Neuron is not “developed” per se, in the sense that it is only a technology demonstration project. Nobody knows if, how, or when it will mature to a series produced UCAV.

Additionally, it is not developed “on account of Saab”, but from a international group of companies led by Dassault with the participation of amongst others, Saab.

I don’t see how it is related to an upgraded Gripen? Are you suggesting that some of the technologies developed by this group of companies could be applied on the Gripen?

i just clarifed that Saab is also in developing other military crafts at the moment. Not only Gripen upgrades and NG..nothing to get upset about.

India never has indulged in Industrial espinage? :rolleyes:

no they dont ;).

i have seen it for my self…

i wont go any futher on that one…

translation from istoe newspaper :

this is only for makeing the game dirty and, in try to change the opinion, and make saab a bad player…
what did it really say?
1. gripen NG isnt a finshed product (:eek: )
2. saab hired people for its campaign? ( 😮 )
3. that the president couldnt get away with changing the report
4. and one lie….the price is garantied from saab and not an estimate.
5. estimate of the maint cost from 130000 flight hours is fake? and norway with its f-16 figures are more trustworthy?

to bad sombody else hired the politicians..

Let’s not forget too that the Gripen prices are like the plane itself: ‘paper prices’.

Edit: edited 😀

its a garantied price, from SAAB and swedish goverment….so its not a “paper price”. This is due to sweden will probably uppgrade its gripen in the future anyhow.

how big is the MAWS ? and how much larger is the wing to accommodate the MAWS ? such a small increase in wing area won’t make any major difference to the wing-loading.

Not only MAWS but they sit in the base of the wings, extending them

I did hear that they found those fairings were found to give lower than expected drag, but I don’t buy the argument that carrying 40% more fuel in the internal tanks and more weapons load as well, with the same wing area size will not lead to some reduction in performance. Thrust has to be added for the extra weight its supposed to lug around now.

>20% more thust, more lift, more powerful sensors, a possibility of more weapons and fuel etc, for 3% more weight, isnt bad, its a bargain that anyone will do.

additional responsiveness can be added on any 4gen+ fighter with FBW system if its got big control surfaces and strong airframe..

as i said 40% more fuel is only an advantage when needed, as you know only the fuel needed, is carried, not full tank just because you have the money….

I remember how Gripen fans got angry when someone called the Gripen NG a paper plane.

You remembered right..

it was on paper for how many months?..more like recordtime to hardware. Probably due to the involvement of subcontractors (GE, Baker etc. as co risktakers in the project) and efficient teamwork of saab.

In fact, the Gripen NG keeps the same wing as the C/D, which means that when carrying more fuel/weapons, its wing loading will be higher and consequently, its performance will not be as good as that of the C/D. I know they’re concentrating on the avionics and range more than anything else, but this is a fact.

in fact, the wingarea is a little bigger due to make room for MAWS and the aerodynamic lift is slightly better due to new shape on the underbody and wings… and did i forget more power? 200kg more, is a bargain..
Adding internal fuel is only a strategic advantage, not added body weight. No need for EFT in bigger ranges isnt a bad thing isnt it?

On the matter i think LCA will be a probably good fighter for india in the end of the line, it has ofcouse taken some time, but the international market has probably flooded in time for HAL to deliver….and also the competion is might be one or two steps ahead..
the strong point will be the big homemarket that for sure..

I see it similar.
The airforce with an established infra-structure related to fighters from Saab has to buy the fly-away items later on only. But at first it is not relieved from that like the buy of the related items and spare parts to keep it going.
From a given number procured the cost for keep such a system going does give a sound level. The Gripen is the mainstay for the Swedish airforce for several years to come. The result from that is, the Swedish government will invest further money to fullfil that task and upgrade it, whenever the urgent need may arise.
The LCA is something different. Neither a proven system nor the mainstay of the Indian airforce. In Sweden bribary is no issue, when in India it is more the rule than the exception.

He´s not meaning export as “logistics”. He means “non-profit” or “less profit” sale when it sold to SAAF.
The east european countries are leasing-to-buy, so they have lots of SwAF logistics, its part of the lease agreement. Thailand and South Africa doesn´t use SwAF logistics so they need there own.

This could end as for Gripen in Norway, there it was a political decision, against all odds..