I forget to mention new M53-PX engine or M88-4(with TVC), 80% composites by weight(After all they have mastered the composites :p ). There is no way that India will chose standared M2K-5 considering its bigger project interms of money than MKI. Licensing alone will cost $4 to $5B and than Indigenization with local components outsourced to 10000 local vendors.

So Grifo-7MP and -MG are different radar. its funny Grifo always defeat SSR.

Flight International
April 16, 2002

Pg. 17

AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT PAKISTAN ORDERS MORE CHENGDU FIGHTERS

Pakistan air force has indicated a requirement for up to 25 more Chengdu F-7PG/FT-7PG fighters to bolster its fleet to 75 aircraft. Meanwhile, the protracted China/Pakistan Chengdu Super 7/FC-1 development programme appears to be finally moving ahead, with the metal for the first prototype having recently been cut.

China has completed delivery of 50 of the improved F-7s to Pakistan and is understood to be discussing a follow-on order for 25 single-seat F-7PGs and two-seat FT-7PGs. Pakistan is also expected to shortly sign a contract with Italy’s Galileo to equip the fighter, designated in China as the F-7MG, with the improved Fiar Grifo MG radar.

The F-7PGs have been delivered equipped for the radar but do not have it installed. The radar selection was delayed while the Pakistan air force evaluated BAE Systems Super Skyranger, an improved pulse-Doppler version of the F-7’s Skyranger 226 ranging radar. Italian officials say the Grifo MG was able to demonstrate better low-level capability than that of the Super Skyranger.

Installation of Grifo MG is likely to be performed by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex at Kamra, which has already fitted Grifo F and M variants of the multimode radar to older F-7Ps and Dassault Mirage IIIEA/DA fighters. Grifo MG has an enlarged 350mm (13.8in) diameter antenna and an expanded 30 elevation and azimuth capability.

Pakistan’s F-7PG have replaced its elderly Nanchang F-6s and provide an interim capability until the Super 7 can be fielded. With initial fabrication now under way, the first prototype is due to make its maiden flight by the end of the next year. A full-size mock-up of the fighter is expected to be at the Farnborough air show in July.

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.

I usually collecte infomration from a database and other forums so links cannot be provided.
Regarding Gripen you are confusing its capabilities as reason for its lack of export success.
The reason it is not exported widely is because of US engine and Swedish export policies.
Advantage of Gripens over other 4Th generation Fighters like Flankers, MIGs or EF, or Rafale.
1. Lower initial fly away cost.
2. lower operating cost hence more flight hrs for training.
3. ERIEYE is not that expensive. A version without controllers just cost around $100M.
4. 5000KG weopon load is decent. You can launch 4 long range Standoff weopons or 6 BVR which is good for most requirements.

New F-16 on purely commerical basis is more expenisve to acquire and run and US AWACS doesnot come cheaply without AWACS you give all the advantages of a passive attack. 20 Gripens with ERIEYE is far more effective both in defence and offence than Just buying 30 MIG-29s or Flankers or 10 EF.
Off course US can handout some second hand F-16 airframes for free but it does not take anything away from Gripen merits.
Regarding FC-1. Its RD-93 engine alone disqualifies it for Gripen competitor. FC-1 with M-88 engine will be another matter.

Gripen was designed from beginning to combat Flanker.

Far from being a costly national embarrassment, the Gripen could become the 21s century export equivalent of the MiG-21 or the F-16.

The reasons for this extraordinary turnaround in Gripen’s fortunes are partly circumstantial. Ever since the Cold War ended and defence budgets started to become tailored to smaller, leaner, more flexible forces, air forces all over the world began looking for multi-role capability at markedly reduced cost. JAS stands for Jakt Attack Spaning — fighter, attack, reconnaissance — three capabilities within a single airframe, all at the touch of a button. Critics have called it a jack of all trades and master of none, but this is plainly untrue. The Swedish military has always kept a close eye on the threat and maintains a first rate technical intelligence capability. Mirroring the conclusions of their NATO counterparts — conclusions that neutral Sweden had t keep firmly to itself for as long as it was caught between the superpowers — Swedish tech-int experts saw the Soviet Su-27 Flanker and its enhanced derivative, now known as the Su-35, as the greatest air threat its next-generation air force was likely to face.

