Radar and targeting
According to Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation officials the J-10 uses a multi-mode fire-control radar designed in China. The radar has a mechanically scanned planar array antenna and is capable of tracking 10 targets. Of the 10 targets tracked, 2 can be engaged simultaneously with semi-active radar homing missiles or 4 can be engaged with active radar homing missiles.[21][/B],

this is more than 20 years behind…..;) worse than the first gripen A PS-05A capability.

Ahhh, those leeeegs…..

landing on stiletto heels would not be a good idea 😎

To repeat, the Gripen might be rated for a higher sink rate than other land based fighters, it might have a tailhook, and the existing flight dynamics are generally favorable, but it is a long way away from being a naval fighter. It’s pretty obvious that neither Saab or the Swedish government will fund these extensive modifications, and there aren’t very many potential launch customers.

So it doesn’t really matter all that much what Saab is “planning?”

In any case, a number of posters are overestimating the correlation between road based operational deployments and genuine carrier operations. For instance, Singapore regularly practices fighter operations from a stretch of highway with very conventional F-16s. I would imagine that most modern fighters could deploy to suitable stretches or motorway, and many types have emergency arrestor hooks. This is not especially unique.

Roadbases is specified to 600m not 800m, which is not the landing distance of a craft.

this is an example of gripen b:

Landing speed:
* 270 km / hr with 12 degrees Alpha landing.
* 235 km / hr with 14 degrees Alpha landing.

5. Landing distance: 350 – 400 m with 14 degrees Alpha landing.

yeah sure.. whatever… :rolleyes:

why, do the usual trolling? when you also can be rude at the same time? :rolleyes:

I don’t think you (and saab, if they are serious about it) realise how big are the requirement for a navy fighter…

@+, Arka

without knowing, from the ideas started, the have seen at least requirements from 3 different countries… so i think they know what it takes. And hopefully they do that sincerly…
If theres a problem SAAB i a firm that handles risks well, probably the hire some good people externally that are competent on the subject.. They have tackled problems before, and gotten out on top.

seems I don’t speak english around here… or people just don’t take time to read what I say… :confused:

I never said it’s impossible to make “a carrier aircraft for the first time”

I said that making a carrier aircraft which is first such aircraft for the company and adapted from a terrestrial version and best performer and cheap and almost identical to the terrestrial version all at the same time is nonsense…

Nobody ever succeeded in doing so, even nations that had much bigger experience and budgets to do so, never

Etendard was a nice aircraft, but as Dassault made it, the US carriers were receiving stuff besides which the etendard looked as a little toy (Phantoms II, Crusaders, A-6s… Last thing, the Etendard has been built from the beginning with possible navalization in mind, which helped bringing it to the carriers. In the end, it was the first dassault carrier aircraft, but it wasn’t a world beater as what gripen PR pretend to build..

So, one last time: you can make a first carrier aircraft, but you won’t make it at the same time cheap, easy, best aircraft, etc…

The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..

The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?…so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.

READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.

I don’t consider it signed, don’t worry 😉

but making a naval aircraft is something that has to be learned. Rafale, again, has a lot in common between the two versions (much more so than the F-35 A and C for example).

For testing the rafale from the Sao Paulo you’d need to reinstall the deck extensions the french used while they were testing the rafale on it (it was named Foch back then), the catapult on it being a little too short or something like that.

Anyway, believing that if one can make a terrestrial aircraft, one can transform it to a well performing navalised one for cheap is just wishful thinking 😉

If you read up anything of the stuff in this thread you realise you kind of out there…
the recuirements of a navy is allmost fullfilled of the gripen today, so its not as big step as you fantise about.

The tailfin would be different. I can see the premise of a sawtooth edge for all of the facets in the los. The diamond-shape of the cross-section looks plausible, too. Will they stick to this particular form or is this merely a broadly generalized representation?

its only presents the patent, “the Z-line” to conseal a canard, not the rest of the plane is conidered as stealth design concept …