Words might have been a bit unlucky, but apart the datalink what was so special about the Gripen in comparison to the F-18C or F-15E or F-16 blk 50/52 at that time from an avionics point of view? Not much! I know that A/B Gripens were delivered in different configurations, but to reach a similar technological standard as the Rafale or Typhoon it took some years more. I didn’t said 35% US content, but foreign content. I didn’t said the Swedes needed anyone to design the aircraft, but they needed help to realise it. Engines and FBW are of US origin for example. Changes/contribution from the Swedes apart, they haven’t done all the work alone and also haven’t developed “everything” from scratch.
What I say is that the A/B modells weren’t on the same technological level (generally seen not nitpicking on a certain feature) as the Rafale or Typhoon, the Gripen C/D basically is, but it took a couple of more years to achieve that standard.
BTW 80%+ avionics from Italy? No way, avionics development workshare was similar as for the entire aircraft. GEC Marconi isn’t an italian firm, if that confused you.

first of all, read the text, basicly well known factor is that 39A was the first 4 gen fighter, just read some old articals and get updated.
None of the comented planes are known for there swingrole cability. Data fusion was good in 39A, together with datalink(this is to date unbeaten), thou it did lack some sensorcapability of 39C or any of the later 4 gen. So there were a generation swift.

Also the F-15 is basicly a stable platform, F-16 and F-18 are “just” instable
Gripen is very instable. Just as the rafale and eurofighter or any other 4 gen.

Ehm the RM12 and other derivates of the F404, including the new F414 are not smaller than the M88. BTW the M88 features IR reduction measures as well and the airframe around the engines is optimised to isolate the IR signature from the outside.

F414 is not smaller than one M88, but the IR sign is with 2*M88, it is at least dubble the trouble…
IR sign can also relate to fuel burn, the more fuel you burn the more heat it will become of it.
Thats not only related to the engine plumes. The more friction, the more IR(bigger, weaponsload, speed etc.). Cooling of electronics can generate hotspots at exaust points etc.

As long as my wing area data (24.8 m²) for the Gripen isn’t wrong the wing load data you give is incorrect. Simply sum up empty weight+internal fuel load and divide it through the wing area (6800 kg empty weight+2270 kg fuel/24.8 m² = 365.7 kg/m²). Simple math.

BTW you have any reports or articles that describe the MMI a bit more accurate and information about the sensor fusion of the Gripen? I’m interested in those info for both the older A/B and the newer C/D. Its ok if it is in swedish I think I will be able to find a sufficient translator.

The wingarea should be 30.0 m2 for the gripen A/B/C/D. So math isnt easier than the data calculated.. 🙂 NG can have a tiny little more..(extentions in the wingbase, dont know of the wingeffectiveness thou)

Sensorfusion and MMI is gripens biggest advantace over the competition. Not only the the sensors and presentations, but the automated collaboration with other gripens and also some with AEW. Up to 4 raw radar images can be be evaluated in one “big picture” to see “black holes” and angular reflexsions etc.

The fusion of this kind non to be seen anywere.. its for the TIDLS datalink,
some info can be found:
http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/
not the best of sources, but it still hard to find on the webb. better in technical publications in sweden. But the real performance and tactics is still classified.

The sensorsuit and survivability(smarter EW and BOL disp), processing power, MMI, weaponload has got better from A/B to C/D. But the flight performance has declined some.
But things are upgraded all the time.
For example the radar PS-05A has 19 upgrades on its back, and its not only SW. I think its not just the Gripen that do this things, but all the western 4 gen+ platforms(read flexible avionicssystems).
The earlier platforms and i think the russians are limited to avioncs inflexibliliy. I think thats why the indians made the big change on the MKI. The thing is that you can always do the upgrades but it´s alot cheaper, faster and easier with a flexible avionicssystem.

