Lokeit is limited because of lower TWR than it contempories. when you have low TWR. slight weopon loads need use of afterburner for acceleration and climbrates. see that Gripen demo episide.
6AAM will not have the same impact on Rafale/EF as it is on Gripen. Heavier weopons further increase the capabilities difference. It is good interceptor but not a multirole fighter.
More over the way Gripen NG is put together make it expensive. Almost twice the price of JAS-39C.
No such doubling price is expected any other update of fighters.
Well in spite of the high price and lousy TWR so far it seems to sell better than the others 😉 Perhaps the price is less than what you think and pehaps the TWR is higher than what you think?
SH: Only one export customer (Australia which bought it only as a stop-gap while waiting for the F-35.)
Typhoon: Two export customers
Rafale: Zero export customers
What is a bit hilarious is that Dassault has highlighted the Swiss choice as a “paper plane”. I suspect that can backfire and I wonder why we have not yet seen the following headline in Flight Global or Aviation Week (large font colored red to honor Eagle1).
Breaking News: Rafale fighters shot down by paper plane!
:diablo:
LokeI’m sorry, but with all the redundancy built into the Russian SAM network(SAMs in every range group, each system has half a dozen radars of different kinds, designed for high jamming immunity) I don’t think there exists any (non-stealth) aircraft in the world that could successfully carry out SEAD deep inside Russian territory.
Perhaps Rafale? With some stand-off weapons and a lot of AASM it may be possible? Not without losses probably, but may still be doable. Pure speculation I know but then again the statement that it will not be able to do it is IMHO also just pure speculation… Capabilities of SPECTRA are not known.
And perhaps a mix of Growlers and SH could also pull it off?
LokeI have read the same about the EJ200 – that they are extremely fuel efficient engines. And I got little reason to doubt the M88 would be in the same ballpark, too. On top of all that, I think that a twin-engined fighter burns less than exactly 2x the amount of the fuel when flown in optimum regime.
No matter how you twist it, both aircraft have one radar, one set of avionics, one cockpit, one set of landing gear and one airframe to take care of and to maintain. Gripen has just one engine, that means half spares, half fuel lines, half fuel consumption, half engine maintenance.
Let us estimate that the engine maintenance accounts for ca 30% of overall work. Then the Gripen would enjoy 15 % cost advantage. Plus count in less fuel burned, say another 15%, that means Gripen 10.00, Rafale/EF 7.00 score. That would be explainable.
But there is simply no way how a Gripen could cost three times less to operate than EF. Unless it generates fuel when flying instead of burning it.
The NG actually does generate fuel, didn’t you know that? :p
Gripen maintenance costs < F-16 maintenance costs < SH maintenance costs < Rafale/EF maintenance costs.
LokeYou have to be skeptical about this claims.
The 1300 km + 30 min. loitering time in a2a is doable, although some assumptions on flight profile etc. must be maintained… 😉
Do you really think Saab would present such a profile if it was clearly impossible?
BTW, some of your figures are wrong… 😉
LokeLast time I checked, Gripen too needed fuel, operating liquids, weapons and maintenance.. 😎 Someone might have forgotten to tell that to the Swiss comitee 🙂
Yes I am sure they forgot about that…
Surprise: A small single-engine fighter is using much less fuel than a larger twin-engine fighter. In addition the F414 engine is extremely fuel-efficient.
You would be surprised to learn how little it spends at the optimal altitude and cruise speed.
LokeAlso the journalist clearly said that at Mach 0.85 was turned on to pass the Mach# and later turned off so aircraft can supercruise. It is not supercruiser intrue sense.
BS.
LokeIf my memory did not fail me completely I believe that Gripen demonstrated ability to operate in the vicinity of the SAMs they use in Red Flag. Are they the same technology level as what Liby got ? Or did Liby have a more advanced version of SAMs?
IMHO the Rafale is no doubt very advanced. I like the 4.5 gen term since I do believe there is “half a generation” between Rafale and e.g. F-16, Hornet, etc, and that F-35 will be “half a generation” ahead of Rafale, once it gets ready.
Loke‘Combat aircraft contest not over’
There are celebrations at Linkoping, the home of the Gripen NG fighter, which is barely two hours from Stockholm in one of Sweden’s ultra-friendly inter-city trains. On Tuesday, the Swiss government announced its selection of the Gripen fighter for the Swiss Air Force, turning away the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.
“If confirmed, a win in Switzerland (according to the Swiss constitution, this might even require a national referendum) will provide a much-needed boost to Saab’s status as a fighter manufacturer, after its Gripen was eliminated in another high-profile contest in India,” said respected aviation magazine, Flight Global.
India’s has decided differently, short-listing the Typhoon and Rafale over the Gripen NG in New Delhi’s ongoing selection of 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). But, visiting Linkoping, Business Standard sees little despondency. With India’s defence ministry (MoD) uncomfortable with how it might have to double its $10.5 billion allocation for those heavy fighters, Gripen is not ruling itself out of the MMRCA competition.
“It’s not over till it’s over,” says Eddy de la Motte, Head of Gripen Export. “We have been and are still confident that Gripen is the perfect match for the IAF as well as for the Indian defence and aviation industry.”
