Here is a quick and dirty mock-up of how I think they could do it.

Firing sequence:
1. Doors open
2. Missile #1 launches
3. Missile #2 swings inboard to allow clearance for #3
4. #3 swings to vertical and launches
5. #2 swings outboard to vertical and launches

why not using a rotating revolver setup instead :diablo:

I never wrote Avitronics though….Avionics got the order from Thales.. not sure if it was also in Ericsson Saab Avionics AB back then but anyway, it’s going into another business group again this year after Saab microwave systems. They love to change around and I can’t keep up 🙂

Yes thats true…they are about to change again, to Electronic defence systems 🙂

Say whats this?

IAF says Gripen not yet internationally certified

From Suman Sharma. http://chhindits.blogspot.com

Cant find the text that says so in linked blog.

The main problem with RCS of the F-16 is the intake, and is one of those things that make it, in part, an older generation.
This is probably the the biggest cause for USAF to develop the F-35 and not stay with the f-16 platform and develop it even futher a la F-18.

So canopy of not, an f-16 will leave a very big RCS mark for a otherwise formidable small modern fighter.

other goodies…

True, that is definitely an advantage for the Gripen. However, I did like the M2k quite a bit and I feel that it was more firmly in the “medium” category than the GripenNG. Bigger, carried more payload.

THe Mirage-2000 should have been tweaked with an AESA and an AL-31FP. Matchless.

USS.

Mirage is an old stable platform with limited avionics and so on, the payload difference is only 100kg (NG vs C 7100/16500 vs 7500/17000) so its nothing to write home about.

KJ-200: by gordonblade & =GT @ CDF

According to Hui Tong the name is Y-8W and PLAN has ordered 2.

———

an Erieye copy?!

# JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2):

Not that it matters for you point, but gripen C has a stated rcs of 0.1m2 🙂