Alteast i learn that thos fighters were design and built without supercomputers and advance japanese/german industrial machinery and certainly not with this pool of budget and colloboration. (see Siemens PLM software and Sukhoi) so it has no relevance to past.

Sweden approach is more toward developping and owning the rights to a system rather than build every screws of it due of course to budget limitations.

Beside western companies can have subsidiaries all around the world, so just because there isn’t SAAB tag on something doesn’t mean it has access too less advanced components than Germany or Japan (none of which come close to the experience in building military fighters SAAB has).

which is back to original question by some one claim that Swedes confident about Gripen NG dealing with Su-35. when untill this point it hasnt been shown that SAAB is using what level of supercomputers and funding level is obviously less and implementaion is even slower.

If the Gripen cannot be “confident” to deal with Su-35, it has nothing to do with supercomputers. Aerodynamics for both platform haven been mostly defined for decades now, and the only differences of their new versions come mostly from electronics and sensors upgrades, as well as a few refinements of the basic airframe.

Building modern aircraft is getting ever more expensive, and while it’s true that Sweden is struggling to keep building new aircraft, the same can be said for the rest of Europe (Typhoon, collaboration on UCAV etc.), Russia (Su-35, PAK-FA etc. being developped with collaboration from India, Israel, France etc.), the US (F-35), India, China etc.

Sure, and they will probably eventually get the sale if for no other reason than because the UAE clearly wants very badly to maintain two suppliers.

So a political choice?

All of that said, the Rafale has areas of weakness compared to an F-16 Block 60. It shouldn’t be so hard to understand that.

You can compare a F-16 to a ferrari and even find that the ferrari has a faster top speed, would that make the ferrari better than the F-16?

Light fighter aircraft are supposed to excel in some niche areas, including affordability, ease of maintenance, reduced fuel consumption etc.
Although I would hardly say that the Block 60 necessarily honour these, you can’t compare a Rafale and F-16 in terms of generation, which was the original debate the same way you can’t compare the F-4 with the F-22 in term of generation.

Now because we’re talking of generation instead of raw performances which aren’t enough these days to make a good aircraft due to increased need to balance the overall performances of an aircraft for multi-role purposes, you need to take into account the sensor fusion, computerisation of maintenance, built in RCS and IR reduction of the airframe and engines, new composite materials, supercruise, aerodynamics, advanced fly by wire, more advanced instability, IRST, ESM/ECM, ELINT, processing power, evolutivity with new technologies that weren’t even thought off when the F-16 was invented, increased weight (the F-16 reaching its limit) etc. One clear exemple for this is that the F-16 was originally designed with far fewer operational hours in its airframe than newer aircraft are today.

Politics are a factor, but it is also the excuse most often used by the losing side. In India the Indians judged only two aircraft to meet their needs, and chose the cheaper one. (Rafale)

The selection of the Rafale in India was not only political but kind of historic. You can have a quick look with google and you’ll find out that the selection process allowed the IAF to select their aircraft based on performances, and they chose two. The gouvernment then made its choice of selecting the cheapest. The process made sure financial and diplomatic pressures could only be applied once the IAF had selected its aircraft based on performance. At least that was the theory.

In Switzerland three aircraft met the Swiss requirements, and the Swiss chose the cheapest. (Gripen)

In the case of Switzerland it appears the Rafale received the highest marks against the Swiss grading scale, but it also showed the F-18C with some surprisingly high marks…

The Swiss C-18s have been kept in good condition and regularly upgraded so it’s not surprising the bar was so high. Anyway bottom line, as in every other competition the decision was political based on the review of performances vs costs.

In the case of India we don’t know how the Rafale compared to the Typhoon on the Indian grading scale, only that both were deemed to meet the requirements and that the Rafale was cheaper.

The IAF deemed both aircraft to be suitable based on their criteria which was performance, the gouvernment and so the political entity made their choice based on their criteria which was cost.

This really isn’t all that complicated.

We both agree here.

Again, it seems that decisions are political when you lose and performance when you win. :rolleyes:

No winning or losing are both based on political decision because the politics are the one signing the contracts not the air forces.

That depends what you plan to do with it of course. Something like an F-15 offers more range and carrying capacity than an F-16… of course it carries more than a Rafale or EF as well.

As an overall weapon system, or as individual entities? If the later then why not go for B1B, they can go further, with more payloads and since with missiles these days aerodynamics no longer matter…

In other cases an F-16 is very nearly impossible to beat. It may be at the limit of what its airframe can accommodate, but it is a remarkably strong performer across the board.

The US aggressor squaddron are using F-16 C/D that would be considered quite obsolete compared to the Block 60 yet they’re much more agile. Does that mean the C/D is superior to the Block 60 because across the board it’s a better dogfighter? Again please consider weapon system vs weapon system and not just taking here and here a few superior top speed and saying oh look it’s better!

The point is that different jets are built to different requirements. The Rafale is a strong performer, but the fanboys around here seem intent on insisting it is better than everything at everything, which is plainly absurd.

Nope, even the Mirage 2000 has better performances in some area than the Rafale, including until the upgrade to AESA a longer ranged radar. But Rafale is still a better weapon system and at least half a generation ahead.

