Excluding carriers already operating F-18 or Rafale, exactly one at the moment (or none if it can’t take a catapult launch), plus one being rebuilt. That’s not exactly a lot.
What makes you think a light fighter designed with stol in mind cannot operate from the various ski jump decks out there? When harriers take off from a rolling start they are using all forward thrust. If it works out to where the Gripen can also take off from 7º decks within 600 feet it opens up even more possibilities than just the 10º-12º ski jump users. Recovery is not as big an issue as the loaded weight on takeoff would be. Harriers are doing it now. We’ll have to wait and see how the numbers work out for a Sea Gripen.
I don’t think $9.5 billion with no partnership deal and no help with nuclear technology is going to beat $10 billion with said partnership and nuclear help.
If they cannot afford MiG-29’s then they cannot afford any other twin engine fourth generation jet. They best stick to used Gripen which is already a jump up in capability from the Lancers. Only the Gripen allows them to entertain the notion of much wider road dispersal strategies than they used with Lancers.
The logical step in 20/20 hindsight. And since it takes 25 years to develop an F-22 program don’t expect everyone to share that same logical step on the way…
It’s quite a step up from the limits of A-4m already familiar to Brazil. There are a lot of smaller carriers out there that could probably handle a Sea Gripen.
T-28’s, yes, the T-34 is a mistake. The OV-1 was not a mistake. A limited number were left behind in the withdrawal. Actually they left behind a lot of transport planes, too.
Too bad I had to correct your typos, but the Su-35 is not like the F-22. Maintenance is done the old-fashioned way, with simple hand tools and instruments. Even a less experienced airman can maintain and repair an Su-35 with not much more than a repair manual much like an airman from a peasant farm can maintain and repair a MiG-21.
That might be true, but it probably takes a 10-12 man crew to perform work on an Su-35 whereas a 4 man crew can maintain the F-22.
arthuro has a point about the weapon systems factoring into the costs. The MICA family is an expensive series of product to maintain compared to Sidewinder and AMRAAM. That would skew the totals somewhat. Just seems to be outrageous compared to the others.
Would Braxil be forced to operate French only missiles, or will they allow for indigenous (Piranha) and 3rd party missile options?
It’s not just a matter of handling the load. The components are not simply put under a load equal to a certain gravitational equivalent, they are subjected to rhythms of waves that increasingly rise in amplitude. Not only that they are subjected to multiple harmonically imbalanced frequencies of force waves at the same time, just like a plane will be subjected to in real conditions. The Rafale went through testing that superficially appears to be no different than any other modern western fighter program.
Other than its called Adour Mk 821? Most likely it uses the Mk951 as the basis for the upgrade. Adds in fadec, improved blades, and a new combustor strategy. Would love to see the final Mk 821 incorporated into the Hawk trainer program!
$14k for Rafale doesn’t sound right when the Super Hornet is touted as $11k. The Rafale is the lighter of the two and optimized every bit for ease of maintenance, fuel consumption, and efficiency for its specific mission profiles. These numbers seem rather disingenuous. Perhaps they are obtained by research meant to be friendly to Boeing.
It’s self evident this thread went from a Rafale appreciation thread to a crapper once Dare2 came in and trolled. Seriously, guy, you are detracting from what began as a nice thread. Troll some other forum.
Sign In
