Are you implying that integrating weapons on the Gripen is more expensive than on other platforms?

I’m not talking about weapon integration, I’m talking about flight domain opening for all the heavy loads showed by Saab to advertise the new capabilities of the Gripen NG in order to compete with the rafale and the F-18E. 95% of those loads have never been further than the CG level. And every body knows that flight trials of heavy loads are time consuming and expensive because they usually reveal unexpected aerodynamic and structural problems (computer simulations can’t foresee everything)

Now, if Saab only plans to integrate the usual loads of the gripen C to the gripen NG, that will not be a problem. But in this case, what is the point of the Gripen NG ?

I was also wondering if it was not too risky to trust at 100% the Gripen NG industrial consortium on the costs forecast ?

I mean, if Sweeden was ordering the plane and funding the developement, there will be some sort of garanty that everything has been checked in detail and that the costs are being watch.
Who give us that assurance in the case of the gripen NG ? a private consortium ?

No TMor, I’m asking.

Why don’t you ask directly to the french mod then :

Stéphanie Prunier, Cabinet du ministre de la Défense, Tel : +33 (0)1 42 19 41 80 – [email]com.cabinet@defense.gouv.fr[/email]

DGA/Com, Florence Fayolle, Tél : +33 (0)6 78 09 22 75 – [email]florence.fayolle@dga.defense.gouv.fr[/email]

DICoD, Centre de presse, Tél : +33 (0)1 44 42 54 02 – [email]presse@dicod.defense.gouv.fr[/email]

Those people are paid to answer to the journalists questions

As for SAAB I wouldn’t say it has the weakest case. It’s the cheapest of them all in the end.

IMHO, the additional development costs needed for the Gripen NG to be operational are underestimated by Saab.

The Swedish ground crew found it hillarious that the software for the Rafale cockpit displays were windows based, with the classic sky and grass field background during start up!

That’s the IDM, a simple data link system developped during a crash program for the missions in Afghanistan. it’s a stand alone low cost system to exchange data with the TACP until the rover is available. It is visible on some rafale B thanks to the aditional display above the back seat HUD
It is not linked to the embeded rafale weapon/nav/display system, which is of course, not based on windows.

One of the Rafale pilots swore loudly that one had to go three steps back in the menu just in order to change the radio frequency, and then go the three steps forward to continue were you left off.

AFAIK, The radio is managed through a dedicated screen and a switch is available directly on the throttle stick.

well considering with their last buy, the rafale was beated by the f-16, i doubt it

Was it?

Or was it that the UAE always buy a mix of french and US fighters.

F16E + mirage 2000-9

To be replaced by

rafale + F16E

To be replaced by

F-35 + rafale

Granted.

Btw. are there any information about the chaff/flare loadout? The vertical firing dispensers are for flares and it looks like the are 40 in total (if there is one flare for each “hole”). It was said the chaff dispensers were used in the M2k-5 as well and there it were 112 in total IIRC.

Today, there are 32 flares dispensers.
This is going to be increased to 64 (2 flares by cell)

I disagree!! 🙂

he then goes on to remind us that Rafale is carrier capable.

Another thing to keep in mind is how pros evaluate aircrafts: They first make a list of requirements. Then the compare the aircraft to that list of requirements, NOT to any other aircrafts.

My conclusion is: The Rafale meets (or exceeds) all the requirements Collins have to a multirole fighter jet!

Would Typhoon do the same? To some extent irrelevant, however my guess the answer would be No, mainly due to the reference to the carrier capability.

He is not comparing to the Typhoon, but the F-35, no less 😀

As Trimble said, the fact that he has not flown the F-35 is also somewhat irrelevant. The point is: Does the aircraft meet the requirements, yes or no?

If it meets the requirements, well then it meets the requirements. There may be other aircraft out there that also meet his requirements; That is however a different discussion…

His reference to carrier capability and “this could be used even by UK” and the reference to the F-35 gives it all away…. Forget about Typhoon, this is really F-35 vs Rafale… The way I read this is that Collins suggest that if the F-35B (or C) becomes too expensive the UK can safely pick the Rafale instead!

This is what I think too.
The F-35 is clearly the target of this article.