If you want to make an intelligent argument about relative strengths and weaknesses, go for it. If you want to be a fanboy go ahead and claim that you can’t compare an F-16 to a Rafale. :rolleyes:

Because many airforces have decided to keep upgrading their aircraft due to lack of cash or new aircraft being delayed doesn’t mean you can consider F-16/M2k on par with Rafale/Typhoon. Thanks to upgrades and the fact that avionics are getting more and more important you can get very close or similar performances, but that’s all. New types are being designed from the beginning to provide improvement over the last generation. Most of the type it works, sometimes it doesn’t…

Again, “the performance bar” as defined by India. Meanwhile the reverse happened in the UAE… and in Singapore the F-15 won… fifferent users have different requirements. There is no universal performance bar.

Yeah like the F-35 winning in Japan despite the fact that the aircraft could barely be tested, and the maturity of SH/Typhoon over it.
I guess the F-35 won so many competitions without ever flying because after all getting robbed is a very popular requirement these days of armed forces…

I get a better idea? 😉 Says the guy who thought you couldn’t compare an F-16 Block 60 to a Rafale until recently…

From a political point of view you can compare the two, you can say if I only have a limited budget then why go for expansive medium/heavy fighters when I can get good enough capabilities with light fighters? Do you really think the F-16 was sold more than 3 to 4 time more than the F-15 because the former was better based on performances?

Different aircraft for different missions. The F-35 is designed to be a do-everything aircraft, omnirole if you like. 😉

That requires trade-offs in design, just as it has on every other multi-role aircraft.

And my purpose here is to question the result of these trade off. That’s also what many people around the world are doing, and specialists are increasingly saying wait a minute?!
Of course politicians are saying, hum cancelling the aircraft means losing jobs, industrial benefits etc. so let’s just reduce the performance requirements instead… Bottom line, political choice win over operational realities every day of the week.

The F-22 is amazing at air to air, but it is a lousy striker. The F-35 is a striker first with a good secondary air to air capability.

Lousy really? Forgetting about oveall performance of a weapon system and its associated accessories rather than just looking at individual numbers lol.

There is an awful lot wrong there. First off, the Zumwalt is most certainly -not- a return to the battleship. Yes, it has long ranged gun, but they are not going to be used in a way at all similar to those on a battleship.

As for goalkeeper…. forget about it. Modern ASCMs are well beyond the ability of such a system to defend against. There is a reason systems like the Rolling Airframe Missile are now becoming the standard.

I said a return to a concept… I didn’t say the USN intend to challenge Russia in a gun battle anytime soon…

My sense is that you are a critic of the F-35 primarily because it isn’t European…

Lool you should ask me what I think about Typhoon, A-400M, Tiger etc….

Yes it is expensive, but on a cost/capability basis the Eurofighter and Rafale have also been failures.

Really? At least they have excuses for whatever went wrong with them…

If the program participants had taken the money spent on designing and building those aircraft and dumped it into buying F-15/16/18s they would have gotten a far better capability for the price. Of course there are good reasons why they did what they did. They wanted to maintain an independent technology base and wanted aircraft built to their needs, and with greater long term growth potential.

Hum… let’s not forget that the very purpose of military materials is to protect a country souvereignty. Not just look nice.

The F-35 is at its cost/performance nadir. Huge development costs have been sunk, but the aircraft is only just now nearing operation, and then only with limited capabilities.

On a longer time line things will reverse. Production rates will climb, costs will fall, capabilities will grow, and the F-35’s growth potential will move it ever further beyond those aircraft it replaced.

So if in 40 years time after having sunk trillions of dollar LM finally say here a F-35 at the same cost a Gripen cost today, you’ll call it a success?! Thank you that actually has been very informative.

I think you guys are being a bit harsh, it’s not like many western countries haven’t had static display of completely fictional aircraft before.

It shows that at least they’ve got the ambition, not really their fault if they’re under an embargo… Only time will tell whether or not there is any consistency in that project. But we shouldn’t be too surprised honestly, nowadays internal bay = 5th gen for most folks even around here :p.

The fact that they’re using it for propaganda’s purposes is another matter, and it’s not like LM doesn’t do the same by claiming in each of their videos : invisible! invisible! invisible!

Well my bad then, most posts have read so far from JSF are distortion and misrepresentation of realities, and given the fact that mankind has a way of seeing things from so many different point of view I usually just read, smile and move on, but now that’s the first I read where I couldn’t find a single element here that’s even remotely based on eartly realities.

.

Congrats on your most silly post yet :diablo:.

Likewise, the World’s largest economy can afford to buy and operate F-22s.

Actually no it can’t, that’s what they stopped at barely ~180 rather than the 700+ originally planned then the 300 etc.

Then US pilots where so fed up they decided to make public the fact that they’re actually afraid of flying the plane… we’re talking about the US here, not some French people arguing about which cheese is best… That should tell us all something (more importantly what else are they not saying in the name of national security).

So no you don’t sell such a plane to other countries with much more liberal policies toward freedom of expression that could actually let everyone know whitout a doubt how bad your product is…