When it drew up the specification for the JAS 39, therefore, the Swedish Air Force did so with the same priorities in mind as the people guiding the design of the Eurofighter and France’s Rafale.

“Of course, air-to-air was the priority,” says Brig Gen Rolf Clementson, recently retired from the Swedish Air Force and now a consultant to Saab. With the Su-27 threat on the doorstep — at its closest point Russia is less than 20 km away — Gripen, unlike EF 2000 and Rafale, didn’t have to be a large, twin-engined aircraft. Gripen’s small size not only gives it great agility and what Gen Clementson describes as “stealth by birth,” but also a flyaway price, according to Saab executives, that is one third that of EF 2000 and Rafale.

The devaluation of the krona — by as much as 30 per cent — has also helped make all Swedish aerospace products extremely competitive, industry officials say. The country’s entry into the European Community, anticipated after elections in September, is also awaited eagerly by the aerospace and defence community.

Integrating the whole

In an extension of a device employed on the Viggen, and with it an operational concept that is uniquely Swedish, the Gripen also makes use of a data-link that allows it to exchange radar information with other JAS 39s, Sweden’s new Erieye airborne early warning aircraft, as well as ground stations.

The last great key to Gripen’s aerial survivability, Gen Clementson claims, resides in its high mission readiness rate: good availability (high mean time between failure, easy overhaul procedure and rapid turnaround time), he says, gives a commander the surge capacity he needs to win a war. Once it had been optimised for the air-to-air role, adding Gripen’s attack and reconnaissance features was comparatively simple. The trick has been to integrate the whole in a neat, compact, user-friendly design.

“this give various statistics.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=7”

That site you gave isn’tvery accurate about the Gripen’s numbers.

Only frontpage weight data is inaccurate. Inside it is accurate. 78% of 8300KG F-16C comes to around 6600KG.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=7&bg=118
The Gripen is a true lightweight fighter by modern standards. It has 78% of the empty weight of an F-16C, and is about half the empty weight of the Viggen, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, or the Dassault Rafale

http://www.saairforce.co.za/
this site gives 6600KG weight for JAS-39B

Unfortunately all deals are not “the proper” deal you are seeking, almost every aircraft deal this past 20 years either involves leasing, offsets, financial aid, etc. I ask you to provide a better example of how much a Gripen does cost in comparison to the 20-22 million target the Golden Eagle is aiming for, even at the lowest cost you have posted (in the 30s) it is still significantly cheaper. The Austrian deal best showed the various pricing based on payment stages, between the Gripen and Typhoon, with the Gripen showing itself not to be as cheap as claimed. Furthermore, with LM heavily involved with the Golden Eagle, could Sweden match the possible offsets from both S.Korea and the US?

Further more, as for the climb rates, could you post some links stating some more as you stated

” that 37000ft/minute is sea-level climb rate not from brake release like Gripen. Gripen S/L climbrate is over 50,000 ft/minute.”

when the stats and links I gave for both the Gripen and Golden Eagle do not mention sea=level climb rate and break release. It simply just stated how far it could climb and how long it takes.

Just look at this deal. How can you price it correctly. Comparisions is more correct in terms of price when same quantity and conditions exist. Gripen atleast in future will be offered with BGT-IRIS, Meteor, Darter and other European PGMs which may not be available to SK except US permission so it gives very big advantage in weopon areas alone.

South African Aerospace, Part 2

Quid Pro Quo; Massive offset package forces arms providers into unfamiliar venture-capitalist role

Robert Wall

19 July 2004
Aviation Week & Space Technology

The South African Air Force will start taking delivery of new trainers and fighters in the next few years, but in some respects the success or failure of the massive arms package won’t be known until early next decade.

