The 15 airframes may be contractual minimums guaranteed by orders from the Swedes. If each nation places some minimum of an order than they have a waypoint from which to calculate risk and obligated costs. Raising more orders guarantees lowering the unit costs.
With Gripen it knows what it faces in theater. If Argentina goes elsewhere it becomes a crapshoot, especially if it goes Chinese. I don’t think the U.S. would allow it to go for Chinese or Russian aircraft and arms without some sort of intercession.
Why couldn’t Argentina go F-50 and work with Brazil on a common logistics? No reason an F-50 option couldn’t be pursued. They still need ordnance and a more localized service depot for the engine. It’s a shame GD never pushed a lower priced version of F-CK-1 for international customers.
Why would a lift body concept be considered overweight? How can it be deemed underpowered? If they wanted more dry thrust they would have simply designed it around non-afterburning Al-31’s… Until the jet reaches maturity and gets into an air force we won’t know how good or bad the design will be.
The wing looks out of proportion to the body and the engines look under proportioned to the overall size.
Why wouldn’t an F-16I equivalent with CFT attached be just as valid as an F/A-18E purchase? It has to be cheaper to operate and has a pretty excellent degree of options to select from when it comes to weapons compatibility.
AMX is unnecessary once Gripen is built in sufficient numbers. And if Sea Gripen happens then they can retire their older navy jets, too. I don’t see all the fuss. Even if Sao Pablo operates without fast jets it can be a mobile disaster support platform that doubles as both humanitarian aid staging point and hospital ship. Aircraft carriers aren’t all about bombing targets and defending surface fleets.
Pure speculation, but until they move away from stretched metal skins I don’t think the roughness is avoidable. I’ve seen the F-22 up close and it looks like its non-metallic in nature.
I’m surprised that it’s not possible to create a flexible aerogel. Could you imagine basically a plane built out of foam? Not just any foam, a foam that is stiffer per gram than metals and not much heavier than air by volume. The stuff is amazingly strong, as a child’s building block size piece can support a car’s weight if distributed across it. But at the same time one can literally crush it in one’s hand if pinched correctly. Similar to the material the space shuttles used for their tiles. Then again, the F-22 may already be using something similar only opaque. It’s surface is kind of surreal to stare at.
I guess it boils down to what they could live without, SpudmanWP. Could they have used COTS systems to rush the early baseline airframe out? Cut out the EODAS for F-22’s MAWS. Link16 rather than MADL. Rather than the fancy helmet tied to the EOTS and EODAS systems use one out at the time. Focus on AIM-120, internal cannon, and SDB. Focus on LO rather than maximum level VLO standard. Regress to F119 that was already flying Getting out a less complicated Block 1.0 F-35A before the F-35B would have made sense.
The only second aircraft line Embraer should be contemplating is a profitable line.
And this notion of Gripen with TVC is obviously coming from mauriobaggio… He comes up with some far out ideas. Not real practical, but definitely long in imagination.
If F-35 had been modular from the start, easing the gee whiz standards to first push out a working airframe without all the gizmos ready at IOC, Canada probably would have had impetus to buy a less perfect plane. It’s probably good for Canada to have the process protracted. It’s certainly by manufacturer design to keep these projects protracted.
Boeing probably could have been a better competitor. If it wasn’t for trying to ram a USN jet down everyone’s throats they might have sold something more in the long run. But Boeing decided to go for the money grab by getting involved in subcontracting LockMart’s work and becoming rather uncompetitive so as to not hurt JSF sales.
Bager1968-
Tf30 uses more fuel than the F110…
http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/engines.pdf
I thought they were inactive beginning in 2009.
They probably should keep on track. Wish washy decisions add cost.
Well, “destroy it to save it” failed.
My guess would be F-86’s by far. Probably first is F-86F, next best being F-86A, followed either F-86E or F-4D, then the other, and finally F-15A. F-16A is probably in the top 10. It’s hard to say because most MiG kills were in two wars.