It seems consistent when you compare it with the single engine gripen. 10kW average for the rafale against 10kW peak for the gripen doesn’t seem shoking to me. Two engines will allow more electricity production.

The current radar of Gripen has a peak power of 10kW — what is the peak power of the current Rafale radar? Probably not 20kW — so I am not sure if I get your point here? :confused:

The power supply of the NG will be boosted considerably, in part due to the 20% stronger F414 engine.

I don’t know the detail of gripen AESA issues but it could be linked to a smaller electricity supply for instance. Just an idea.

Hmm, I wonder about that.

According to Saab, the current radar has a peak power of > 10 kW:

Gripen radar

AFAIK the peak power of an AESA radar is typically 10 W pr. module; so for 1000 modules you would expect peak power of 10 kW. This means that today’s Gripen should be able to deal with a “typical” 1000-module AESA already.

I do not know what the peak power of the modules for the NG AESA will be. It may well be above 10 W, however one should take into account that the NG will have beefed up power supplies but will also use more modern electronic components that spend less power than today’s. Therefore I doubt that the power supply is a problem.

What is the peak power of the RBE2 modules?

It may not be perfect however it will be the only Western 5. gen VLO fighter available… I think that’s why there is so much interest in it.

Unless the price becomes prohibitive (and progress recently looks quite good) then my guess is that both Holland and Canada will buy the F-35.

Loke pointed out that some firms may depend on it for their survival. This is not true.

Well I was merely qouting what Vishnu Som wrote at BR (and Livefist) — my main point was actually that he was indicating that he believed this leak was incomplete if not inaccurate.

Let’s wait for more information before drawing conclusions.

From bharat-rakshak

Hi … Can I just say that no media report on the MRCA deal can be accurate without access to contents of Top Secret files … which, more often than not, tends to be difficult to do … particularly in the case of a high stakes multinational battle which will secure (hopefully) not just India’s national security but also the future of some of the competing firms.

[…]

Finally … can I also say … without having seen the files myself … that the report on Times Now was INCOMPLETE if not inaccurate. In other words, some of the firms who may have felt that they had been hacked from the competition can breathe easy, for now.

Best
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

If they are going for a CATOBAR solution, then perhaps the F-35C would be more attractive than the SH, also given the large UK involvement with the F-35 program.

I believe the F-35C will be cheaper to purchase than the F-35B (but more expensive than the SH). I would guess that the operating costs would also be between the two?

How about this: Lease a small number of SH from the US until the price of the F-35C has dropped, and (hopefully) the economy has picked up.

AFAIK there will be a big difference in price between the F-22 and F-35.

The F-35A should not be much more expensive than a 4.5 gen fighter once production picks up, at least that’s what the Norwegian government is telling us (I think a fly-away of less than 60 million USD for the A version has been mentioned).

I think a SH goes for 55 million USD fly-away these days?

David A. Fulghum at Aviationweek seems to believe that the F-35 will have some limited SC:

An attraction of the fifth-generation F-35, with its stealth and supercruise, is that each of them will be able to replace more than one fourth-generation aircraft.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a15f641bd-215f-45f3-90c6-4d19973e8424&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

And it was not an error, see the comments section:

Yes, slow supercruise, but supercruise nonetheless