When the government promulgated the strategic arms procurement in 2000, including the $2.2-billion deal for Hawk trainers and Gripen fighters, it came with a massive industrial benefits package that promised to generate more than $8 billion in offsets with South African companies. To some extent, those economic incentives, rather than military capability, were more influential in getting the contract approved at a time when political leaders for the still young multiracial democracy were leery of defense.

The modernization program has some very vocal detractors. There continue to be court challenges to try to have the arms package halted, although those have largely been unsuccessful. Sentiments may also be changing because there are signs local industry is capitalizing on the deal to win orders not linked directly to the offsets, suggesting there may be long-term, sustainable benefits.

The offset activities can be broadly classified into two groups: defense and national industrial participation obligations. The defense industrial package (DIP) is supposed to total $1.5 billion and has to be generated over a seven-year period. The national, or civil industrial, category has to amount to $7.2 billion; the sum has to be generated during an 11-year period. The clock started ticking in April 2000.

The DIP allows the prime contractors to generate direct offsets across the breadth of military activities, naval systems, ordnance or land programs. Making the task of finding the $1.5 billion in direct work easier is that civil aerospace work also counts against the “defense” total. “We are looking hard at South Africa for A320 leading edges,” notes Jonathan Walton, executive vice president of BAE Systems South Africa.

South Africa’s government-owned Denel is probably the largest single beneficiary of the direct offset arrangement, with work that includes building the Gripen rear fuselage (not just South Africa’s), final assembly of 23 SAAF Hawks, and the helmet tracker system for Eurofighter and Gripen.

BAE Systems also is assisting local companies, particularly those with black ownership, to become potential suppliers. Strengthening such smaller firms is a large priority for the South African government. But in many cases manufacturing and engineering standards are still too low at those firms, which is why BAE Systems has taken on a mentoring role to enable the local suppliers to compete, says Mike Rennardson, director of Hawk, South Africa. One area likely to heavily involve that type of business is the supply of ground support equipment.

At least 30% of the total $8.7-billion package has to come through investments, either by the company or its partner Saab. However, counting against the total are investments by third-party financiers, as long as it is BAE Systems or Saab that allows the funding to flow through loan guarantees or similar arrangements.

The staggering sum for the national industrial program, $7.2 billion, doesn’t have to be generated by BAE Systems and Saab alone. The companies make investments in South African enterprises and then receive credit for local and export sales the local entities generate. The arrangement puts the European defense companies in the odd position of having to act as venture capitalists, Walton says. The company will support around 50 projects by the time the offset requirement is met, he estimates–37 such agreements existed by May, in diverse fields such as mining equipment, tourism development, bio-technology, and furniture repair.

Achieving the offset level has become onerous, but company officials recognize it has to be met. The South African government has imposed stiff penalties for non-performance. Moreover, Walton argues that to maintain the company’s reputation and to be successful in future international competitions–in South Africa and elsewhere–the complex arrangement has to be brought to fruition.

Outside economic factors increase the burden of fulfilling the industrial agreements. The prices for the aircraft, as for the offset packages, are denominated in U.S. dollars, to protect the South African government from rand fluctuations, BAE Systems officials say. However, the export potential of South African goods is affected by the strong relative value of the rand against the dollar, as well as by high oil prices. Both have made the export of South African goods more expensive and, in turn, complicate meeting offset requirements.

For several smaller companies in South Africa, the arms package has already spurred a growth in business. One example is Midrand-based Aerospace Monitoring and Systems (AMS). The 85-person, privately held business specializes in structures and engine data collection for health use and monitoring systems (HUMS). It also builds a flight data recorder for the Hawk trainer.