Eddy de la Motte also points out that Gripen has provided details of its Sea Gripen fighter (which is still being developed) in response to an Indian Navy’s enquiry.
Executives in Linkoping all insist that the Gripen NG — the New Generation version of the current Gripen-D fighter —would provide India with the fighter it needs for a far cheaper procurement and operating cost. They say it would be one-third the cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, calculated on a “through-life” basis.
http://business-standard.com/india/news/combat-aircraft-contest-not-over/457582/
LokeAFAIK they have no immediate plans of retiring their F-18s; the Gripen will replace the F-5.
One may speculate what will replace the F-18 though.
Perhaps a 5. gen platform?
LokeI think I read somewhere that the Rafale met 95%(?) of the requirements in India.
So if one wants to apply very strict black-and-white rules perhaps one should cancel the MMRCA since nobody actually met 100% of the requirements?
As Eagle1 already said the evaluation committee needs to look at the “complete picture” and draw the line somewhere.
In India Gripen NG was below that line; in Switzerland it was above.
However in order to be able to draw that line with a high degree of confidence one must first do a tech eval.
Also interesting to note that Boeing pulled out of the Swiss competition… Now why would they do that?
Boeing, on the other hand, may have best understood the Swiss requirement for a new fighter better than others. Despite previously selling F-18C/D Hornets to Switzerland, Boeing decided not to compete with the follow-on F-18E/F Super Hornet because “it was too much airplane,” according to a Boeing official recently.
IMHO Rafale most likely was doomed to lose in Switzerland. There will be a referendum and the “high cost” of the deal will be used as the main argument against the deal. Would that argument become stronger or weaker had Rafale won…?
Anyway, the leaks have highlighted that Rafale is an amazing a/c (the French Rafale enthusiasts knew this already of course ;))
Hopefully for Dassault the “bad loser” impression generated by their press releases will not damage relations with other prospective customers too much.
Loke@eagle
You still can make a competition and skip the technical evaluation part so Hurter point of view is valid. You can base your ranking only on price&offsets&Tot&politics if you want.
Just look in India after the technical evaluation is over with the rafale and typhoon selected it restarts at “zero” for both of them and the only criteria to chose the winner will be price&offset&ToT&politic.
So paying 8 million Franc for a technical evaluation that was supposed to weight 60% of the decision was unnecessary. Hence Hurter was furious and that is not bias.
Technical eval showed that all 3 met minimum technical requirements.
In India only 2 met minimum technical requirements.
To me that seems to be the main difference 😉
Loke@Loke
LOL, Dassault most likely had the same thing happen
to them in the Boeing attitude in the Swiss tender :diablo:Something like :
““Our belief is that the Swiss have issued the RFP only to have some rabbit for the French to chase.” But that’s not a role Boeing wants to be in. “We are not ready to spend millions [on a campaign] only to be used as a rabbit for the French.””
( Although for now it was the Swedes instead. )
Do you have any sources?
If SH had participated and met the requirements minimum then there is a high possibility they would have been ranked ahead of the Rafale in Switzerland since AFAIK the SH is cheaper than the Rafale. Although it could be that Boeing would have struggled with the offsets?
That’s why I think Japan actually would be a better bet for Rafale than Switzerland. The Japanese have even higher requirements than the Swiss. How can they be happy with the SH if the F-22 was what they were asking for?
LokeAnd I agree with you, but you can hardly compete everywhere when you are just 1 making all the effort. ET has 4 countries supporting it for export. That’s not the same.
Of course I would like to see Rafale trying in Japan, with their technical abilities the Rafale would become even more incredible if they take part of development.
Who know if they win India, or somewhere else they might just get the motivation and money to try Japan.
Good point however to me it seems that Japan may have been a better bet that some of the others (including Switzerland). Note that Boieng pulled the SH from the Swiss competition, presumably because it was “too much jet” for the F5 replacement.
As for Japan:
Dassault Aviation chairman and CEO Charles Edelstenne is not shy about saying the he did not want to play the role of a stalking horse. “Our belief is that the Japanese have issued the RFP only to have some rabbit for the Americans to chase.” But that’s not a role he wants to be in. “We are not ready to spend millions [on a campaign] only to be used as a rabbit for the Americans.”
Perhaps he is right but F-35 now seems to be further delayed. Will the SH (that was ditched by India) be found to be acceptable by the Japanese? I do not know but I suspect that although Japan always tend to buy US gear, on this occation they may not…. OTOH the weak radar of Rafale (compared to the future Typhoon AESA) may be more worrysome to Japan than to Switzerland.
LokeUnfortunatly each competitions cost money the company has to pay from its own pocket, and Dassault beleives that Japan will buy American so they don’t want to bet just so that Japan may use them to pressure the US like was the case in other Asian competitions.
Japan is worried about China. They felt snubbed after the US refused to offer them F-22. If F-35 is delayed that leaves the SH as the only US alternative.
What do they do if the SH if found to not meet their requirements? They would then have no option but to go for TYphoon.
LokeThe Gripen NG will have a 10 cm longer fuselage, and a 20 cm wider wingspan. I’m guessing the inner chord has been increased by 10 cm thanks to the elongated fuselage.
I agree on the wingspan however if you look at the Saab homepage you’ll see that the NG offered to e.g. India has the same length as the C/D.
Sign In
