-The NG AESA “on the market”? You are jocking, I suppose…At least 4-5 years to tune it … if ever operational.
-0.1 m2 with combat load??? Again, you’r just kidding…
-I am aware of the tentative IR -OTIS…never heard of any operational…
-Where you fanboys screw it is when you combine the two afirmations: 1) grippen can fly for 2500 km and 2) grippen can carry 7 tons; you conclude that 3) the grippen can fly 2500 km with 7 tons…which it can’t :diablo: Not to mention that the range figure seems to be pulled of SAAB PR department’s asses.

No bother fanboy, its all offical data. stop twisting and bending. Have you ever seen rangedata with maxload ever?!
If you have no interest in the real world figures, get out..or get a grip

According to Vishnu Som it will be configured with Enhanced Performance engines. It will also be 9G capable 😎

Sustained G force, is made with more thust,
instantaneous turn rates is made by aerodynamics and airframe strength.

Instantaneous turnrates is the one usually referd as the 9 G limit.

So a G-limit will not change with new engines!

Article excerpt from Defense Industry Daily

South Africa to Cancel its A400M Order
05-Nov-2009 20:32 EST

In April 2005, South Africa’s Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin expected the cost of the SAAF’s 8 planned Airbus A400M medium-heavy military transport aircraft to be EUR 830 million. That converted to R 6.5 billion at those exchange rates, or about $177.75 million per plane in American dollars. South Africa reportedly intended to take delivery of 8 of the A400Ms from 2010-2014, with a further 6 on option. Ordering those additional 6 aircraft would reportedly have pushed the total contract value to EUR $1.5 billion, or about R11.9 billion at those exchange rates. When the deal was signed in December 2006, the price for 8 aircraft and initial fielding had risen to R 17.646 billion, or almost $2.5 billion: about $308 million per plane.

Meanwhile, South Africa bit the bullet and decided to upgrade its 8-9 aged C-130B Hercules planes. The first SAAF C-130Bs were delivered in 1963, and badly needed additional upgrades and refurbishment.

Subsequent delays to the A400M program were set to either extend the C-130Bs’ service, or force reliance on charters, even as the A400M’s likely costs grew. That SAAF aerial uncertainty has only grown, now that South Africa has become the first country to pull out of the A400M program…

Source: South Africa to Cancel its A400M Order

those props looks avesome! it sad it turns out this way..

OK Sign; i am not trying to be confrontational for the stake of it or have a go at you.

My point is, this “HOBS” mode for AIM-120 was only thaught of because AIM-9X Block II wasn’t ready and F-22 didn’t have HMS.

It doesn’t have the design specs to be a true HOBS capable missile, it doesn’t accelerate fast enough and doesn’t have the lift either.

HOBS was developed from the most agile IR AAMs of the time (Python III Magic II) which already had High Off-Boresight maneuvring capabilties but lacked the guidance/seekers to offer the real HOBS envelop.

If these maneuvring capabilties are missing, the problem remains the same, close-on, an AIM-120 wont be able to pull enough g to hit a target 180* behind the shooter in a defensive envelop, that of EODAS detection range.

What you are looking for is a missile that turns straight off the rail and can sustain the turn so as to hit a pursueing target within this buble or else you wont be able to cue it with EODAS or even detect it at all.

Other than that any BWR could be loaded with HOBS softwares it won’t make them capable of close-in defense.

IR AAMs are meant for self defense not offencive BWR.

I cant say anything against you there, its no comparison.

But the AIM-120 got more burntime to get to target than a magic, and it turns alot faster then the jet that derailed it.
So it should be good thing for AIM-120 users, but not as big step as shortrange IR HOBS was…

Awesome! Do you have a link for this?

this is no suprise, due to TILDS, all sensordata is triangulated. It is whats called is the sensor-fusion(gripen sense) and is part of gripens strongpoints.

What i AM saying is what i wrote.

NO point trying to pass AIM-120 for an agile IR AAM.

I got into the debate late, and i am not trying anything like it… a shortrange high of borsite IR AA is ofcourse more agile… thats the point of it.. just pointning out things thats need to be taking into considuration, in a “normal” comparison. Not an apples with pears comparison.

The only thing that reduces the need for maneuvering is difference in speeds between target and projectile. The larger the difference the less g a projectile needs to pull.

a missle that dont have any problems with chaffs or flares, and can predict flightpaths faster, more accurate and better need less manuvering..

The EODAS is farther along than the F-35 as a whole. As of March 09, it had over 240 hours of flight time and over 25000 hours of lab time. We are well beyond those numbers now.

Please, y guys, is this Gripen News Info?!!?!?