Actually I think the F-16 payload figure in that image is not v.different from latest Gripen NG payload figure of 7200kg put forth by Obligatory. If I am not mistaken both these figures include internal fuel weights. IOWs, there is no way the Gripen NG carries 7200kg externally without sacrificing the internal fuel capacity of 3400kg. Keeping in mind the MTOW of 16500kg and Empty of 7000kg, we get 7000kg (empty) + 3400kg (int fuel) + 7200kg (payload) = 17600kg > advertised MTOW of 16500kg by a good 1000kg+.

To take off with a 7200 kg payload without “breaking” the MTOW 16,500 kg threshold, simply do not fill the internal tanks. Once in the air, fill the internal tanks either using a tanker or buddy-refueling with another NG.

Can the experts please enlighten us, what is normally the limiting factor(s) that defines MTOW for a fighter?

Further delays?

Plans to procure a new advanced combat aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force (Forca Aerea Brasileira – FAB), originally launched in the late 1990s, are facing a new delay, sources in Sao Paulo have confirmed to Jane’s.

The final decision on which platform will be chosen to fulfil the FAB’s F-X2 competition for an initial batch of 36 fighters was supposed to have been made before President Luiz Inazio Lula da Silva left office at the end of 2010.

However, with Lula out of office his successor, President Dilma Rousseff, wants to place the approximately USD5 billion programme on hold to reassess the options. A shift in government emphasis from enhancing indigenous industrial capabilities to social investment, coupled with a need to reduce fiscal expenditure to control the inflation threatening the Brazilian economy, are playing to postpone the F-X2 programme to beyond 2012.

The number of new combat aircraft to be procured in a new bidding process could be reduced to only 18, sources have told Jane’s.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw110131_3_n.shtml

“Beyond 2012” does not sound very promising..

The aircrafts need to meet basic technical requirements in order to be short-listed; then there are requirements to ToT and offsets, and finally the “political” considerations.

I suspect that both SH and F-16 will meet the technical requirements in particular if the US decides to increase the performance of what they deliver.

I am sure the US can deliver on offsets if they really want.

Then the ToT remains — if they also are willing to deliver on that they will be in a good position…

OTOH some people say that the Indians remain sceptical to the US.

Erkokite offered an interesting link in the Brazil thread:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dajccsCegkoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=australia+AN-ALR-45&source=bl&ots=e0XcSUUN7J&sig=UkXNpXRaJiZQtK7SMy8K2g1Qd1s&hl=en&ei=7uVGTaylIYyt8AbVhtm1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ

The point is thought that the US has so much sophisticated relatively affordable technology, and if the US wants to they can offer it for sale.

Some questions that may determine this:

How far is the US willing to go to get the deal? I suspect quite far since a) the US economy badly needs as much sales as it can get; b) China seems to develop faster than what Gates expected, and more allies in the region could become very handy in the future; c) the Pakistan/Afghanistan situation.

The other question that comes to mind; is India willing to “pay the price” to become a closer US ally? There are huge benefits but also a price to pay (and not just in monetary terms).

BZZZ,

thanks for an interesting post; you say FAB had Gripen as favorite; I think Hammer once said that FAB was split between Gripen and SH; do you agree with Hammer or was NG “the one and only” favorite of FAB?

Can the Gripen? I thought that demonstrated capability, not “shiny” powerpoints was the metric to be used hereabouts?

If so, please show when and where the Gripen has achieved this feat? L-M makes all sorts of claims about the F-35 but they are disregarded out of hand because they aren’t “proven”. So, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander as far as I am concerned. Especially given the RNLAF didn’t believe the claims made in that brochure on the previous page (or 2) either and publicly disavowed it…

I read one fellow on here who is adamant the F-35 cannot do M1.6. He is partially correct IMHO, but only in the sense that it’s flight envelope hasn’t been expanded sufficiently through testing to allow it to do so.

So when the Gripen NG can demonstrate this capability with a chase plane recording the feat, I’ll come around to the idea. Til then, I’ll take the same approach that others do in relation to the F-35…

Gripen NG demo has demonstrated “above Mach 1.1” capability with a2a load, without using ab. The question that remains then is whether this can be sustained for 250 nm and leave enough fuel for 50 min. cap and fuel to get back home. We don’t know if Saab has demonstrated such a flight profile or just have made the calculations. This is from a Marketing presentation and should be taken with a pinch of salt, like all such presentations, however I do think they avoid telling outright lies (unless it is to hide some classified capabilities).

