Notice how close these planes are in terms of weight to power ratio

Plane: Empty Weight, Thrust, Internal Fuel capacity
Gripen: 6620kg, 8350kg, 2260kg.
FC-1: 6410kg, 8300kg, 2300kg (est.)
F-CK-1: 6450kg, 8900kg, 2200kg (est.)

The F-CK-1 actually has a slight lead. It is said to out accelerate even a Starfighter.

The Gripen being slightly heavier than the other aircraft is understandable due to its extensive avionics, and the fact it’s probably the only plane there whose structure is strengthened and rated to 9G.

The T-50 being a dual seater is going to weigh more than the rest, but if you can create a single seater variant that weighs in at 6500kg empty, you can create a viable low cost fighter.

The two seater Golden Eagle actually weighs roughly the same as that Ching Kuo figure you used at 6440 kg, 8030kg, 2205 kg of internal fuel.

Apart from the engine responsiveness issue of the Ching Kuo, I really like the aircraft.. it’s done what other light combat aircraft’s are trying to do, just 10 years earlier. But I am under the impression that it is very unlikely to find export orders yes?

Yahoo:

Could you post up links to those Gripen articles instead of posting the actual article? I’d rather not have the thread turn into a Gripen brochure, but instead have comparisons where links are used as reference.

As for the Gripen, I’ve no doubt that it’s a capable fighter however as stated numerous times before, it’s simply too expensive for a light combat aircraft. Now avoiding all the Saab advertisement for it’s aircraft.. the use of the Gripen is quite clear and that it is an aircraft meant for defense rather than of offensive nature. No matter what combat systems are installed in the aircraft, all light combat aircraft obviously show that it has low internal fuel capacity and that the Gripen will be a short ranged aircraft that will rely on it’s net-centric warfare capabilities to defeat larger and more capable aircraft. However to accomplish this, the Gripen will need to be fielded in significant numbers, something where most of it’s export orders are lacking (generally 25 or lower). Part of this has to do with it’s price. The point of having a light fighter is to also be able to buy it in quantity, something both the FC-1 and T/A-50 is aiming to accomplish.

For the price on some of the Gripen deals, a country could get heavier and larger aircraft such as used F-16s that have or will be modified, and in some cases new F-16s that are funded by the US, late model MiG-29s, etc. They may not operate as cheaply as the Gripen, but for a little more (at least with the F-16 and M2K’s case) they can carry more, carry it farther and can be used at a more offensive role than the Gripen.

For these reasons it’s clear that there is an extent to the roles of which you can take your light weight combat aircraft to, and having the Gripen trying to match the capabilities of more offensive oriented aircraft such as the Rafale, Typhoon, etc will make it even more expensive.

It is unlikely that we’ll see the Gripen being exported to nations outside of Europe, bar S.Africa, as the rest of the world that does need airplanes, will either outside the US’s sphere of allies and thus could opt for Russian or the FC-1.. or those close to the west and wanting to benefit from both a cheaper aircraft and the potential offsets both Korea and the US can give.. in this case we see such examples in UAE, Israel, and Vietnam displaying interest.

Yahoo, the 90m figure is not the fly away cost of the Typhoon, it’s the total costs that the RAF has paid. The Austrians are paying much more as well. But if we were to use those costs, then the Gripen certainly is NOT cheap.

figures..
Czech: about $56 per aircraft article below:

Czech government approves deal to lease 14 Gripens

Flight International
15-June-2004

The Czech government last week gave final approval to a proposed 10-year lease agreement for 14 Saab/BAE Systems JAS39C/D Gripen fighters that will replace its air force-operated Mikoyan MiG-21s in the interceptor role.

The deal had been expected to cost Ckr20.3 billion ($792 million), but negotiations between the Czech defence ministry and Sweden’s defence materiel administration FMV saw this sum reduced to Ckr19.6 billion, enabling the Czech air force to spend around Ckr1 billion more to procure NATO-standard weapon systems for the aircraft; most likely from the USA.

Czech pilots will begin training courses in Sweden from mid-2004.

Contracts to be signed include a package of offset agreements worth Ckr25.5 billion – 130%of the lease deal’s value – with Saab/BAE Systems joint venture Gripen International. This will include work worth hundreds of million of crowns for ailing Czech manufacturer Aero Vodochody.

LUBOMIR SEDLAK / PRAGUE

The Hungarian Deal
http://www.amcham.hu/BusinessHungary/17-06/articles/17-06_38.asp
14 Gripens for 141 billion HU = $47 million approximately

Austria was offered
24 Gripens for 1.856 billion Euros if payment was made on time (info via ACIG, via Die Press) which is incredibly expensive for a light fighter.

The South African deal isn’t much cheaper either
from http://www.caat.org.uk/information/publications/countries/southafrica-0603.php
28 Gripen fighter aircraft from the Anglo-Swedish company SAAB for R10.875bn

—-

You can google this and find clarifications from other source if you would like.
However one cannot deny that this aircraft is very expensive for a light fighter, especially when the F-16 could be offered for less to some countries.

Also, I find that the Golden Eagle is best compared to the Gripen as they are within the same weight class and size, not to mention at the same market, as Golden Dragon clearly mentioned (meaning countries already operating western aicraft, mainly American).

As for the operating costs, there are various figures.. the one you used is the most common one, most people find here..
http://www.mirage-jet.com/AIRFRAME/MAINTE_1/mainte_1.htm

however figures from this site display a different story
http://www.f-16.net/library/legacy.html

TWR is not every thing.
how its climb rate is better than Gripen? Gripen flight performance is more in class of EF,Rafale and Su-35.
Swedes have also improved the engine with 40% components made in Sweden. weopon load is greater at 5300KG and is continous 9G machine.

[/QUOTE]

The Su-35, EF, and Rafale is a totally different class of performance in comparison to the Gripen, especially the Su-35. It simply can’t match the longer range, as well as the twin engines providing more thrust and thus, the ability to carry more weapons. The Gripen is still within the same performance class as the Golden Eagle, Ching Kuo, F-20 and FC-1. And currently is probably the most expensive fighter for it’s class.

As for Climb rate,
I found the stats of 3 min to reach 46,000 feet based on this dutch site
http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/jas39.htm
which is also used by this Swedish site
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/basic_data.html

Thanks Geforce.. so essentially a land lock’s country few (if not only) chance of prosperity lies in the cooperation of bordering nations that are also doing economically well.

So other wise landlocked countries bordering few economically successful states would be serously challenged?