Wasn’t the IAF report meant to be out by the end of july?

As for the M-MRCA selection process, the Air Chief apparently gave no indication as to how each of the six aircraft in the fray performed during the trials. He only observed that the IAF had completed its assignment, and submitted the report to the Ministry of Defence July-end, and on time as promised.

The Russian Mig 35 (initially designated Mig 29M2), Europe’s Eurofighter Typhoon, Swedish Gripen, French Rafale, and the US Boeing F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F 16IN Super Viper are in the fray. The RfP was for 126 aircraft with an option for 63 more.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories684.htm

Raytheon has no stake in the APG81. Thats Northrop Grumman territory.

OK, so you are implying that Raytheon has a lead on the US competitors when it comes to GaN?

I don’t know if Northrop Grumman is developing their own T/R modules or if they buy from another company?

As reported in other threads Raytheon seems to be pretty close with the GaN systems. However I believe that the F-35 will get the GaAs? Or am I wrong?

And Raytheon sees that the new compound’s time has come–Smolko said gallium nitride is ready now for system insertion. And as such, it is now producing large amounts of the material in its semiconductor foundry in Tewskbury.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20012451-52.html

What’s new here?

In the first evaluation Gripen NG won.

Then they changed the criteria, and SH won.

Then they changed the criteria one more time, and Rafale won.

Rafale won the evaluation because:

1. They increased the weight of ToT (which made SH lose many points)
2. They reduced the weight of the costs (which made SH lose some points and NG lose many points)
3. They increased the weight of the “risk” (which made NG lose some more points)

The funny thing is that this has taken so long — Lula announced already in September last year that Rafale would win, and Jobim also announced many times that Rafale was “the best option”.

Anyway, this is just another article; Unless there is an official statement from Lula this soap opera has not ended…

IF there is an announcement from Lula in the coming days, I wonder what Saab will do with all the Brazilian engineers working on the Gripen NG in Sweden right now?

If the bigger twin engine aircrafts did not offer the extra gain of range and carrying capability there would simply be no point going bigger and coping with the extra cost.

Of course there is an advantage, and in some cases it’s worth the extra cost.

How much of an advantage? Well I think if you look at it historically you can compare the sales of F-16 to F-15; that will give you an indication… Some countries need the F-15, often in addition to the F-16, whereas most are happy with the F-16 only.

India has ordered some 250 SU-30 — do they need more “heavy” fighters than that?

Well if India is looking for an a/c to mainly perform deep strike then of course the larger twin-engine fighters will have an advantage.

However if they are looking for a cheap a/c to do most things well, I think they will end up with Gripen or F-16 — or potentially the SH since it seems to be surprisingly cheap.

I will try to find the link to that study later. Note it was focusing on fuel consumption, which was lower with the F-16. And also note that although endurance was better with the 4 F-16, the 2 F-15 still had an edge in range.

How many % of the IAF missions will be deep strike missions? 5%? 10%? 15%? I don’t know, but I suspect that the ca. 250 SU-30 can handle the deep strike missions that the IAF foresee, although I may be wrong of course.

Arthuro,

I agree; I did not mean to imply that two engines will give shorter range, simply reminding people that a larger two-engine fighter needs to carry significantly more fuel than a smaller single-engine fighter.

A small single-engine fighter is more fuel-efficient than a larger twin engine fighter.

Rafale will be able to carry more and longer than e.g. the Gripen NG. However the NG can often perform the mission carrying less fuel, which means that the total payload will be smaller; less drop tanks means less drag, which further reduces the fuel consumption.

Of course there are limits, however even the Rafale has limits; beyond those both NG and Rafale need tankers…

Brazilian participation in the Program Gripen NG completes one year

Google translated:

Led Akaer, companies Friuli, Winnstal, Minoan Imbra Aerospace and sent to Sweden a team of 20 engineers and technicians from Brazil in late July 2009 to begin working on the design of the Saab Gripen NG.

“Effective cooperation with Saab began on August 31 seeking the full engagement of companies in the project, which includes the area of major technologies of the aircraft and access to all sensitive areas in the company’s factory in Linköping, Sweden “informed at the time the chief executive of Akaer, César Augusto da Silva.

Technology transfer in the area of structures made of composite material, according to the director of Akaer, enable Brazilian companies to be world class suppliers of any customer’s Gripen NG.

“We are not simply involved in manufacturing parts, which has no value and engineering activity. The issue is not only done, but do know and that we begin to learn by working together,” added Silva.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/08/01/participacao-de-brasileiros-no-programa-gripen-ng-completa-um-ano/