that’s what I was saying… basically: in brasil, no need, indeed 😉

its bound to end up with bribes. And you didnt like it in singapore, did you?

certainly, but still… what can they base their judgement upon?

If they want the cheapest aircraft, why not call Yakovlev in Russia, they’ll be glad to sell them some brand new yak-3 frames… and they’ll be able to buy over a hundred of these for a price on a single gripen, not to speak about operational costs 😉

The evaluations exept the presidents own, have all pointed to gripen as no 1 ;).
The president seems not to have the right arguement for rafale at the moment thats why maybe?

The point was simply that Tejas’ GE-F404 variant has greater thrust. Now, you know.

See, you are Not comprehending posts properly at all.

I said, that if the IAF were to use the logic of “proven fighter” and order the Gripen, why didn’t Swedish Air Force in 1996 use the same logic to reject a fresh “unproven” Gripen to opt for a much more “proven” Mirage-2000 or F-16 ? And this, when a Gripen had crashed during testing. The 130000 flight hours have come long after being inducted and flown extensively by the Swedish Air-Force.

In 1998, the F-16 C/D and Mirage-2000-V were 4th gen. jets and not 3rd gen.

As for STOL, if that is THE capability much wanted and vaunted by Swedish Air Force, then the immunity from foreign sanctions, immunity from contractual arm-twisting is what the Tejas brings to the table that none of the 6 contenders have (Gripen for example, comes with a plethora of US-origin components).

The above source does NOT mention any figures or even estimates for the RCS. It makes the same comparative assertion and guesstimates about its RCS on the basis of “conductive paints” and “fuel ducts”. The similarly comparative ones that I made for Tejas, namely it’s very small size, extensive RAM coating, and composites.

Sign, your “source” too doesn’t have any RCS numbers. It only gives “signs” as to the comparitive RCS with the F-16 C. Arey, even that JF-17 will have lesser RCS than F-16 Cs in the PAF, what with smaller size and DSI intakes.

Actually, Hansa is produced by NAL (National Aeronautics Limited), and not HAL. Besides, it is already in use by almost all flying clubs in the country for civillian airline pilots (that fly you too). NAL also made the Saras 14-seater. It is indeed India’s Embraer in the making and a future client of HAL’s, which will happily make doors, panels and foot-rugs for NAL’s next project (like they do for Boeing and Airbus now) : the 90-seater RTA, which looks like this.

YOU ARE REALLY OUT THERE ARE YOU? 😮 And you cant seems to read ither. “JAS 39 with hull where signature reducing measures has been applied. radar area 0,1 m2” that is clear an simple english readable to any chimpanse or human
Both mirage and f-16 didnt have and 4 gen stuff at the time, they didnt fit the requirements of roadbases or the cost of flight or even RCS, preformance. They were evaluated with the saab concepts, I have already told you that.

You just seems to have no way of taken in new information, so just stop here and now!

+1. well said. Sellers have one kind of logic for own self and another for selling to others.

And pretty often “proven” is also used as a euphemism for near obsolete though not in this case.

??
If its flown and evolved in 20 stages, as th gripen has, countered all different scenarios, and proven it self in data, realworld exersizes. Ofcourse F-16 and Mirage is more “proven” still, but most of them is 3 gen without easier soft upgrades.
And Sweden did not want this, due to it would have costed even more in the end. And would have lacked in capabilities in the years to come.

Visby class is a looker thou…

Do not know for sure but probably the advantage of having wing tip pylon with A2A missile has been outweighted by the numerous disadvantages such as decreased structural strength of the wing and aerodynamics.

Just came to my mind when seeing the Gripen picture above that this flying configuration impact composite wing fatigue life and Gripen users were instructed to used underwing pylons instead of wing-tips in case of QRA and regular training flights. They are performing NDT on the wing structure already after first 150 flight hours, hmm…..

Hopefully, someone will share some frst-hand experience on Rafale maintainability as well.

due to adding lift would outweight the problems with structural strength, at least in the air(when adding lift). Think of this, instead of just adding weight under the wing.

What became the MiG-29OVT was initially displayed on the ground with wingtip R-73s, but the launch rails eventually disappeared and with numerous EW sensors located there on newer MiG-29 derivatives the idea seems to have been dropped. Rumour has it the MiG-35 will gain another underwing pylon for a total of 11, though.

dont know why thats contradicts each other, gripen and rafale does hav both EW sensors and rails at the winktip.

I like the minimalistic look of 5th generation fighters.

so hotdog says:

YF-22 looks better than F-22
PAK-FA looks good at most angles, except from the top view because those lerx are huge
X-32 prototype looks better than the proposed production version

hotdog on 3rd and 4th generation fighters and attack aircraft:
a beautiful fighter can look good with any paint job slapped onto it
Flanker
F-14
Viggen
Tornado ADV
MiG-31
Rafale
Hornet
A-7

Sometimes propeller training and light attack aircraft are beautiful too:
Orlik
L-39

the following are fighters that are not ugly, but are very boring looking:
Gripen, F-16, F-15, Eurofighter, Draken, J-10,ching Kuo, T-50 golden eagle, super tucan sam, L-159

we can say were about the opposite to each other 😀