SignGripen carries the Taurus right or can it carry the Black Shaheen ? I ask because I believe its the only Eurobird with a chance in this contract.
i dont think it has been integrated, but ligher than kepd 350..so it would not be problem
SignI am fairly certain ‘full missile load”=4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM.
I have been searching for eternity to re-find the tender to the Dutch, it is written in dutch and had quite a few specifications.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENOVERVIEWAug08.pdf
You mean this one?
SignWell, I think India is also looking for a very mature design yet one with leading edge technolgy. While, the F-16IN is extremely capable. I doubt India will purchase a type used by Pakistan. (regardless of merit) The Gripen is capable especially for such a small single engine type. Though, it requires much more development. IMHO
Yes, it needs some development to be out in the open, and that part seems to running smoothly. So it going to be a really state of the art when it comes to the trials 🙂
Both F-16 and Gripen is mature in some sense, thou F-16 seems to live on a former glory..1977 is a long time ago. If F-16 just came out with a new suit, you would not put it that way.
SignYou make some good points. Yet, I just don’t see India purchasing the Gripen NG. Which, is just to similar to its own LCA MK2.
Personally, I believe India is looking for a larger twin engine type. Which, narrows it down to the Rafale, Typhoon, Mig-35, and Super Hornet. The first two are likely to expensive and the Mig-35 not reliable enough. So, again my money is on the Super Hornet. Which, is extremely capable and at the right price!
i think you are wrong…:D
they are replacing small and cheap platforms and F-16 and Gripen fit those specs prefect, thou more expensive… they dont need another MKI. Or a extremely costly platform.
SignMy point is we need a fighter which is able to do both ie A2A and A2G, ie a mixed role with sufficient payload (because its carrying both types) and at range. Thats the problem here. For every mission, if India needs to allocate a mix of Su-30MKIs and NGs, the NG is simply not good enough. And the more NGs allocated to a mission, the greater the wear and tear, and issues in an intense conflict with number of available airframes.
And it should be non sanctionable and come with a potent weapons fit. Now see the problem here with the NG, for a decent off the shelf MRAAM, we only have the AMRAAM – which is American. The NGs in display have been shown with the Derby, which is far less ranged. And the Meteor is too expensive to buy and deploy in bulk.
The same goes for A2G. Also, the basic NG itself is full of US kit. The problem here is that if India is ok with this, it might as well take the Viper or F/A-18E/F then, one of which is likely to be cheaper & is more proven, mature etc. and the other more capable, as an allround striker than the NG.
Which is why I prefer the Rafale and Typhoon. They offer more capability (albeit at much greater cost) and are relatively sanction free..
Like I said – its cost. Two pilots, and a heavy fighter with substantial logistics added to it. India needs a “medium” which can do most of what a heavy can. The problem is the NG approaches the lower end of the medium spectrum (weight, capability) whereas what I am talking about is a medium which punches close to the MKI in certain areas or can even replace it in missions.
For peacetime, the NG will be brilliant – high optempo, low costs etc. But at wartime, given the amount of pressure on the IAF in a two front war case, we need every bit of operational advantage possible.
That apart, the NG is similar to the LCA MK2 in terms of some technologies, capabilities from the MIC point of view. I’d rather SAAB & ADA work on the next gen MCA (bigger, more capable) than buy the NG.
then you dont need a multirole meduim fighter, only more MKI with more AtoG diversity..
SignGripen ToT is about as much as a joke as long as SAAB doesn’t provide a paper saying that the American congress will not change for the next 30 years; and that it will agree to sell engines parts without restrictions whatever the circustances.
That worth for the British parlement though, as well as the Israeli Knesset while we are at it (targeting pod).That’s components which are available on the open market and the makers just don’t know their components are used on Rafale (otherwise it won’t be “classified”)
Now explain me how the Brasilian will procure a F414’s blisk made by powder metalurgy and near-net-shape hot isostatic pressing for turbine blisk blanking, while electrical discharge machining for turbine blisk finishing…
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=25FE341FAF098C7917B1E3F11BDD9FE4?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=876523
…in case of?(It’s a question ;))
open market? 🙂
no its not on the open market…more i cant say.
i have no insites on the engine..
