LokeF-35s ordered for delivery in 2013 are Blk3, 2015 for Blk4, 2017 for Blk5, and 2019 for Blk6. These dates are supported by quotes from JPO (“New blocks every 2 years”), the Norway docs, the std delivery schedule and the above graphic.
As far as how long a Partner or FMS nation takes to go IOC, Norway expects deliveries to begin in 2016 and IOC to be in 2018, so 1.5 to 2 years after first delivery is normal.
I am confused — I thought Norway would get block 5s in 2016?
LokeWhat a lot of noise for 11 odd lbs. The JSF designers must be desperate to cut weight 😀
How about they retain the valves and train only <100 lbs girls as pilots (brunettes preferably).
Nic
Wasn’t there also a question of money? 1.4 million USD per plane or so?
Anyway I agree on the brunettes… 😀
LokeSaab waits on Brazil and India for Sea Gripen go ahead
Saab will only develop an aircraft carrier-capable version of its JAS 39 Gripen NG fighter should either India or Brazil select the land-based variant to fulfil their fighter replacement programmes, the company has said.
Eddy de la Motte, Gripen campaign director for India, told reporters on 12 June that development of the aircraft has, to date, been driven by its core customer, the Swedish Air Force (SwAF). With no Swedish requirement for a navalised aircraft, it requires a customer with a carrier capability to serve as a catalyst for any such development of the proposed Sea Gripen.
“[Development of the Sea Gripen] only makes sense if India or Brazil buy the NG as Sweden has no carriers,” he said during a briefing at the company’s Linköping facility in southern Sweden.
According to de la Motte, the ‘land’ Gripen needs only rudimentary changes to make it carrier compatible. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes and a tail hook (which the NG will have). The standard Gripen has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe and enhanced anti-corrosion protection.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw100618_1_n.shtml
LokeWhy has the French air force not ordered CFT’s on their Rafales?
Mots likely because they don’t see a big need for it — they got sufficient range today. Probably there are other things they would like to prioritize like LDP, HMD, AESA radar, etc. etc.
Interesting calculations on fuel fraction, thanks!
What fuel fractions would F-16 and F-15 get?
Edit: Rafale without CFT and with two ET seems to give a fuel fraction of 40.7% if I did my calculations correctly — e.g. the same as Gripen NG.
LokeSome additional infos about rafale vs Typhoon, rafale vs SH block2 and rafale vs F22 coming from air&cosmos special edition
[…]Conclusion : even in its current form (F3) the rafale proved to perform very well against the mosts modern threats. With the arrival of the AESA radar and meteor it should even widen the gap.
Ah, where is Jackonicko when you need him?
This is all well however I am still sceptical about interpreting results from training — I think during one of the exercises (don’t remember which) Rafale was supposed to emulate a Mig-29 or something similar, however the emulation seemed to to have failed completely if Rafale managed to score a large number of kills against the Typhoon. Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole training…
Do we know if EW was utilized?
This “surprising tactics”, are there no details of that? (I guess not, but just had to ask!)
I am surprised to hear that a lower RCS of Rafale would negate the much longer range of the Typhoon radar. And how was this excersise run anyway; was one Rafale/Typhoon acting as “AWACS” and using it’s radar and feeding the information to the others flying silently? If a fighter is using it’s radar the RCS does not matter much I think.
So is Rafale already now the second best a2a fighter in the world!?
LokeI don’t think it is really controversial. Just for those who thinks that it is impossible to put a weapon system on a F22.
Wasn’t it a pilot of one of the “teens” that said something like that? And not the latest model either I would assume. The comment must be seen in it’s right context I think.
Should we use that as one of the defining attributes of a true 4.5 gen fighter; that it can put a weapon system on an F22 (at least during training) 🙂
The current Rafale is amazing, however some pieces are still missing and I am already waiting for F4…
LokeWell your opinion must be respected but that is not the way the acquisition process is going.
If you can rely on a single type of fighter jet for several decades (with modernizations) it should be a cost saving solution. If you buy an aircraft to start introducing a new type just ten years after, that means that you are not very confident of the aircraft evolving possibilities…
The US, India, China, Russia, Japan, SK, will get VLO fighters, and they will operate them in parallell with 4. gen fighters for many years to come.
If Brazil stick to Rafale only, they will be the only big country on this planet without a VLO fighter by 2025.
Even for the “medium-sized” countries I can think of only France and Germany that currently have no plans for VLO fighters… UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, etc. etc will all get some VLO fighters.
And Russia has clear plans to sell the Pak Fa abroad, so there will be even more countries than what I have listed above.
To repeat: Both Rafale and NG will be “fine” and “good enough” in the near future for Brazil but for the longer-term future a mix of VLO and non-VLO is the way to go, if they want to become a global player. (I am sure all French will disagree with me on this, since France will not get a VLO fighter :))
LokeSo, France is out.
We started with a legitimate intention to glorify the tiny Gripen NG, and now some are trying to imply that it’s Gripen NG OR 5th gen ?
Not “or” but “and”…. I am proposing
1. From today and until say, 2025 or so, Gripen NG only
2. From 2025 a Hi-Lo mix with Gripen NG as the Lo and a 5. gen VLO fighter as the Hi.
The alternative would be a Hi-Lo mix with 5. gen VLO and Rafale… which does not makes sense to me.
LokeBecause it is not available soon and won’t come with ToT like the rafale. Do you see US giving source codes to Brazil ?
No, that’s why I wrote in my posting that F-35 was not an option for Brazil. However other 5. gen projects are already ongoing, in other countries, and more will be started in the coming years…
Perhaps you misunderstood my posting. I did not mean they should buy 5. gen now, but start the planning; in particular if they want to be a partner in the development of a VLO fighter.
