Surely Saab can provide $20 to $25B of offsets in current environment. Even Boeing/EADS would find it nearly impossible for that kind of investmeent. SAAB does not own all intellectual rights of Gripen components. Weapons are another issue. SAAB has to demonstrate real fighter with 6 to 7 tons weopons load not some paper specification.

Saab isn’t the provider Investor is(biggest owner). One of the biggest investment companies in the world.

6-7 tons, is that in the recuirements? do you distrust that SAAB can deliver what they offer? have they ever not delivered? :confused:

intellectual rights isnt a problem, Saab has contracts with supplyers. The only thing that stops is the law from the suppliers nation. And if america and rest of europe can sell so can Saab..So the law will not stop.

This important statement. Its put to rest that EF is way better than the other 4th generation fighters. Decision is based on offsets and investments rather than technical abilities. labor costs and labor productivity are two different things.

Are you kidding? Gripen has the upperhand in offsets, and tech-transfer, just look in norway, with over 180% offset, and full techtransfer on the offer.

Gripen will be assembled by Tata motors if they win the deal.

Sign,

You are comparing Gripen’s stall speed (97kts) with Rafale’s approach speed (120kts). 😮 To be brutally frank, you are completely discrediting yourself as a so called “expert”… 🙁

FYI, the Gripen’s approach speed is about 125kts.
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/D477E794-3F21-45AC-BBC3-D0E535F446E3/0/GRI9182AirDisplay_low060620.pdf

FYI, the Rafale’s stall speed is below 100 knots. Rafale A flew at 100kts on flight #16 (1 Aug 1986) and 81kts (150kph) on flight #460 (12 Jul 1989). http://www.avions-militaires.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3859&start=0

So Gripen & Rafale are in roughly the same category as far as lift & minimum speeds go. Since Gripen NG will be heavier than Gripen, it will comparatively disadvantaged in terms of lift and maneuverability.

I never said i was an expert in anything, i said i was in the business…

The only thing that pdf tells you is that the approach speed with a extremly short finale and high desend in a special airshow is 125 kt!?!
Do you really think that is the standard approach on a small roadbase?
if you do that many manoeuvers in normal approach speed the plane most likely will stall.
It also tells u that the minimum speed in the show is 100kt!!?
Du you really think they fly 3kt from stallspeed so close to the ground?!?
thats the speed of fast walker, from stalling if youre right….hope they calibrated the venturi pipe and that the air is cold and dens 😀

Do you really think that putting about 15% of all your wingarea in almost 35degres angle of attack wont give you any extra lift?

[QUOTE=Sign;1310320]Arguing seems go nowere.

H K – the minimal lengh of a disperst airfield that are 800m, i would not dare try, it if I shore of being up after 600m. That is done today and is still a requirment from SwAF. this is stated in rec. for gripen NO also.
The maximum weigh has gone up 28% and the thust,22%+, so you maybe right if they choose the lean road. Or maybe you only need to be more aggressive at takeoff? If not, the lean road is choosen its not going to be a problem.
QUOTE]

It turns out that Gripen has a approaching speed of only 97kt because of its large, highangle of attack, canards which generate alot of lift.
To compare approaching speed of:
Rafale 120kt
F-18 134kt
F-35 142kt

The canards also used as a airbrake, and generates lots of downforce when landed(for even more wheelbraking).

offcourse you can use your gun to shot down the missile, but it would be kind of risky. What do you do if you fail to shot it down? Now the missile got even more fuel left for hunting you down(you speeded against it, when trying to shot it down).
And would only mere effective on BVR(a long time before impact and time to react). But then again you must be aware of the missile early on.

Future “smarter” flares should be able to put an AIM9X down, its an ongoing cat and mouse race, that will go on..

An EMP would also be risky, it can hit you friends 100km from your tail or do civilian damage.

Maybe a automated “shotgun”(backwards aligned) coupled to a small AESA radar in your tail(1- 4 T/R modules)? can a missile get though a “high speed” wall of led bullets? with its seeker intact?
The small radar could also be an effective sensor and jammer in your back..
Doesn´t SU have a back radar?

Are you serious?

They were talking about the ECM, so the airframe of the SU35 or the F15 have nothing to do with it whatsoever in the ECM/electronic warfare grades.

Nic

Ok,
If the koreans rate the crafts, they should rate the hole system?
or?

Bull****

Sign,

If you think a Gripen NG loaded with 8 GBU-12s and AAMs is going to take-off from a 600 meter runway and be rearmed in 10 minutes

If you think you can fit the same avionics in a 7.1t airframe as a 9.5t airframe (especially ECM and optronics)

If you think the Gripen NG’s higher MTOW and bulged fuselage won’t affect its lift/drag ratio, maneuvrability and take-off performance

If you think the Rafale is more underpowered than the Gripen, when the Gripen has proven inferior in sustained maneuvering to both the Rafale and F-16

If you think the scenarios you gave above are even remotely realistic in terms of their rearm times and sortie radiuses

And finally, if you like ifs so much

Then now’s probably the time to ask yourself whether you really know as much as you pretend you do…

(P.S. I love the Gripen NG, but I think we should stick to comparing it with the F-16/Mirage 2000/Mig-29, not force it into the same league as a Typhoon or Rafale…)

Your quite the man aren´t you? 😮
You still compare rafale and f-16 with C/D gripens? this is not the threed for that. Never stated that rafale lacks power.

This is facts, not “i think”, if official statments are correct(not the roomer thou) and so why doubt saab?, have they ever failed in deliver?, no not in over 60 years..
The effort at saab has always been the compactness and the LCC of the systems, so yes you can fit a great system in a small compact formfactor. Look at your mobilephone for god sake… and the fact that they can always handpicks the best of things at a balanced price from the world market, swedish, french, american it doesn´t matter. In the NG program they even got the biggest supplyers onboard, no pay for the engine and other subsystems! They are in it for the money longterm!
When size does matter is the antenna size, but the fact is rafale hasn´t got bigger randome, dont no about the other antennas thou.

EF is not in, why is that? is it too big? no!, f-18 is still in, is it maybe not in the same league. :rolleyes:
Infact EF has never won a non-fixt offer. Bae was the only contractor i Austria, and they priced gripen too high…And they still got the contract and got more cash out of it…and dont mention Saudi..

Were are your facts?
why dont you get down to biz, and compare the facts. Not your speculations of “how can the manage to that”, its in the offical specifications and thats that. The proved many of those things before and now the have a much bigger engine..so?
When comparing keep i simple, otherwise you get stuck in tactics and training, jammerfunctions etc. which i did before.
The comparison was only to prove my point “big trunk” isnt everything that counts in delivering the goods.

But if you go a long way its best to have the “biggest trunk of them all” (read deep penetration )

And i still wants a comparison, not “stuck in the wrong league” bull****.
Which buy the way, is the lamest i heard in years..
Gripen was the first of the 4 gen and the first that went through an update, so dont give me that crap.

Dont get me wrong, Rafale is a really lovely jet, but get the facts, and prove my wrong!

read somewere that Rafale has 1/10 frontal RCS of the Mirage 2000…