It’s not just the sensitivity, but the processing power, software, & datalinks that handle the data from the EODAS units that make them what they are.

A good example of this is the DDM NG of the Rafale. While the sensor itself processes what it is sees as an IIR image, it cannot provide any new functions over what the classical DDM. This is because DDM-NG was designed as a drop-in replacement unit that gave it better detection and false-alarm rates, but did not provide new funcitonality.

The avionics of the Rafale would have to be upgraded to allows for new functions to be added later.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that EODAS will always have these unique features, just that it does have them now.

Let me be clear, you are talking about stuff that you have NO knowledge of at all.

Can you tell me if Rafale can cue missile firing from the EWS for shooting targets behind the ac? (You know, the DAS-unique feature you talked about before)
Do you know anything about what upgrades the current fighters have had in their central CPUs?
Do you know that current fighters (some of them) are fully integrated with real time datalinks to ground troops, airborne EAW and can lock on targets found by ground or sea-based radar stations? When will F35 have this capability operationally?
Are you aware that with currently fielded datalinks all detected emission-vectors are triangulated and all friendly locations, all threat locations, weapon and aircraft status, tracked targets etc are shared in real time?

None of what you have been touting out here has been unique. The only whing unique this time is that a manufacturer is forcing clients to buy features they dont care about.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the stoneage is over. And the F35 missed it. Times are a little bit different now. Also, I find it amusing that you are bragging about a machine that hasnt even declared IOC with its first customer nor met the performance metrics it was designed to beat (you know like range, maintenance requirements, engine quality, resistance to shrapnel and small arms fire, costs, delivery times and so on. Nothing important).

So far, all claims about the J31/F60 have been quite modest. If you are responding with some nonsense about another plane, please cite me in the apropriate thread and I will answer you there.

To the others, sorry for diluting this thread.

Can be replaced, but not easily, quickly or cheaply.

If it was easy, why did SAAB turn to Selex? Gripen A & C had a perfectly good mechanically scanned radar, & Ericsson had been working on an AESA fighter radar, starting with the PS05 back end IIRC, for several years. But still, Selex was brought in. There must have been a very good reason.

Buying in a third party radar, e.g. the EL/M-2052, could be done, but again, there’d be costs, it’d take time, & according to SAAB, the radar they have now is better than the competition, so it’d be a downgrade.

And then there’s the rest of the British parts. More development needed, more money, more time.

You are correct, and I also stated that it will cost more and take more time. But an Argentinian order is a few years down the road and deliveries even further away. So the longer lead time and higher costs aren’t critical.

And they still have the potential to offer an updated Ps05.

Until there is a formal offer all one can do is to speculate. Gripens current time plan and price level requires uk parts.

That was the intention but it won’t. Way too costly and way too weak in A-A.

Come on, it’s not way to weak. It has roughly the performance of a 4th gen with a drop tank without the radar cross section along with a pretty large radar.

Compared to whats currently operational it is ahead in many regards except kinematics.
Compared to what will be operational at the time when customers start declaring IOC/FOC it will be pretty well positioned in terms of performance.

Where it lacks is in sustainability and costs.

So, what fighter do you think will get acquired in a number greater than 290?

Gripen, Eurofighter, Pak FA/HAL/FGFA and probably J10. Depending on if light attack jets are included I would guess KAI T50.

– it depends what a manufacturer includes in operational cost, there is no doubt that the Gripen is cheaper than the 4+ generation aircraft that were developed after it, the question is: does the larger, heavier, 414 powered Gripen E/F share the same costs? The answer is no, to what degree they will be higher? We will see.

Gripen E will be cheaper by “double digits” % compared to Gripen C. And here are some reasons why,

The engine is less fuel consuming.
The engine is cheaper (the RM12 was good but very expensive and most of its features are found in the F414).
The manufacturing process is improved… a lot. Apart from the EW system upgrade this is the largest difference between Gripen E and C.

Strengthened landing gear for higher than usual sink rates as specified by the Flygvapnet..but corrosion resistance? I never knew that the Gripen had coatings for preventing corrosion too..any source for that info? And was such a requirement for an Air Force fighter because of using salt to de-ice runways and dispersed roads used for landing?

Exactly. They also rebuilt the F404 so it could handle pretty extreme amounts of water ingestion. Fixes that now are standard in the F414.

• 20% cost increase on signing the contract from the original proposal approved last year;
• 40% of the fighters will be produced in Brazil and the remains 60% will be produced in Sweden while the original proposal were 100% built in Brazil.

Anyway a production line at Embraer to assemble only 15 aircrafts should be uneconomic at least, therefore would not be surprised that in the end all Gripen NG will be assemble in Sweden if Brazil fails to attract new customers for the Gripen NG in South America.

20% cost increase + 40% built in Brazil = 0% technology transfer for Brazil

Are you trolling right now? Because I seriously can’t tell.

SAAB may have offered to just sell the parts to Brazil for final assembly at a lower purchase cost for the lot, but counting in the cost for local assembly from day one would give a higher total cost compared to letting SAAB take a larger part. Thus SAAB will be more involved in the production, as well as in setting up a local assembly line giving SAAB more money but lowering the total cost for Brazil while speeding up delivery times.

Technology transfer is not measured in what you put together in an assembly line. The avionics source code, allowing use of patents etc is more relevant. And that has been on the table fro the beginning.

Have you forgotten that Brazil will be lead developers on Gripen F and Sea Gripen? All Gripen Fs are to be manufactured by Brazil. How is that not technology transfer?