The rafale allow to avoid a mixed fleet of aircraft which is cost saving. France will rely only on the rafale and this shouldn’t be an issue. As you already read in the rafale news thread, further develoments beyhond the F3+ standard are already in the pipe with development and funding satrtin now. That is guarantee that the rafale will remain relevant for the years to come.
Again a common fleet of rafale should be less expensive if you have a broader look. Common training, logistics, facilities, weapons…With a total order of around 100+ planes with all the batches I doubt that brazil could afford a mixed fleet of fighter aircraft in the long run. Rationalizing the number of fighter types seems the way to go.
Rafale is an amazing fighter, no doubt; however it is not a 5. gen VLO fighter. For the “near future” both Gripen and Rafale will meet Brazil’s requirements.
However, and this was my whole point, if Brazil is going to be a global player then IMHO they will need a VLO fighter at a certain point. Rafale, amazing as it is, will struggle in particular on a2g missions against well protected targets… that’s why the Americans started the F-35 development in the first place.
Unless France can develop the “active stealth” technology Rafale will IMHO always remain a 4.5 gen fighter with reduced survivability mainly in “day-one” scenarios, and particular in the future with further refinements and developments of SAM systems that already today are quite capable.
LokeYou could rightfully say that Brazil will probably not carry this type of “strategic” operations and that the gripen NG would be more cost effective at doing the dayli job…But you should not forget that Brazil is looking forward becoming a first tier world power and with a possible permanent seat at the UN…This strategic role adverts for the rafale. Especially as being a future possible permanent member, Brazil will have to flex their muscles to be credible.
If they really want to become a “first tier world power” one could argue that they should consider a 5. gen VLO fighter….
I would argue that since F-35 is not an option the only sensible option for Brazil would be a Hi-Lo mix, with a small number of quite expensive VLO a/c, and a larger number of cheaper 4.5 gen fighters. This is basically what USN will do with F-35/SH, and also the Russians will do this with a combination of Pak FA and their 4.5 gen fighters.
Then the question becomes: does it make sense to use the rather expensive Rafale as the “lo” in such a Hi-Lo mix…?
LokeI guess it’s not as cheap if you need to get more ACs 😉
Not to mention the need to train more pilots.
Nic
Quantity is a quality of it’s own.
Most likely one of the main reasons why FAB preferred Gripen to Rafale could be that with Rafale they will struggle to get the number of a/c they need (unless the budget is increased significantly for the next 30 years).
And then there are also the operational costs… It is nice to operate a/cs with such low costs that they can actually afford to train with them….
LokeCarrying a full load of SDBs without external fuel or heavy LGBs without a ldp limitates your operationnal flexibility.
A rafale could carry the same load if not more but with up to 6000L of external fuel and even CFTs (2*1300L) if required by a customer. That gives a true strategic reach for the rafale as well as a greatter flexibility during ops planning. Again rafale ability to strike far and hard is out of reach for the gripen. Not that the gripen is a bad aircraft, just that the size matter. Besides as one of the two vectors of the nuclear detterence the rafale as being designed with the ability to make long range deep strike missions. It has taken the role from the much larger Mirage IV and the mirage 2000N.
Being the smallest gives you other advantages as being cheaper to buy and maintain which is truelly relevant for some airforces. And I agree that usually smaller aircraft tend to sell more. Afterward it is a question of ambition for your armed forces. Not everyone needs or is willing to pay for the extra performance.
I think all the examples given by Signatory included the LDP 🙂
Range can also be increased by using tankers.
Rafale can carry more fuel but will also use more fuel so the difference in range may not be as big as one would initially think. Don’t forget that tiny NG with an empty weight of 7 tons can carry 3.5 tons of fuel internally!
And the final trick is (as stated before) to distribute heavy stuff on more a/c, if longer range is needed.
LokeMore than 13 pylons on the NG? WOW 😮
Are you saying that Rafale has 13 pylons that are all cleared to carry a2g munitions?
LokeAs for specific config this is often not very relevant as with multiple hard points you could theoretically carry even more lgbs/maverick on a rafale for instance if ever it were relevant operationally. A rafale could carry up to 14 LGBs/maverick if needed. But that is totally irrelevant and thus not ordered by the AdA. The real question is to assess the operational relevance of a particular payload and what is the performance margin left with the aircraft.
So you agree it’s not operatiationally relevant!
The point is this: For most air forces huge loads are not really needed. Consider that F-16 has for decades fulfilled the need of most (Western) air forces, even if F-15 is available.
If you look at the export sales of SH, Typhoon, and Rafale, it seems clear that that extra range&and payload in most cases is not needed. Even consider the F-16 block 60 which with stronger engine and CFT will have longer range and bigger payload than the older F-16s has so far not scored a single export sale!! Block 50/52 on the other hand has sold quite well in that period.
There is a small exclusive market for a high-end fighter, currently filled mainly by the F-15, but apart from that, there is no big need for that extra range and payload. Other requirements, in particular cost, are more important.
Most of gripen AtG artwork are not very realistic on an operational standpoints with loads of sdbs without drop tanks or LGB without LDP. It is more an attractive advertisement rather than a realistic config.
LGB without LDP? On NG? Sorry I think I missed that?
LokeIts BS.
Signatory is claiming that NG will have more a2g pylons than Rafale. Are you saying this is wrong?
In any case, the examples do show that Gripen can carry quite a lot (independently of whatever Rafale may or may not be able to carry)
Sign In
