9.000.

SwAF fly Gripen C for 2500-3000 USD an hour..
Wonder what makes that more than 3 double, when NG suppose to be cheaper to operate with F414 and graceful degradation of the AESA?

If they do, should India refuse to buy from the French companies concerned?

Well, it depends on how long you go with this banning arguement

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11…mmrca-bid.html

Is the rumour of the F-16 being excluded really based on resentment that Pakistan received military aid and bought F-16’s (I don’t know if they were directly funded) whereas India will have to pay? I see that must be really annoying to India, but why not then exclude the F-18, too?

What wrong has Boeing done?
Doesnt Pak have any french weaponsystem?

Omni means ALL!
Multi means MANY!
So you can swing all you want, mate!

How many nuke Gripen NG/Ef? How many naval Gripen NG/EF?
How many … oh, well! You get the picture!

Sincerely, Tay.

well then why cant the marine use the same version as the AF?
And does anyone really use nukes on these days? 😉

Isn’t ‘omni-role’ just marketing speil for ‘multi-role’ or ‘swing-role’, which has sometimes been used by the Typhoon I think? It’s just a way of making a product stand out amongst the crowd I think.

Omni-role(rafale) and swing-role(gripen, EF) is the same capability. Its the ability to change roles fast when needed to. Its a more mature form of multirole.