Yes. there is nothing wrong with technogloy transfer provided what is given in return. u cannot expect technology transfer and offsets in same deal. You have to chose one. Look at China/India they spent billons to acquire TOT but no offsets. Brazil conditions are much harder. They put long delivery time with technolgy transfer and offsets. They are not buying direct aircrafts that there is any benefit for Russian worker. with kind of offset investments. Russia agree for Ak ToT for Venzuella after they bought 100,00 in advance with full paid money for factory. ur comparing totally different kind of competition.

surely more real than PAK-FA. let see how many actual fighters are built.

I havent commented on political systems. I am just saying based on availalbe evidence SAAB cannot be compared to Sukhoi nor every fighter competition requirements and conditions are same and every thing has to be proven. not dummy specifications.

Still you have no real arguments, for anything? And still just “throuing cakes” made of nothing else than thin air
Just adding more false accusations on the thread..

“the politlitcal system” seems seduced you, just as much as Hitlers system seduced the germans. Please be aware..

“dummy specification” whats that? Is it a spec. of an russian fanboy?

The most things that goes into the demo is known, and kind of low risk. So i dont see any problem with getting it done.
It just a matter of following the project plan..easy peasy
See you when its done..

So show me new civillian jets testing like this under rough weather conditions and that from Military manufacturer not experianced Civillian planes manufacturer? u have to show some thing or dont make claims.

it is you that make the claims?! Russian State regulated TV isnt my kind of reference..never ever in fact. it like watching prewar german movies…
Thou i think it make a good nich for china/russian/indian markets..when its finished..

Why not admit that they can do what others cant do instead of making irreleveant excuses. SSJ has private investments fro alot of firms and that include Safran, thales and Alenia. These firms wont invest there own money unless they have confidence in Sukhoi. It is just supply of ready made parts project. Every thing is customized from engines, to avionics to specialized software teams for this project with several teams working in three countries.

Not for this thread….or is it a canard and 4++ fighter? 😀 like to see that new russian airforce..

It is just demo aircraft with no functional radar. just assuming that there is 2.5 tons increase in MTOW. first flight barely 320knots. Nothing like supercruise ability in first flight.

first flight of an aircraft is always with wheels down(read ,not fast, otherwise the wheels will fall of) and not ever supercruise speed…
hate to say it but you need blow of some steam,
You seems to hardly know anything of projectplanning, testing, or prototyping…
And your arguments is only empty “cake throughing”..

the Demo is planned to weigh 7100kg with all the installed parts.
the radar isnt there yet, but a dummy weight is.(otherwise the centerofgravity is way way back) The radar is the last thing in the program to test.
the gripen demo will weight probably more than NG, because of

modified old airframe
extra testequipment and wireing
prototype parts

So the weight does not say much, and every order is unique. A brazil gripen may weight 7300kg and a indian 6900kg..depending on whats in the order.

I cannot see any data.

Su-35 engine test beds were flying since 2004.

It is flying with all its weopons and radar, payload, internal fuel certfied capability. Ur years away from demonstrating that capability. MIG-29K is most accurate description of MIG-35 structural ability along with MIG-29OVT and MIG-35/SMT for radar and TVC. U have to create couple of test beds for NG and make it fly for couple of years.

COTS is not military standards speciallized product.

Various subsystems of Su-35 flying for couple of years. U can even look at cockpit simulators years before actual flight. let see Gripen can provide full specification Gripen NG for next year trials.

Its all over, you find it..

😀 so the mig-29 platform is the most capable platform? why not Mig-15? those engines even flow in the 50:s!

the only thing the 2004 testbed say is that it take a long time for the russians. And it is doomed to be outdated earlier in its lifecycle.

COTS means “the best on the market in terms of performance, reliability and economics, implementation”… which stands against “specially made from skratch”

Did you ever consider why computergames is made in Direct3D and not from skratch? or why car manufactures develop platforms together?
Or why there are a jedec standard for electronics?

This non-debate is out of this world and not for this thead, so i end it here and now..:p