I hope you see the difference from F-35; it has not yet demonstrated Mach1.6 (I am sure it will in the end); the NG demo has demonstrated SC with a2a weapons load. With the tests done and knowledge of fuel consumption etc it is quite easy for Saab to calculate whether such a flight profile is possible or not.

The airframe is of course, but the airflow isn’t necessarily, generally even at M1.2 you’re still in turbulent airflows and therefore unlikely to be receiving the fuel efficiency benefits that supersonic cruise (as opposed to augmentor achieved supersonic speed) is supposed to achieve.

Instead of keep repeating the same, why don’t you comment on the flight profile that has been described; Mach 1.1 to 250 nm with a2a config, 50 minute CAP, then fly home.

This is what NG will be able to do (as shown by the NG Demo a/c that has been doing SC already).

You don’t know the areodynamic details of the NG; you are just making general statements about SC. Why do you keep doing that when we have a NG specific flight profile with SC to look at?

If you don’t find such a flight profile useful, fine, then say so instead of claiming that it’s not “real” SC. You can call it whatever you like — it does not change the speed (Mach 1.1) distance (250 nm) or endurance (50 minutes CAP).

Wow. Must have really, personally offended some people here. They feel a need to make personal attacks.

Clearly if you are able to speak with authority on these subjects. I know this is a Euro based board, but it is rather curious that anythng SAAB, Dassault or Eurofighter Consortium might release on behalf of their own company is taken almost without question, but if L-M release something it’s clearly untrue…

Like the 100nm or so the F-22A can actually supercruise for, with it’s rather large onboard fuel load.

I know the Gripen has ‘superb’ aerodynamics, but when I question the media releases and pose a question about how tactically useful said capability can really be, I receive little other than vitriole directed at me personally…

Anyone would think I insulted a family member, rather than posed a question and offered an insight, lacking in finer details though it may have been.

Could one more knowledgable in these matters, please explain it further to me? How does such a single engined fighter wth the limited amount of thrust it has (compared to other aircraft) and an engine optimised for fuel efficient subsonic cruise and supersonic dash in reheat only manage to achieve a feat that eludes so many other fighters?

And what more, do so whilst achieving quite enormous combat radii, that is claimed to be far superior to other aircraft that seem to carry far more fuel and do not seek or boast of such amazing performance?

And they do it it cheaper, more nimbly with a much smaller logistics footprint and so on.

Quite extraordinary really.

Don’t get me wrong, I quite like the Gripen, but it seems difficult to reconcile some of the realities of modern ombat aircraft, with the claims that are made about this particular aircraft.

And then you see whilst it has entered many a competition it has won quite few overall, all up I think it has managed about 64 airframes exported hasn’t it, with about 24 of those leased? Now I don’t subscribe that simply winning a military aircraft contract automatically equates to greatness as a capability, but it is certainly a recognition of a level of capability, so one might wonder about the capability claims made about aircraft and how they equate, or don’t to the aircraft’s relative success on the export market?

Perhaps you are not aware of it, but your “style” or the way you express your opinion, can often come across as provocative. Or perhaps you knew that already…? :rolleyes:

If you had opened the PDF and looked at page 33 you would have seen that NG will be able to SC 250 nm with 4 a2a missiles; do CAP for 50 minutes and then fly back. I leave it to the true experts to decide if this is useful or not, but I think that a tiny single-engine European fighter developed by a country signifantly smaller than Australia can do this is quite impressive…

As for the number of Gripens exported; can you remind me again how many SH have the USA exported so far….? And you do know that the most important factor in selling is politics not capabilities. Which makes you wonder why the US backed SH did not sell more… So why are your coming with such nonsense? Yes it’s nonsense because I agree with you that the SH (like the Gripen) is a very capable a/c and the lack of sales is not because of lack of capabilities.

Had Gripen been developed by a US company it would have sold much better…

Anyway: An F-16 could not have done what’s on slide 33; could an F-16 have completed the mission described on slide 34?