Prior to the fixed-wing aircraft deal, the company was working on South Africa’s Rooivalk helicopter. But since then there has been a burst of activity translating into contracts beyond those for Hawk and Gripen. Notably, a contract recently was won to supply HUMS for Indian Su-30MKIs, says Christo Weder, managing director at AMS.

AMS officials readily admit the Su-30 deal wouldn’t have happened without the company being given the ability to demonstrate its work under the offset deal. That activity “was certainly a credibility builder” and convinced the Indian government to order the HUMS, Weder says. The company has since also won a contract from EADS to provide a ground station for German Eurofighter health and usage analysis.

The initial contract with AMS under the strategic arms package was actually signed in 1996, predating the trainer purchase. BAE Systems formalized its arrangement with AMS for Hawk’s HUMS with an eye on the South African competition. Australia’s Hawk trainers were the first aircraft to fly with the kit.

Weder says the company hopes to build on its string of successes by adding an aircraft each year to the stable of products it supports. Moreover, company leaders plan to take advantage of a South African government policy to consider aerospace a growth sector, which is freeing up small research and development grants from the Dept. of Trade and Industry. Those can be used to branch into new product areas, Weder hopes.

From flight international

Potential buyers of the Gripen are given the opportunity to buy US or European armaments, or to go a “third way”, by acquiring weaponry from other sources such as Brazil, Israel, Russia and South Africa. The last of these will this year finalise its selection of a weapons package for its Gripens, which is expected to include the indigenous Denel R-Darter beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). South Africa’s first aircraft will be handed over in 2006, with full-rate deliveries to start the following year.

The Swedish air force’s operational test and evaluation squadron late last year staged trials with GBU-series laser-guided bombs and unguided ordnance, while the Gripen also demonstrated its ability to carry two Taurus Systems KEPD-350 stand-off missiles. Current weapons-clearance activities include tests with the Swedish RBS15 anti-ship missile and Israeli Litening III targeting pod, and work will continue early this year to approve two new weapons selected by the Hungarian defence ministry: Raytheon’s AIM-120C5 AMRAAM air-to-air and AGM-65G Maverick air-to-surface missiles.

Saab is also conducting initial work with a helmet-mounted display for the South African Air Force, and this will assist the future integration of BGT’s IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile. The JAS39 has also been selected as the lead platform for firing trials of MBDA’s Meteor BVRAAM from next year. Initial firings will take place at Sweden’s Vidsel test range, before launches in 2008-9 against fast-moving and agile targets off Scotland.

Introduction of the C/D-standard Gripen does not mark the end of development work on the aircraft, says Saab, which is investing its own money to study ways of increasing the fighter’s range. Rejecting the trend among fighter manufacturers to add conformal fuel tanks to aircraft, the manufacturer says range increases could be achieved through improvements to the Gripen’s Volvo Aero RM12 engine, or by adding more fuel internally through improvements in manufacturing techniques. Saab says it needs one or two customers to request such enhancements before fully pursuing them.

“We have some solutions, but haven’t seen anyone who wants to pay for them yet,” Saab says.

Further growth options include the potential to uprate the RM12 and to develop the two-seat JAS39D as a command and control platform, acting as a flight leader for a number of fighters or unmanned combat air vehicles. The Gripen could also be made available at a down-rated specification to serve as an advanced jet trainer, possibly through the proposed 12-nation Advanced European Jet Pilot Training programme, says Saab.

A firm supporter of the Gripen programme, the Swedish air force continues to show interest in several proposed enhancements. “One or two areas will materialise in the near future where the air force will take the lead, but other customers will follow,” says Saab. The most likely near-term initiatives centre on the introduction of additional weapon types and enhanced electronic-warfare equipment, such as towed decoys, it says.

It is still early days, but Gripen International has made a solid start on the export stage. A positive conclusion to negotiations with the Czech government will see the Saab/BAE joint venture more than a quarter of the way to its sales goal. But success in Brazil, where the Gripen is reportedly running a close second to the Su-35, would bring real cause for celebration