Many things thats was developed by volvo was incorperated into the F414. maybe the sweds got a good deal on that? no idea.
SignWell, the e-scan and the ES 05 are different because they have a different proven precessing part…
…but they share a new, still to be developped – and risky – AESA antena.http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091111_1_n.shtml
No?
(The “No?” is here to make it look like a question so that I won’t be banned :rolleyes:)
ok, they are both AESA radars with TRMs from Selex, with some input from SMW.
Both companies have done commersial AESAs in the past and are still selling those. This is a normal project under normal circomstances for both these companies..Whats the problem?
SignBoeing is making a good case in my opinion. As I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the Rafale will offer any more access (ToT) than either the Super Hornet nor the Gripen NG. Its also worth noting that the Rafale has priced itself out of every contest and lost. Funny that “Boeing” is somehow playing dirty. Yet, nothing is said about similar comments from Dassault and SAAB???
BTW While I think the race is close. The Gripen has the weakest case in my opinion. I believe its down to the more politically correct but more expensive Rafale or the cheaper Super Hornet with more strings.
To get US tot you will get throu the US bureaucracy, first boeing cant garantie almosed anything, secondly it will take to much time and effort getting there.
Sign… and Sweden being a neutral country, it is not allowed by the convention of Geneva to critisize the Gripen, not even emit doubts,
… or you are a flamer.Even though there are no funds and the radar – to pick a single example – is not ready for a first version before 2015 according to the Italians … if the funding is decided today that’s it (or the day before yesterday).
And now the e-scan and ES 05 is the same radar? 😉
ES 05 is developed by Selex and Saab microwave systems, and is expected to start delivery in 2013.
The funds for the DEMO are supported by the risksharers of the project (SAAB, SAAF, GE, honewell; selex etc.) NG is just a term for IN, BR etc. together. No one else but brazil will never pay for getting a C/D + DEMO technology into BR technology. Thats the case for rafale aswell…
opinions and doubts will only be under considuration if they are based on some relevant info or formulated as a question, otherwise its called flaming.. and you are risk getting banned from this forum
SignBoth engines have same fuel source from the J-11 testbed. Anyway, I doubt slight chemical differences in the jet fuel would cause noticeable changes. We are talking about definite differences as in “blue” (see above post) and “orange”.
As a chemicalengineer from the begining i would say it is possible with:
a additive in the fuel (possible as a catalytic cleaner or something)
a much higher temps
or filter on camra or photoshoped… do you see any warm colours in the picture?
SignIMHO, the additional development costs needed for the Gripen NG to be operational are underestimated by Saab.
and you people, have all the data i assume… stop flaming, you have no data to build a case here…
SAAB is one of those manufactures that make it under budget..C/D (batch 3) was made 10% under, so stop flaming..
SignWell last time i checked most peanutes were crunchy salted and roasted and contained a small amount of oil enough to heat a peanute size room for a few seconds but i wouldnt put a peanut as a air craft engine..
well you could but the peanut wouldnt get you very far.
Goooooo Peanuts..
have you tried?
i think it would be peanuts making it work
Sign??
You mean a democracy where the political power has the upper hand on the army ? Well, it should be the case in all democracies no ? Or do I miss your point like hell ?:o
i would say as hell..:)
i mean desisions is made throu an organisation that will eliminate the possibility of manupulation of any sort. one or to people that deside by heart before a evaluation, seems a little cowboy standards to me…
SignWhat do you mean when you say micropower plants?
a really really small nuclear plant, the size of a peanut..
SignBoeing is making a good case in my opinion. As I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the Rafale will offer any more access (ToT) than either the Super Hornet nor the Gripen NG. Its also worth noting that the Rafale has priced itself out of every contest and lost. Funny that “Boeing” is somehow playing dirty. Yet, nothing is said about similar comments from Dassault and SAAB???
BTW While I think the race is close. The Gripen has the weakest case in my opinion. I believe its down to the more politically correct but more expensive Rafale or the cheaper Super Hornet with more strings.
what ever you want to flame about…
Sign In
